Selling Naming Rights to Wrigley would add $4.5m in annual payroll

Selling the naming Rights to Wrigley Field would add $4.5m in payroll.  I provide this fact as a data point for any holiday discussions you find yourselves in.

recently asked its readers if the Cubs should sell the naming rights to Wrigley Field. The post framed the question by asking if ‘losing’ the Wrigley name, and its history, is worth “$10 million annually, and a slightly better bullpen each year [or] $20 million annually, and the ability to always go after the best free agent pitcher on the market?” I disliked this question because the data exists to reliably predict the actual dollar amount payroll would increase. Providing this dollar value allows the argument to be less abstract. So as a public service, I calculate that selling the naming rights to Wrigley Field would add $4.5m in annual payroll. I estimate this on the following evidence and assumptions. Be warned, there is math ahead.

 

Wrigley Naming Rights: How Much are they Worth?

Twenty MLB fields having naming rights deals today. The of those deals are available for seventeen. Table 1 below shows the annual value of those deals. The average naming deal pays $4.4m annually. The value of naming rights are climbing, however, as the six most recent deals average $7.8m annually.

Table 1: Stadium Naming Deals

Team

 Annual $

Year signed

Braves

 $      10,000,000

2016

White Sox

 $        2,000,000

2016

Rangers

 $        5,000,000

2013

Twins

 $        6,000,000

2010

Indians

 $        3,600,000

2008

Mets

 $      20,000,000

2008

Phillies

 $        3,800,000

2004

Reds

 $        2,500,000

2003

Padres

 $        2,730,000

2003

Astros

 $        6,360,000

2001

Tigers

 $        2,200,000

2000

Brewers

 $        2,000,000

2000

Pirates

 $        2,000,000

2000

Mariners

 $        2,000,000

1999

D-backs

 $        2,200,000

1998

Giants

 $        2,000,000

1996

Rays

 $        1,000,000

1996

The naming rights for Wrigley would presumably exceed that of the $10m for the Braves new stadium, Suntrust Park. Chicago is a larger media market and the Cubs are (currently) more popular than the Braves. Plus, ownership would never incur the blowback of renaming Wrigley for anything less than top dollar. So at minimum the Cubs would insist on several million dollars more than Atlanta’s deal. The largest current deal is the $20m annual deal the Mets made with Citibank, in the larger NY media market. We would expect a deal in Chicago to be smaller than New York. On the other hand, the Mets deal is seven years old, suggesting the Mets could get more today. So I estimate the upper bound of a Wrigley deal at $20m. By coincidence, in 2012, industry sources estimated the value of selling the naming rights to Wrigley Field between annually. Thus, I feel confident that the Cubs would get $15-20m to rename Wrigley. Let’s suppose the Cubs get top dollar, $20m, and continue this exercise.

 

How Much of that $20m Would Go Towards Payroll?

Selling the naming rights creates a new $20m annual revenue stream, but payroll would not instantly increase by the same amount. For starters, the Cubs will have to contribute a chunk of that money to revenue sharing. I previously the Cubs only keep 89% of their baseball income after revenue sharing. So that $20m get reduced to $17.8m immediately. Also, the Cubs, like most baseball teams, typically only spend of their revenue on payroll. That leaves $8.9m in potential payroll.

Then comes the luxury tax, aka the Competitive Balance Tax (CBT), which charges teams a hefty penalty for having payrolls above a preset limit. The Cubs already have the revenue to spend beyond the luxury cap, and did so in . Since then they have added . So every dollar the Cubs add in payroll from renaming Wrigley would actually be spent above the luxury cap. That means the Cubs need to budget some of the $8.9 to pay luxury tax.

 

Paying the Luxury Tax

In the original Bleacher Nation post, the premise was that the Wrigley naming money would be used every year. The post also implied that the money would be used on top of all other Cubs revenue. So under the scenario set forth in the original post, the Cubs would be paying the Luxury tax every year. The luxury tax charges teams differing surcharges based on different factors. Table 2 below summarizes these factors.

Table 2: CBT Penalty System

$ over Cap

1st Year Penalty

2nd Yr

3rd Yr

$0-20m

20%

30%

50%

$20-40m

32%

42%

62%

$40m+

62.5%

75%

95%

If the Cubs signed a naming rights deal today, and started spending it all, the Cubs would be paying the luxury tax every year. By 2020, they would be in the 3rd year column, and remain there in perpetuity. Also, by 2020 my show the Cubs will have the revenue to spend $40m over the cap. So in the long term, every dollar earned from Wrigley naming rights will be taxed at 95%. In effect, the Cubs will need to budget $2 for every dollar of salary they add. Thus, the $8.9m now turns into only $4.5m in new payroll. The other $4.4 gets budgeted to pay the resulting luxury tax.

 

Renaming Wrigley to Pay for Its Renovations

Before ending this post, I want to address an interesting side argument that popped up in the comments section on Bleacher nation. A few commentators argued that the Ricketts were entitled to sell Wrigley naming rights to help pay for the renovations to the stadium. This is an interesting, and potentially valid, opinion. Yet I do not personally agree. The Ricketts privately paid for the $700m Wrigley renovations by (at a hefty profit) and through several large corporate sponsorship deals (like the Budweiser Bleachers). The renovations also provide large permanent cash streams; like the jumbotron, new bullpen seating area, and premium clubs. So I would argue that the $700m has already been raised. The Cubs do not need to rename Wrigley to pay off their debts.

Comments

No way. The Rickets will be getting the highest tax break. Thanks trump.

those of us without kids are rather unimpressed...well, those of us without kids who are not making big loot. it's not that i'm upset about them getting a big break...kids aren't cheap and rarely produce income...a healthy society generally tries to subsidize their existence...etc. my household isn't going to see a lot of benefit, though. ...anyways... i can't imagine the ricketts want to chase money to the point of trying to rename the place. down-arrow ballpark across town isn't that great. sure, they'd still sell tickets, but it's not a good look. btw, a park in illinois did get renemed today: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball...

Harper would have to change his dog's name, or go to a different team.

So, I guess Jed's "everybody wants to know where they are playing by Christmas" theory is in jeopardy at this point.

If you believe the Darvish reports over the last couple days that it's likely to be a decision between the Cubs and Astros and that Darvish is getting advice from Jon Daniels without the presence of Darvish's agent, I'd say that portends very, very well for the Cubs.

Darvish seems like a safer bet than Jake. Never did like seeing Arrieta's velo drop nearly 3mph in one year. And Cobb seems waaaay overrated.

Boring damn it. Give us some info AZ. Phil.

File under blast from the past...Mike Olt re-signs w Redsox, spent last yr at AA Portland Maine.

be careful not to burn yourself on that hot stove.

cubs have signed kyle ryan...probably a minor league deal...hopefully a minor league deal. not official yet. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/... fastball/cutter...change and curve in minor-use.

Recent comments

Subscribe to Recent comments
The first 600 characters of the last 16 comments, click "View" to see rest of comment.
  • Dolorous Jon Lester 3 hours 17 min ago (view)

    I understand why it feels unsettling. I remember the series well (though I, unlike Theo, actually was in high school). Anyway, I view it as a chance to right previous wrongs in the same way we stomped StL out of the playoffs in 2015, or the way the Nationals got to burn through two teams last year that had dumped them out of October in previous seasons.

    But if we lose, of course that was 17 years ago so it's two extremely different organizations.

     

  • Arizona Phil 7 hours 18 min ago (view)

    DJL: All players on Optional Assignment to the minors must be recalled on the day after the conclusion of the MLB regular season, even if the player has not spent at least ten days on Optional Assignment. Players cannot be optioned to the minors again until Spring Training. 

     

  • Arizona Phil 7 hours 39 min ago (view)

    CHAMP: No option year is spent just by calling up a player to MLB. An option year is spent only if a player on an MLB 40-man roster is optioned to the minors for at least 20 days in a given season. 

    Also, Brailyn Marquez is (was) eligible for selection in the Rule 5 Draft in December, so the Cubs were going to add him to the 40 on 11/20 anyway. They just did it a couple of months early.  

     

  • bradsbeard 10 hours 49 min ago (view)

    Not sure if serious, but Theo became the Red Sox GM in 2002. It's true though, there probably aren't many people in the organization besides Ricketts and Crane Kenney who have any strong feelings about that series. 

     

  • Craig A. 11 hours 47 min ago (view)

    I wonder if anyone on the Cubs cares or even remembers the odd events when the Marlins played the Cubs in 2003. I think Theo was in high school. To this old fart it will be more than a little unsettling to watch this post-season match-up. At least we can be fairly certain there will no fans grabbing for foul balls. 

     

  • bradsbeard 15 hours 15 min ago (view)

    Which is kind of annoying. Nobody really picked the Cubs to win this division pre-season. I guess Mattingly gets some credit for guiding the Marlins through their positives but even just letting them play that one game with half the team sick should knock him out of consideration. Meanwhile Ross kept a tight ship and the Cubs has no positives all year. I'd say Ross or Tingler should get it over Mattingly. 

     

  • crunch 16 hours 32 min ago (view)

    cubs finish 34-26 (1st, division)...they play MIA on wednesday.

    good start for d.ross, but the manager of the year is most likely going to d.mattingley (MIA) or j.tingler(SD).

     

  • crunch 17 hours 9 min ago (view)

    ...or he won't make it out of the 8th

    0.2ip 2h 3bb 1k, 5r/er...2 wild pitches

    there's some great stuff in that arm.  mid/high-80s slider, "changeup" around 90mph, fastball 97-99mph...all effortless.  21 years old and never pitched above A-ball.

     

  • crunch 17 hours 15 min ago (view)

    -deleted-

     

  • crunch 17 hours 19 min ago (view)

    rough debut...doubt we're going to see him in the 9th.

     

  • Charlie 17 hours 26 min ago (view)

    Reminds me a little of Jeff Samardzija's debut. Adrenaline throwing straight gas but all over the place. Samardzija threw a fastball all the way to the backstop in his debut (2008).

     

  • crunch 17 hours 29 min ago (view)

    back to back 3-2 count 6-pitch walks.

    he's not in the zone.  he's throwing almost totally fastballs, too.

     

  • crunch 17 hours 29 min ago (view)

    alzolay's gotta be locked in for a start given what he's done lately.

    i wonder what role j.lester will be given.  if he's starting, hopefully he's the 3rd/4th starter, if at all.  someone will probably give him a 2021 contract if he doesn't retire...hope it's not the cubs giving that contract, though.

     

  • crunch 17 hours 32 min ago (view)

    dude's thrown a 97mph and 98mph fastball to start and both looked like he was barely expending effort.

    unfortunately, neither were near the plate.

     

  • Charlie 17 hours 35 min ago (view)

    So, Alzolay gets at least one October start, right? He'd be a weapon out of the pen if the Cubs had more than two believable starters ready.

     

  • crunch 17 hours 36 min ago (view)

    Q goes 2 effective (2ip 2h 1bb 2k, 0r/er) and here comes b.marquez...