A look at OCBC’s sponsorship of the Singapore Sports Hub and the legal and commercial considerations that go into structuring naming rights deals.
What’s in a (Stadium) Name?
Following months of speculation, the Singapore Sports Hub has announced a 15-year sponsorship deal with OCBC Bank that is reportedly worth in excess of S$50 million dollars.1 The deal – a first for Singapore’s sports and entertainment industry – includes naming rights for some of the facilities in the S$1.33 billion 35-hectare complex, which is set to open its doors in June 2014. Significantly though, the deal does not include naming rights for the National Stadium or the Singapore Indoor Stadium.
The naming of sports stadiums as part of corporate sponsorship and brand promotion is now a familiar concept. Fans of English football would no doubt be aware of venues such as Bolton Wanderers Football Club’s Reebok Stadium, Manchester City Football Club’s Etihad Stadium, and Arsenal Football Club’s The Emirates.2 Elsewhere around the world, sports venues have also long been named after their corporate owners or sponsors, including FedExField – home of American football team Washington Redskins, Nissan Stadium – home of J-League club Yokohama F Marinos, Philips Stadion – home of Dutch football club PSV Eindhoven, and the Mercedes-Benz Arena – home to German Bundesliga club VfB Stuttgart. Now that such a practice has been introduced to Singapore, what is the potential, if any, for sponsors and sports bodies, or clubs and associations, to adopt the practice in the local sports and entertainment market?
This update will examine the attraction and benefits that lie in wait for the sponsor and the venue owners in a naming rights deal, and highlight some of the key legal issues which the parties need to be aware of and address in agreeing the terms of a deal, as well as the potential pitfalls of such transactions.
The Power of Association – the Pros and Cons for the Sponsor
When announcing OCBC’s sponsorship deal with the Sports Hub, the bank’s Chairman, Dr Cheong Choong Kong, was keen to emphasise how it was a part of the bank’s ongoing efforts to encourage the development of sports in Singapore. At the same time, he candidly stated that this was not the bank’s sole motivation in the multi-million dollar outlay:
“We cannot deny the immense commercial value of naming rights and the prominent presence of OCBC in the iconic Sports Hub. When events of international standing are held and televised from the Sports Hub, as they inevitably will be, the name of OCBC will be visible. This should keep our shareholders happy.”3
Naming rights deals, as with any sponsorship deal, are business arrangements and as such, are expected to yield a healthy return to the sponsor to justify its often significant monetary investment. So what are the benefits of such deals that shareholders can expect in return?
The most obvious, as was highlighted by Dr Cheong, is the presence of the name on, and in, the facility itself. The value of this is difficult to quantify – not only will people see the signage as they attend events, but also as they drive or walk past the venue. The branding which appears on the venue immediately creates an association between the sponsor’s business and the facility. The more iconic the venue itself, the greater the value of this association, and there is little doubt that the Sports Hub with its design and scale has the potential to be as iconic a building as the Esplanade and the Marina Bay Sands. However, it is, as Dr Cheong indicated, the broadcast potential where the real value lies.
The Government (as the controlling partner in the Sports Hub project) made the decision not to allow naming rights to be granted for the National Stadium itself,4 and later excluded the Singapore Indoor Stadium from the deal too. Had these rights been available, it is likely that the value of the sponsorship would have been much greater. Given this restriction, other possible naming opportunities at the venue have been identified in order to maximise its potential revenue. This has resulted in OCBC obtaining rights which will still guarantee prominence, on and off television.
Under its Sports Hub naming rights deal, OCBC has the right to use its name (or that of its subsidiaries) in connection with the following facilities:5
1. The 3,000 seating capacity indoor sports hall - which will be known as the OCBC Arena;
2. The 6,000 seating capacity international standard aquatic centre – which will become the OCBC Aquatic Centre;
3. The National Stadium Club Lounge in the North Wing of the National Stadium - which will be known as the OCBC Lounge;
4. The Club Lounge in the South Wing – which will become the Bank of Singapore Lounge; and
5. The VIP lounge at the Singapore Indoor Stadium – which will be known as the OCBC Premier Suite.
OCBC’s securing of naming rights to the Sports Hub’s Club Lounges and the VIP suite ensures that its branding will still feature prominently in the Sports Hub’s venues, and as a result, will still gain it valuable exposure both to the audience present at the venues, as well as to the television audience watching broadcasts of the events taking place there.
Corporate Hospitality and Other Benefits
In addition to the right to put the Bank’s name to the Club Lounges and VIP Suite, it is likely that the agreement will include the right to exclusive use of some of these facilities. One of the key benefits sponsors seek to gain from naming rights deals is the ability to exploit their connection to the venue for corporate hospitality purposes. By including as part of the agreement, exclusive or priority access to lounges, or complimentary ticketing for every event, the Bank can invite clients to the venue, or use promotional tickets for its own sales and marketing campaigns to the public. It is common for any naming rights deal to include such arrangements in order for the sponsor to obtain tangible, commercial benefits of sponsorship. Such rights, therefore, translate into the ability of the sponsor to use the facility as more than just a billboard to advertise its name and business.
Naming rights agreements often extend to include other benefits beyond corporate hospitality. For example, a soft drinks supplier may wish to include exclusive “pouring rights” in the deal, meaning that only their beverages can be sold or offered in any food and beverage outlets within the venue. In OCBC’s case, it would not be surprising to find that the bank has obtained the exclusive right to position its OCBC ATMs in all of the Sports Hub venues and facilities, to the exclusion of competitor banks, or at least the right to position its ATMs in the most favourable and accessible spots. It would also not be unusual to expect that OCBC credit card customers will be offered discounted or priority tickets or admissions to events held at the Sports Hub’s venues. However, care needs to be taken by all parties concerned to ensure that the grant of these privileges does not fall foul of applicable anti-competition laws.
For venues such as the Sports Arena and Aquatic Centre, where full naming rights have been granted to OCBC, the benefits in terms of advertising and branding exposure are more extensive. Not only will the bank’s name and branding enjoy visible prominence during televised events, it is also likely to be used in live commentary, pre-event advertising, and on tickets, event programs and other merchandising items. There is also reputational benefit to the sponsor in that it is generally positive to be associated with sporting and wholesome entertainment events. A certain cachet has developed with naming rights, particularly with new or iconic venues. This can be seen, not only with the Emirates Stadium (which is generally acknowledged to have been most transformative in the public perception of Emirates Airlines in the UK),6 but also from one of the most successful recent naming rights deals in the UK – the O2 Arena in London. The mobile telephone company had purchased the naming rights to the defunct Millennium Dome from its developer AEG at the outset of the redevelopment. This was a risk in itself, as the Dome had generally been regarded as a failure in its original incarnation.7 However, it quickly became one of the most successful multi-purpose entertainment venues in the world, and as named sponsor, O2 is inextricably linked with that success.8
As part of the deal, O2 ensured the creation of exclusive physical spaces which can be accessed only by O2 customers purchasing tickets via their mobile phones. This enabled O2 to use its mobile digital and internet platform to promote its association with the venue.9 OCBC will be aware that the Sports Hub has undoubted potential to become one of the iconic sports and entertainment venues in Singapore, and to bring sporting and entertainment events to Singapore on a scale which was never before possible. To establish a close association with such a venue as it officially opens its doors (possibly in the year of the nation’s 50th birthday) would be invaluable, to say the least.
It is also clear that the distinction of being the first sponsor to have its name attached to a venue would have increased the attractiveness of the proposition for OCBC to enter into a high-value naming rights deal at the inauguration stage. The benefits of being the first naming rights holder can linger on well beyond the end of the deal, as any other name that is subsequently attached to the Sports Hub venues may take some time to gain acceptance and familiarity amongst the public, thereby devaluing the benefit to the new name sponsor. This point does not appear to be lost on OCBC, as the package of rights they have acquired includes the title of Premier Founding Partner. There will be other sponsorship agreements to follow between the Sports Hub and other businesses, but OCBC has already benefitted from the publicity surrounding its deal as being the first (and most likely the biggest) naming rights sponsor.
The Risks for the Sponsor
High-value naming rights deals are not without risks. Naming rights sponsors would, therefore, expect the venue owner or operator to undertake to protect the value of the rights package. For example, the exposure of the sponsor’s brand will depend significantly on the use of the stadium and the number of events which are held there. No events would simply mean no exposure, so naming rights sponsors would want to be given contractual commitments as to brand exposure.
In the Arsenal-Emirates Airlines deal, the sponsor is contractually guaranteed a minimum number of games per year at the stadium as a consequence of the Club’s participation in the Barclays Premier League, itself one of the highest profile sporting properties in the world. Additional match day exposure may be gained depending on the Club’s participation and progress in domestic cup and European competitions, including the equally high profile UEFA Champions League (which also has worldwide exposure potential).
For a venue such as the Sports Hub, no such guaranteed exposure is possible until a full calendar of events is established, which itself will take some time. So far, the list of sporting events includes the rugby World Club 10s, a Singapore-Malaysia football derby to take place in August, the ASEAN Football Federation Suzuki Cup Tournament and the WTA Championships, which will be held on a recurring basis from 2014-2018.10 However, unlike the nine-month long Barclays Premier League season, these events will only take place over a matter of days or weeks. The other major event which, when finalised, will be hosted at the National Stadium is the Asean Super League, which is scheduled to kick off in 2015.11 This is, however, still an unknown sports property, and there is no guarantee that it will capture the public’s imagination and lead to large crowd attendances. In addition, the Sports Hub will also be bidding to host the IRB Rugby Sevens World Cup in 2018 and to host one of the rounds in the annual IRB Sevens World Series annually from 2016.12
Ultimately though, it will take time for the operators of the Sports Hub to build a full calendar of sporting and entertainment activities to fill its venues. Should the Sports Hub be underutilised, or should the events it hosts fail to attract respectable crowds on a regular basis, this could result in negative publicity and dilute the value of the naming rights deal to OCBC. Such risks will have to be factored into the value of the package, and the appropriate legal provisions on performance warranties and effects and consequences of any breaches of those warranties would need to be clearly spelt out in the agreement.
There is a risk too that the public may not “buy into” the association of the name with the venue. This is more likely to occur when a new naming deal is agreed for an already long established venue. For example, attempts by the owner of Newcastle United Football Club to attract sponsors to acquire naming rights to St James Park – home to the Club since 1882 – met with huge protests from the club’s fans. When a new sponsorship deal was finally announced with an online loan company “wonga.com”, the new sponsor itself insisted that the name St James Park was to be retained, if only to appease the club’s fans and avoid escalated protests which could have potentially resulted in negative publicity for the sponsor reducing the value of its association with the club.13 Meanwhile, Liverpool and Manchester United football clubs have both recognised that any attempts to replace the names of the long standing homes to the clubs (Anfield and Old Trafford respectively) with corporate names would not be welcomed by their fans, and have expressly ruled out such deals, despite the undoubted huge potential value any naming rights deal would attract.14 On the other hand, deals such as those between Emirates Airlines and Arsenal involving a brand new stadium, or Etihad Airways’ deal with Manchester City in respect of a stadium which only became home to the club in 2003, demonstrate that naming rights deals on a brand new or relatively new stadium without a long history are generally more palatable.
While naming rights may work for corporate sponsors, they may at times generate controversy insofar as individual sponsors are concerned. The disquiet shown by some in Singapore when the new hospital in Jurong was named after Singaporean real estate tycoon Ng Teng Feng, following his donation of S$125 million towards the building of the new facility, illustrates this possibility. Former Member of Parliament Tan Cheng Bock resigned from the hospital’s board because he felt uncomfortable that a wealthy person could simply pay to have a public institution named after him, while many members of the public also made their displeasure known.15 It is not impossible to foresee similar protests, should venue owners grant naming rights to sporting and entertainment venues without considering whether the name to be used is appropriate. Any negative response to the naming deal could cause unwelcome negative perception amongst the public towards the sponsor, which may prove hard to dispel.
On its part, the Singapore Government has avoided any potential controversy that could arise from the sale of naming rights to the National Stadium and the Singapore Indoor Stadium (both of which had long pre-existed the Sports Hub) by excluding these buildings from the OCBC naming rights package, and indeed from any other commercial branding opportunities in relation to the Sports Hub. While this exclusion will have inevitably lessened the value of the deal for OCBC and any other potential sponsors, it would avoid any potential public relations backlash from detractors. Even though the new National Stadium is to be completely rebuilt, many Singaporeans still remember it by its somewhat nondescript name before its demolition to make way for the Sports Hub. It is also considered to be a venue of national significance and a symbol of unity through sports, and hence, to name it after an individual or a corporation would be inappropriate and indeed divisive.16 Similar stances have been taken by national sporting bodies in relation to other iconic grounds – for example, naming rights are not available for Wembley Stadium in London, widely recognised as the home of English football;17 as is the case with Twickenham Stadium which is synonymous with Rugby Union in England,18 and Lords for cricket19. There is a recognition that the use of corporate names on such iconic public venues does not necessarily translate into commercial branding success, as much would depend on the nature of the venue, its status as a national icon, and its significance in relation to a sport or the nation’s heritage.
So, to what extent would these considerations apply to other public entertainment venues in Singapore? How would the public react to an “Audi Esplanade Theatre”, or a “DBS National Museum”? While granting full naming rights to these institutions would be a bold move, perhaps a less radical development would be to offer sponsors naming rights to specific facilities within these venues – for example, the recital studio in the Esplanade, or a particular gallery space or room in the National Museum of Singapore.
That way, the venue operator may still benefit from much needed sponsorship funds while, at the same time, ensuring that the name of the facility or venue is still preserved and protected from commercial exploitation.
In contrast, selling naming rights to the smaller and lower profiled sporting venues in Singapore like neighbourhood stadiums and sports halls would be less controversial. S-League clubs could certainly benefit from sponsorship monies that come with an award of naming rights to their home grounds, given that these grounds can hardly claim to have any of the historic resonance of an Anfield or an Old Trafford to protect. Instead, the difficulty for these venues lies in the limited scope of exposure for the sponsor’s brand, given the meagre crowd attendances being seen at S-League matches and virtually non-existent live match coverage at these grounds.20 For these smaller venues, the operators/occupiers must carefully evaluate what value they can offer, either through television rights or other marketing opportunities, to the potential sponsor. These venues may not be capable of generating the vast sums of money seen in the OCBC-Sports Hub deal but, carefully packaged and with improvements to infrastructure and amenities, may be an attractive proposition that can attract the right sponsors and offer lifelines to financially-strapped S-League clubs provided the sponsorship monies are channelled to these clubs by the Singapore Sports Council, which owns all the stadia used by S-League clubs in Singapore.
Benefits and Pitfalls for the Venue Owner
The most obvious benefit for the venue owner or operator is the injection of funds. In some cases, the sponsorship monies can finance or substantially subsidise the cost of building the facilities (as was the case with the Emirates Stadium deal, where Arsenal discounted the value of the rights in the initial deal, in order to get the money in advance to help finance the construction costs of the stadium project21). In other circumstances, the money may be assigned for a particular purpose in the agreement, as appears to be the case with the OCBC deal. The money will primarily be used to fund grassroots activities at the Sports Hub, including specific programmes to be developed for the community. The Sports Hub consortium, as a public-private partnership, has agreed to allow the use of the facilities to promote and encourage sports amongst the community. The business imperative however, is to attract high profile events to fill the Sports Hub venues as frequently as possible. The sponsorship money provided by this deal with OCBC will allow the Sports Hub to fund their public interest obligations without it affecting the commercial performance of the venue. Grassroots and community events do not bring in any profits, and if the Sports Hub operators had to fund these events, their bottom line would surely be affected. With the OCBC sponsorship, there is now an annual budget of around S$3 million to spend on these community events. On its part, OCBC benefits from a strong and visible association with grassroots events and with the use of the Sports Hub facilities. The Sports Hub in turn also benefits by building a closer relationship with the Singapore public, fulfilling its public service obligations and doing so at an outlay that satisfies commercial viability.
At the same time, there is no guarantee that the sponsor will always be a corporation with whom an association will remain positive and desirable at all times throughout the sponsorship period. Perhaps the most dramatic example of naming rights agreement that went wrong was Enron’s deal to sponsor the home of the Houston Astros. In 1999, a 30-year US$100 million deal was signed to name the baseball ground “Enron Park”. Two years later, the company became embroiled (and eventually collapsed) in one of America’s worst accounting scandals. Not surprisingly, given the impact that the collapse had on the local community (with thousands of Houston residents losing their jobs), the Astros did not waste any time in buying back the naming rights for US$2.1 million. The rights were then quickly sold to Minute-Maid, reportedly in another US$100 million deal.22
More recently, in 2007, the British based bank Barclays agreed to pay a reported US$400 million in a 20-year deal to name the new home of the New Jersey Jets, the “Barclays Center”. Following the financial crisis in 2008, the deal was renegotiated to half of that value.23 The venue finally opened last year, but since then, Barclays has attracted negative publicity for its role in a scandal involving the rigging of interest rates.24 Its chief executive who signed the deal was forced to resign. In addition, the local African-American community, living in the vicinity of the venue, also expressed anger at the deal because of Barclay’s historic links to the slave trade and its past presence in South Africa (where it had continued to do business during the apartheid regime when other banks had withdrawn in protest).25
There have also been numerous other examples of companies entering into high value, long-term naming rights agreements but going bankrupt before the deals have expired. It is impossible to foresee all circumstances which might impact on any sponsorship deal. As such, the venue owner must be careful in selecting its naming rights partner, and needs to be aware of the potential legal and public relations consequences that may arise from a swift and unexpected dip in fortunes of the sponsor. As with all contracts, the termination and exit clauses must be very carefully considered and worded in order to deal with the worst case scenarios that may arise.
A venue owner should also take care not to foreclose other potential commercial opportunities relating to the use of the venue as a result of the grant of naming rights. Mandatory use requirements which may be imposed on venue owners by law should also be anticipated and factored into any naming rights deals. In drawing up any agreement, the venue owner should reserve to itself the right to suspend the use of the name on the facilities under specific circumstances. One reason for this is that some of the more powerful sporting organisations which host major sports events that require use of the venues will not agree to allow references to corporate names within the vicinity of the venues due to “clean venue” requirements, especially where the corporate names in use at the venues happen to be competitors of the sporting organisation’s major partners or sponsors. The most obvious example is the Olympic Games. The “Ricoh Arena” in Coventry, one of the venues for the London 2012 Olympics football competition, had to remove all of its signage, as no unapproved sponsors’ names were allowed to appear during the competition. Even road signs were covered up during the event.26
Similarly, the “Allianz Arena” in Munich could not use its name during the 2006 FIFA World Cup,27 and again during the 2012 UEFA Champions League Final.28 This could potentially become an issue should Singapore seek to host any future international sporting events that are to take place at the Sports Hub.
The venue owner should also be aware that the grant of naming rights to one sponsor may restrict or devalue potential opportunities with other sponsors. It may, therefore, make sense to package all associated commercial opportunities together. For example, if the naming sponsor, as is the case with the OCBC-Sports Hub deal, is a bank, it makes sense that the associated sponsorship opportunities, such as ATM preferred locations and credit card sponsorship, should be offered to that sponsor. Any competitor is unlikely to wish to play second fiddle to the main sponsor of the venue, and the value of those opportunities is likely, therefore, to be diminished. The naming rights sponsor itself may require, as part of the deal, that the venue owner excludes all of its industry competitors from being offered any commercial opportunities. So if Coca-Cola hold the naming rights to a sports or entertainment venue, then it would make sense to also package in the “pouring rights” to the venue’s food and beverage outlets. Coca-Cola is also likely to want “catering rights” (ie the right to include the food products that it produces under other brand names) in a holistic sponsorship package. Such a sponsorship package will potentially have a greater impact for the sponsor, and at the same time, extract maximum sponsorship revenue for the venue operator.
The groundbreaking OCBC deal with the Sports Hub has by and large been well received. It is possible that the Government’s decision not to allow the naming rights to be extended to the National Stadium and the Singapore Indoor Stadium has meant that any potential controversy or negative reaction has been avoided. The resulting agreement, which will still give OCBC extensive exposure and a close association with a new facility that is destined to be an iconic venue demonstrates the flexibility which can be employed in naming rights agreements in order to provide a win-win outcome for both parties. The fact that the OCBC sponsorship monies in this case is specifically earmarked for community and grassroots events can only be a welcome development to all parties concerned, to the public at large and to the sports industry generally, as it seeks to attract more high-value sponsorships to sustain itself.
As has been demonstrated elsewhere though, such deals are not without risks, and in negotiating naming rights agreements, both parties should carefully consider not only the financial aspects, but also the legal and public relations implications of the agreement. Provision needs to be made to cater to situations where the unexpected happens and which render the continued association with the sponsor’s name at the venue non-viable, impractical or even unlawful.
The use of naming rights, not just for sporting venues but also entertainment centres, has been demonstrated to work very successfully elsewhere. Having a corporate brand name associated with a high-capacity venue that is afforded regular and extensive public and media exposure provides significant branding and other commercial benefits to a naming rights sponsor, while at the same time, guaranteeing the venue operator funding to recoup infrastructure investments and to maintain venue facilities. A stadium which we call by its corporate sponsor’s name would surely smell sweeter with the injection of such funds. Hopefully, the OCBC-Sports Hub deal will help pave the way for other similar deals in Singapore’s sports and entertainment industries in the near future.
► Lau Kok Keng
Partner & Head
Intellectual Property, Sports & Gaming Practice
Rajah & Tann LLP
► Darren King
Intellectual Property, Sports & Gaming Practice
Rajah & Tann LLP
1 “OCBC Bank wins naming rights for facilities in Sports Hub” Channel NewsAsia.com (11 November 2013); available at: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ocbc-bank-wins-naming/882152.html
2 How many people even remember that the original name of that stadium facility as it was being built was “Ashburton Grove”?
3 OCBC Group is the Largest Sponsorship Partner of Singapore Sports Hub, OCBC Press Release (11 November 2013); available at: http://www.ocbc.com.sg/assets/pdf/Media/2013/November/SSH%20media%20release%20_Final.pdf
4 Response to Parliamentary Question on Naming rights of Sports Hub, Acting Minister Lawrence Wong, 12 August 2013, Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth website, http://app.mccy.gov.sg/Newsroom/PQonSportsHubNamingRights.aspx
5 As confirmed in press release at note 2 above.
6 “Arsenal FC & Emirates Stadium - A Ground-Breaking Partnership”, Emirates.com; available at: http://www.emirates.com/sg/english/about/emirates-sponsorships/football/arsenal/arsenal-fc.aspx
7 “White Elephant Not Forgotten”, BBC News Online (12 April 2006); available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4903922.stm
8 “The O2 hailed as World’s Most Popular Music Venue for Fifth Consecutive Year”; available at: http://www.theo2.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=803&Itemid=32
9 “2012: O2, Long Term Marketing Excellence - Case Study”, The Marketing Society; available at: https://www.marketingsociety.co.uk/the-library/2012-o2-long-term-marketing-excellence-case-study
10 “SportsHub unveils list of events it will host for this year”; available at: http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/sportshub-unveils-list-events-it-will-host-year
11 “Asean Super League is on”; available at: http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Sports/Story/A1Story20130404-413520.html
13 “Newcastle United sponsorship deal with Wonga will see St James’ Park reinstated as stadium name”, Telegraph.co.uk (October 9 2012); available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/9596399/Newcastle-United-sponsorship-deal-with-Wonga-will-see-St-James-Park-reinstated-as-stadium-name.html
14 “Grounds for Change: Why Liverpool, Chelsea and Spurs are on the move”; available at: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2011/nov/25/stadium-naming-rights-liverpool-chelsea-spurs
15 “A place in the sun for key Singaporeans”; available at: http://www.asiaone.com/print/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130218-402712.html
16 Contrast the situation with roads and schools in Singapore – eg the Benjamin Sheares bridge is named after Singapore’s 2nd President, while former Presidents Yusof Ishak and Wee Kim Wee have also had schools named after them.
20 The only live television broadcasts of S-League matches currently are those played at the Jalan Besar Stadium.
21 “Grounds for Change: why Liverpool Chelsea and Spurs are on the move”, theguardian.com (25 November 2011); available at: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2011/nov/25/stadium-naming-rights-liverpool-chelsea-spurs
22 “A Brief History of Stadium Naming Rights” (27 November 2008); available at: http://mentalfloss.com/article/20239/brief-history-stadium-naming-rights
23 “Barclays Centre Makes it Official”, New York Post (8 August 2012); available at: http://nypost.com/2012/08/08/barclays-center-makes-it-official/
24 “Banking Airball”, New York Post (20 September 2012); available at: http://nypost.com/2012/09/20/banking-airball/#ixzz2739Ws9Iu
25 “Barclays Arena Deal Raises a Reputed Link to Slavery”, New York Times (7 February 2007); available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/nyregion/02yards.html?_r=0
26 “London 2012: Ricoh Arena to cover up signs for Olympics”, BBC News Online (25 January 2012); available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-16703448
27 Allianz Arena Reborn as FIFA 2006 World Cup Stadium (28 May 2006); available at: http://allianzarena.org/en/aktuell/news-archiv/06606.php
28 “Behind the Scenes at Bayern: The stadium where Chelsea hope their European dreams will come true”, Daily Mail online(18 May 2012); available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2146470/A-look-scenes-Bayern-Munichs-Allianz-Arena-ahead-Champions-League-final.html