AS you can probably tell from my name, I am not a Scouser except in spirit. I am one of the millions of fans ‘abroad’ who have taken Liverpool FC into their hearts – to soar with the team when they are on form, or to feel devastated when they lose.
I am one of the millions who rise before the sun (the celestial body rather than the despised tabloid) to cheer on ‘the lads’, then go up and wake my wife when the match is over.
As a Canuck, I live in a country largely devoid of history and tradition and am drawn to the rich history of both the game of football and the teams that strive each season for supremacy in England. As you know, sports has always been a commercial pursuit in North America, so teams here are as much of a product as deodorant or soda pop.
When announcers for the BPL comment on rivalries and highlights of matches fifty and sixty years ago, there is a continuity, a romance if you will, that is missing from sports across the Atlantic. When announcers here have a moment, they make a point of mentioning the sponsors.
This commercialism brings me to Anfield and the proposed selling of the naming rights of the ground to a company in Qatar. Names such as Loftus Road, the Hawthorns, and even Old Trafford are legend and are as much a part of the lore of English football as are Ian Rush, Stanley Matthews and Bobby Moore.
By incorporating local landmark names into stadium names, clubs have located themselves as part of the community they serve. The Anfield name has been associated with the team for over one hundred years and has generated countless songs and slogans which are an integral part of what makes Liverpool FC more than just another assembly of professional athletes and their faceless fans.
What would be the benefit of selling the naming rights to Anfield? When Arsenal sold their naming rights and kit rights to Emirates Airline for £100 million in 2004, they gave us a benchmark for what may happen at Anfield. The Emirates deal has recently (2012) been extended to 20 years for £150 million yielding £7.5 million per year (minus inflation) to add to the club coffers.
[ad_pod id=”unruly-video” align=”center”]
To put this into perspective, were Liverpool to arrive at a similar agreement, we spent an equivalent amount to acquire Sebastian Coates for the 2011-12 season, or Christian Poulson and Brad Jones the previous year, or a third of what we paid for Alberto Aquilani the year before.
By the same token, football has become all about the money in the last decade or so, as evidenced by the proliferation of Middle Eastern and corporate suitors for the ownership of the more storied clubs in England. In such an environment, perhaps it is better to sell to the highest bidder and relegate all those passions for tradition to the back pages of our club’s history.
Both Manchester City and Chelsea have shown that a club can rise from mediocrity to challenge for English football’s ultimate prize but, as Man City’s record this year has shown, there is more to being a champion – and even a legend – than how many high priced players you can put on the pitch at any one time.
So is the sale of naming rights a good idea? It all depends on why you watch football and why you support your side. If you are interested in your sales department selling the maximum number of scarves, coffee cups, hats and such, then encourage them to keep selling off the bits to the highest bidder, then have them buy the best mercenaries, and ignore the intangibles that keep the heart of the club beating.
I’m sure that the majority of Reds fans abroad will continue to support the team, albeit with a little less commitment and a willingness to move their support to whichever club is selling the most memorabilia and winning the most cups. People who buy into a team with an investment other than currency remain lifelong fans and are the reason that LFC has risen to become a society rather than a horde of fickle supporters.
I am sure that Ooredoo, the telecommunications company from Qatar, is a wonderful company with a great product; I just don’t see their relevance to the City of Liverpool.
Besides, I just can’t see myself, or the sea of red at some future game, passionately and semi-hoarsely singing “The Fields of Ooredoo.”
[ad_pod id=’DFP-MPU’ align=’right’]
Live4Liverpool is recruiting columnists. For further info contact the site editor at live4liverpool@snack-media.com
Follow us on Twitter here: @live4Liverpool and ‘Like’ us on Facebook
This whole story was rubbished by the company themselves, over a week ago! but why not keep it going, you clown.
From what I can tell, the denial came out two days ago.
It (the denial) can easily be seen in the same light as an owner announcing that he has boundless faith in the manager.
Although the suitor may have stepped out of the picture, do you honestly believe that this won’t come up again? Although Ooredoo was good for the lead in and conclusion, the rest of the article stands on its own merits. Thanks for the feedback.
Will be a “LAUGHING” STOCK FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVING YEARS !!!
It doesn’t seem as bad when its a new stadium – like Arsenal have – but you should never rename an existing one. People will just keep using the old name anyway. And they would never remove the This Is Anfield sign in the tunnel as that’s such a famous part of prematch at the club.
If Liverpool get a new stadium though, it will be named after a company I’m sure if it.
Contractually the media are not allowed. They must call it by the sponsor name
Does anyone know the stadium name to Newcastle off the top of their head?
St James Park?
FSG are here to make money thats all . When someone offers enough they will sell.
Only when Liverpool are free from greedy corporate owners can we be a top club again
It’s a case of us selling our souls. Also, not good for long-term sustainability.
We already have – to the greedy Americans .
Hicks and Gillett mark II will do whatever they can to make Money , they care nothing for us supporters