Skip to content

The Royals to sell the naming rights to Kauffman Stadium

Nov 7, 2011, 8:15 AM EDT

Kauffman Stadium

Via some very well-put disappointment in the development over at Big League Stew comes word that the Kansas City Royals are on the verge of selling naming rights to Kauffman Stadium. Probably to a bank. Almost certainly not to Oklahoma Joe’s BBQ, which is a cryin’ shame.

Does Kansas City have any anti-corporate activists hanging around? Can we not launch “Occupy Blue Ridge Cutoff?”

Eh, I can’t muster too much outrage. The ship on this stuff sailed, what, 15 years ago? Twenty?

I sold my soul to the corporate naming rights back in 2007. Back then the Indians were trying to sell naming rights to the then-Jacobs Field and were having trouble finding a suitor. I spent part of an afternoon looking at a big Cleveland business directory trying to find locally-based business candidates for them. I actually ended up liking the idea of “Progressive Field” better than other potential candidates. The fact that they ended up going with that a few months later probably means that I have no standing to complain.

  1. flyerscup2010 - Nov 7, 2011 at 8:23 AM

    craig, you corporate whore

    (figured i’d switch it up because being called a communist by all the commenters here probably gets stale after a while)

  2. uyf1950 - Nov 7, 2011 at 8:24 AM

    Curious as to how many MLB Stadiums aren’t named after a corporation or the like?

    • bigxrob - Nov 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM

      Red sox, Yankees, Orioles, Rangers, Angles, Dodgers(how the heck did Frank not sell that)

      Just off the top of my head

    • acheron2112 - Nov 7, 2011 at 8:36 AM

      Dodger Stadium
      Fenway Park
      Kaufmann Stadium
      Yankee Stadium
      Nationals Park
      Rangers Ballpark
      Angel Stadium
      Oriole Park at Camden Yards

      Debatable are Wrigley Field and Busch Stadium.

      • paperlions - Nov 7, 2011 at 10:09 AM

        Anheuser-Busch definitely paid to name the stadium….they haven’t owned the team for 16 yrs….the current owners weren’t going to just give that away.

      • hackerjay - Nov 7, 2011 at 11:34 AM

        Like Paperlinons said, Anheuser-Busch paid to have their name on the Cardinals’ stadium, but there is no way you could say Wrigley is debatable. The Cubs don’t get any money from anyone to have it named that, and it’s the name of an old owner. That it shares a name with the owner’s company is irrelevant. The Braves’ stadium falls under the same category. It’s named after an old owner, not a company.

  3. natsattack - Nov 7, 2011 at 8:35 AM

    (Nationals Park)

  4. bigxrob - Nov 7, 2011 at 8:37 AM


    • uyf1950 - Nov 7, 2011 at 8:48 AM

      I think Turner Field would qualify as a corporate name.

      • bravojawja - Nov 7, 2011 at 10:07 AM

        Not by anybody down here in Atlanta, anyway. We call it “The Ted” for (now, alas, former) owner Ted Turner.

  5. donkastain - Nov 7, 2011 at 8:46 AM

    I still and always will refer to the Indians stadium as Jacob’s Field.

  6. Lukehart80 - Nov 7, 2011 at 8:58 AM

    They renamed Sears Tower as Willis Tower a couple years ago, but I don’t know anyone in Chicago that doesn’t still call it Sears.

    People complained about the new Comiskey Park not being a nice stadium for watching a game. The team sold the naming rights and used the money to make improvements to the stadium and people complained about the name change. Some people are just going to find something to complain about.

    If the Royals use the money to make improvement to the stadium or improvements to the roster, Royals’ fans should be happy for the influx of cash. The fans can still call it Kauffman too.

  7. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Nov 7, 2011 at 9:01 AM

    How do we not consider “Yankee Stadium” corporate branding?

  8. sdelmonte - Nov 7, 2011 at 9:07 AM

    So are Royals fans going to be upset that Kaufmann’s name will be gone? Was he a beloved figure?

    And who will come up with the right amount of money? Teams tend to wait for the right deal, which is why the new football stadium in Dallas still has no corporate name. Will the right deal come along in this economic climate?

    • tuftsb - Nov 7, 2011 at 9:52 AM

      Ewing and Maroin Kauffman set up the Kauffman Foundation, which has funded education and entreprenuerial programs for decades in KC and throughout the United States.

      To remove his name from the stadium after all that he has done for the KC metro area is sad. To possibly name it after a bank is truly depressing. But it is their choice to sever the relationship with their founder and their quality years and replace it with….something else from Arkansas?

    • Tyree Studio - Nov 7, 2011 at 9:53 AM

      This life-long Royals fan is. Kauffman is probably the only reason the Royals even exist in Kansas City. He wanted to win in KC at all cost. Mr. Walmart David Glass…not so much.

      I will still call it by it’s original name “Royals Stadium” or “The K”.

    • mcs7584 - Nov 7, 2011 at 11:15 AM

      Well, KC will host the 2012 All-Star Game. There will never be more eyes on “Fill-in-the-blank” Stadium in Kansas City than there will be next July. This is calculated by the Royals, make no mistake.

  9. bloodysock - Nov 7, 2011 at 9:19 AM

    “Suck it monkeys, I’m going corporate!”

    – Liz Lemon and David Glass

  10. Jack Marshall - Nov 7, 2011 at 9:22 AM


    • phukyouk - Nov 7, 2011 at 9:28 AM


  11. bigtrav425 - Nov 7, 2011 at 9:51 AM

    it will always be the jake to me and most of field just sucks as do the dolans and shapiro

  12. - Nov 7, 2011 at 10:16 AM

    There are million ways to name a stadium. At this point we don’t know if they’re dropping the Kauffman name from the stadium.

    I’ll wait to see what the official name is before I get bent out of shape. Other than that, if it helps the Royals get a some starting pitching help? Make it happen. Being one of the worst francheses in the Majors is more of an offense to the Kauffman’s than slapping a corporate sponsor on the stadium.

    • Tyree Studio - Nov 7, 2011 at 11:37 AM

      I agree with you drenched in theory, but I don’t trust Glass to use that extra 2-3 million per year in naming rights for anything other than lining his wallet.

      I hope I’m wrong though.

  13. brucewaynewins - Nov 7, 2011 at 10:59 AM

    I’m partial to Great American Ballpark when it comes to the corporate named ones. It seems the closest to a non corporate name.

  14. mcs7584 - Nov 7, 2011 at 11:24 AM

    Wait a minute. Indications are that the stadium will be renamed after a bank. Since this is the David Glass Royals we’re talking about, I wonder if it will be this bank:

    • mcs7584 - Nov 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM

      It does have a branch in Missouri, after all.

      • - Nov 7, 2011 at 12:23 PM

        I thought it was a joke. But it’s a real bank! I might have to order some gear, if not open an account there.

      • cur68 - Nov 7, 2011 at 12:29 PM

        I was thinking the same thing, ‘drenched. Bankers with a sense of humor? What’s next? An athletic blogger?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. C. Correa (2508)
  2. G. Stanton (2501)
  3. Y. Puig (2496)
  4. B. Crawford (2389)
  5. H. Pence (2252)
  1. G. Springer (2211)
  2. H. Ramirez (2138)
  3. M. Teixeira (2131)
  4. J. Hamilton (2110)
  5. J. Baez (2085)