Back in 2018, Colorado State announced a historic naming rights agreement with a local credit union.
The $37.7 million partnership agreement over 15 years was one of the largest athletic venue naming agreements in college sports history, infusing cash into Colorado State’s annual athletic department budget. USC had previously announced a $69 million deal with United Airlines while Washington signed on with Alaska Airlines.
Deals like this offer a peek into what is to come in college sports. The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved on-field commercial sponsorships for regular-season games earlier this month.
The move is an aftershock of the NCAA and power conferences agreeing on settlement terms in the House, Hubbard and Carter cases. As part of the terms, which have not been ratified yet, all 32 Division I conferences will pay some $2.8 billion in damages over 10 years. In addition, schools, at their discretion, will be able to share up to $22 million annually with athletes.
Speaking to a range of industry sources since the NCAA’s decision to allow on-field sponsorships, athletic departments could net $2 to $6 million annually from advertisements. Major Power 4 college football programs could see sponsorship deals north of $8 to $10 million annually.
“If we use stadium naming rights as a proxy for this next horizon of opportunities for our schools, what the data tells us is that in the majority of cases, those are local or regional brands that want to be a part of these big-time sponsorships,” said Cole Gahagan, the president and CEO of multimedia rights holder Learfield. “If you zoom out and look at the total landscape of naming rights in college sports, typically those are regional, if not local brands, to Ames, Iowa or Lubbock, Texas or Gainesville. Florida, or Eugene, Oregon.
“If we go off of precedent and the data that we have, my guess, is the bulk of these on-field sponsorships will be local or regional brands.”
On-field sponsorships open ‘valuable real estate’
Learfield works with more than 160 properties that are in the exploratory phase of on-field ads. Gahagan also echoed what multiple sources told On3: Brands who want to spend marketing dollars through on-field sponsorships could incorporate NIL deals into their plans.
The NCAA only just permitted on-field sponsorships, however, the expectation is jersey patches are not far off from being approved in the next couple of seasons. The patches are a more lucrative property than on-field sponsorships, sources told On3.
The Premier League, MLB, NBA and NHL all use jersey patches, while the NFL has held out. A 2023 report from Turnstile estimated NFL franchises could earn $21.1 million annually from jersey patches.
Playfly Sports Properties’ portfolio includes more than 25 universities, including USC. The multimedia rights partner is working with Vision Insights to measure and provide values of TV-visible signage for college football and basketball games, Playfly president Craig Sloan recently told On3. This will be able to measure the on-screen visibility of on-field brands.
“You can’t, from a commercial perspective, get better proximity to that IP than to be on the field or on the uniform,” Sloan previously told On3. “You are talking about the most valuable real estate that exists in any ecosystem, but specifically with college are these two positions.”
Sloan also emphasized to On3 the importance of major fanbases when factoring on-field sponsorships. For example, Nebraska has sold out 396 consecutive games at Memorial Stadium. Having the data to back how many eyes are on Tom Osborne Field on any given Saturday will be crucial beyond the traditional TV metrics.
Game-by-game ads could be more lucrative
Learfield and Playfly have identified on-field sponsorships and jersey patches as college football revenue assets for years. But now the NCAA is ready to stretch to the new frontier of moneymaking. The NCAA guidelines state a single advertisement centered on the 50-yard line is allowed in addition to no more than two smaller “flanking” sponsorships elsewhere on the field.
Athletic directors and multimedia rights holders are also evaluating the possibility of on-field sponsorships on a game-by-game basis, which was approved by the NCAA. For major college football brands who play in primetime, for example, dynamic pricing could be an option.
“Another component of all the things that we’re evaluating,” SMU athletic director Rick Hart told On3 as the Mustangs prepare for the ACC move. “I anticipate that we’ll participate. The biggest thing is making sure, again, that we maximize that opportunity.
“What I’m learning and talking to people about to learn more is it something [sponsorship] that you just go sell to a sponsor for the season? Or is there a way to dynamically price that inventory so that on a game-by-game basis, depending on the network and the reach, it varies from game-to-game relative to the value of that inventory?”
The post On-field sponsorships could command upwards $6 million annually in college football appeared first on On3.