Leonard Pitts piles on the Mets

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

...as if we are the first to have a corporate name on a stadium.


IN MY OPINION | LEONARD PITTS JR.
Public spaces sold to the highest bidder
Posted on Sun, Apr. 13, 2008Digg del.icio.us AIM reprint print email
By LEONARD PITTS JR.
lpitts@miamiherald.com
I have no particular love for Shea Stadium. Never even been inside. From what I hear, it's not a lovely place. Leaky pipes and ''curious smells,'' says one report. ''A dump,'' says another.

Still, I'm sorry to learn that last week's New York Mets season opener will be the ballpark's last. More to the point, I'm sorry to learn that next year they'll be playing in a new park called Citi Field. As in Citigroup, the banking giant with offices in Africa, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia and the United States. It leaves me wondering if there remains any public space in this country without a corporate logo on it.

William Shea was, according to those who knew him, a garrulous man who could talk your ear off about baseball. When the Dodgers and Giants left the Big Apple, he led the push to bring another Major League team to town. The Mets played their first game in 1962, and when their new stadium opened two years later, it seemed appropriate to name it for him.

We don't do that so much anymore, name public spaces for people who have done things. Nor even for the cities in which things are done. The Miami Heat used to play in the Miami Arena. Now they play in an arena named for an airline. The Los Angeles Lakers' home court is named for an office supply store. The San Francisco Giants? A phone company. The Detroit Lions? An auto maker. The Pittsburgh Penguins? A bank.

There is, yes, an obvious financial upside to all this for team owners: Citi alone is paying $400 million to chisel its name onto the Mets' new ballpark. But there is also, I think, a less obvious downside for the rest of us.

By which I mean the ongoing corporate invasion of our every public space. Consider a sampling of what has been contemplated or enacted in recent years: movie ads on home plate in baseball, subway stops named for corporate sponsors, company logos on police cars, public schools selling vending machine rights to soft drink makers.

It's hard to fault those who are seduced by such offers. A school is strapped for cash, and Coke is willing to pay to put its vending machine in the quad? Why not? The police departments that were promised free cars if they would put corporate logos on them were too broke to get cars any other way, so again, why not? And $400 million? Who's going to leave that much money on the table?

Still, what does it say about a society's priorities when its schools and cops are that desperate in the first place? What does it tell you about its quality of life when there is no public space safe from the incursion of advertising?

Yes, in a very real sense nothing changes with this deal. Hotdogs, pretzels and beer will be sold on summer afternoons in Citi Field just as they were in Shea. Little kids with big catcher's mitts will still angle to catch foul balls. Nothing changes but a name.

And also, in increments, a nation. Where once there were mom and pop stores and people serving people, now there are superstores and self-serve checkouts and press one for more options. Where once there were institutions whose names reflected civic pride or noteworthy citizens, now there are institutions branded like cattle by corporate America.

This is not progress, it's pollution. It's corporations creeping like kudzu into the nooks and crannies of our lives.

For the record, yes, I know the Mets are within their rights to name their stadium whatever they want. But I am within mine to wish there were, at days's end, a few more places where it was possible to simply be, without being sold to.

Such places are becoming rare.

And I'm thinking they'll soon have to change the sign at the border: ``Welcome to the United States of America. Brought to you by . . . ''

[metirish]

] ``Welcome to the United States of America. Brought to you by . . . ''

Taco Bell? , Corona ? ,

[Theoldmole]

Wouldn't it be great to go back to the old days when they never used corporate names, but instead called the ballparks things like Wrigley Field and Busch Stadium?

[stevejrogers]

TheOldMole wrote: Wouldn't it be great to go back to the old days when they never used corporate names, but instead called the ballparks things like Wrigley Field and Busch Stadium?

Nicely done, but one could come back with yabut those were the actual owners of the teams at the time.

Though I have no clue how much A-B spent to keep their name on the new Cardinals ballpark.

[Valadius]

I agree, the progression of corporate advertising needs to be halted. And the Mets didn't need to sell the naming rights. We're in the upper echelon of teams that don't need to sell naming rights. I mean, which teams have the highest payrolls? The Mets, MFYs, Red Sox, Dodgers, Angels, and Cubs come to mind. And not a single one of those teams currently play in a stadium that has sold its naming rights. The Mets just didn't need it.

[seawolf17]

Who cares if they "needed" it or not? If someone's willing to give me $400 million to rename my house, then I'm taking it. It's fucking stupid not to.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

If those naming rights gave them the money to pay Johan Santana $137 million and gives them money to pay Mark Tiexiera next season, they can call the place anything they want and I don't care!

[soupcan]

Valadius wrote: I agree, the progression of corporate advertising needs to be halted. And the Mets didn't need to sell the naming rights. We're in the upper echelon of teams that don't need to sell naming rights. I mean, which teams have the highest payrolls? The Mets, MFYs, Red Sox, Dodgers, Angels, and Cubs come to mind. And not a single one of those teams currently play in a stadium that has sold its naming rights. The Mets just didn't need it.

Especially not to a corporation whose name rhymes with 'shitty'. right Vlad?

Yankees - Wanna bet that the field will have a corporate name when all is said and done? Addidas Field at Yankee Stadium for instance.

Angels - Edison Field - it's an energy company I believe.

Cubs - Once the team and stadium are sold Wrigley will have a sponsor.

Red Sox and Dodgers will not be far behind. Too much money at stake.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm still holding out hope that "Roach Motel" will be the corporate sponsor for the new Yankee Stadium.

[Valadius]

soupy - the Angels bought out Edison's naming rights a few years ago. It's just Angel Stadium now.

[soupcan]

Valadius wrote: soupy - the Angels bought out Edison's naming rights a few years ago. It's just Angel Stadium now.

I sit corrected.

[Fman99]

YAME.

Yet
Another
Masturbatory
Exercise

...discussing this with any seriousness.

[metsmarathon]

is shea stadium even a public place?

i mean, if they sold central park's naming rights to deutsche bank, then, sure, i think there'd be a point to the argument. it being a public place.

but shea stadium is not public. i have to pay to gain entry, and that pay goes to a company (tho it is somewhat subsidezed by public funds via tax breaks etc).

the death of mom-n-pop stores has little to do with the spread of corporate logos across our sporting arenae. mom-n-pop stores are dying because they cannot compete with the volume, and accompanying lower prices, that the superstores can provide.

and as far s the encroachment of commercialism into our daily life, has the man never seen a photo of an old-time ballpark?

[G-Fafif]

]I have no particular love for Shea Stadium. Never even been inside.

What an awful lede, btw. Why he had to first-person his point is beyond me. "I didn't know George Washington, but I hear he was a great man. But now the federal government wants to replace the dollar bill with a dollar coin." Get Leonard Pitts to an editor (or a better editor to the Miami Herald).

[Benjamin Grimm]

And get him to Shea Stadium! Time's a wastin'!

[nymr83]

seawolf17 wrote: Who cares if they "needed" it or not? If someone's willing to give me $400 million to rename my house, then I'm taking it. It's fucking stupid not to.

Amen.
I think we should rename public parks for money. But lets be smart about it and make it 10 or 20 year deals instead of locking ourselves into one commitment forever. that big park in the middle of Manhattan? "Bloomberg Park" for only $30 million annually. the good that the city could do with that money (assuming it was spent wisely and not seen as a windfall to be wasted) outweighs the "harm" in a park having a goofy name by a whole lot.