Most brands still get sports marketing wrong.
They write big checks for stadium naming rights, slap a logo on a building, and convince themselves they’ve won. They haven’t.
What I’ve learned, first from 24 years inside sports marketing and later from being involved in 63 startup exits across tech, is this: the brands that actually build value don’t buy logos. They build infrastructure inside the properties they sponsor.
Back when I was with the Flyers, we didn’t just sponsor youth hockey. We built a youth hockey community. The real value wasn’t the banners or the mentions. It was the 30 programs we created. That was infrastructure before infrastructure was fashionable. It led to years of sold-out seasons and the growth of the amateur hockey community.
Same story at Upper Deck. Before Anthony Loiacono and I arrived, the company was overpaying for properties because that’s what everyone did. Then I introduced the “N” word: Negotiate. Product rights weren’t perks. They were infrastructure. Once we treated them that way, growth followed. So did profits.
A $50 million naming-rights deal buys you ten years of visibility. That’s so yesterday’s thinking.
Today, a data platform that tracks fan behavior, purchasing patterns, and engagement doesn’t expire. It compounds. It gives you an advantage that your competitors can’t easily replicate.
The old playbook was ownership. Put your name on the building. Put your logo on the jersey. Sign the athlete. Rinse. Repeat.
The new playbook is infrastructure.
Operational systems that turn fan engagement into measurable ROI. Data platforms that surface insight before your competitors even know what to look for. Relationship networks that last long after the sponsorship contract ends.
I’ve watched tier-one companies like Google, eBay, IBM, and Cisco acquire startups we’ve worked with, not because they owned marquee sponsorships, but because they had built institutional knowledge and operational muscle that couldn’t be copied.
Brands still chasing naming rights are playing a game that already ended.
It’s the brands that are embedding technology stacks, customer data platforms, and relationship intelligence into their sponsorships that are playing a completely different game.
They’re playing my game.
Back at Upper Deck, we called it “market domination theory.” We didn’t just talk about it. We executed. Same budget as the other guys. But the difference. Sales went from $27 million to $293 million in 18 months.
Game. Set. Match.
So I’ll leave you with this question: Are brands still over-investing in visibility and under-investing in turning sponsorships into infrastructure, or are they finally ready to evolve?