Chicago Cubs Get Naming Rights Sponsor for Spring Complex: Under Armour

wrigley under armour signToday the Chicago Cubs announced that they’d reached an agreement with long-time partner Under Armour to be the name sponsor for the new Spring Training complex in Mesa, Arizona. The digs will be called the Under Armour Performance Center, and that applies to the training facilities, but not the ballpark. Currently named “Cubs Park,” the Cubs will be separately exploring the possibility of contracting for naming rights on the park.

The Under Armour deal, the terms of which have not been disclosed, reports Danny Ecker, makes them a “Legacy Partner,” together with Anheuser-Busch and Starwood Hotels. There is already Under Armour signage on the Wrigley outfield wall, and you can probably expect to see some more UA things as the renovation there gets underway. These types of partnerships are more comprehensive than a mere ad here or a name there. In other words, UA is probably now the Cubs’ partner for all things performance-y and training gear-y (that’s just my own guess, mind you).

While the UA deal is probably not quite close to the value as the reported Anheuser-Busch deal ($140 million over 14 years, including the sign in right field), it is still probably fairly lucrative. To which I say, as I always do: good. Reasonable partnerships like this are a nice driver of consistent, predictable revenue, and – assuming the repeated pledge to turn all revenue back into the organization in some way is true – more revenue for the Cubs means a better long-term product.

Brett Taylor is the editor and lead writer at Bleacher Nation, and can also be found as Bleacher Nation on Twitter and on Facebook.

42 responses to “Chicago Cubs Get Naming Rights Sponsor for Spring Complex: Under Armour”

  1. jp3

    Hmmm… I’m thinking that UA probably was at the table with the bean counters and they said we’ll give you X and we countered with Y and they said that’s a mighty fine training facility you have in Arizona. We then proposed give us $Y and you can tattoo UA on our foreheads.

  2. Jon

    Arizona, a state full of nut jobs that want to pass 1960′s like legislation in the year 2014.

    1. DarthHater

      Yea, stupid 1960s, with their civil rights act and their medicare…

    2. DocPeterWimsey

      Indeed, it might be more 1850′s than 1950′s!

    3. Jon

      You guys are right. Either way it’s sickening.

      1. miggy80

        That’s what I was thinking when I saw this story. Didn’t this country already have this debate?

        1. TWC

          Ain’t no loser like a sore loser.

          1. itzscott

            Have the Confederate states ever really moved beyond the Civil War?

            1. TWC

              No. Even the ones that only think there were in the Confederacy (Kentucky) haven’t moved past it.

              1. Funn Dave

                There’s a hilarious mockumentary set in a world in which the South won the civil war. You should all watch it. I think it’s called CSA (Confederate States of America). I know it used to be on Netflix; I’m guessing it still is.

                Also, if people actually are interested in the topic, there’s a great book called Confederates in the Attic that explores attitudes and conventions in the South regarding the Civil War and its repercussions.

                1. MichiganGoat

                  Yes it is CSA and it is a very good mockumentary especially the commercials they have between the “news” that are based on real actual products from the time.

                  1. Funn Dave

                    Haha yes, forgot about the “commercials.”

                2. DocPeterWimsey

                  wow, that’s horrifying in many ways. Think of how different WWI and WWII would have been with the USA and CSA on different sides. (Indeed, had it not been for slavery, Britain and France almost certainly would have recognized the CSA, which could well have paved the way for a UK-France-CSA vs. Germany-Austria-USA WWI.)

                  1. Funn Dave


                3. TWC

                  “… there’s a great book called Confederates in the Attic”

                  That is indeed a great book. I have a copy on my shelf at home.

                4. college_of_coaches

                  There’s also a series of books by Harry Turtledove that explore an alternative historical timeline based on this question. The books are SciFi, as they involve time travel, and the series begins with the south winning the Civil War because of AK47s. I’ve only read the first one, “Guns of the South,” it was interesting.

                  1. Funn Dave

                    That does sound very interesting. Thanks for the tip.

              2. hansman

                Hell, I’m sure there are still some Egyptians that are pissed about the Pharoh letting the Jews go.

        2. hansman

          The issue now, seems, to be how to handle businesses where the owner’s religious beliefs don’t agree.

          That’s a whole big can of worms.

          1. miggy80

            The whole “religious beliefs” debate was used during the desegregation period. When interracial marriage was validated through the Supreme Court Decision Loving v. Virginia religious beliefs were at the forefront of why interracial shouldn’t be allowed.

            Here is what the trial Judge said about the case:
            “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

        3. DocPeterWimsey

          Yes. However, there seems to be a debate about which side was actually won……

          1. hansman

            It’s a debate within a debate. At some point Leonardo DiCaprio is going to show up.

  3. itzscott

    More like 1860

  4. DarthHater

    The 2014 Chicago Cubs, Brought To You By Axe Body Spray

    1. Wackoman1

      They use it to cover up the stench of the on-field product

      1. DarthHater

        Thank you for over-explaining my joke. :-D

      2. jp3

        Thanks wackoman but although we don’t know what a winning team looks like we still know sarcasm when we see it… Though Darth didn’t use pics to illustrate his point? That would’ve been interesting.

  5. Hee Seop Chode

    New reoccurring revenue added this offseason:

    *$10MM a year from AB
    *$20MM new revenue from national tv contract
    *$?? Under Armor deal

    We know there was some UA and AB revenue in 2013, but where is this new revenue being out back into Baseball Operations? Rickets has got to distance himself from that promise.

    1. hansman

      At this point I think only a few things are/could be happening with the extra revenues:

      1. The money is getting squirreled away for the renovation and we will see the money from those ads come to the payroll sooner.
      2. The money is getting squirreled away to pay off the debt.
      3. Tom is pouring an amount into non-payroll items that is well above what other teams are doing
      4. Expenses for running the Cubs/Wrigley Field is disproportionate to other teams.
      5. Ricketts is lying (and doubling down on his lie) and is pocketing the revenue.

      My money is on a whole-helluva lot of #1, a fair amount of #2, some #3 and #4 and none of #5.

      1. Brocktoon

        I’ve seen zero support for 3 or 4

  6. Cubsin

    Brett, I must admit that I was somewhat offended by the St. Louis Cardinals season tickets ad that appeared on this page, perhaps because I live within 20 miles of their ballpark. I can’t imagine that they’ll sell many seats on your webpage. I grew up with the choice of being a Cubs fan or a Cards fan, and chose the Cubs back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. I can’t imagine anyone ever being a fan of both teams.

    1. hansman

      Brett has limited control over what ads appear.

      The ad company just knows that the Cardinals get discussed here a lot and that it is a sports website that has a demographic that typically buys sports tickets.

    2. wv23

      Offended? Was there porn embedded in it?

    3. CubChymyst

      I get Royals games tickets cause I’m currently in Kansas. It is simply because of your location.

  7. CubChymyst

    Isn’t there an annual under armour game at Wrigley for high school prospects?

  8. Funn Dave

    Oh great, so we get to be the underwear of Spring Training.

    1. DarthHater

      The 2014 Cubs Bullpen, Brought To You By Poise

  9. Blackhawks1963

    Unfortunate that a political debate was allowed to happen on this fine site.

  10. Critterbeard

    I hope UA isn’t going to start making our uniforms! Even Campana couldn’t steal a base with those vents!

  11. Eternal Pessimist

    Patrick Mooney tweet 3 hours ago Cubs deal was 140 million over 10 years…are we sure it is 140/14?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.