yeah, I am dumb, but isn’t “Wrigley” already a corporate name?
As long as they don’t get rid of the ivy…my Reds need all the hidden ball situations they can get!
It was originally Weeghman Park named for the guy who built it (go figure) then was changed to Cub’s Park by William Wrigley Jr. who at that point had gained control of the team and 6 years later renamed it to Wrigley Field which it has retained since 1926.
I seriously doubt the notion of corporate naming of stadiums was considered back then. William Wrigley Jr. put his name on the park like so many other wealthy people like to put their name on things they own/pay for. Additionally I do not think the Wrigley Company owned the Cubs but rather William Wrigley himself owned the Cubs (maybe that is splitting hairs but on paper I doubt the Cubs were a corporate asset but rather a family asset). The Wrigley company was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 1927 so the Wrigley family cannot be said to be the entire extent of the company (such that there is no fiscal distinction between the two).
Further, if you go to Wrigley Field I doubt you will find an ad for Wrigley gum anywhere in there. I cannot recall seeing one. If there is I am willing to bet they paid for the ad space like anyone else would. If the Wrigley name on the door amounted to a corporate sponsorship then I would expect to see their name and ads plastered all over the place but they are not. Further, when a corporate sponsor buys a sponsorship like this they get advertising rights for television/radio. Again I am willing to bet if the Wrigley company advertises during a Cubs game they pay the same as anyone else wanting to do the same thing. This is not what you would expect if the Wrigley name on the door equated to a corporate sponsorship. Rather it is just the name on the door.
And again I remind you of the notion that is well established in this country that ownership does not mean you can do absolutely anything you please. You may own your house but I am willing to bet your putting up a billboard as big as your house on your front lawn would be forbidden (zoning laws). Then add in we do find some things eventually become important enough to our society to protect them and grant those things landmark status and whoever owns that place loses many rights to what they can do to it.
In short we are ok with the idea that ownership does not equal “do what you want”.
If Sam Zell bought the Empire State Building do you think it would be fine if he sold the name and called it the Pizza hut Building?
Wrigley Field most certainly falls into a category of landmark (the building already is) and is culturally significant to the city of Chicago. The name is identified with Chicago world wide and certainly well known among baseball fans. I bet most people in Chicago cannot name the stadium where the Mariners play but I bet if you went to Seattle many, many more people could correctly identify Wrigley Field.
Zell wants to sell a piece of Chicago…not just a name.
I can think of *no * examples in the US prior to the Eighties (or maybe even the early Nineties), when the practice began to be adopted from Japan.
He could call it whatever he liked. I would still call it the Empire State Building, and so would most people, I’d bet.
Just keep calling it Wrigley. Let the money guys play their money games - you don’t have to join in.