Why venues, not stadiums, may offer greater returns for sponsors
For decades, stadiums have been the natural home of naming rights. From the US, where naming rights are among the most valuable assets in sport, to a growing European market, brands have paid significant sums to put their names on buildings visited by millions of people every year.
But stadiums aren't the only buildings with large audiences, cultural significance and an enduring place within their communities.
A new whitepaper from Cultural Capital Partners argues that arts and cultural venues could offer sponsors an overlooked opportunity, with many of the characteristics that make stadium naming rights attractive but with a fraction of the competition, cost and clutter.
Naming Rights: A Long-Term Strategic Play, written by Cultural Capital Partners founder Elliot Willis, highlights that 90% of Europeans engage with a cultural activity each year, yet non-sport sponsorship accounts for just 28% of the sponsorship market.
For brands, that raises a simple question: could some of the best value in naming rights be found outside sport?
Less competition for attention
Sport's attraction to sponsors is obvious. Large, passionate audiences and significant broadcast exposure have made stadium naming rights a proven platform for brands. But that popularity also means sponsors are competing for attention in an increasingly crowded and expensive marketplace.
Culture presents a different proposition.
Theatre, music and the arts can provide brands with access to large audiences, but with fewer commercial partners competing for attention. The report argues this creates an opportunity for brands to establish a more distinctive position than might be possible within an established sports sponsorship ecosystem.
There is another important difference. While a stadium is typically built around one sport and one fanbase, cultural venues can host a constantly changing programme of music, theatre, comedy, dance, exhibitions and live entertainment.
For sponsors, that means the same naming rights investment can provide access to very different audiences throughout the year. Rather than attaching the brand to a single passion point, a cultural venue can provide a platform to connect with people across multiple interests and occasions.
Recognising equal value
Willis argues that realising that value requires both sides to think differently about what is being bought and sold.
“I’d change the perception of arts organisations being commercially one-dimensional; that they’re the ones receiving and the brand is the one getting value for money,” he says. “It should be a true partnership built for the future.”
That means recognising the value on both sides of the relationship. A cultural organisation brings its audience, reputation, content, experiences and place within a community. The brand brings investment, reach and its own capabilities. Neither should be viewed simply as the buyer or beneficiary.
"The money is only part of it. A brand brings commercial discipline, data and CRM capability, staff training, digital infrastructure — for an organisation trying to modernise, that expertise can be worth as much as the fee. Most cultural organisations only ask for money, because that's the only thing they've been taught to ask for."
Willis has seen the model first-hand. In 2023, he brokered Aviva's ten-year naming rights partnership with what is now known as Aviva Studios, an agreement that extends beyond the name on the building into areas including skills, education and community programmes.
Moving from interest to investment
None of this means every cultural venue represents a good naming rights investment, and the whitepaper is explicit about that. As with sport, audience fit, valuation, brand alignment, governance and the ability to activate the partnership all matter.
The bigger barrier may simply be familiarity.
Research cited in the report found that 61% of brands have never sponsored a cultural organisation, yet 62% would be open to doing so.
“I hope the whitepaper turns desire into action,” says Willis. “What’s been missing is a shared framework for how these deals are valued, structured and delivered. If the paper gives organisations enough confidence to move from wanting a partnership to actually building one, it’s done its job.”
Across 20 chapters, the report explores that process in detail, from valuation and partner selection through to governance, community consent and activation.
For sponsors, the argument for exploring culture isn't that the sector needs their investment. It's that in a sponsorship market where the most sought-after sports assets are increasingly expensive and crowded, some cultural venues may offer an attractive alternative.
Naming Rights: A Long-Term Strategic Play is available to read in full from Cultural Capital Partners here.
