Grounds for change

"Building costs tend to fluctuate and football clubs investigate every possible source of revenue. Named sponsorship of a new ground is an extremely effective way of injecting capital into a construction project."

Five top-flight clubs have confirmed their intentions to move to new grounds within the next three years. Between them, they will spend £577 million on constructing state-of-the-art facilities.

To date, the sale of stadia naming rights in the UK has had a chequered history. In the USA, where the market is significantly more mature, the top-10 naming rights deals, covering periods ranging from 15 to 32 years, are worth more than £1 billion in total.

The first football ground to acquire a sponsored name was Scarborough who, in 1980, replaced Seamer Road with the McCain Stadium.

Since then, deals have been ad-hoc affairs, often comprising a mix of cash and benefits, such as the Fosters' Oval (now AMP), for which Surrey received £3m, made up of a low interest loan and pouring rights at the ground.

Given that one of the most valuable factors in the stadia naming equation is that of media impressions - how many times the sponsor's name appears in print, on television or on radio - there have been several lessthan successful deals. Since 1994, few people have referred to Middlesbrough's ground as the BT Cellnet Riverside Stadium, despite BT paying £3.4m to secure a 10-year exclusive naming contract.

The Premiership's most recent naming rights deal saw Friends Provident pay £5m to add their moniker to Southampton's new ground for a period of five years. The rarity value of a new Premier League ground, coupled with Saints' continued top-flight status, has inflated naming values.

One cannot underestimate the importance of top-level competition at a new stadium when calculating the overall worth to a sponsor of attaching their name to the venture.

Although there is a raft of new stadia being constructed around the country, the prospect of capitalising from rarity value is likely to persuade several Premiership clubs in particular to rename their existing grounds.

Clubs pursuing such a route could fall foul of supporter sentiment, although O'Donnell believes that if the new name is presented to fans as a financial benefit used to acquire new players, or to improve facilities, the name change becomes more palatable.

London could soon have at least three new stadium names, at Arsenal, Tottenham and Wembley Arena or the Dome. American entertainment billionaire Phillip Anschutz, who is understood to be interested in buying the Dome site or Wembley Arena, is also co-owner of the LA Lakers, who sold their stadium naming rights to Staples Inc for more than £70m, the eighth largest naming rights deal in the world.

The cost of buying and developing one of two London landmarks would almost certainly be offset by the sale of naming rights and this could have a further, inflationary, effect on the rights value of the capital's football club grounds.

It is estimated that the least expensive 10-year naming rights deal in London would currently cost a sponsor £22m. It is a different world for those of us who remember heaving terraces and chanting rudely about the state of opponents' grounds.

God only knows what Reg and Alf would make of playing at the Fast Food Arena or Hot Dog Park.