It has not been voted on or formally proposed yet, but a bipartisan effort to increase federal spending on infrastructure could be coming in the near future.
President Trump and congressional Democrats met in April to pledge $2 trillion in infrastructure project spending over the next decade. There does not appear to be a plan to pay for it — not that this has stopped the federal government from overspending in the 21st century. But if the federal government (as well as state and local governments) want a modest boost in infrastructure funding, they should do what pro sports stadiums do: sell the naming rights to their infrastructure.
No, this would not generate $2 trillion over the next decade. It might not come anywhere near that mark. The Trump-Pelosi infrastructure deal aside, selling naming rights could possibly raise billions and be a small piece in offsetting infrastructure costs for taxpayers. The government should take advantage of this free money.
There are hundreds of professional sports venues in the United States, most of which earn some revenue simply by letting a sponsor have the name of their facility. In pristine locations, naming rights for venues like Citi Field, home of the New York Mets; Mercedes-Benz Stadium, which hosts the Atlanta Falcons; and MetLife Stadium, where both the New York Jets and Giants play; fetch more than $10 million annually, according to Sports Business Daily.
Keep in mind, the state of Georgia owns Mercedes-Benz Stadium and New York City’s government owns Citi Field. Yes, they were terrible government investments and prime examples of crony capitalism, but they exemplify governments using naming rights sales to accumulate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue over the next few decades.
This strategy could be replicated with existing government-owned infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels, highways, and more. Couldn’t I-90, I-80, I-70, I-40, and I-10, which run from coast to coast, be named something else and serve the exact same purpose? What difference would it make if one of them were named, perhaps, Coca-Cola Highway, Pepsi Highway, or RC Cola Highway? The government would have more money in its coffers at no cost to the taxpayer.
It could also work for local highways, some of which already charge people and companies small fees to “Adopt-a-Highway.” While the primary purpose of this is to pick up litter from the side of the road, slices of highway are marked with signs for who adopted them. Washington state, for example, charges businesses anywhere between $300-$900 monthly to put a sign up and be responsible for around two miles worth of road. That’s fine, but states could be thinking bigger picture as well: sell the entire highway’s naming rights, possibly in addition to the existing programs.
Cities like Philadelphia and San Diego have already sold the naming rights to public transit stations and rail lines, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility for bidders to go for a tunnel or a bridge either.
As for national landmarks like the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam, their names should be off limits. But perhaps in a city like Boston, where former House Speaker Tip O’Neill has a federal building and a tunnel (opened in 2003) named after him, the city could lease out the tunnel’s name. O’Neill might be a popular figure in Massachusetts, but fans should be able to live with one government property named after him instead of two.
Infrastructure has to be paid for somehow. If deals with businesses that benefit taxpayers can be reached, the government should take the money.
Tom Joyce (@TomJoyceSports) is a freelance writer who has been published with USA Today, the Boston Globe, Newsday, ESPN, the Detroit Free Press, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Federalist, and a number of other media outlets.
