Naming rights

The Adelaide Hills Council’s decision not to allow clubs to offer naming rights for council-owned sporting grounds as part of sponsorship arrangements is a move that could impact some clubs’ sustainability.

While it appears only clubs using three of the council’s 11 sports grounds are potentially impacted, the move risks putting additional strain on the finances of affected clubs.

These are grassroots community groups that, aside from being possible starting points for the national and international sporting legends of tomorrow, are, in many cases, part of the fabric and identity of their communities.

Local clubs face a multitude of pressures to stay afloat, ranging from funds to make it through each year or season, to attracting new players.

And the council’s policy change could be one more pressure that they don’t need.

We’ve already seen the impact that not allowing venue naming rights had at the Mt Barker Council’s Summit Sport and Recreation Park and, while it wasn’t necessarily the biggest problem clubs had with those grounds, it was one of the reasons some clubs didn’t want to play home games there.

The reasons given by the Adelaide Hills Council for no longer allowing clubs to change the names of council-owned ovals – that it could be confusing for emergency services – is understandable on some level.

But ovals and parks all across SA are named after sponsors.

It would be interesting to see whether the council’s decision has been informed by data or experiences at other ovals to that affect.

It will also be interesting to see if the council specifically discussed its naming rights position with oval users prior to the implementation of its new community and recreation facilities policy, or if that got lost in the conversations about turf maintenance funding, which, at the time, was a contentious issue.

It’s unclear yet how big the impact of this change will be and whether it will jeopardise or lower the value of sponsorship agreements.

But this is something the council needs to monitor, and it needs to be willing to consider reversing or changing its position if it proves damaging to the viability of local clubs.