Skip to content

AEG finalizes $700 million naming-rights deal for L.A. stadium

101215_downtown_nfl_stadium_aeg

In the clearest indication yet that the NFL will return to Los Angeles sooner rather than later, the group hoping to build a football stadium in downtown L.A. will announce Tuesday a naming-rights deal with Farmers Insurance, according to Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times.

The 30-year agreement carries a value of $700 million.  In the first year, Farmers Insurance will pay $20 million, with the amount growing each year thereafter.

The possibility of a naming-rights arrangement with Farmers Insurance was first reported last month by Peter King of Sports Illustrated.

The stadium, if constructed, will be named “Farmers Field.”

As Farmer (not Farmers) points out, the folks at AEG have turned the typical time line upside down.  But the move demonstrates the viability of the project and creates momentum.

Farmer (not Farmers) will appear on Tuesday’s ProFootballTalk Live to discuss the status of the project, the possible demise of the competing project in City of Industry, the team(s) that may play there, and other issues relevant to the return of the N.F.L. to L.A.

Permalink 37 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Buffalo Bills, Minnesota Vikings, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, San Francisco 49ers, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, St. Louis Rams, Top Stories
37 Responses to “AEG finalizes $700 million naming-rights deal for L.A. stadium”
  1. realitypolice says: Feb 1, 2011 7:39 AM

    When talk of this stadium first started and people on here were saying it would never happen because LA can’t support a team, the traffic downtown would be too bad, blah blah blah, I told you that no one gets rich betting against Philip Anschutz.

    When it comes to business deals, he typically gets what he wants.

    There will be a new stadium and convention center in downtown LA, so everyone should just get their heads around that.

    And for any city dragging their feet on new stadiums, the consequences are getting very real.

  2. danksteady says: Feb 1, 2011 7:43 AM

    “Farmers Field” in the middle of L.A………. Great way to start this blunder.

  3. krow101 says: Feb 1, 2011 7:57 AM

    Other naming options were Jaguar Stadium, Viking Field, and Raider Old Age Home.

  4. hodag54501 says: Feb 1, 2011 8:02 AM

    So…the Los Angeles Vikings or the Los Angeles Jaguars….?
    It would be fitting that the Minnesota professional football franchise follow the Minnesota basketball franchise to Los Angeles.

    If neither franchise moves, it could be the LA Reefers at Farmers Field with a pot plant as a logo.

  5. chapnastier says: Feb 1, 2011 8:02 AM

    Introducing your Los Angeles Vikings!

  6. joepags says: Feb 1, 2011 8:06 AM

    wow!! another LA sports team with more seats than fans!!!! cause thats smart!

  7. waccoforflacco says: Feb 1, 2011 8:07 AM

    Los Angeles Vikings has a nice ring to it. As went the Lakers…so go the Vikings. Maybe the Minnesota politicians can use their collapsed dome as a new land fill.

  8. baseballstars says: Feb 1, 2011 8:10 AM

    LA already had their chance at an NFL franchise.

  9. bigblue86 says: Feb 1, 2011 8:16 AM

    So a stadium that doesn’t yet exist and that has no tenants has a name, yet out here in NYC we are stuck with The New Meadowland Stadium as a name?!? Really!?!

  10. tombrookshire says: Feb 1, 2011 8:24 AM

    Almost a billion in premium payments for the rights to name a non-existent stadium. Another financial institution suffering through recesssion! Did Farmers get any bailout money?

  11. 5chw4r7z says: Feb 1, 2011 8:30 AM

    There are a couple million people in South West Ohio praying for the LA Bengals

  12. MinnesnowtaJagsFan says: Feb 1, 2011 8:33 AM

    Pretty funny that the Jaguars weren’t even tagged in this post…hope the Chargers like their new LA stadium.

  13. smalltownbigcincy says: Feb 1, 2011 8:39 AM

    LA Bengals? :P

  14. righthereisay says: Feb 1, 2011 8:40 AM

    I’m coming to the conclusion that Farmer’s Insurance has high overhead. Maybe if I had their policy I would go looking for a better deal.

  15. zappa69 says: Feb 1, 2011 8:49 AM

    @ chapnastier,

    I’m a big Vikes fan and have been since my childhood in the 60’s. I live in New York and would love to see the team move to a state that would back them. L.A. Vikings has a nice ring to it. Looking forward to going to one game a year in Cali! My daughter has become a Vikes fan, I tell her “get ready for a life of misery and almosts”. Feel bad that I pushed the kids into being Vikes fans, but maybe their luck will change in a different state. I’m married to the team not the state.

  16. ohenry78 says: Feb 1, 2011 8:51 AM

    As a Packer fan, I hate the Vikings. I still wouldn’t want them to move to LA though. It’s far too fun having someone so close to home to hate so much.

  17. jimmysee says: Feb 1, 2011 8:55 AM

    When the Vikings move, an obvious new team name would be the “Haymakers!”

  18. no1billsfan says: Feb 1, 2011 9:01 AM

    You may now remove the Buffalo Bills tag from this article. Not happening!

  19. recon163 says: Feb 1, 2011 9:03 AM

    No team and no stadium yet LA can command a $700 million dollar naming deal? Wow.

  20. duece5 says: Feb 1, 2011 9:12 AM

    I give Al Davis about 3 months to pop his head and team into LA again.

    Bottom line-LA has NEVER supported, long-term an NFL franchise….2 teams have alreday tried and failed….one to ST Louis and the other back to Oakland……LA just needs to make movies…..

  21. cup1981 says: Feb 1, 2011 9:21 AM

    How many times will L.A. get the chance to screw up an NFL franchise… This will be the fourth time ugh [Rams, Raiders and Chargers]. Do they really need another one?

  22. recon163 says: Feb 1, 2011 9:22 AM

    @ duece5:

    “Bottom line-LA has NEVER supported, long-term an NFL franchise….”

    Yeah the Rams were only in town for 48 years. What do you consider “long term”?

  23. recon163 says: Feb 1, 2011 9:53 AM

    @ realitypolice:

    “There will be a new stadium and convention center in downtown LA, so everyone should just get their heads around that.”

    I think the Roski initiative is still ahead of Anschutz because the Industry site has all the approvals in place.

    But if AEG gets those approvals it is over.

  24. blaz0037 says: Feb 1, 2011 9:59 AM

    Only California would beleive they deserve another professional sports franchise.

    Raiders, 49ers, Chargers, Lakers, Warriors, Clippers, Kings, Angels, Giants, Dodgers, Padres, A’s, Ducks, Kings, and Sharks. (I assume there are more I’m missing)

    Not to mention all the FAILED franchises.

  25. blaz0037 says: Feb 1, 2011 10:00 AM

    and trust me, the Vikings will not be moving to LA. You can WRITE IT DOWN

  26. giantrobot666 says: Feb 1, 2011 10:03 AM

    I hate when stories about a possible return of the NFL to Los Angeles come up on PFT. All of you experts come out of the woodwork spewing rehashed b.s. that you once read or heard about Los Angeles.

    A lot of people live here and a lot of us want the NFL back. Many of us were also under the age of 14 when the Raiders and Rams left, and really weren’t in any position to spend money to keep out teams here.

    Regardless of what you experts think, we want the NFL here, and it will be supported.

  27. jaybaileys says: Feb 1, 2011 10:22 AM

    I wonder if enough customers will leave Farmer’s to protest that outrageous deal. I would be calling demanding a reduction in rates if I was a customer of theirs. Nearly a billion for friggin naming rights, why not just buy a damn team!

  28. realitypolice says: Feb 1, 2011 11:08 AM

    @recon163:

    I agree that Roski is ahead right now.

    But that’s kind of like saying a golfer that is in the clubhouse at -5 is “ahead” of Phil Mickleson who is only -4 under but has three par 5’s still left to play.

    It’s possible the other guy could win, but who are you betting on?

  29. recon163 says: Feb 1, 2011 11:22 AM

    @ blaz0037:

    “Only California would beleive they deserve another professional sports franchise.”

    Californians don’t believe they deserve anything from professional sports.

    However, as a business, it is very hard to argue with 37 million potential customers. As Roski likes to point out, draw a 30 mile circle from the Industry stadium site and in that circle 1 out of every 19 people in the US lives there. That makes LA a very attractive proposition.

    “Not to mention all the FAILED franchises.”

    The failed franchise argument is interesting. What makes a failed franchise? Is it because they moved?

  30. recon163 says: Feb 1, 2011 11:32 AM

    @ realitypolice:

    “I agree that Roski is ahead right now. But that’s kind of like saying a golfer that is in the clubhouse at -5 is “ahead” of Phil Mickleson who is only -4 under but has three par 5′s still left to play.”

    Well your analogy is not exactly accurate. It is more like a golfer is in the clubhouse at -5 and Phil is making the turn at -1.

    Remember Anschutz still has to convince the city it won’t cost them a thing, get them to agree to tear down the West Hall of the CCenter, get an EIR approved, avoid any lawsuits because of the EIR or get legislative exemption. Long way to go and still plenty of landmines to avoid.

    “It’s possible the other guy could win, but who are you betting on?”

    It is more like, ‘it is still possible AEG will win’. Right now Roski has the upper hand. If he can convince a team to move to his stadium before AEG can get any of the previously mentioned approvals, his stadium will get built first. Whoever wins is immaterial to me.

    This naming rights deal just proves the power of the LA market, which is a win for all of us LA NFL fans.

  31. realitypolice says: Feb 1, 2011 12:17 PM

    @recon163:

    You make great points, and are obviously better tied into the local area than I.

    Taking a more macro view of the situation, I would put Anschutz closer to Roski than you do, for a couple of reasons:

    1) Whichever of these stadiums get built, they will be built in vein of the new Cowboys stadium, which features over 300 suites. I think the type of people they will be looking for to fill those suites would be much more attracted to a downtown stadium than one in COI.

    2) I feel fairly certain that Roger Goodell would rather have a team downtown. Just seems to fit much better with his overall vision. He could exert enormous pressure on owners not to do a deal with Roski, and let it be known through channels that only a downtown stadium gets a Super Bowl.

    Facts as they currently stand may favor Roski, but if I were an investor and both these guys were pitching me right now, my gut would still say to go in with Anschutz.

  32. timbo51 says: Feb 1, 2011 12:35 PM

    So long my beloved Chargers!! You will be banished back to your original home. I will miss the 15 minute trolley ride it took to attend your games. : (

    If only the Chargers and the city could reach a mutual agreement to build a new stadium here in SD!

  33. ticewasbetter says: Feb 1, 2011 2:12 PM

    And yet you still refuse to write stories on the Viking reports of the Arden Hills ammunition plant site, the fact that its been reported that Viking officials have met with Ramsey county officials for more then a year, the fact that Julie Rosen (R) will be authoring a bill to come forward in a week or two, the fact that Governor Dayton wants this bill to be brought forward BEFORE the task of balancing the budget, and the fact that a liquor tax/car rental/ hotel rental and Racino money to be used to fund that stadium would likely pass with a republican house and a democratic governor.

    Or the fact that the Vikings have been looking at three downtown minneapolis sites, one in Brooklyn center, and the Arden Hills site, yes, the Vikings could move… to a different site in Minnesota.

    Or the fact even Rodger Godell has met with Dayton, toured the metrodome before the TCF Bank game, and has said he wants to keep the tradition of the Vikings in Minnesota and the NFL rivalries in the North. Even Godell has publicly spoken on wanting the Vikings case resolved in Minnesota.

    Or the fact LA Stadium luring Liewkie and AEG have Publicly said they have spoken with the Vikings and understand the team wants to stay in Minnesota and has said ‘no thanks’ to LA.

    Keep dreaming LA-Viking wanna-be’s, we’re keeping our team. Jacksonville is keeping theirs, no way the NFL lets the Bills leave Buffalo. I’d worry Charger fans.

  34. smarterthana5thgrader says: Feb 1, 2011 4:29 PM

    blaz0037 says:
    Feb 1, 2011 9:59 AM
    Only California would beleive they deserve another professional sports franchise.

    Raiders, 49ers, Chargers, Lakers, Warriors, Clippers, Kings, Angels, Giants, Dodgers, Padres, A’s, Ducks, Kings, and Sharks. (I assume there are more I’m missing)

    Not to mention all the FAILED franchises.
    — — — —
    The 3 main sports leagues that are followed in America are (not in particular order) the NFL, MLB, and the NBA… In your list of “FAILED franchises” you just named 2 of those 3 sports reigning champions… If winning is failing, then we love failing out here in Cali.

  35. seewise says: Feb 1, 2011 4:31 PM

    Why all you Viking haters, I am taking names, why cheer on a state having their team, which sells out all the time, taken from them. Your No viking fan if you want this, even if you did just move to LA.

  36. recon163 says: Feb 1, 2011 11:29 PM

    @ realitypolice:

    Let the games begin!

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-aeg-20110202,0,7964050.story

  37. bobby619 says: Feb 8, 2011 2:56 AM

    St. Louis fans are nervous about this! They should be! LA Rams will happen! Say what you want, but Stan the man & Tim are smart business buddies!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!