Can Other Multi-Sport Events Learn From It?

In a groundbreaking move, LA28 will be able to sell venue naming rights during its Olympics and Paralympics — a change that marks a significant shift from the IOC’s longstanding policy and that stands to bring in an additional revenue stream.

This marks a bold step in Olympic commercial strategy — but can it really deliver the breakthrough revenue LA28 is hoping for? Even in the world’s most successful leagues, stadium naming rights are far from a guaranteed win. The Premier League is Europe’s commercial powerhouse — yet only six clubs currently have stadium naming sponsors. Tottenham Hotspur’s state-of-the-art, 62,850-seater stadium remains unsponsored more than five years after opening.

Why? Because naming rights only work if a sponsor’s brand becomes part of the everyday language of fans, media, and the public. That’s difficult enough when a venue is permanent. It becomes even more challenging for a temporary venue that exists for just a few weeks.

LA28 comes strongly out of the blocks, as the change has already drawn commitments from two sponsors: the Honda Center will retain its name during Games time, while the Comcast Squash Center at Universal Studios will become the first named temporary venue.

Cultural Context Matters

In the U.S., naming rights are part of the landscape. Brands commit for 15–20 years, giving fans and journalists time to adopt the new name. In Europe, resistance is stronger. Tradition often wins, and even where sponsors are in place, commentators and fans sometimes avoid using the branded name.

This illustrates a core challenge for LA28’s approach: introducing naming rights to up to 19 temporary venues, alongside permanent ones like SoFi Stadium and the Intuit Dome.

The LA28 Equation

The logic is clear. U.S. brands are used to long-term naming rights investments, and the Games need new revenue streams to meet ambitious commercial targets. But the big question is: will these deals truly deliver breakthrough media value?

• International exposure? Unlikely. Journalists covering the Games are more likely to default to neutral names like “the basketball arena” than to adopt temporary sponsor titles.
• Domestic benefit? More promising. Existing naming partners, particularly for high-profile venues like SoFi Stadium, could use LA28 as a platform to extend visibility and engage local audiences.

The U.S. Market Reality

The dominance of North America in this space is clear. According to SPOBIS, seven of the ten most lucrative naming rights deals in sport are U.S.-based. Los Angeles plays a special role: three of the top ten are LA28 venues — SoFi Stadium, Intuit Dome, and Crypto.com Arena.

Yet, none of the LA venues naming rights partners are currently part of the LA28 partnership family. Wasserman, LA28’s chairman, has framed this as an opportunity:

“For temporary venues, what a great opportunity for TOPs to have a real meaningful way to plus up their investment, as well as our partners or the potential partners.”

It’s a compelling pitch. The question is whether global IOC TOP sponsors — many of whom do not currently invest heavily in venue naming — will view this as a priority. Of the top 10 venue deals worldwide, only Allianz (a current LA28 partner) appears.

The Pricing Puzzle

Wasserman has spoken of nine-figure price tags, stressing that quality and credibility require “real pricing power.” But market benchmarks suggest caution.

• SoFi Stadium’s deal: $400m over 20 years (~$30m annually).
• Crypto.com Arena: widely reported at $700m over 20 years (~$35m annually).

If permanent naming rights in prime markets sit around $30m per year, it is unlikely that a temporary event-based deal will reach that in isolation. Even if it is for a once in a lifetime opportunity like the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Instead, these new rights are best seen as incremental value — bundled with other assets to help LA28 reach its ambitious revenue targets. As Wasserman himself noted, “anything we get from our perspective is a win.”

A Hidden Advantage: Avoiding the “Clean Venue” Cost

Sport Business Journal recently reported on the time-consuming and costly process of creating ‘clean’ venues — a requirement FIFA is enforcing at the 2026 World Cup. At Atlanta’s Mercedes-Benz Stadium alone, an estimated 2,000 commercial elements will need to be covered. The goal is sponsor exclusivity, but the result is high cost, operational headaches, and significant waste.

For LA28, integrating existing naming partners as sponsors flips this equation:

• Revenue generation from a new asset.
• Cost savings by avoiding expensive venue “clean sweeps.”
• Sustainability gains by reducing waste from covering and replacing thousands of branded elements.
• Operational efficiency by cutting a labour-intensive process.

This turns naming rights from a pure commercial play into a strategic operational tool.

Lessons for Other Multi-Sport Events

The bigger question is whether this model can be exported. Could the World Games, Universiade, or Special Olympics benefit from venue naming rights?

Probably not as a standalone driver. The international breakthrough value is limited. But as part of a broader package — tickets, hospitality, back-of-house access, and activation opportunities — naming rights could add value for domestic sponsors.

Beyond Branding: Financial Sustainability

This is ultimately about economics. Multi-sport events face mounting costs, and financial sustainability requires fresh revenue streams. Critics may dislike further commercialization, but the reality is clear: without innovation, the economics of mega-events are increasingly fragile.

Naming rights at LA28 won’t be a silver bullet. But they represent a willingness to test boundaries, adapt to local market realities, and rethink how operational and commercial strategies intersect.

The genie is out of the bottle. The challenge is to learn quickly: to define what naming rights can deliver in a multi-sport context, and to accept where their limits lie.