In the summer of 2013, as Crystal Palace were preparing to return to the Premier League, a blurry image started circulating on Twitter. I remember it well. The picture showed a stadium map outside the club’s Selhurst Park, only it wasn’t for Selhurst Park anymore – it was for the 12Bet Stadium.

As you can probably imagine, Palace fans across social media didn’t respond kindly to the prospect of their much-beloved home being renamed after a bookmaker based in the Isle of Man. A week or so later, the club confirmed a deal with 12Bet, referring to the gambling company as their new stadium sponsor, but without going as far as granting the firm the naming rights to the venue.

Palace supporters still speculate to this day whether that image was planted to gauge fan sentiment or if the club simply reworked the deal following the negative reaction.

@CEO4TAG is this the big announcement that you still have announced? #cpfc #12betstadium pic.twitter.com/0VL9YMbK2n

I couldn’t help but think of the curious case of the 12Bet Stadium this time last week, when Premier League side Brentford announced home appliances manufacturer Gtech – or Grey Technology Limited – as the naming rights sponsor of their Community Stadium for the next ten years.

The West Londoners, who described the agreement as the largest sponsorship deal in their history, are now one of only six current Premier League teams whose stadium has been renamed for a sponsor. According to a 2019 report from US-based consultancy firm Duff and Phelps, clubs in English soccer’s top flight at the time were missing out on close to UK£100 million in stadium naming rights.

All of this begs the question: why, in a competition where teams are rarely shy of driving as much revenue as possible, don’t more clubs have sponsors for their stadiums?

Naming rights deals are almost an inevitability in the US, where, with a few exceptions, franchises across the major leagues have a sponsor for their stadium, in some cases earning annual eight-figure sums for long-term agreements. But it is more of a tradition in that market, where venues have been used to promote company names since the early 1900s, when the Boston Red Sox Fenway Park doubled as an advertising platform for its owner’s real estate company.

Contrast that with the UK (and even Europe more broadly), where the majority of Premier League naming rights deals in recent times – Brentford’s included – have been struck for new stadiums whose monikers are not etched in the club’s history. Venues such as Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium, Manchester City’s Etihad Stadium and Brighton’s Amex have only ever really been known as that, meaning there is likely to be less resistance from fans.

Try to slap a brand on a stadium that has been around for decades, however, and expect to be greeted by uproar. The 12Bet Stadium is one example, but there was even greater disdain in 2011 when Newcastle’s much-maligned former owner Mike Ashley decided to attach the name of his Sports Direct business to St James’ Park.

Even in that short-lived instance, though, people continued to refer to the venue by its original name. Potential sponsors, therefore, are probably aware of the fact that their brand will never come to be truly associated with the more traditional European venues – even if they have an official deal in place.

Indeed, it is difficult to imagine Barcelona’s Nou Camp being referred to as ‘The Spotify’ anytime soon, despite the music company’s reported €280 million sponsorship deal with the Spanish club. That is perhaps why only €5 million of that figure is reportedly being spent on the stadium naming rights, with the Swedish firm seemingly seeing far more value in having its logo on the team’s shirts.

So while the likes of Brentford and potentially Tottenham Hotspur in the near future might have an opportunity to cash in on their new homes, don’t expect to see many other Premier League clubs rushing to sell off their stadium names anytime soon.

Barcelona’s home ground has a new name but will fans refer to it as anything other than Camp Nou?

England’s 2-1 win over Germany in the final of the Uefa Women’s Euros has been the catalyst for a carousel of articles about the commercial opportunities the victory will create for the Lionesses – and so it should.

Speaking to my colleague Ed Dixon earlier this week, M&C Saatchi’s Jenny Mitton said that the Lionesses have provided “a platform for brands to talk to the nation” and predicted that sponsors already involved in the women’s game will start to strike individual deals with players.

The success of the Euros will also likely have brands considering entering women’s soccer through other avenues, but there was a reminder last week that doing so will bring extra scrutiny.

In the build-up to Sunday’s game the female-led Talented Ladies Club created a guerrilla campaign with the Truant London advertising agency which highlighted the gender pay gap at some of the companies sponsoring the Women’s Euros.

It was particularly bad publicity for Booking.com, where a woman receives just 58 cents for every euro a man earns. The campaign also called out the likes of TikTok, LinkedIn, Volkswagen, Adidas and Visa. As I wrote in a recent feature on the SportsPro website, it goes to show that the gender pay gap is an issue that far transcends sport.

But perhaps another positive legacy of the current rise of the women’s game can be that companies thinking about sponsoring a female athlete or property will be stirred to get their own house in order before signing a deal built on values of equality – or else risk being exposed further down the line.

Hey @Bookingcom, you sponsor the #WomensEuros2022. But for every Euro a man earns at your company, a woman earns just 58 cents. Isn’t it time to close the #genderpaygap and #PayFair? https://t.co/Nb2h4N93mJ pic.twitter.com/LyBVwI8Cn3

There are some early signs of what MLB teams might be getting for their jersey patch deals. The Boston Red Sox have reportedly signed an agreement with insurance company MassMutual that works out at around US$17 million.

Some studies had suggested that MLB patch deals would be worth more than those in the NBA but I’m not so sure. The Red Sox are one of the biggest-market teams in American baseball and their agreement comes in at a similar price to the US$20 million the Golden State Warriors, whose own partnership is among the most lucrative in basketball, reportedly receive from Rakuten. Legends, which has been tasked with securing a patch sponsor for the New York Yankees, is eyeing an agreement worth similar to a top-tier naming rights deal.

MLB’s commercial teams have an obvious advantage in that their franchises play nearly double the amount of games as NBA sides, which means more inventory. Sponsors of MLB teams are also likely to be on screen for longer given that the patches are located on the shoulders of the players, meaning they will be facing the camera when they are at the plate.

However, I’d expect the value to be balanced out by the NBA’s general popularity and broader global reach, so wouldn’t be surprised if the most valuable deals in MLB ended up around the same.

Premier League clubs have been busy signing new and extended deals ahead of the 2022/23 campaign. Reigning champions Manchester City have been particularly active, prolonging their relationships with Acronis and Gatorade.

Everton, meanwhile, announced three deals this week: a new sleeve sponsorship with BOXT, an agreement with digital wearables company Fancurve and an expanded tie-up with their global tyre partner Davanti.

If you want more Premier League sponsorship stuff, be sure to check out our annual commercial guide, which went live on Friday.

Want this feature delivered directly to your inbox every other Thursday? Sign up to the SportsPro sponsorship and marketing newsletter here.