Citi Bank Not Nixing Mets Sponsorship

Considering that Citi Bank was one of many banks on the receiving end of some of the $45 billion that the government had given as part of the TARP bailout, there were a lot of people who took offense to the fact that the bank was still planning on using $400 million to put their name on the new Mets ballpark, Citi Field, for the next 20 years.

Even Congress got in on the act, as well they should considering they approved the bailout, saying that the bank should pull out of its sponsorship of the stadium. On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported ($) that Citi was thinking of backing out of the deal, which has been refuted by both the Mets and Citigroup.

Citigroup Inc.'s $400 million naming rights deal for the new Mets stadium is in no danger of disappearing despite a angry bailout backlash, team officials insisted Tuesday.

Citigroup executives called to reiterate their commitment to the deal after a report in the Wall Street Journal that the package was in jeopardy, said David Howard, Mets executive vice president for operations.

Here's the AP release on Citigroup's denial of the story.

Personally I don't know enough about the world of banking and advertising to give an accurate statement on whether or not paying $400 million over 20 years is a sound investment for the bank. I just know that every time I hear the name Citi Field I'm not going to be thinking "I should open a checking account at Citi Bank!" as much as I'll be thinking "Oh, that's where the Mets play."

I also know that the idea of a bank using my tax dollars to put their name on a stadium just doesn't sit right with me.