The Premier League is a "global powerhouse," according to John Shaw of MARKETING MAGAZINE. It was founded less than 25 years ago and is now the "second-biggest sports league in the world behind the NFL." It has "transformed and modernised football in England." It is "respected the world over." It is "a beast." Surprising, then, that "it is retiring (let’s not say ‘killing off’) the beast that has adorned its logo and been a symbol of its success since before Harry Kane was born." It "had done nothing wrong, and more than a few people have protested." Equally surprisingly, the Premier League will go into the '16-17 season "without a title sponsor." These "are big changes, but why change a formula that has been so monumentally successful?" Well, it is "not all changing." The heart of the name "is staying the same." It remains the Premier League (or even the Premiership) "played in England by some of the world's best footballers." It has its own identity and power, "and this success means that elements that have become unnecessary -- a symbolic lion, and a business sponsor, can now be stripped away." The lack of a title sponsor "could be seen as a weakness" but in fact it is a "sign of strength, whether or not it stays that way forever." First of all, it is "affordable." Even a £200M ($285M) sponsorship "would only be contributing a 2.5% drop in the ocean" compared to the £8B ($11.4B) broadcast rights, and "not having a title sponsor frees up other partnership opportunities and a whole lot of inventory." Finally, it is "not something that particularly pleases the fans." A straw poll of Daily Telegraph readers showed around 40% against having a title sponsor, and another 30% who "couldn’t care less." £200M "is a lot to you and me, but if it makes it even slightly harder to build a brilliant Premier League brand, it’s not worth it" (MARKETING MAGAZINE, 1/22).
