Playfly, meanwhile, has multimedia rights deals with Baylor and UCF, along with representing Cincinnati and BYU on national sales.
“I think anyone in our business that is buying marketing rights from schools and putting up, in many cases, guaranteed revenues back to the schools and athletic departments have to be considerate of is this devaluing our bids or the value of what we would be buying should this be allowed to continue to occur to where there’s consolidation [of rights],” Playfly CEO Craig Sloan told SBJ. “I don’t think the individual schools win in that case.”
Learfield provided SBJ the following statement when asked about the Big 12’s deal with Monster and potential ramifications it might have:
“Based on discussions with the conference, it is our understanding that this is a naming rights sponsorship of Big 12 football and basketball, and that this new patch simply replaces the current conference patch on football and basketball jerseys. In only six months, we have successfully sold and announced several jersey patch deals with Big 12 partners, and we look forward to continuing that successful track record within the Big 12 and beyond.”
The other crucial nuance brought up by multiple league sources around the Monster deal is its impact on individual schools’ pouring rights agreements.
Around half of the Big 12’s 16 members have deals with Pepsi, per data compiled by AD Vantage, including Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State and TCU. Any required activations that would be part of the conference’s agreement with Monster -- which is partially owned by Coca-Cola -- could thus create issues around exclusivity within those contracts.
Sources said the Big 12 also communicated with Nike and Adidas throughout the process.
“We want to partner with big brands that not only come with the appropriate financial resources, but can activate us and help grow the Big 12 profile and narrative,” Yormark said. “It’s critically important that we do both.”
