Back in the day when the Metropolitan Football Stadium District was soliciting bids for naming rights to Mile High Stadium, the three loudest and most persistent opponents of the idea were a brewpub owner named John Hickenlooper, then-Mayor Wellington Webb, and this newspaper’s editorial page.
One editorial in 2001, for example, called the eventual contract with Invesco “the worst deal since the character in Popeye cartoons offered: ‘I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.’ That character’s name: Wimpy. His spirit lives on in the Invesco offer that we can easily refuse.”
Another editorial suggested that “in the spirit of the Truth in Labeling Law,” the stadium be named “Ripoff at Mile High.”
Meanwhile, Hickenlooper raised money to commission a poll to gauge public opinion about selling naming rights, since the district seemed reluctant to measure popular attitudes despite a legislative mandate that they be taken into account.
Needless to say, the poll confirmed that a large majority of residents favored keeping the Mile High Stadium name.
But of course the anti-naming-rights alliance did not prevail. The district entered into a $120 million deal with Invesco to be paid over 20 years, with half of it going to the Broncos.
And when Invesco found itself in turbulent financial waters in 2011, Sports Authority took over the contract’s obligations.
And it’s possible — though hardly certain — that it too might be forced to give up its stadium sponsorship to another company.
Meanwhile, that “after 15 years of having a corporate name on the stadium, it’s time to get back to our civic roots.”
After all, he insisted, the “Mile High Stadium name is priceless for the city, region and even the team. That tagline is our identity and our pride.”
He’s got a point, and we have no doubt that most local residents would agree. Indeed, The Denver Post’s decidedly unscientific online poll on the topic showed 93 percent of respondents preferring Mile High.
There is just one problem, though: Who would provide the stadium district with the $3.6 million due on Aug. 1 from Sports Authority? This income boost, and the annual payments due through the end of the contract, is not only important at the moment, it will become increasingly vital as the stadium ages and maintenance costs balloon.
District spokesman Matt Sugar told us that as recently as four years ago, the repair and replacement capital budget at the stadium was $606,000. That figure has grown each year to the point that the board just approved a $4.8 million capital budget this year, and projects $5.8 million will be needed next year.
“Over time there is more to do” to maintain and upgrade the stadium, he explained.
Webb suggested that Broncos General Manager John Elway reward the best fans in football “by giving us back our stadium name.” But the idea that Elway would have his organization, as well-heeled as it is, shoulder the district’s lost revenue just doesn’t seem plausible.
Having fought the good fight 15 years ago, naming-rights opponents reluctantly raised the white flag. There is no way to pull it back down now.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.