Wrigley Field Ivy, Brought to You By Under Armour

Arriving just days after Walter Kirn’s rant in the New York Times about the ubiquity of advertising comes the news that Wrigley Field’s ivy will have ads this year.

Since I would have cheerfully sold that sponsorship if I were still working in baseball (“Come on,” I’d have insisted, “the stadium’s named after gum!”) I’m not sure why this bothers me. But it does.

Like what you’re reading? Want to read more? Subscribe here!


Sign up for my blog updates and never miss a post. I'll send you the first two chapters of my new book, Breakthrough Prospecting, as a thank-you.

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

Your Chance to Be Heard -- Comment Here!

3 thoughts on “Wrigley Field Ivy, Brought to You By Under Armour

  1. I’m like you.

    As I read through the article, the move makes sense. It’s not like they’re ripping down the ivy – they’re just using the parts that weren’t covered.

    And I think everyone in Chicago wants the Cubs to win. In fact, it would probably be one of the best things to happen in baseball in a long, long time. So if that means more money (and it does these days), then I will gladly trade a couple of ad-plastered doors for a World Series ring.

    And, it’s the state of the game. It seems like the supply and demand of baseball is severely out of whack. Less fans are going to the games, but owners continue to pay more for the product (namely, the players). So you gotta make up the difference somewhere.

    But for whatever reason, it still bugs me, too.