By Kris Gonzo | Senior West Ham Columnist (Follow on X)
Calls for Sadiq Khan to secure a naming-rights agreement for the London Stadium have intensified, with the venue reportedly capable of generating approximately £4million annually from a sponsor.
A report from Newham Voices says London Assembly member Bassam Mahfouz has urged the Mayor of London to help bring the relevant parties together. West Ham’s relegation is also expected to cost the taxpayer-backed venue another £1.8million.
However, anything the London Stadium can claw back is a drop in the ocean when weighed against the enormous losses it incurs. The same report puts its current annual operating cost to the GLA at around £19million.
A £4million sponsorship deal would be like bailing water out of a hull with an egg cup while wave after wave continues to cascade in.
London Stadium opportunity was missed
The biggest problem with securing naming rights now is that it should have been done much earlier.
There was a point when the venue was known purely as the Olympic Stadium. Even after West Ham moved in, it took supporters — including me — a little while to begin calling it the London Stadium.
Eventually, however, that name stuck. After ten years, it has become firmly embedded in the vernacular of West Ham supporters, broadcasters and the wider public.
Any potential sponsor therefore risks paying millions to rebrand a venue without receiving the benefit of supporters actually using its new name. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that a huge commercial opportunity was missed during the transition from Olympic Stadium to London Stadium.
Claret & Hugh reported in 2016 that a potential agreement with Mahindra could have been worth £4million in cash plus technology contracts. A decade later, the stadium is seemingly still searching for something similar.
The London Stadium won’t be easy to rebrand
Everton acted quickly — and correctly
Everton handled their move very differently. They immediately sold the naming rights to their new home following the departure from Goodison Park, and the venue opened as the Hill Dickinson Stadium.
That agreement is reportedly worth approximately £10million per year. By acting immediately, Everton ensured the commercial name became part of the stadium’s identity from its very beginning.
Tottenham Hotspur also displayed foresight when moving into their new ground. Rather than encouraging supporters to call it “New White Hart Lane”, they used the deliberately functional Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.
That retained a relatively blank canvas should the right naming-rights partner eventually arrive. London Stadium’s owners did not enjoy the same success, despite years of reported discussions with potential sponsors including Mahindra, Vodafone and Allianz.
£4million is chicken feed
Against annual operating costs of around £19million, £4million is chicken feed. And that figure does not begin to tell the whole story of the stadium’s finances.
The stadium’s 2025 accounts eventually revealed a staggering £68.43million group loss once financing costs, depreciation and exceptional expenses were included.
A naming-rights agreement would clearly help, but nobody should pretend it makes the London Stadium financially sustainable. It might plug one hole, but there are plenty more.
West Ham would at least stand to benefit from the right agreement. C&H has previously examined how the concession agreement treats naming-rights income, with the club entitled to a share once the relevant threshold is exceeded.
Interestingly, interim CEO Karim Virani has now told the London Assembly that both West Ham and the stadium are missing out on naming-rights revenue and revealed that he has started constructive discussions on the subject.
That suggests there is at least some willingness from West Ham to find a solution. And it would be fair to say that Khan would find dealing with the likeable Virani preferable to sitting down with Karren Brady.
Brady and the London Mayor never always saw eye to eye
West Ham supporters have bigger concerns
It is impossible to say how supporters would receive another name for the stadium. My suspicion is that most are considerably more concerned by the distance between the stands and the edge of the pitch.
A new sign above the entrance will not improve the sightlines, move supporters closer to the action or suddenly give the stadium the intimacy of a proper football ground.
That is why the possibility of West Ham eventually gaining much greater operational control remains so important. A new long-term stadium arrangement could potentially allow the club to benefit much more significantly from sponsorship, catering and non-football events.
A naming-rights deal would be better than nothing, but nobody should pretend £4million solves the London Stadium problem.
They needed to sell the name a decade ago. Now they need to find a way to fix the stadium.