1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Signage on outfield wall at Wrigley Field

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by ondeadline, Feb 15, 2007.

  1. EE94

    EE94 Guest

    Wrigley is the original corporately named field. It used to be called something else until Wrigley named it after himself and his chewing gum.
    That there is consternation about ads at Wrigley is merely ironic.
     
  2. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Not quite. The stadium has never been named after a corporation.

    It was originally called Weeghman Field after the Chicago Whales owner, Charles Weeghman, who built the park for his Federal League team in 1914. (It is the only Federal League stadium still standing.) He bought the Cubs and moved the team there when the Federal League disbanded after the 1915 season.

    It was renamed Cubs Park in 1920 after William Wrigley took over as majority owner. Wrigley named the stadium after himself in 1926 -- as he named the minor league park in Los Angeles the same -- and it has remained so to this day.

    The Wrigley Building is named after the company. The monument at Wrigley Square was a gift from the company. But the stadium name has nothing to do with the company. It's hazy, but true.
     
  3. EE94

    EE94 Guest

    That's interesting, sincerely.
    But though Wrigley's intent might not have been so crass by today's standards, its splitting hairs a little bit to suggest Wrigley Field didn't help in advertising the company. That was my point.
    Its like a good friend of mine says when people wax nostalgic - Baseball has been a business ever since the Red Sox sold Babe Ruth.
     
  4. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Been a business since long before that. :)

    And that's why Bud Selig's "competitive balance" argument never holds sway with me, either: If that was destroying baseball, you'd think the Browns or the Phillies or the A's or the Braves would have been extinct 50 or 60 or 75 years ago when they were virtually eliminated on Opening Day trying to compete with the high-revenue clubs in New York, Chicago and St. Louis.

    They're all still around, and so is baseball.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page