Why Are Tax-Exempt Credit Unions Buying Stadium Naming Rights?

College football is back, bringing packed stadiums, rivalry games, and...a growing number of tax-exempt credit unions buying some of the most visible real estate in sports.

That should raise eyebrows. Stadium naming rights and major athletic sponsorships are expensive brand campaigns designed to expand visibility, gain market share, and compete for customers on a commercial scale.

New data shows how far this trend has gone. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, tax-exempt credit unions spent a combined $155.2 million on advertising and promotions. Credit unions also account for roughly one-third of the top 15 college sports naming-rights agreements—a remarkable share for institutions whose special tax treatment was built around a limited, member-focused mission.

The subsidy stayed. The business model changed.

Credit unions received their federal tax exemption because they were supposed to be different: local, member-owned cooperatives serving people of modest means who share a common bond.

Many of today’s largest credit unions have moved far beyond that model. They advertise broadly and pursue major sponsorships, operate across regions, and compete directly with taxpaying banks. Their marketing strategy looks increasingly commercial, while their tax treatment remains rooted in a mission-based model that no longer fits the facts.

CommunityAmerica is a case study in mission drift.

The naming-rights agreement between CommunityAmerica Credit Union and the University of Arkansas is a clear example. Published reports have valued the deal at as much as $70 million over 14 years, potentially placing a Kansas City-area credit union’s name on a major SEC football stadium.

Sponsorships may be routine in college sports, but this one raises a larger policy question: why is a tax-exempt credit union spending tens of millions of dollars to build its brand in a new market? That is not member service. It’s a business-growth strategy, and it deserves careful scrutiny by policymakers.

CommunityAmerica is part of a larger pattern. Across the country, large credit unions are using sports marketing to build their brands, widen their geographic reach, and signal that they are competing well beyond any narrow membership field.

Congress should ask the obvious question.

It has been more than twenty years since Congress last held a hearing devoted to credit unions. Since then, the industry’s largest players have grown dramatically, and some credit unions now operate with the scale, reach, and ambition of full-service commercial competitors.

When a tax-exempt institution can spend tens of millions of dollars putting its name on a college football stadium, Congress should ask whether the public subsidy still makes sense. Oversight is long overdue. Federal policy gives credit unions billions of dollars in tax advantages based on a mission-centered model. Lawmakers should determine whether the institutions receiving that benefit still reflect the mission used to justify it.

At a time when Congress is examining whether long-standing rules in college sports still make sense, lawmakers should also take a closer look at how tax-exempt credit unions are using their federal subsidy. Few expected professional athletes to test the boundaries of college eligibility, just as few expected credit unions to use a tax advantage designed for member-focused institutions to put their names on some of college football’s biggest venues. Both developments raise the same basic question: when the facts change, should the rules change too?

The bottom line

As fans settle in for another season, policymakers should pay attention to the credit union names showing up on scoreboards, stadiums, and sponsorship announcements. Nonprofit institutions spending heavily on building regional or national brands should expect basic questions about mission and accountability.

Credit unions were created to serve their members. They were not created to underwrite a sports-marketing arms race while retaining tax advantages designed for a very different kind of institution. If large credit unions want to compete like commercial financial institutions, Congress should examine whether they should continue receiving special treatment.