What’s in a name? To some, it is no more than random words made up out of random letters. To others, it is a symbol of everything that the name stands for. When it comes to their stadium, most football fans are surely in the latter group, but how does that compare with the number of teams optimising profits by selling the names of their stadiums to businesses worldwide?

This week, Rotherham United fans were told that from 26th December onwards, the New York Stadium would be known as the AESSEAL New York Stadium. Their opponents that day will be Huddersfield Town, who themselves play at the John Smith’s Stadium, named after the bitter brewed in the local area.

Before the launch of the Premier League in 1992, sponsorship within football was present but minimal. Since then, and with the help of Sky, football brought in viewers from around the world. It is no surprise that big companies want their name to be synonymous with the sport, and what better way to do that than by having the name of your business plastered on seemingly every corner of the ground?

In the Premier League alone, we have the Emirates Stadium (Arsenal), Etihad (Manchester City), King Power Stadium (Leicester City), KC Stadium (Hull City), Britannia Stadium (Stoke City), and of course, there was a spell recently when Newcastle United’s St James’ Park was officially called the SportsDirect Arena.

That is now an honour bestowed upon League One Oldham Athletic, whose ground formerly known as Boundary Park since 1904 was renamed SportsDirect.com Park. It hardly has the same ring to it, wouldn’t you agree?

When Chesterfield moved into their new ground in 2010, the fans were delighted with the aesthetic design, but not so much the name-B2net, or as it is now known, the Proact. Sure, the fans no longer have to suffer with the leaking gutters at Saltergate, but how many traditionalists can be happy with their home ground being directly named after ‘Europe’s leading independent storage integrator’?

Lifelong Chesterfield fan James Frampton said: “It doesn’t worry me too much, but I’d prefer traditional names to be maintained, especially for older stadiums.”

However, fellow Spireites supporter Andrew Williams said: “We’re not happy. It doesn’t sound fearsome.It sounds like the visiting team is going on a shopping trip, not to play a game of football. The fans should be given more of a choice.”

Likewise, Sheffield Wednesday fan Thom Parker said: “It’s not fair on the fans who earn their money at work all week, and then have to tell their pals in the pub, I’m off to the Macron for example. It makes them a laughing stock. I’m just glad we still have Hillsborough, for now.”

Is it right for owners to sell the naming rights of the stadium in exchange for a handsome financial investment? It is a question which splits football fans right down the middle. There are those who believe that if the owner puts their own money into the club, they have every right to make a decision on the name of the stadium, no matter how un-romantic that tag may be-I’m looking at you Pirelli Stadium of Burton.

On the other hand, many traditionalist fans state that putting money into the club is what the fans have been doing for decades, and therefore, they should have more of a say than the owner in these matters. That could lead onto a whole other debate about fan ownership. Perhaps we’ll save that for another day.

As a Rotherham fan myself, I felt conflicted by hearing the news that AESSEAL will get their name into the stadium. In the past, I have always maintained that our ground will be called the New York Stadium by the fans, but I can not help but feel we have lost a sense of our own identity with the plan. Fair enough, the headquarters of the company are within a five minute drive of the ground. In fact, they are a walk away from my childhood home, and practically next door to Millers’ owner Tony Stewart’s business ASD Lighting.

However, I am currently struggling to shake off the thought that we are another club following the corporate trend of blatant advertising in football. At the same time, having seen Rotherham go six games without winning with our fourth blank on the trot, I am somewhat hoping that the money from the deal may be reinvested in the team.

If so, that would be enough for me to get on board, but for others, there is no two ways about the matter. The name of a stadium should be symbolic of the area it occupies (Bramall Lane, Sixfields).

Huddersfield fan Steven Downes says: “I sit in a branded stadium so I have to live with it.” The John Smith’s Stadium, formerly known as the Galpharm and previously, Alfred McAlpine Stadium is where Steven has been watching football all his life, but Terriers fans of a previous generation will remember the club’s old ground, Leeds Road, where few businesses would dream of having their name associated.

If you look at the stadiums named after or with sponsors, a pattern emerges whereby the majority were built post-Taylor Report. Bolton, Wigan, Arsenal, Rotherham, Huddersfield, Burton, Brighton and Hove Albion Doncaster Rovers, Man City, and Hull all have stadiums which were built after 1988, and are all named or will be named after a company.

Quite whether re-branding or naming stadiums after a business will ever become accepted in a wider football circle is unknown. One thing that looks certain is that with so many new stadiums being built up and down the country, the issue is not going to go away any time soon.