If your organization runs more than one team — multiple age groups, multiple divisions, a rec side and a travel side — sponsorship money raises a question that pure fundraising usually doesn't: whose money is it, actually?
A parent who sells $2,000 in raffle tickets for the 10U team expects that money to stay with the 10U team. Sponsorship is murkier, because a sponsor's banner on the main field, or their name in your organization-wide newsletter, doesn't belong to any one team — it belongs to the organization. Here's how to think through splitting it fairly.
Separate "whose sponsor" from "whose benefit"
Start by sorting every sponsorship into one of two buckets:
Team-specific sponsorships — a business sponsors one specific team's jerseys, pays for one team's tournament entry fees, or is recruited directly by that team's parents. This money should generally stay with that team. If a sponsor was found, pitched, and closed by one team's own effort, redirecting that money into a shared pool tends to feel like a penalty for initiative, and it discourages exactly the kind of fundraising energy you want more of.
Organization-wide sponsorships — a sponsor's name is on the scoreboard, the entry gate, the website, or anything that represents the whole organization rather than one team. This money belongs to the organization as a whole, and should be allocated by a rule everyone agreed to in advance, not decided team-by-team after the fact.
Pick an allocation method before the money shows up, not after
For organization-wide sponsorship revenue, there are three common ways to split it, each with a real tradeoff:
- Equal split across teams. Simplest to explain and administer. Downside: a 9-player team and a 20-player team get the same amount, which can feel unfair to the bigger roster covering more costs.
- Per-player split. Divide the total by total athletes across the organization, then allocate based on each team's roster size. Fairer on a cost-basis, but requires you to actually track participation numbers accurately, which not every small organization does cleanly.
- Need-based allocation, decided by the board — directing more toward teams with higher costs (travel, tournament fees) or less financial cushion. Most flexible, but it's also the method most likely to cause disagreement, since "need" is a judgment call rather than a formula. If you go this route, write down the criteria you're using, not just the final numbers, so it doesn't look arbitrary after the fact.
Decide this in your bylaws or a simple written policy, not in a group text
The actual method matters less than whether everyone agreed to it before any money arrived. The organizations that run into real conflict are almost always the ones deciding allocation in the moment, team by team, based on who asks loudest. A short, written policy — even half a page — that your board or league leadership signs off on at the start of the season removes the argument entirely, because the rule was set before anyone knew which teams would benefit most from it.
Keep a simple record
Whatever method you use, keep a basic log: which sponsor, how much, which bucket (team-specific or organization-wide), and how it was allocated. This matters for two reasons — it protects you if a parent questions where sponsorship money went, and it makes next season's planning far easier, since you'll know exactly how much recurring sponsorship revenue you're working with before you even start asking for more.
If your organization is growing past the size where informal arrangements work, Zubie Five can help you think through a fair, sustainable sponsorship allocation policy as part of a broader sponsorship strategy — not just finding sponsors, but making sure the money works for the whole organization once it arrives.
Want help putting this into practice for your program?
Get Started With Zubie Five →