On the one hand, yes, this is true. On the other, you do not see corporate logos and signage for the Wrigley corporation and all of it's products plastered all over the ballpark (like you do at every other corporate named sports facility). It's not really comparable. Why would we see advertising for Wrigley when they haven't owned the park in some time? We shouldn't. That's the point. My guess is that large majority of people who attend Wrigley Field aren't thinking about chewing gum. It may technically be named after a corporation, but it's not comparable to all of the parks that are nothing but a visual and aural onslaught of corporate advertising My point wasn't that Wrigley now is representative of Wrigley the company. My point is that when it was named "Wrigley" it very much had corporate connotations. It a false point to act like Wrigley Field has forever been free of being a "corporate ballpark."