By Ben Klayman - Analysis

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Citigroup Inc (C.N) might have difficulty escaping its $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, but the bank could reduce its obligation by finding another company to assume the most important part of the contract: sponsoring the new baseball stadium.

Growing public and political pressure may force Citigroup to try to get out of the 20-year marketing deal signed in 2006, analysts and bankers said on Tuesday. The agreement included naming rights for the Citi Field, where the Mets will start playing in April.

But the Major League Baseball team is unlikely to release Citigroup.

“Unless the Mets did a poor job of lawyering it, it’s ironclad; with the only exception being bankruptcy,” said Marc Ganis, president of Sportscorp Ltd, a Chicago sports consulting firm that helped several teams reach naming-rights deals.

Few analysts see bankruptcy as likely for Citigroup after the government injected $45 billion of capital into the bank.

The Mets said Citigroup told team executives Tuesday morning that the bank will honor its contract, but an official familiar with the situation said the Mets are “worried.” Citigroup said it signed a legally binding agreement, adding that no government funds will be used for the agreement or for marketing.

If Citigroup wants out, it would likely have to pay a breakup fee, as such deals typically do not include an escape clause, analysts said. It is not clear how big the fee would be, and whether Citigroup could afford to pay it.

“The hard part is the Citi name is a blue-chip name,” said Lou Imbriano, chief executive of TrinityOne Worldwide, a Boston sports and entertainment marketing firm.

A better option for Citigroup may be to find another company to assume most, if not all, of the deal, while the bank remains as a lesser sponsor, Ganis said. Citigroup would remove its name from the stadium but still pay for a lower-level sponsorship. Another company would assume a portion of the deal as well as the naming rights.

If done properly, the Mets could end up getting most if not all of the $400 million.

However, one sports banker familiar with the Mets who asked not to be named, said Citigroup, which has not reported a quarterly profit since 2007, wants out.

“I think Citi will try to negotiate their way all the way out so they don’t have any more headline risk,” he said. “It’s a big PR image problem.”

U.S. President Barack Obama or Congress could also pressure Mets owner Fred Wilpon to cut a deal with Citigroup, the banker said.

“It’s not impossible that President Obama could pick up the phone and call Fred Wilpon and tell him not to be like the shameless Wall Street investment bankers and do the right thing here,” he said.

Wilpon lost money after investing with financier Bernard Madoff, who allegedly ran a $50 billion Ponzi scheme. The loss of the Citigroup funds would only exacerbate Wilpon’s finances, analysts and bankers said.

Some bankers have speculated that Wilpon’s losses with Madoff could force the Mets owner to sell a piece of the team, though the team has repeatedly denied that’s under consideration.

Other bankers said selling a piece of the Mets cable TV channel, SportsNet New York, is more likely.

The Mets-Citigroup deal also represents the peak of the naming-rights market, analysts said.

While bigger deals had been expected for National football League stadiums owned by the New York Giants and New York Jets, and the Dallas Cowboys, as well as for the New York Yankees new baseball stadium, analysts said the current market makes that unlikely.

(Additional reporting by Dan Wilchins and Paul Thomasch in New York; editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)