History, heritage and a load of balls

A very interesting piece of sponsorship coverage from http://sponsorpitch.com/blog/show/148 in which it is highlighted that the Wimbledon Grand Slam tennis championship has had several long relationships with 'sponsors', including: Slazenger (100 years+); Robinsons' (75 years+); Rolex (30 years+); and IBM (20 years+). The durability of these 'sponsorships' is astonishing, which raises some interesting questions. Why have the sponsorships been so durable? Does it mean they have been effective and profitable for all concerned? What is required to ensure that such relationships continue, with both parties satisfied by their relationship? To what extent do such deals reveal something about the role that trust and commitment play in sponsorship relations? Could sponsorship actually be akin to a good marriage, in which case: what lessons does the longevity of strong marriages provide sponsorship managers with? Perhaps it may simply be a case of not tinkering with something that appears to be working well? Ultimately, dare we believe that the above 'sponsorships' really are the quintessence of good sponsorship? Or is this view naive? Surely such long relationships must be dominated by age-old practices, norms and procedures that mean the sponsorships are neither as strong or as lucrative as they could/should be? Indeed, at a time when sporting events are exposed to as many competitive pressures as the brands that support them, don't the deals effectively mean that Wimbledon must be incredibly entrenched in the way it does business, relying more on a misplaced sense of loyalty rather than being outward-looking and reliant on strong commercial and strategic management?