In business relationships we all know that inviting a potential client out to dinner, paid for by the vendor, creates at least the possible impression of impropriety unless the amount spent is relatively modest. Doing the same for, say, the government inspector from your industry’s regulatory body… looks even worse.
If the vendor has a sponsorship arrangement with a sports team that means they already have access to a corporate box, that doesn’t change the fact that the hospitality offer looks… dubious.
The nature of your ownership/rental of the assets involved has no bearing on this. The nature of how it affects your power relationship with the recipient is what matters.
The standard - especially when it comes to dealing with government employees - is ‘avoid even the appearance of impropriety’, right?
Or at least I certainly thought it was until reading about the Clarence Thomas situation. Apparently there are different rules for billionaires.