United have had to find a new backer after current sponsor Vodafone decided to end its £9million-a-year deal from the end of this season.
The new deal beats Chelsea's shirt sponsorship with Samsung - reportedly worth around £10million-a-year - and is more in line with Juventus' £15million-a-year deal with Tamoil and Real Madrid's £14million-a-year deal with BenQ.
Earlier this week United were accused of "double dealing" by online casino firm and potential shirt sponsor Mansion.
The company's chief negotiator claimed that Mansion and United had verbally agreed to a shirt sponsorship deal in the region of £68million before the club pulled out.
The club said it never holds exclusive talks and was perfectly entitled to hold discussions with other firms.
AIG, the US-owned insurance giant, has accepted it has little presence in the UK domestic market despite. It does, however, operate in over 130 countries and jurisdictions.
Chris Winans, vice president, media relations refused to comment on the sponsorship strategy except to say that the company was “building a marketing strategy around the tie-up which is being leveraged for product marketing purposes across the globe,” adding that the Manchester United sponsorship deal was a “compelling opportunity”.
However, AIG lacks any real presence in the consumer market, having chosen to focus on the B2B market instead. Its last foray in the B2C market was more than 10 years ago when it withdrew its direct-line non-life insurance company, AIG Landmark, after a few years’ trading.
There are rumours that AIG may be interested in acquiring the Prudential to give it presence in the B2C market in the UK, but Winans refused to comment.
“We’ve a strong B2C business in China, Japan and emerging markets such as the Philippines so the sponsorship deal with Manchester United is very complementary given the high profile football enjoys within these territories,” Winans added.
