No Surprise…The Same Rules of Fair Play Do Not Necessarily Apply to All
Fri 22nd August, 2008
By Kristina Schaefer
Partial information is a dangerous thing…as are assumptions based solely on history. This is a rule for life, as well as for Olympic Marketers. While I am personally a big believer of knowing one’s history (so as not to repeat it…AND so as to enable one to move forward with activation that should be allowed based on precedent), I am an even stronger believer in constant learning and real-time trends monitoring.
Take for example several UK media reports last week regarding Nike being granted waivers to utilize Beijing Olympians in UK activation activities, despite adidas’ official relationship with the British Olympic Association and the London 2012 Olympic Games. At first glance, this appears to be an appalling grant of rights to the detriment of a dedicated sponsor of British sport; a company that has paid millions in official rights to National Olympic Teams around the world. However things are not always as they seem. Fact is, the International Olympic Committee, in its work with the World Federation of Sporting Goods Industries (WSFGI), grants ALL sporting goods manufacturers waivers to Rule 41 of the IOC Charter (the rule that restricts the use of competing Olympians’ name/likeness commercially during the Gamestime period). Why do all sporting goods manufacturers receive this benefit, and other non-sporting-goods sponsors do not? Because unlike other sponsors, sporting goods manufacturers integrally support athletes and sports federations 365 days/year in Olympic and non-Olympic years…with equipment, training, research and development. Without their collective support, many grassroots sports programs would never develop or survive. Because of this, it would not be fair to these companies to restrict their ability to utilize the athletes they support just because it’s Gamestime. And all (official sportswear sponsors and non-official sportswear companies alike), have to comply with certain “play fair” guidelines during the Games. No one can make performance claims, and only congratulatory messages are to be sent through marketing channels.
So while it seems grossly unfair, the solution struck in recent years works. Playing fair across the board means that Nike is able to receive a Rule 41 waiver in the UK where adidas is a BOA sponsor, and that adidas is equally able to receive a Rule 41 waiver in Japan where Mizuno is a sponsor, and in Jamaica where Puma is a sponsor. Good, right? Well…not to confuse things (because of course, they already are confusing), but seven countries are actually able to “opt out” of this universal Rule 41 grant of rights…including the United States. So while adidas has to sit back and watch Nike market against athletes during Gamestime in the UK, Australia, and Germany (all adidas sponsored teams), the USOC prohibits adidas the same benefit against Nike in the United States. The same fairness rules for all? You decide.
No comments:
Post a Comment