Among a welter of sponsorship announcements this week, it was the real heavyweights who provided us with a clear illustration of one of the difficulties which beset both sponsors and rights owners.
In China, the organizing committee for the Beijing Olympic Games of 2008 announced their second tier of domestic sponsorships is to be made available.
Already, corporations including adidas, Volkswagen, China Air, China Mobile and Bank of China have signed as Organising Committee partners and are reported to have paid close to $100 million for the privilege.
Now they are out to recruit a second level of sponsors and this will be followed by a third, level of ‘Official Suppliers.’
While this is good news for these companies, how well does it play with the the 11 global brands who have long term deals as TOP ( The Olympic Programme) partners?
There have, of course, always been local sponsors of the Olympic Games and the very profusion of official breakfast cereals, diapers, toothbrushes etc etc contributed in the past to the view that the Games had become over-commercialised while delivering uncertain value to sponsors. The TOP programme was designed, in part, to address this.
The Beijing sponsors are paying Big Bucks for one massive marketing opportunity but, in China itself, will they eclipse the Olympic sponsors who are there for the long run and who do so much to promote not only the Games themselves but the ‘Olympic spirit and ethos’?
When you sign as a TOP sponsor you know the rules. It is an exclusive club and each member has unique objectives and makes a unique contribution.
But in Beijing we could have 50 or so brands attached to the Games in one form or another and one has to ask whether the public can be expected to care or see through the brand clutter and question whether Chinese consumers will be able or bothered to see through the clutter and recognise the contribution of the TOP partners.
At much the same time, FIFA was announcing its third major deal for the 2007 – 2014 period. This includes the FIFA World Cup 2010 in South Africa, but we don’t know where it will be held thereafter.
In a kind of reverse of the Olympic move, it has struck a (reported) $305 million deal with Sony who will become sponsors of the new and intriguing ‘Digital Life’ category.
In essence this means a merger of a number of previously separate sponsorship categories to reflect the impact of the convergence of digital technologies on the consumer.
By reducing the number of categories, FIFA appears to be helping its partners to cut through the clutter but charging them well for the privilege.
* * * * * *
My favourite story of the week though comes from Germany where a judge has made an initial ruling in favour of sportswear manufacturer Puma and against FIFA in the matter, m’lud, of the Cameroon’s’ all in one, body hugging football kit.
At the last African Cup of Nations, the Cameroon team ran out not in the traditional shirt and shorts but in an all in one number akin to a women’s swimsuit.
The girls loved it (apparently) but FIFA and its President Sepp Blatter were not amused and pointed to their rule book which , while making no specific mention of this particular fashion blip, ruled it offside.
But the judge says its fine and FIFA may have to come up with recompense.
If Puma (who say that FIFA’s reaction was triggered by its relationship with deadly rivals adidas) wins the day, commercial managers in soccer are likely to be distraught.
To wear one of these things you simply have to be an athlete. While the average football fan can just about get away with squeezing into a standard replica shirt, there’s no chance that anybody who’s spent 20 years sitting in a football stadium eating pies and drinking lager is going to get into one. If other manufacturers followed suit, replica sales, which represent a reasonable chunk of income for clubs, would be about 20 per year…globally.
