The wide world of sport scandals

Prime time esports is back! The NRL has started and the AFL is almost there.

This weekend I’ll be glued to the TV watching the Supercars Thrifty Newcastle 500. Next weekend is the STC Grand Prix of Saudi Arabia.

The last is a good transition. A Formula 1 race in Saudi Arabia… Not the most obvious setting for motorsport at the highest level, and certainly not one without perceptual challenges.

The country’s tourism organization has been touted (at the time of writing) as the main sponsor for the FIFA Women’s World Cup. I’m sure I don’t need to point out the irony if that were to happen.

ADVERTISING

Today’s newsletter is about the troubled relationship between sport, athletes and brands, as the big three parties in the sports marketing industry don’t seem to get along.

In various conversations that I have had in recent weeks, the topic has come up several times with a lot of headaches.

The last 12 months in particular have been a sobering affair.

To refresh your memory:

The Manly Warringah Sea Eagles Pride jersey own goal and reluctance to stage a Pride round, hosting the FIFA World Cup plus the Budweiser fiasco, hiring Alinta Energy to sponsor the Australia men’s cricket team, the making the Saudi-backed LIV Golf, the Hancock Prospecting versus Netball Australia saga, and so on.

Is that the norm now? Is that acceptable? Where are brands? What the hell is going on here?

Sponsors versus athletes

“I think it’s dangerous to grow up and be so exposed to these things that you live in a world where gambling and the AFL are synonymous.”

That was former Western Bulldogs AFL captain Easton Wood speaking to the ABC. But the fact of the matter is that you can use “AFL” for most other sports and “gambling” for a number of other brands.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen a number of sponsorship deals that have raised eyebrows, including the aforementioned gambling’s relationship with pretty much every major sport in the world. But little is ever done about it.

Vaping is another big topic. Look at Vuse and McLaren. A team with two young drivers, including Australian Oscar Piastri. That’s a partnership I wouldn’t want my Formula 1 obsessed child to support, but he does want to support the Australian.

While the athletic C-suite seems fine with letting that kind of partnership through to the goaltender, some athletes aren’t so happy about it.

Take the example of Donnell Wallam, a 28-year-old Noongar woman and shooter for the Queensland Firebirds in Super Netball. She initially refused to wear the Hancock Prospecting logo and was endorsed by other players.

Negotiations between the players and Super Netball, as well as Hancock Prospecting, resulted in an agreement to wear the logos before Hancock Prospecting apparently pulled the pin on the $15 million sponsorship anyway.

Is Wallam’s right to take a stand? Or Hancock Prospecting’s right to see the logo on all player shirts once the deal is finalized?

In an article by Nick Tabakoff in The Australian on the subject, he quoted Paul Kind, CEO of TSE and co-owner of the Sydney Kings, as saying: “It only takes one influential player to make a stand – and then conservative sports like cricket or Netball, it becomes almost unsustainable. When investing in sport, companies seek community goodwill as a result of their investment in sport. If they don’t understand that, it’s no wonder they walk away.

“The rise of the individual player is a thorn in the side of the sport.”

On the other hand, as some athletes grow bigger than the games they play, maybe it’s time to capitalize on their contribution to sponsorship deals. Or at least make sure they have a better commercial understanding and the team C-suite a better cultural understanding.

Sports teams and codes that misbehave

One could suggest that Formula 1 thinks that drivers should do just that. The FIA, the sport’s governing body, changed rules earlier this year to make drivers apply for permission to make personal statements.

A new clause restricted “the general making and display of political, religious and personal statements or comments which, in particular, violate the general principle of neutrality promoted by the FIA ​​under its Statutes”.

It came after a notable backlash from drivers at races in certain countries with poor human rights records, notably from Sir Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel, between them 11-time world champions.

How is muzzlement, or even thinking about muzzlement, viewed by athletes (effectively the stars of the show) in any way as a positive?

Isn’t that a warning to the sponsors that they might not want to play that particular game? There are examples in the vicinity.

Take the Manly Sea Eagles and the Pride jersey fiasco last July. Not a great sight.

Or how about the anonymous SMH poll that indicated NRL teams were unwilling to support a Pride round? “Overwhelmingly against…” read the caption.

Under these circumstances, how can brands even consider supporting these sports and teams?

To paraphrase three executives I spoke to this week, the discussion of whether the current situation in various sports is problematic and whether this should impact investments has never surfaced. Not once.

The Pride Round Shocker served as an example. Big brands they partnered with and sponsored the sport didn’t seem to have any qualms. Or if they did, they weren’t brought up.

“It hasn’t come up in any meetings I’ve been to. Which, when I think back, surprises me a little,” I was told.

A more recent example is Visit Saudi Arabia’s proposed sponsorship of the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023. After repeated calls to cancel the deal (it was interesting to hear about the deal at all), there is still no confirmation on the matter.

You have every right to be confused now. Athletes being kicked by sponsors, charities being kicked by teams and sports, and teams and sports unwilling to stand up to potentially inappropriate sponsors. Who can change anything in this upside down world?

How about the fans? They’re the ones who make the sports world move, right? Without them, the industry is dead in the water. But will they ever leave?

Sporty slacktivism – the fans are professionals

Do you remember the term “slacktivism”? According to the Cambridge Dictionary, these are activities that use the internet to support political or social causes without much effort, such as creating or signing online petitions.

And here lies one of the main problems. Sports fans may have taken slacktivism to a whole new level.

Let’s take the Manly Sea Eagles as an example. The Pride jersey riot came at the end of July. The players refused to wear the jersey in the July 28 game. 12,187 people came to this game. Far from the smallest crowd it has had this season.

17,134 spectators came to the next home game. One of the biggest recorded at 4 Pines Park (alcohol sponsorship ahoy) for the season. Hardly the disaster one would expect after such a public failure.

What about the FIFA World Cup 2022? After the corruption allegations and the last-minute Budweiser backflip, one could have expected a catastrophe. But it didn’t happen. Instead, FIFA basked in the glory of reporting record-breaking viewership.

Why does the sport get away with this?

“I think a big part of it is economics,” an industry leader told me. “Each sports league is essentially a monopoly. If you love a sport and want to watch it at elite level, there is usually only one provider in town.

“As in all situations where demand massively exceeds supply, prices rise. In this case we are happy to pay a little more, also with our own morality, because there are no alternatives.”

Hmmm… again the advertising industry and the moral compass. Go on.

“Add in the psychology that sport is social, emotional and part of many people’s self-identity, as well as our short-term memory and willingness to prioritize short-term, tangible benefits over long-term, abstract benefits, and you can see how untouchable sport is in reference to the short-term impact of a single scandal.”

So there you have it. The sport can seemingly screw up as much as it wants and will remain largely untouchable until one stakeholder is truly willing to take a stand and others will follow. But there is serious complexity in this.

We could face more uncomfortable times. As I said above – next weekend I will be watching the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix with Aramco sponsored Aston Martins and Vuse sponsored McLarens. I’m part of the problem. Are you?

Damian Francis is the editorial director at Mumbrella.