The untold story of Olympic sponsorship

Underneath the optimistic portrayal of sponsorship in the media lies the true effect that sponsorship plays on Olympic athletes.


Some athletes we have spoken to have said they have felt "as if they (their sponsor Adidas) didn't care) so we have to ask - does the Olympic sponsorship system really care for its athletes?

Launch of the team GB kit: Photo from Adidas press

Big sponsors and brands are popping up everywhere in the run up to the London 2012 Olympic games and people are becoming more familiarised with big named athletes, but what about the athletes you don't hear about?




Globally athletes are being used to push mass consumerism, with sports brand giant Adidas being quoted in the Telegraph and on the Economic Times websites as saying:

"If they don't win, then you've had some value out of them in the run-up"

During our investigation we have uncovered and discussed several athletes who lack sponsorship and their personal experiences. From this research and our own exclusive interview we have been able to break down the PR image pushed forward by sponsors and see the untold story.

In our interview we bought you the exclusive story of our anonymous source whose athletic career and personal life was destroyed by their sponsor. 

Our contact describes their tragic ordeal with their sponsor Adidas. 

When Adidas took this athletes accommodation, training equipment and money they were left bankrupt and desperate and haven't been able to return to athletics since.

We have repeatedly attempted to contact Adidas regarding our investigation but we have yet to receive a response.

Are they avoiding our questions or just avoiding the issue completely? Their delay on responding to our questioning is definitely something to be noted. In our previous investigation Adidas responded to another exclusive interview stating:

 “...our company and how we respect our clients. Our sponsorship deals are freely available if the public request, like most companies we have an exclusivity term within our contract. However we do not feel this deters clients from their role within the sporting field they represent, we are merely assisting and aiding their profile.”

Our investigation has not only highlighted this exclusive case but several other cases such as James Ellington and Warington who although successful Olympians have struggled to get sponsored and be able to compete in the games.

In the run up to the 2012 games approximately 1,800 athletes were dropped by the WCPP according to Brian Brady of the Independent. Statistically funding is going up but so is the amount of athletes being neglected.

Is this neglect down to just sponsors or the entire Olympic sponsorship system?

Breaking down official documentation provided by LOCOG and the IOC it has become increasingly clear that the systems provides limited restrictions to athletes with high gain rewards to the companies behind the scenes. 

Any rise in popularity, athletic achievement or notoriety ultimately benefits the system foremost. Our recent post exploring the legal side of sponsorship discusses the advertising compliance law and its effect on athletes. 

The cases we have investigated experience problems from a variety of different areas of sponsorships and sponsors which highlights the developing flaws in the system.

Athletes are starting to slip through the cracks of Olympic sponsorship leaving them vulnerable and neglected. Unfortunately these athletes are becoming another set of statistics and more and more cases continue to grow.

Olympic athletes face social media restrictions

Social Media Overlap, a photo by Intersection Consulting on Flickr.
 

Olympics athletes are being restricted from social media during the Olympics but is this just another demand as a sponsored athlete?

Olympic giants LOCOG have teamed up with social media site Twitter to implement social media restrictions in attempt to combat ambush marketing.


LOCOG stated that it is:


"Keen to prevent non-sponsors from using the event as a marketing opportunity at the expense of official Olympic brands." (Econsultancy)


These preventative methods appeared in light of sports brand Nike utilising hash tag campaigns and Olympic stars in a new promotional campaign.

Screen capture from Official IOC documentation (screen captured by Editor)

Digesting official IOC documentation it is clear to see that the guidelines laid out are highly regimented and aren't in place to protect the athlete but the official Olympic sponsors and the Olympic image.


In the history of Twitter and Athletes cases the monitoring implemented by the IOC has been used forcefully. In the case of Australian swimmer Stephanie Rice her postings on Twitter had detrimental consequences on her career.


As reported in Australian news website news.com.au in 2010:


"Stephanie Rice has been dumped by sponsor Jaguar Australia for blurting the "other" f-bomb - the incendiary gay slur - on Twitter" (featured news story)


This resulted in this athlete losing her sponsors and has not competed on an Olympic level since.


These restrictions have been debated furiously online on StarDestoyer.net, in this specific discussion members discuss Olympians being banned from blogging and this information is received negatively with members quoting


"So how does this affect an athlete who may have a personal contract to report or write about what they personally see and do at the Olympics?"


What it comes down to is the power of major Olympic companies, sponsors and social media. Olympic athletes have to conform to strict guidelines just to be able to compete, even though these guidelines are completely beneficial to the individuals behind the games. 


As restrictions get tighter and more and more online communities such as StarDestroyer are engaging with these rules the Olympic image is being tainted.

Virgin Media bolts ahead with ambush marketing campaign

Are Virgin Media's new Usain Bolt adverts a mere coincidence or Olympic ambush marketing?


On the official London 2012 website, under FAQ's Olympic organisation LOCOG stated that:


"We are obliged to prevent other companies undertaking unauthorised activities that undermine or devalue the exclusive rights we offer our sponsors and licensees."


By looking at these official statements about brand protection and ambush marketing it is clear that LOCOG is out to protect the multi-million pound image created and also to crack down on any potential advertising threats. 


By digging around the news and also official documentation it is evident that LOCOG hasn't currently taken any action against Virgin Media for this set of advertisements, but why is this? 

Virgin Money Giving's office, by HowardLake on Flickr.

It's interesting to look at this situation by focusing of the athletic star Usain Bolt and also many other track athletes as Virgin were the official sponsor of the recent London Marathon that many talented athletes took part in. 


Could it be that Usain Bolt and other track athletes are too important to the Games that LOCOG wouldn't want to challenge this particular marketing campaign purely to protect the athletes and a maintain a positive out look on the Games as a whole? 


In an article featured on generatesponsorship the author stated that:


"In order for Virgin Media to really capitalise on the association depends on what they do with it over and up to the Games.  If they deepen the association (maybe tie up with events, grass roots or other athletes), broaden it (customer engagement, loyalty, PR, experiential stunts, corporate hospitality, employee engagement etc) they have a real opportunity to steal the limelight and benefits of BT’s official Olympic association."

So the question is, is this technically ambush marketing or just well timed endorsements and mere coincidence? 

What lengths will Olympic athletes go to to be sponsored?

With the Olympic budget spiralling out of control the sponsorship system continues to fail struggling athletes in the run up to the 2012 Olympic Games. 


Through this lack of support athletes are turning to drastic ways to compete equally with other athletes and obtain sponsors. The example of Olympic runner James Ellington highlights the real struggle within the athletic community and the failure of the sponsorship system.


Olympic sponsorship is a form of survival for most athletes, especially those who compete in non-paying events such as the Olympic Games. Sponsorship can cover the cost of living and training for amateur athletes in several different forms including private, corporate, and team ownership.

According to findasponsor.com “Olympic sponsorships contribute more than 40% of Olympic income” and with the Olympics fast approaching sponsorship deals for athletes are becoming more sought after. One athlete who took his search for an Olympic sponsor to the next level is UK Olympic runner James Ellington who after struggling to find a sponsor put himself on Ebay in a last ditch attempt to secure a sponsorship deal.

Although Ellington managed to secure a place on team GB without any kind of kit endorsements or sponsorship he still was desperate for commercial sponsorship so he could be able to compete to his best potential.  Ellington revealed in a recent BBC interview (see the hyperlink for a link to their article and a video of his televised interview)

In this interview Ellington discusses how Olympic funding doesn’t filter down, in some cases, where it’s needed most, leaving talented athletes struggling to compete but supports “Pin athletes”.  It is transparent that the budget favours the more recognisable athletes such as Usain Bolt and also the Games’ reputation e.g. the opening ceremony.

But why is this? Ellington’s story highlights where the current Olympic sponsorship system and budget fails to support individual athletes. In a recent report the Daily Mail breaks down elements of the Olympic budget and states that the budget is currently 10 times what was previously predicted in 2005. The report states that 


"The predicted cost of the games when London won the bid in 2005 was £2.37billion. That figure has now spiralled to more than £12billion and could reach as much as £24billion, the Sky Sports investigation claims...This figure includes the build of the venues and the £600million police and security budget. The government has just allocated an extra £41million (with a £7million contingency) from this budget to LOCOG to pay for the Opening Ceremony, which is set to cost £81million total"

Reading through this article you can see that a lot of money has been allocated to the Olympic legacy, stadiums and legalities but there is no mention of support for the athletes themselves or any sponsorship allocations.

It is becoming increasingly clearer that athletes have to take sponsorship matters into their own hands and attempt to get their own sponsorship deals. With all the previous gold medal winners and recognisable faces getting the easy ride athletes who have previously struggled with injury or are less well known are getting left at the side lines. Ellington managed to secure a sponsorship deal with a shaving company but will all struggling athletes have to take such extreme measures, and should they have to? Shouldn’t the Olympic budget, organisations such as LOCOG and sponsorship system prioritise our athletes?