Athlete sponsorship - the legal side

Under the advertising compliance law, agency Reed Smith have released a guideline that sponsors can follow when it comes to marketing campaigns surrounding the London Games.

In 2006 the Government alongside the International Olympic Committee passed the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act, which together with the Olympic Symbol Act of 1995, offers protection to the Games and their sponsors.

The British Olympic Association has informed the 560 UK athletes that they must sign a confidential rule book, titled the 'Team Members Agreement' failure to do so could result in disqualification from the Games.

The law surrounding athlete sponsorship is very complex and failure to comply with these rules can ultimately see athletes banned from performing in the Games. During the Olympic Games a team of 'branding police' will be checking venues to ensure that manufacturers logos are removed or hidden during the Games.

Kit

A strict clean venue policy has been enforced by the International Olympic Committee, which means that sponsored athletes are not permitted to wear branded sports kits which carry logos other than that of the official kit sponsor.

For example during the 2012 Games an athlete sponsored by Nike will not be allowed to wear their branded clothing, instead they must only wear Adidas whilst in the arena.

Athletes are banned from wearing any item that carries individual sponsored logos during the Olympic trials, events and pre or post race interviews.

If an athlete is found to be in breach of the IOC's rules, they can then ban athletes from participating in the 2012 Games.

Appearance

Athletes have been place under a strict code surrounding tattoos, haircuts, piercings or contact lenses. These must not issue commercial or political messages.

Any athlete who has existing tattoos that the board believe make political statements must be covered up.

Endorsements

Athletes have been placed under strict rules when it comes to mentioning brand names. Restrictions are in place to stop athletes being seen or mention sponsors such as Nike, Puma and Cola - as these are not official sponsors.

Under the rules of the competition, competing athletes are not permitted to endorse products during the period of the games.

However if an athlete is chosen to endorse products or services for a company, then these advertisements must be published either before or after the Games - and not during the Games.

Any competing athlete found to appear in adverts during the period of the Games may be banned from participating.

However this is one exception to this rule: well known former athletes. Those who are not competing are allowed to be featured during this time.

For example athletes like Dame Kelly Holmes.

Although no association should be made to the Games during these adverts otherwise this is an infringement of the London Olympic Association Rights.

Social Media


A social media and blogging policy has been created to help athletes understand the restrictions on blogging.


During the Games period (18 July - 15 August) athletes are not permitted to blog about sponsors or endorsed products, unless it's an official sponsor.

For example Usain Bolt will not be able to Tweet about drinking Pepsi (as Coca Cola is the main drinks sponsor)

Audio and video content from the athletes' village and any Olympic venue is banned from being uploaded to the Internet.

Athletes are banned from reporting on competition or comment on the activities of other athletes.

Press


Athletes are banned from attending any press conferences that have not ben arranged by Olympic organisers wearing official kit or medals.

Non-Sponsors


Sponsors who are not official Games sponsors are not allowed to advertise slogans such as:

"Supporting our athletes at the 2012 Games!"
"Help us make it a Gold 2012"

Companies are not allowed to use images that suggest an association with the London Olympics

As part of a promotion non-sponsored companies are not allowed to offer tickets.

A website has been set up in order for both organisers and athletes to report any ambush activities they may encounter. OlympicGamesMonitoring.com has ben set up, however it is inaccessible to the public and unauthorised users.

To protect sponsors brands and broadcasting rights, these strict rules will affect every athlete and business in the UK.

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?