Birchfield Harriers ask for help to sponsor athletes

Birchfield Harriers in Birmingham have made athlete sponsorship costs known to the public on their site, asking for help to ensure a handful of athletes receive some form of sponsorship.

The club don’t receive funding from UK Athletics or the National Lottery, but instead rely on membership fees and sponsors to run the club.

They have detailed the different ways in which you can sponsor the athletes in a shopping list format.

Costs have been made public on the site: Copyright Birchfield Harriers

“The cost of being a full time athlete does not come cheap”.

The club is currently sponsored by major company Nike amongst others, however with the lack of financial funding for its athletes the club have turned to the Internet in hope that others are willing to help their talent athletes.

Many of the athletes featured on the site receive no funding and are forced to finance their career through part-time jobs.

Those interested in sponsoring an athlete will be able to meet the athlete and watch them train at a sponsors event.

Not as expensive as majors, sponsorship costs are still steep ranging from the cost of kits to massages. 

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.

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.

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?