[corp-focus] The Commercial Games: How Commercialism is Overrunning the Olympics

[robert weissman]

Links and forum to comment on this and other columns at:
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/editorsblog

The Commercial Games: How Commercialism is Overrunning the Olympics
By Robert Weissman
August 6, 2008

The 2008 Beijing Olympic Games have been referred to as the “People’s 
Games,” the “High Tech Games” and the “Green Games,” but they could be 
more aptly described as the Commercial Games.

Commercialism is overrunning the Olympics. It is undermining the 
professed ideals of the Olympic Games, and subverting the Olympics' 
veneration of sport with omnipresent commercial messaging and branding.

The Olympics have auctioned off virtually every aspect of the Games to 
the highest bidder. In addition to multimillion-dollar sponsorship deals 
between the International Olympic Committee and international companies, 
smaller firms are paying for designations from “official home and 
industrial flooring supplier” to the “frozen dumplings exclusive 
supplier” of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

Corporate sponsors are showering money on each tier of the Olympic 
organizational committees: the International Olympic Committee, the 
Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games (BOCOG) and the 
International Federations governing each individual sport, to each 
country’s National Organizing Committees. Corporations are sponsoring 
many Olympic teams and national governing bodies for particular sports 
-- including virtually every national governing body in the United 
States -- and individual athletes themselves.

The scope of commercialism at the Olympics and the consequences of 
commercialization are detailed in "The Commercial Games," a new report 
from Multinational Monitor magazine and Commercial Alert (both of which 
I'm associated with). (See: 
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/2008olympics.html>.)

To its credit, the Olympics do prohibit advertising in sports stadia or 
other venues. The Olympics also prohibit advertisements on uniforms 
(other than uniform maker logos).

Everywhere else, Olympic spectators, viewers and athletes, and the 
citizens of Beijing should expect to be overwhelmed with 
Olympics-related advertising.

A record 63 companies have become sponsors or partners of the Beijing 
Olympics, and Olympics-related advertising in China alone could reach $4 
billion to $6 billion this year, according to CSM, a Beijing marketing 
research firm.

The Olympic Partners (TOP) program, run and managed by the International 
Olympic Committee (IOC) since 1985, includes 12 companies for the 
Beijing Olympics. These 12 companies -- among them, Coca-Cola, GE, 
Johnson & Johnson, Lenovo, Panasonic and Visa -- have paid $866 million 
to the International Olympic Committee.

The U.S. Olympic system is awash in corporate sponsor money. Well over 
100 corporations are sponsoring the U.S. Olympic Committee or U.S. 
national teams.

Besides celebrating sport, there is an official ideology of the 
Olympics, called "Olympism." It aims to promote a pure blend of sport, 
culture and education.

Sports, of course, remain at the center of the Olympics, but 
commercialism has overwhelmed whatever other values the Olympics hope to 
embody. The overwhelming cultural influence at the Olympics is now 
commercial culture; and the overwhelming informational message is: buy, 
buy, buy.

Commercial relations interfere with proper functioning of the Olympics. 
In at least one notable case, commercial entanglements have called into 
question the integrity of a national sports governing body. A lawsuit 
and accusations around the activities of USA Swimming and the national 
team coach -- both sponsored by swimwear maker Speedo -- charge Speedo, 
the national team and the coach with antitrust violations. The lawsuit, 
filed by Tyr, a Speedo competitor, alleges the coach has trumpeted the 
benefits of LZR Racer, a new, high-profile Speedo suit, because of his 
financial ties to the company. Tyr says its Tracer Rise swimsuit, 
introduced weeks before the LZR Racer, is comparable to the Speedo product.

The Olympic race for corporate sponsors has also put the Olympics in 
unhealthy -- and sometimes quite unpleasant -- company.

* The International Olympic Committee will not partner with hard liquor 
companies, but the IOC tolerates sponsorships by beer and wine 
companies. Anheuser-Busch says it is a sponsor of 25 national Olympic 
Committees, including those of China, Japan, Great Britain and the 
United States. A tequila maker, Jose Cuervo, is a sponsor of the U.S. 
Soccer Federation.

* Notwithstanding the fundamental principles of "Olympism," which 
celebrate healthful living, two of the 12 Olympic TOP sponsors run 
businesses centered around the sales of unhealthy food: Coca-Cola and 
McDonald's. Snickers, the candy bar made by Mars, is an official BOCOG 
supplier. Hershey's is a sponsor of the USOC. Coca-Cola is a sponsor of 
FIFA, the international soccer federation. McDonald's and Sprite are 
sponsors of USA Basketball. McDonald's and Sierra Mist are sponsors of 
the U.S. Soccer Federation. Coca-Cola is a sponsor of USA Softball. 
Hershey's is a sponsor of USA Track & Field.

* Many of the sports apparel and equipment makers partnered with the 
Olympics and official Olympic bodies -- among them Adidas, Nike and 
Speedo -- source their products from sweatshop factories. In a very 
disturbing development just before the start of the Olympics, Adidas 
reportedly announced it was transferring large amounts of its production 
out of China because wages set by the government were "too high" (!).

* At least two major Olympic partners, the China National Petroleum 
Corporation (CNPC) and Sinopec, have been linked to gross human rights 
violations in Sudan. Both companies are sponsors of the Beijing 
Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games.

There is no doubt that the horse is out of the barn on Olympic 
sponsorships, and the world is unlikely to see a commercial-free Games 
anytime soon.

Nonetheless, the most egregious problems with the Olympics' pervasive 
sponsorship arrangements can and should be addressed.

The IOC, National Olympic Committees, and international and national 
sports governing bodies can and should scale back the number of 
corporate sponsorships.

They can and should develop safeguards to ensure apparel and equipment 
sponsorships do not compromise sports governing bodies' decisions. 
Coaches of national teams should be prohibited from serving as paid 
spokespeople or consultants for apparel and equipment makers.

They can and should refuse to accept sponsorships from any alcohol 
company, including beer and wine companies. This recommendation does not 
reflect a prohibitionist impulse. It merely extends the insight in the 
present IOC ban on hard liquor sponsorships: promoting more alcohol 
consumption is unhealthful, and inappropriate for an event with enormous 
appeal to children.

They can and should end partnerships and sponsorship arrangements with 
junk food, soda and fast food companies. These companies' operations are 
incompatible with Olympic ideals of promoting fitness and healthful 
living, and the companies use the association with the Olympics to 
remove some of the tarnish of their unhealthy products.

They can and should insist that official, sponsoring apparel and 
equipment makers disclose where their products are manufactured, and 
ensure that their products are manufactured in a fashion that respects 
core labor standards.

They can and should refuse to enter into sponsorship arrangements with 
companies connected to gross human rights abuses. This is a simple 
ethical standard, and one required by the Olympic commitment to 
demonstrate "respect for universal fundamental ethical principles."

Will the IOC and other committees move in these directions? They refused 
to respond to repeated requests for comment. It may be, however, that it 
will be the corporate sector driving reduced commercialization of the 
Olympics. The opportunity to project a high-profile in China's 
fast-growing market has made the Beijing Olympics uniquely attractive; 
but already leading sponsors have indicated they do not intend to 
continue paying for the right to besiege the planet with 
Olympics-related marketing in connection with future Games.


Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational 
Monitor, <http://www.multinationalmonitor.org> and managing director of Commercial Alert <http://www.commercialalert.org>.

(c) Robert Weissman

This article is posted at: 
<http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2008/000297.html <http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2008/000296.html>