As the 4-year Olympic cycle comes to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, this article will look at the issue of ‘ambush marketing’ during the Games. It will briefly analyse the rule put in place by the International Olympic Committee (‘”IOC”) to deal with ambush marketing, and the subsequent impact of these rule.
Ambush Marketing
Ambush marketing can be defined as an attempt by a third party to associate itself with a major event (such as the Olympics) and thereby benefit from the prestige and goodwill of the event without having to pay for that privilege.
It is particularly relevant for the Olympics, as it is an event of high global prominence with a generally positive image (the ‘Olympic spirit’) thereby attracting large amounts of money in sponsorship.
What is Rule 40?
The IOC has provisions in the Olympic Charter, which are designed to prevent ambush marketing. These are known as Rule 40, which states:-
‘Except as permitted by the IOC Executive Board, no competitor, team official or other team personnel who participates in the Olympic Games may allow his person, name, picture or sports performances to be used for advertising purposes during the Olympic Games’
Guidance accompanying Rule 40, clarifies its purpose is:-
‘To preserve the unique nature of the Olympic Games by preventing over commercialisation and to allow the focus to remain on the athletes’ performance and to preserve sources of funding, as 90 per cent of the revenues generated by the IOC are distributed to the wider sporting movement’
The rule is designed to apply during the ‘Games Period’, which runs from 27 July 2016 to 24 August 2016 and relates to coaches and officials as well as athletes.
Changes to Rule 40
Prior to and during the London games in 2012 there was increasing demand for changes to Rule 40. The side effect of the implementation of Rule 40 had been that long-term sponsors of athletes were prevented from benefiting from their athletes at the time they were most publicly exposed. As such in July 2015 the IOC amended the rules to allow:-
“generic (non-Olympic) advertising during the period of the Games…provided it does not create any impression of a commercial connection with any Olympic property and in particular the Olympic Games”.
It has been left to individual National Olympic Committees to regulate and control Rule 40 (within the guidelines set by the IOC) however the IOC is still responsible for enforcement and can put sanctions on athletes such as fines, removal of accreditation, and disqualification.
Impact of the Changes
To implement Rule 40, the British Olympic Association (“BOC”) has issued guidelines on advertising involving British athletes and how to avoid breaching the rule (see link).
To advertise during the Games Period, you can either get ‘express consent’ to do so (the deadline to obtain this has now passed) or if you meet the criteria you can gain ‘deemed consent’. The full details are outlined in the guidance, however as a general rule, an athlete can continue to feature in an advertising campaign if the advert has been used in the same way consistently prior to 27 March 2016 (4 months prior to the Games Period) This is provided no association is created with team GB or the Olympics. For example the following should be avoided:-
- A re-tweet of team GB message on twitter;
- A congratulatory message on social media from a company to an athlete; or
- Use of any words associated with the Olympics. There has been lots of negative press on this point, with many suggesting the restrictions are absurd. However as a Company you should think logically. If an advert has been designed to promote a link with the Olympics and you think it does. It will most likely breach the rules.
Conclusion
The Guidance to Rule 40, stated served a number of purposes. So have these been achieved?:-
- Firstly it is designed to protect the commercial revenue generated from the Olympics. Namely that the sponsors receive protection for the millions of dollars they invest in the Games. The over $1 billion dollars in sponsorship for the 2016 games suggest that sponsors feel the Olympics is worth the investment and there is adequate protection in place; and
- Secondly it’s designed to prevent over commercialisation. This idea is perhaps outdated and a relic from an era when the Olympics was truly an amateur pursuit. Modern Olympics are heavily commercialised and Rule 40 does not change this, it just protects those companies who have directly sponsored it.
An additional point to note is that the nature of the reforms to Rule 40 have arguably only provided protection for heavily commercialised athletes and their high profile sponsors. For instance the 27 March 2016 deadline set by the BOA provides little help for those less high profile athletes who hadn’t yet made the Olympic team. Such Olympians are often the most reliant on their sponsor’s money; sponsors who will not be as high end as those backing stars like Jessica Ennis-Hill (Santander). Such a sponsor is then denied exposure during a period when it is particularly able to benefit.
Ultimately the changes to Rule 40 and how effective they are, will be put to the test over the next two weeks as the world focuses on the Rio.
Stay tuned for another article!
edwardjeavonssportslaw 