´óÏó´«Ã½

Interesting topic Roger and your point about having to meet the running costs of the games is well founded but also backs-up the original contributor's point about modern Olympics being all about money.

I do think you're wrong in your comment 'Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Chris Hoy and all the rest - are seen by the maximum number of people and are not accompanied by logos and corporate messages'

..what about the gold sponsored running spikes the athletes whip off and shamelessly shove into the cameras at any given opportunity after victory (see pic above) or the highly controversial (thus talked about) new 'streamlined' swimming attire worn in the pool, or high-tec bikes etc not to mention the corporate logos emblazoned on the hearts of every countries' athlete's chests?

We've become so used to these adverts, it seems we've all become somewhat brainwashed by their subliminal effects.

Money itself might not be the problem either, but the I.O.C's policy of monopolising who can make it where and when that stinks.

The way I see it is pretty simple: as a bloke, you don't take a woman to a £250 restaurant for her to pick up the waiter and shag him. So tell all the sponsor naysayers to start an 'open relatioship' where the partner can screw around but they still pick up the tab.....

All those who complain about corporate logos on athletes' singlets: you tried being a top athlete with no sponsorship? You need a sugar daddy instead....

It's all so easy being 'idealistic' when you're not the one going without....

#2 rjaggar - so if I read you correctly you think it's fair that only the 'mega' global organisations with the fattest wallets can get in on the sponsorship act every four years as they can easily outbid all rivals as they have more wong and sue any small challengers?

Not that you quoted me directly either, but just want to make it clear I didn't actually complain about logo's on athlete' singlets, I was simply pointing out that the advertsing was there (the golden spikes are different matter though). I've no complaints about athlete's making money from sponsorship, the Diamond League or other championships outside the 'Games' - everyone has to make a living...but when it comes to the Olympics we are constantly told that as in Roger's blog title they are IDEALISTIC - the point is professionalism has somewhat taken over and instead of admitting it we have a half-way house attitude.

As Roger points out it is about balance & we have to be realistic that the Olympics can't live in a vacuum isolated from the Commercial world. Lots of people moan about the cost of the Olympics but we would all be paying a lot more if there were no sponsors. However, there are 2 main concerns which I believe have to be addressed.

1) Sponsors use or non use of tickets. This I believe was a big problem in Beijing. I think LOCOG need to implement some sort of agreement that if sponsors are not going to use tickets they are returned say 24 hours beforehand for sale to the general public. Surely it's in the sponsors best interests to see full stadiums rather than gaps of empty seats. They also need to be aware that they are likely to face a lot of criticism from the British press if the same thing happens in London, especially if there are unfilled sponsors seats at high profile events.

2) I can understand only sponsors products being on sale at Olympic venues & in the Olympic Park but organisers should be wary of being too heavy handed with people bringing in their own food & drink. If I am spending all day in the Olympic park I don't want to eat the sponsors junk all the time. I have even heard that people won't be able to bring in water.

#4 Tiger Rose - well made comments and I agree with the opinion that a modern games probably can't live without a certain level of sponsorship. I just think it should be made much more open and transparent. Do Nike and Adidas give the same support to every athlete from every nation for example or do their stars get the best equipment?

Excellent point about sponsors use or as you correctly say 'non use' of tickets, it just shows the problems created by having a closed shop and although I realise the likes of Coca-Cola etc might have paid a great deal to get onboard I too think that we shouldn't feel obligated to purchase their products on the day. We the tax payer will be the biggest contributors to the event's costs.

Olympic ideals are about openess, neutrality and above all fair play...so let's have some!

re #6 Maybe an exception will be made for privately bought tickets - as the general public might get caught up in traffic jams etc caused by event sponsors private lanes etc :)? Surely, they are just talking about corporate spponsored seats anyway?

@#4 - LOCOG already dismissed the water thing. If i remember rightly a while ago they said they will allow any water in.

--
As for commercialisation, I have no problem with the sponsors doing whatever they want. Sponsors are needed for any sports event, the Olympics are no different. Ever seen cycling? Every thing is sponsored, teams take a sponsors name, races often take sponsors names.
The Olympics do their best to limit what you see of the sponsors, which is to be applauded, but without them, there would be no games.

Indeed ideals are deteriorating day by day. But marketing and cost of an event is necessary. Ideals are something which is in the spirit and soul of the games and in the people as well. That has to be kept intact. Its difficult but it is not completely absent.

#9 I agree totally, it's a shame but the way the Olympics are run today means it's virtually impossible for any non-cash rich country to host them as they've become hostage to corporate sponsors and professionalism (ie. money orientated.) In the amateur days competitors didn't expect or need 5-star treatment to compete...I realise there's no going back now though.

Gdodds - hopefully you're right & the water story was just a scare story.

With regards to the story on tickets, I think it's reasonable to do this provided some common sense comes into play if there are delays on the tube etc. (I don't think road traffic will be an issue because there is no car park there so people will effectively have to get there by public transport.) At the end of the day to attend a once in a lifetime event like the Olympics I would imagine that most people would probably allow good time to get there.

I like these sorts of thoughts! I still think some of the reaction matches perhaps some of the old fashioned thoughts generally of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ however. Whatever way you slice it, sponsors in sport will benefit you, the viewing public in general, in the end. Managing it is key, but by thinking they should just disappear or not be present is off the mark. Brands and companies are merely marketing themselves through something consumers are passionate about, which has been the same for many many years. The reason the amounts are now so dramatic, is that broadcasters offer such rich content and consumers can immerse themselves in a world they would otherwise only imagine, also offering an fantastic opportunity for companies to piggy back this and engage with that audience. ´óÏó´«Ã½ will surely capitulate to having to conform and use advertising sales as a revenue source themselves in future. It is when not if. ´óÏó´«Ã½ Worldwide is half way there. Having lost a string of marquee sporting events, the purse available is diminishing. Slightly off the subject, so back to what I thought matters, here in the UK and Europe we are some way behind the States in our commercial outlook and model. Their commercial / sponsorship model in NFL, Basketball, Baseball, Nascar you name it is vastly superior to ours. There is of course a compromise to a TV audience in adverts etc, but, the crowd enjoyment at these events is much longer, engaging and has to be the future, much as I begrudgingly concede. It looks brash and over the top. But, we pay here for a Premiership football game in excess of £50 in the cold winter months to watch just 90 minutes of drivel sometimes. At second rate venues we don't have a lot else to enjoy if the game is poor. You can pay the same money for NFL, get 4 or 5 hours of family entertainment, in a venue/facility which is borderline theme park. These theme parks/ venues and half time shows featuring shows by the Rolling Stones for example don't come from a nice fella who wants to spend some pocket money for the fan. It is sponsors spending vast money to ultimately market themselves whether it is a naming rights sponsorship, shirt sponsorship or the like, and also to be the one sponsor who has been responsible for that fan having the most memorable night of his life, even if his team have decided to not bother turning up for the night and are having an internal squabble. Which has happened since time began as ego's are as big a part to play as money. Bigger can be better, but it needs to be managed right, and one way or the other, its the way Europe needs to start thinking. On the subject of the IOC specifically, this is not the Olympic Games and the sponsors which have an issue, but the IOC themselves. A pot of money for them bigger than the GDP of most countries in Africa. If the spirit of the sport could ever be upheld and a statement made, then perhaps some of there pot of gold could be handed out to countries less fortunate than ourselves.

It's one thing to only offer certain brands of drinks at venues, but quite another to discriminate on who can and cannot buy tickets for an event of huge national (and international) importance largely funded by the tax payer on the basis of their credit card - and in this day and age completely irresponsible to encourage anyone to take out unnecessary additional cards.


And let's face it - if the IOC was a government which enforced such rules in a country to benefit certain favoured companies who were propping up their administration the outside world would be looking on in disgust.

I must admit that I was shocked a few days ago when I receieved an email inviting me to start thinking about which events I would like to see at the Olympics; they clearly stated though that you NEED to have a Visa card to purchase any tickets for events. If you don't have a Visa card, it gives the link for how you can get one. This I think is a monopoly - I'm really annoyed that they can demand it.