Does the furore over FIFA's handling of MasterCard have the potential to damage confidence in sponsorship?

January 2007, Sport Business

“If sponsorship is genuinely about the strength of the relationship between sponsor and property, does the furore over and fallout from FIFA’s handling of the renewal of its payment card category have the potential to damage confidence in sponsorship among brands at a time when spend is increasing year-on-year.”

To be honest, the question’s not best framed.

Sponsorship is about the relationship between sponsor and the audience facilitated by a property: the presence of the rights-holder in this relationship is rarely a benefit to sponsors. It’s a challenge to think of many Governing Bodies whose brand actually adds value to their properties.

The IOC, the FA, the FIA, the ICC and many more, they’ve all had their scandals, all demonstrated that corporate culture is often far removed from the values they promote as associated with their sports - without lasting damage to the property or the industry.

Think back to 2000 and the public scandal facing the IOC : McDonalds and Coke were rumoured to wobble, Sydney was inspirational, and the unrushed transition of Samaranch to Rogge was enough to coax the world to forgive and forget. For 99% of consumers, these bodies are event promoters, no more - their only relevance is how well they deliver the entertainment goods.

What’s most interesting for us, at Redmandarin, are the assumptions made around value association for sponsors.

The familiar litany of associations which brands claim attract them to football is unconvincingly positive. But although FIFA was found, in the judgement, to have abandoned the rules of fair play, the game itself is not so clean either. Shirt-pulling, diving, professional fouls, shocking and arrogant off-pitch behaviour, all these are undeniable and unpleasant parts of the current game which have a far greater impact on the property itself.

So what’s the rub? Are these darker values secretly welcomed by brands as a token of edginess? Or are many brands irredeemably myopic regarding their values? How many brand attributes are expressed in simplistic terms like: responsive, fun, dynamic, competitive… How many brand bullseyes don’t communicate a coherent brand personality? How many brand trackers only ever give consumers the opportunity to confirm a wish-list of attributes?

Our recent Sponsor Survey indicated that brand equity building is a higher order objective for sponsorship than brand awareness. But if this is so, why don’t more brands structure their sponsorship campaigns as explicitly around values as do Nike? Joga bonito bypassed rights-holders completely to appropriate the essence of the art of football.

So, to return to the question: potential for damage – zero. The real question is for brands: are you really managing your sponsorship activity to communicate brand values, or simply buddying up optimistically to a sport?