Are there any? The main and some would say the only reason for any firm to sponsor a team is to get their brand out to the public so they can make money. I’m currently watching the Big Bash League. Clearly they are in bed with KFC as both teams have their logo on their kit. One team, Hobart Hurricanes are also sponsored by Cadbury. One of the local AFL teams here, West Coast Eagles main sponsor are Hungry Jacks (Burger King in the rest of the world). The AFL itself have a list of sponsors that include McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Sportsbet. In the UK and very close to home Sunderland have been sponsored by a brewery, two betting organisations and an online bingo firm. Lots of other teams will also be sponsored by similar organisations. So the question is where is the line drawn?
I'd draw the line at our closest neighbours, The Maggots, sponsor . . . . "****a" I think they're called I can't think of a more embarrassing and immoral sponsor anywhere
I don't think there is any morality in sport now when it comes to ownership or sponsor. I'm staggered that tobacco companies haven't found a way to get their names on a shirt.....Major sport is now ruled by hard cash, I really doubt the owner care less where it comes from
I've done quite a bit in activating corporate sponsorships, Jeep and Richmond football club, Jeep and world Surf League, Alfa Romeo and Formula 1. The work is utter ****ing bullshit and soul destroying. It has got me to the point where I'm consider retiring from advertising at that grand old age of 32.
Loved Vaux as our sponsor. Local bussines responsible for mass employment for the area be it direct at the brewery or the many publicans. A business at the heart of a working class town in a working class industry, providing working class hospitality and sponsoring the very sports team at the core of it all. It's more than bog standard ethical it's virtuous! The Brewery, the Club, the fans all stretching each others backs. Our webfaced atrocities (with their organs on the outside) from across the way can boast similar times. Special times. When branding revolved around the community, not the bank balance. Proper ethical, at least in the footballing universe. To think we both went on to have Payday Lenders and ****ing internet bookies across our shirts. Industries which pray on our working class addictions and misfortunes. Families in our communities ravaged by the profit of these vultures while they parade their dirty ****ing names in our faces every matchday, ****, every time we open the wardrobe knowing our beloved clubs sold out to them. Think we have the most ethical and immorral examples in our own region's clubs. So sad.
I’m playing devils advocate here as I know how much Vaux meant to the town. Yes they employed a lot of people but hospitals and rehab units are full of people with an alcohol addiction. Any medical professional will tell you that if we removed alcohol from the equation then the health service would be in much better shape. Now, I know that not everyone who drinks alcohol will become dependent upon it and whilst I hardly drink any more I certainly did in my younger days so my reply is a bit hypocritical. I don’t know the rules around advertising but is alcohol allowed to be sold through tv adverts any more? We certainly don’t allow tobacco products to be advertised now as we know the harm it does. But I put up this thread to provoke debate and that’s what is happening.
I think you're absolutely spot on.... Tobacco, Betting and Alcohol in an ideal world should not be allowed for obvious reasons.... But they cherry pick which ones they believe to be the least offensive while all are legal pursuits .....Its a strange world
The trouble is that there are no totally ethical companies ... ... even charities have scandals. Sunderland aren't immune to it, as we know all too well.
In those 'good old days', when the Board was made up of local worthies, sponsorship of Football Clubs was unknown. There were advertising boards around the pitch and some Players got cars with the sponsors name plastered all over it, but the Club itself remained alloof from such things. When it did raise it's ugly head, in the 80's (?), SAFC went for a policy of getting local business's to use our shirts as advertising boards. Motor Trade - Cowies and Reg Vardy, Vaux of Blessed memory. When the Irish took over we had an Irish bookie and after that we reverted to a local Internet Bingo company. Then it became whoever paid most however the Fans felt about it. The Club has never been among the 'Big Sponsership earners' and, given our almost none existant national exposure now we are surely near the bottom of the pile when it comes to finding a sponsor. And I do wonder about the tail wagging the dog when it comes to SPONSORSHIP of the game in general. Look at the Boards behind any player being interviewed. More sponsors than Players!!! Football Clubs, particularly those at the top end, will it seems sell themselves to any organisation with no consideration of any moral or ethical issues. And as it isn't in the interests of these 'top Clubs' to change the system, we are stuck with it.
Iirc at one time Barcelona eschewed sponsorship and had UNICEF? on their backs. Now I think even they have succumbed.
The further down the pyramid you go, the more important sponsorship becomes. Sponsorship deals can mean the difference between leagues for some non-league clubs and, in some cases, the difference between existence and non-existence. Some of the richest clubs could probably survive without it, and could rely just on merchandise sales and TV deals (gate money seems to be a comparative drop in the ocean to many of them) but it would be impractical to get rid of it altogether. I've never been tempted to take up gambling (or any other vices) because of a football sponsor. I've only been in a bookies once in my life and I didn't place a bet. So to suggest that it preys on people is naive- if you're predelicted that way it might increase your awareness of where you can go to bet though. Similarly, I have not bought Yokohama Tyres or flown Emirates because I saw it on a football shirt.
The problem is that where there's money there's usually corruption. As just one example Sir Philip Green. Knight of the Realm, charity giver, employer of thousands ... ... racist, sex abuser, fraud, paid factory workers less than minimum wage. You might've thought Arcadia would make a good sponsor until you found out what a rotter he was and he'd ripped off your pension fund.
Of course there is but alcohol has been all over the word forever. Saying it's evil because because a tiny percentage of consumers develop addictions doesn't do it for me. Alcohol is a naturally forming thing, fermentation has existed before humans. Pharma aditcitons, do we remove medications cause people develop additions? Of course not. Alcohol is hardly an industry designed to profit from misery. It's a pint of 4% beer not heroin. Sorry, you'll not get me to spite millions for a tiny minority. Your argument could ban sugar, also would be ridiculous. You could develop a govt tat bans all impurities making it dictoral on this argument. Doesn't hold weight for me. Vaux has done more for general moral than its every done damage to indervididual people with an addition which would still exist if Vaux didn't.
And by way. Stopping TV advertising never did **** all to curring an addict ever. Nor has it prevented people becoming addicted. Just cause fat cooperate ****s of the world get their heads together and decide something then declare it this and that never made it so. Smoking advertising ban never did ****. Where as interfering dictoral govts made the difference with chronic tax rises. People stopped smoking because our govt made it too expensive no other reason. At the end of the day what ever we think doesn't matter. The govts will decide regardless. Even what's ethical doesn't matter. One person in power and that person's opinion. All that matters in the grand scheme sadly.
The bit I don't understand, is they banned tobacco advertising in formula 1, snooker etc. How many people saw a Benson and hedges f1 car and thought "ooh I just fancy a smoke"
Not many. But he established smokers who thought, 'might give b&h a try' will be many. It's almost as though smoking was a billion pound industry with all the established customers they could ever want and advertizing being a way to compete with their competitions rather than a radged cospirisy to make everybody smoke. Can't tell politicians **** all though lol
I smoke and did when tobacco advertising was allowed, at no point watch the malboro mclaren did I think to change brand
Unfortunately advertising works. I get the whole, I saw X and it didn't make me do/buy Y. It doesn't work like that. But it most definitely does work. It's often not such a conscious decision but a brand's touchpoints accumulate in the individual and the collective's pschye and affects purchasing decisions from chewing gum to automotive. I laugh when people say it doesn't work on them because their lives more than they know. You smoke Marlboroughs because your old smoked them because he liked the Marlborough man. You drive a VW because German Engineering. Your clothes smell like tide because your missus bought tide after seeing a dazzling end display and the two for one offer. All the lads at football wear a specific kind of polo and it's a tribal kind of thing so you buy the same polo. You love Nike because of their work with BLM. You hate Nike because of their work with BLM. And that dumb little sign at the formula 1 just reaffirms the brand in your mind, and subconsciously reminds you of a time you enjoyed. Not all advertising works on everyone. But almost all advertising works on someone. Cars, cigs, booze, laundry detergents, food brands and clothes all have carefully curated images that seep in all over the ****ing shop. It's a ****ing filthy business.
