The Industry Column – 20 April

The organisation of the ICC Cricket World Cup has raised some
fundamental issues about the relationship between sport and business says
Richard Gillis, sports columnist for The Irish Times.

I’ve spent the last six weeks following the Ireland cricket team as they
break records and make friends on their incredible journey around the Caribbean.

But away from the pitch, the stories have been much less positive. In
fact, the ICC Cricket World Cup has been one of the most controversial events in
recent history. And from a sports business perspective, it has raised some
troubling issues.

It is a sad indictment of the tournament that the talk
in the bars and hotels of Georgetown, Guyana last week were not of cricket but
of ambush marketing, ticket prices and white elephant stadia.

There is
real anger among local people at the way the tournament has been run, and with
good reason; being a spectator at this World Cup has been a chastening
experience.

Take the West Indies v Sri Lanka game at Providence Stadium
in Georgetown two weeks ago. As they queued to get in the ground, security
guards were taking soft drinks away from schoolchildren and throwing them in a
bin in front of them. Supporters were forced to take off their shirts or have
any ‘offending’ logos taped over. Tickets for a seat started at $50. The guys
working in my hotel earned $100 a month. Games take place against a backdrop of
empty stadia, as sponsors fail to show up, and the locals are priced out of the
tournament.
Malcolm Speed’s response was not helpful. “It seems the tickets
were a little rich for the local palate,” said the ICC chief executive in a tone
not heard since colonial days.

Another incident, that took place in
Jamaica at the match between Ireland and Pakistan on St Patrick’s Day, shows how
much energy and resource is spent policing suspected ambush marketers.
An
RTE news crew tried to interview a few members of the Blarney Army, the
travelling group of Irish supporters who have added so much to the atmosphere in
the grounds here.

There are restrictions on what RTE can do given they
have not paid for the rights to broadcast from this event. The main constraint
is they are not allowed to film inside the ground.

Conscious of this,
the RTE reporter asked a handful of Irish fans to join him outside the gates of
the Sabina Park stadium to do a little colour piece to camera. This is where it
gets silly.
Seeing what they were doing, an ICC official ran over and
stopped them filming. The reason? One of the fans was wearing an Ireland
football shirt. On the shirt was an Umbro logo. Umbro are not an official
partner of Cricket World Cup.

At the heart of all this is money, and a
deep insecurity on the part of the ICC.

Sponsorship has brought in
enormous sums as corporations seek to bask in the game’s reflected glory. The
logos of Pepsi, LG, Hutchison 3 and Honda dominate the playing surface, circled
by a host of other brands on the perimeter boards.

These companies have
paid top dollar for category exclusivity. However, in today’s marketing
environment this is a promise that is difficult to keep. 

Their unease
is fueled by recent experience. Following the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany,
research indicated that when asked to recall who sponsored the event, most
people said Nike. This despite the sportswear company never having paid a euro
to FIFA in sponsorship fees.
This was noted by arch rivals adidas however,
which paid $60million to be an official sponsor.

Every event holder has
the right to protect their partners’ investment, without income from sponsors
the sports economy would collapse.

But two questions present themselves.
The first is a general point of principle: how far can companies be prevented
from advertising their product in a free market?

The second is specific
to this Cricket World Cup: At what point does the policing of ambush marketing
have a negative impact on the companies it is designed to protect?

The
case against the ICC is that it gets it wrong on the margins: the heavy
handedness of their approach creates a story of its own, which grabs headlines
for the wrong reasons and is ultimately self defeating. 

Their
commercial partners wanted their brand linked to terms like cultural diversity,
tradition and fair play. But instead they have come across as petty and
vindictive. Not what they signed up for at all.