Sport is under increasing pressure to stop taking sponsorship from drinks companies

Sports sponsorship by drinks companies has been a hotly debated issue in recent months. Campaigners and medical experts are calling for an outright ban, which seems unlikely. But corporate responsibility professionals have a key role to play in defending self-regulation and integrating sports sponsorship with responsible consumption messages.

Likening alcohol to tobacco is a popular tactic of those pushing for tighter regulation of the drinks industry. Comparisons between the levels and types of harm each can cause aside, there is no doubt that the issues are similar, and nowhere is this truer than in sports sponsorship.

Tobacco brands are of course no longer permitted to sponsor sport in the UK and campaigners would like to see alcohol sponsorship similarly outlawed. The debate in the UK came to a head in September when Under the Influence, a report from the British Medical Association (BMA), called for a ban on alcohol advertising and sponsorship.

A ban on alcohol sports sponsorship has also been advocated by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) in its draft guidance published in October. More recently, an editorial in the journal Addiction made the same call.

The issue was addressed in October by the UK’s House of Commons health committee, which called executives from the football premier league to parliament to give evidence. It has also been widely discussed in the European Union.

Defending self-regulation

There are three prime areas of concern over sports sponsorship by alcohol brands: youth exposure, associations with sporting prowess and linking alcohol with driving through supporting motorsport. These are addressed under various industry and company marketing codes, and the degree to which self-regulation works lies at the centre of the debate.

David Poley, chief executive of the Portman Group, the UK’s alcohol self-regulatory body, agrees that these are the three prime areas of concern but believes self-regulation can ensure sponsorship is done appropriately. He says there is “no reason why drinks companies shouldn’t sponsor sport as long as they do so responsibly”.

The Portman Group’s code of practice on naming, packaging and promotion of drinks is written in broad terms. Poley says it provides measures regarding exposure of messages to children and encouraging excessive drinking that can be applied to sponsorship, along with an independent complaints procedure.

Jamie Fortescue, director general of the European spirits trade body Ceps, also defends self-regulation. “The important thing is it’s not seen to be appealing to young people and not giving the impression that consumption of the product is in any way going to improve performance on the sports field,” he says. He argues that those principles and fundamentals are contained in the self-regulation rules that currently exist.

The Portman Group’s counterpart in Europe is the European Forum for Responsible Drinking (EFRD) whose common standards for commercial communications include a specific section on sponsorship. Company codes, such as Diageo’s marketing code and Heineken’s rules on responsible commercial communication, include clauses relevant to the three areas of prime concern around sponsorship.

The European Sponsorship Association (ESA) points out that rights-holders also have self-regulatory codes establishing appropriate levels for alcohol sponsorship, and some sporting bodies choose not to engage with drinks companies at all.

However, in spite of the presence of these controls, and frequent announcements by self-regulatory organisations claiming high levels of compliance, campaigners and medical experts are far from satisfied.

Alcohol Concern’s Carys Davis says: “It doesn’t match up that it’s not OK to associate alcohol with sporting success in a TV advertisement and yet it is OK for an entire football tournament or an entire team to be sponsored by a beer.” Alcohol Concern is calling for a ban on all sports sponsorship by alcohol companies, along with a ban on alcohol advertising on television before the 9pm watershed.

Professor Gerard Hastings, author of the BMA report, believes the very concept of sports sponsorship “drives a coach and horses” through the industry’s self-regulatory codes, which he describes as timid.

He suggests any distinction being made between advertising and sponsorship is semantics. In fairness, industry advocates seem to make little distinction, and the way companies integrate sponsorship with above-the-line advertising means the two media are inextricably linked.

In theory, there are additional community investment benefits to sponsorship – the general cash injection alcohol sponsorship provides undoubtedly aids community-based work. But for alcohol companies extending branded sponsorships into the grassroots is problematic.

Scott Wilson, director of communications at Molson Coors UK, a major sponsor of football in both England and Scotland, says the company only looks to engage in community activities around its sponsorships that have adult appeal. “In fact under-age appeal is our number one reason for rejecting activities,” he says. Activities around its Carling cup sponsorship, for example, are “largely focused around the adult environment that is the pub”.

Growing evidence

The industry counters Hastings’ arguments by saying the evidence linking alcohol advertising or sponsorship with underage drinking is thin. This may have been the case a few years ago, but the evidence base appears to be growing.

Earlier this year, the science group of the EU’s alcohol and health forum concluded that there was “consistent evidence to demonstrate an impact of alcohol advertising on the uptake of drinking among [previously] non-drinking young people, and increased consumption among their drinking peers”. And Nice says: “Evidence shows that exposure to alcohol advertising is associated with the onset of drinking among children and young people – and increased consumption among those who already drink.”

The editorial in Addiction cited research in New Zealand specifically on sports sponsorship. However, David Poley says that research looked at sponsorship of amateur sport and had “very limited relevance to the issues surrounding drinks producers’ sponsorship of sport in the UK”.

Fortescue suggests that even if there is more evidence of an effect, any discernible impact is very small.

Responding to the Addiction editorial, the UK government says: “We are yet to see firm evidence of a link between sponsorship and people’s drinking habits.” However, Hastings believes that there is now sufficient evidence for alcohol companies to have to prove the absence of a link rather than the other way round, a point also made in the Addiction article.

Legislation not on the horizon

And so the debate continues, both in the UK and in Brussels, but legislation appears extremely unlikely at this stage. The government says: “We agree that alcohol advertising and sponsorship must be socially responsible but do not believe that the case has been made for a total or partial ban. Strict controls are already in place.” Sponsorship was “hugely important” to sport and the arts, and drinks brands had contributed “significantly”.

According to figures compiled by ESA, the global sponsorship industry is worth about $44.8bn, with sport accounting for 88%. The European market is about $11.7bn. Drinks and beer sponsorship globally amounted to $565m in 2008, representing 11% of total sponsorship spending, the fourth largest category. The absence of drinks sponsorship would put “a large dent” in sports funding in Europe, says Helen Day, head of European policy at ESA.

The current UK government’s view on sponsorship seems likely to prevail into the next administration. The Conservative party, likely to be forming a government in the UK next year, has unveiled a raft of alcohol policies. But these relate to strategic tax banding of problematic alcohol products, such as high-strength lagers and alcopops, changes to licensing laws and stricter enforcement generally.

Even in Scotland, where the devolved government is set to put new strict alcohol legislation before the Scottish parliament, including controversial minimum pricing proposals, a sponsorship ban is not on the agenda.

Meanwhile, among EU policymakers there appears little appetite for regulation in alcohol advertising and sponsorship. The European commission has generally taken a positive view of self-regulation in the alcohol sector. Some EU countries, notably France, have introduced stricter controls on alcohol advertising and sponsorship than others. However, there is little prospect of an EU-wide ban on either alcohol advertising or sponsorship, to mirror that already applied to tobacco, in the medium term.

The EU is midway through an alcohol strategy agreed in 2006, which is set to run until the end of 2012. Through the alcohol and health forum, industry participation in that strategy has been actively encouraged.

During the term of the Swedish EU presidency in the second half of 2009, alcohol policy has undoubtedly been moved up the European political agenda. The Swedes have held two conferences on the issue, where marketing communication was much discussed, ensuring a fairly uncomfortable time for the industry. But the degree to which this will influence current policy is probably relatively small.

The situation may change over the next couple of years as the end of the current alcohol strategy nears. For now, though, the industry’s strong lobby in Europe and its willingness to engage with all stakeholders has allowed it to stave off the threat of tighter regulation, in the face of strong pressure from a range of vociferous public health non-governmental organisations.

But while a ban on sponsorship seems unlikely, public concern will remain, and pressure on the industry will intensify if problems over alcohol misuse continue and the evidence for a link to sponsorship grows. And those concerns and the current emphasis on self-regulation bring sponsorship firmly under the remit of the corporate responsibility teams at major drinks firms who effectively have to fight on two fronts.

Sending the right message

As well as flying the flag for self-regulation, they are also charged with ensuring that sponsorship does not expose companies to reputational risk and, as part of that, companies often integrate responsible drinking initiatives with their sports sponsorships.

Sports sponsorships “provide an excellent platform to communicate a responsible drinking message to the millions of our consumers who are also great sports fans”, says Diageo corporate social responsibility director Carolyn Panzer. She adds that all of the company’s “signature sports sponsorships” communicate a responsible drinking message.

Diageo cites examples from its cricket sponsorships in the Caribbean, employing former West Indies captain Viv Richards in its Know Your Boundaries drink-drive campaign. The company has similar initiatives in India and the UK based around the Johnnie Walker Classic golf tournament and rugby respectively. It also runs a number of anti drink-drive initiatives around motorsport sponsorships in both Europe and the US.

The sponsorship of motorsport is itself a highly sensitive area from a corporate social responsibility standpoint. Diageo believes strongly that its initiatives around Formula 1 and Nascar in the US make a positive contribution to spreading the message about drink-driving. However, Pernod Ricard, the world’s second largest drinks firm after Diageo, has publicly stated it believes motorsport to be an inappropriate sponsorship option for alcohol.

Two US drinks companies, Jim Beam and Brown-Forman, recently pulled out of Nascar sponsorship, though both companies said they had done so for commercial reasons, and remained open to returning. Both had integrated responsible drinking initiatives with their Nascar sponsorships.

Scott Wilson says Molson Coors UK is “very willing to use sports sponsorship as a platform to drive a responsibility message”, citing the Take it Easy initiative in Glasgow linked to its sponsorship of both Celtic and Rangers football clubs.

Wilson also claims the voluntary removal of alcohol branding from the Glasgow teams’ child-sized replica shirts three years ago showed its commitment to responsible sponsorship. A stipulation regarding branding on children’s kit is now included in the Portman Group code, albeit only for sponsorship agreements signed after January 1 2008. This appears to have laid a highly contentious issue to rest.

Wilson stresses the importance of having a close and regular dialogue between the marketing team and corporate responsibility professionals. At Molson Coors, he is used as “a sounding-board and a counsel in decisions that may or may not impact on responsibility”. There may be many unknowns around the issue of sponsorship, but what is clear is that for alcohol companies the corporate responsibility team has a key role to play in sponsorship strategy.

Prof Hastings has a more sceptical view of corporate responsibility. He fundamentally believes companies by definition will have a first duty to their shareholders and therefore should not assume responsibilities that should rest with public health agencies. “If you’re concerned about benefiting public health, then experts in public health should do it and not experts in selling booze,” he says. In other words rules should be left to the regulators.

So far on alcohol sponsorship politicians have taken a more positive view of the role industry can play. But the mounting pressure in recent months underlines that, even if it is safe for now, alcohol sponsorship of sport is never likely to be that far away from the firing line.

Sponsorship and self-regulation

The Portman Group’s code of practice is written in broad terms to cover a range of commercial areas including sports sponsorships.

  • Promotional activity should not suggest any association with “bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous or antisocial” behaviour. But the code adds that sponsorship of activities which may be dangerous after alcohol consumption, such as motor racing or yachting, is not in breach of this clause.
  • Promotional activity should not suggest consumption leads to social success or popularity, or enhance mental or physical capabilities.
  • Promotional activity should not have particular appeal to under-18s. In the case of sponsorship those under 18 years of age should not comprise more than 25% of the participants, audience or spectators. Alcohol branding on children’s sizes of replica kit is considered to contravene the code but this measure only applies to sponsorships signed after January 1 2008.

Rights holders view of alcohol sponsorship

Research carried out by the European Sponsorship Association into sports and cultural rights holders rights holders’ views of alcohol sponsorship found the following.

  • 37% of the sporting rights holders surveyed said they had an alcohol sponsorship of some kind, higher than the overall average of 32%.
  • Beer sponsorships were most common, with 22% of respondents stating they had a beer sponsor, versus 17% for wine and 14% for spirits.
  • Some 67% of respondents who have policies regarding alcohol sponsorship have banned it altogether while 56% will only accept it for events targeted at the appropriately aged audience.
  • 57% of those organisations with an alcohol sponsor have regulations governing how it is activated, for example relating to sampling, giveaways and signage. 60% of those who would consider alcohol sponsorship in the future would impose such terms.
  • Only 21% of organisations/events surveyed currently include clauses in their contracts relating to responsible marketing by their alcohol sponsors. However, 70% of the overall sample would consider doing so in the future.


Related Reads

comments powered by Disqus