Merryman Kunene soccer
Barcelona might pride themselves on being the only major club in the world without a shirt sponsor, but for most teams those words on their chests mean vital money in the bank. But what teams wear – or don’t wear – on the front of their shirts is a thorny issue, as recently illustrated by the charity debacle (where Vodacom-backed Kaizer Chiefs and Orlando Pirates refused to play in an MTN Challenge and Telkom eventually stepped in to back the event) and the BP Top Eight, where Total-sponsored Ajax Cape Town had to parade the logo of rival brand BP. The bone of contention here is the South African tradition that clubs “abandon” their regular sponsors while they participate in cup competitions. Ten of the current Premier Soccer League (PSL) sides have regular sponsors – who pay to have their branding on the team’s shirts. Who could imagine Vodafone allowing Manchester United to wear the sponsor’s name, “Axa”, on their shirts while participating in the FA Cup? In African club competitions, the Confederation of African Football (CAF) must approve shirt sponsors before a match – but that is just a precautionary measure, for example to prevent alcohol being advertised in Muslim countries. Sundowns played in Tunisia recently without “Disprin” on their shirts because the club had forgotten to obtain CAF’s permission. A look into the history of South African soccer reveals that the freedom given to sponsors in general was the cause of today’s problems. Where in the world have you heard of sponsors demanding that part of the deal is for the team to change its name to that of their sponsors – remember names like Double Action Sundowns, Total (and Giant Curl) Aces, Giant Blackpool and Amandla AmaZulu? Perhaps lollipop-sucking Moroka Swallows coach Zeca Marcques should ask sucker-maker Chupa Chups, sponsor of English first division side Sheffield Wednesday, to fly south to back the Dube Birds. Someone might argue that sponsors were hard to come by in the apartheid era and teams just had to accept whatever came their way, but things should have changed by now – and the PSL must step in to sort out the mess. Grant Nicholls, sponsorship manager at Total South Africa, laments: “We have to toe the line with the PSL. Some of these things do not make sense, especially if the event sponsor is allowed to cover half the shirt while regular team sponsors have to settle for a strip on the sleeve.” Nicholls says he doesn’t necessarily have a problem with competitors sponsoring soccer tournaments, but he feels that once his company has secured the rights to a team it has to stay that way, even if his team is involved in a cup tournament. If Swallows and Ajax – teams sponsored for the season by Total – perform well in the BP Top 8, for instance, they have unwittingly endorsed the opposition company for however long they stay in the event. The PSL hierarchy says it is looking into this dubious arrangement, either with an eye to removing cup sponsors’ shirt rights or helping teams get better benefits from this sponsorship. “People have to realise that in the past football didn’t get any support from corporate sponsors, hence we found ourselves in this predicament,” said PSL representative Andrew Dipela. He says a decision has already been taken to allow teams to benefit from shirt sponsorship rights, and that new policy will be effective with every new sponsor signed. But those in the know doubt whether this will be implemented. Insiders say when the recent Charity Spectacular and BP Top 8 were played, the new policy was supposed to go into effect but never did. And will whichever sponsor takes over from Rothmans (being given the boot in 2003 because of the ban on tobacco advertising) in backing the League Cup agree to a deal that deprives it of similar rights enjoyed by existing sponsors? Vuyo Zambodla, communications manager at BP, believes it is procedurally correct for tournament sponsors to get more prominence than club sponsors while the event is in progress.
He does concede that this year’s return of the competition (after three years) was hastily arranged and is due for review with the PSL. “We cannot say whether it is right or wrong for event sponsors to get more prominence during the tournament but the contract we have stipulates that we must get our branding on the kit,” Zambodla said. It is not clear whether BP would drop the kit branding if the new policy was brought into effect or possibly pay extra for it. Of course, all of this is meaningless to the other eight teams who are without shirt sponsors and are very much dependent on the PSL for revenue derived from collective deals. Each team gets R200E000 a month from the PSL – but is this enough to sustain a premier league side? “It is never enough,” says Manto Madlala, chair of the newly promoted Golden Arrows from KwaZulu- Natal. While she says the grant comes in handy there is no doubt that it has to be reviewed. “We hope that the new PSL chief executive [Robin Peterson] will put this issue high on his agenda.”
While Madlala decries the lack of attention from corporate South Africa for the smaller clubs, she is still patiently waiting for the right deal. She thinks history is still working against some teams in the country. While Arrows are new in the league, some teams have been waiting for years to join the elite clubs’ on shirt sponsorship – and when they do they want it to be a profitable one.