In the wake of official sponsor hegemony at the Cricket World Cup, a storm is brewing six months ahead of the Rugby World Cup (RWC) in Australia. RWC Ltd has always controlled the rights to branding at the grounds and on match apparel, but a new edict seeks to extend those rights to every aspect of the tournament.
This would mean teams would have to train, travel and even rest in ‘clean†apparel. That would preclude Castle Lager, who are in the fourth year of a five-year R75-million deal with the Springboks, from featuring anywhere at the tournament.
The individual sponsors of the Six Nations teams have already complained to the International Rugby Board (IRB) about RWC’s decision. Now they are ready to join together in an effort to overturn the decision.
David James, Scotland’s sponsorship manager, said: ‘An initial salvo has been fired across the IRB’s bows but to no great effect. I think the plan now is to regroup and make a formal approach with a weight of numbers rather than each of us moaning one after another.†Â
Rian Oberholzer, C EO of SA Rugby Pty Ltd, says: ‘We are in a different position to the home nations in that we have not included the RWC into our sponsorship deal with Castle. They therefore understand that there will be limited opportunities for exposure for them at this time. These kinds of rules are the norm with international events such as the RWC and it is therefore important to take them into consideration when negotiating sponsorships.â€
Rob Fleming, SABMiller’s sponsorship manager, is aware of the the ban. Although he firmly supports the principle of protecting RWC sponsors during the tournament (because they have invested significants funds into the RWC), the key issue is that the rules have been changed (ie no branding to be worn at practices or informally) since negotiating the contract with SA Rugby and this reduces the value of the sponsorship.
Fleming went on to say: ‘I learned a lot during the course of the Cricket World Cup. Maybe they went too far in banning the guy with the Coke can from the stadium, but the principle behind it is a good one. Guys like LG put up serious money to be part of that tournament and they don’t deserve to have it ambushed.â€
Paul Vaughan, the (English) Rugby Football Union’s commercial director, is also concerned about the possible devaluation of a sponsorship: ‘Under one guise or another, O2 [formerly BT Cellnet] have been England sponsors for seven years. The relationship has been very good and this does not help us deliver what they have had in the past.
‘The rules for the 2003 World Cup have suddenly changed, which does weaken our value in the longer term. When we renegotiate, it is inevitable that O2 will think ahead to the next World Cup in 2007.â€
Fleming said there may be a loophole in the case of clothing sponsorship. ‘My understanding is that there is no overall clothing sponsor at the World Cup, just as was the case with cricket, and therefore they are allowed to have their logo on teams that they sponsor.â€
In the case of South Africa, France and England, that means Nike, while New Zealand have a multimillion-dollar deal with Adidas as both their clothing and overall sponsor.
But the really serious implications are for the smaller unions, many of whom have sold sponsorship heavily weighted towards exposure at the World Cup.
Visa, although one of the cup’s major sponsors, is believed to have asked Argentina for a refund on its individual sponsorship because the team will not be able to wear the company’s decal in Australia.
RWC Ltd have already stopped New Zealand from co-hosting the event due to an argument over ‘clean†stadia, and earlier this week the International Rugby Players Association announced plans to demand prize money for players.
With the sponsors also unhappy, it could be a troubled six months for the organisers of the game’s main showpiece.