Sponsorship in sport is a multi-billion dollar business globally. Businesses see sponsorship from a commercial and marketing perspective. Sponsorship recipients see it as a means of funding. It could be valued as little as $50 or less or over a billion dollars or more. Either way it is a business agreement between two parties. The sponsor provides money, goods, services or know-how. In exchange, the sponsored party (individual, event or organisation) offers rights and associations that the sponsor utilizes commercially.
Not without stating what should be the obvious Hockey associations, clubs and players need to offset the costs of running hockey competitions or events and players, particularly elite representative players, need to offset their costs of pursuing their playing careers. To do this sponsors are firstly sought and to do this is often a tall task when the available sponsors’ pool can be limited when all sports are competing for available sponsors. To successfully obtain major sponsor is ‘gold’ but to keep them is a bigger treasure. Why? Like any business agreement between two parties both of their pursued needs must be met.
However as a one-time tertiary lecturer in the field of sports marketing which included developing sponsorship proposals, and long term hockey player, coach and administrator I have witnessed hockey administrators, sponsored players and hockey players treat the business nature of a sponsorship agreement with distain by failing to fulfil their business and ethical obligations to sponsors. The reasons for this have been a lack of education, ignorance or worse still a display of arrogance. Sometimes good business men and women leave behind their business accruements and skills when it comes to business dealings in a community sporting environment. Also the hockey playing population by their actions tend to be uneducated about the value of sponsorship support and in particular how hockey needs it to compete against other sports.
The greatest example where this occurs in hockey is the nonchalant acceptance by hockey clubs, associations, and players of ‘ambush marketing’ . ‘Ambush marketing’ has always been a substantial scourge in the sponsoring industry which tends to pose quite a number of threats and also affects the image of sponsorship which at times could lead to questioning the whole integrity of the sponsorship arrangements. Ambush marketing is regarded as a marketing campaign that takes place around an event or association or club but does not involve payment of a sponsorship fee to the event or club or association for obligatory rights. For most events of any significance, or for sponsorship rights to a club or association one brand or a company will pay to become the exclusive and official sponsor of the event or association or in a particular category or categories, and this exclusivity creates a problem for one or more other brands. Those other brands then find ways to promote themselves in connection with the same event or directly to the players or clubs within an association, without paying the sponsorship fee and without breaking any laws.
The Beijing 2008 Olympic event is an attestation of the above definition, whereby a billion people in China alone and millions of viewers worldwide witnessed the Chinese gymnast Li Ning light up the Olympic torch wearing Li-Ning shoes while Adidas was the sponsor of the clothing and shoes of the athletes. Li Ning apparently has his own shoe company which is quite popular in China and in the year 2008, they outfitted Olympians such as the Chinese ping pong players, Argentina’s basketball squad and Tanzania’s track and field athletes. But they were not an official Olympic sponsor. The visibility received from that alone boosted their market share in a country of 1.3 billion inhabitants.
Hockey clubs do this when they select a conflicting sponsor to the one their association has already secured. An example is that clubs will wear a conflicting sponsor’s logo on their shirts to that of the official sponsor of an association has secured for the overall monetary benefit of all clubs in the association. Another disappointing ‘ambush marketing’ practice is where individual members of a club or association sell or promote conflicting business products in a way that ethically undermines a club or association’s sponsor who is financially contributing to the overall development of the sport. The selling of hockey sticks by ‘backyarders’ by unethical means or influence is an example of this. It is not about competition but rather the way it is done. Finally, hockey players themselves, who because of their playing ‘gift’, have acquired a sponsorship. Too often you hear or see a sponsored player abuse or not fulfil the requirements of his or her sponsorship. I have often wondered why with the large percentage of hockey participants who are financially established we do not see more of them being a hockey sponsor, especially when there are cases of knowing they sponsor alternative sports.
Hockey as a sport needs to continue its ‘march’ to become a professional sport which has professional business practices as both a value and goal. A goal that will only become a reality if all connected to hockey are educated on the importance of sponsor’s contribution to the growth of hockey and then do what is right in the context of the agreement with the sponsor. Therefore it is important that the highest hockey administrators in the country need to help clubs and local associations have access to resources and workshops that assist them in planning, writing proposal, gaining and maintaining sponsors so agreements are fulfilled. Then you will see more sponsors coming on board with hockey. This is before you tackle the issue of a lack of media support that is needed to ‘draw’ sponsors to the game.
Source: various
