More proof that Olympic Games is about money above all

[ioan]

As if needed more proof:

Michael Phelps could get in trouble for Louis Vuitton photos | Fourth-Place Medal - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/michael-phelps-could-trouble-louis-vuitton-photos-141804124--oly.html)

Let's strip him of his medals earned in the pool because he dared to advertise for anyone else but the sponsors of the olympic games! WTF people?!
Is this the Olympic spirit?!

People like Phelps make us watch the olympic games not the sponsors!

[Mark]

Seems like a genuine mistake.

[ioan]

This is the same in whatever sport you watch. Sounds silly to us, but these guys are also paid an awful lot of money by certain sponsors who won't be too happy if a rival company is also being plugged.

The other week Ronaldinho walked into a press conference drinking a Pepsi. He's sponsored or was by their main competitor Coca Cola. He lost the sponsorship and thats unsurprising IMO.

Coca-Cola Cancels Ronaldinho Sponsorship over Pepsi, Articles | THISDAY LIVE (http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/coca-cola-cancels-ronaldinho-sponsorship-over-pepsi/119823/)

You're mistaking personal sponsorship with the olympic games sponsors. What applies for Ronadinho's case doesn't apply in Phelps' case as he didn't upset any of his own sponsors.
Why is there an IOC rule that prohibits an athlete from advertising a not olympic games company during the olympic games? Is the IOC protecting their own revenues at the expenses of the athletes? And to enforce it they threaten to strip them of their hard earned medals?
It's all about the money and nothing else, but then again all these so called sport governing bodies are just that money making machines no matter if you talk about the IOC, the UEFA, the FIA etc...

[ioan]

Seems like a genuine mistake.

Most probably. Also the athlete is not really in control of who might leak information from such advertising campaign and I fail to see why the athlete shall be thus punished.
The rule itself is a joke that shouldn't have ever been written.

[Malbec]

Let's strip him of his medals earned in the pool because he dared to advertise for anyone else but the sponsors of the olympic games! WTF people?!
Is this the Olympic spirit?!

I guess you didn't read the article.

Nowhere does it even mention that Phelps is being investigated by the IOC for what seems to be a leak or simple error let alone lose his medals, but don't let that get in the way of a rant.

[ioan]

I guess you didn't read the article.

Nowhere does it even mention that Phelps is being investigated by the IOC for what seems to be a leak or simple error let alone lose his medals, but don't let that get in the way of a rant.

My beef is with that specific rule 40, but that shouldn't stop your rambling, eh?!

[BleAivano]

As if needed more proof:

Michael Phelps could get in trouble for Louis Vuitton photos | Fourth-Place Medal - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/michael-phelps-could-trouble-louis-vuitton-photos-141804124--oly.html)

Let's strip him of his medals earned in the pool because he dared to advertise for anyone else but the sponsors of the olympic games! WTF people?!
Is this the Olympic spirit?!

People like Phelps make us watch the olympic games not the sponsors!


It is the same as Yohan Blake who i believe was in danger of being fined because he wore watch that was not
a watch made by the official London 2012 watch sponsor.

Jamaican sprinter Yohan Blake wore a custom $500,000 watch in the 100, and the IOC is not happy : Stltoday (http://www.stltoday.com/sports/olympics/blogs/jamaican-sprinter-yohan-blake-wore-a-custom-watch-in-the/article_f96666ea-0a14-5535-b346-f0042993cdff.html)

also regarding money. 2012 might have been the last time SVT (Swedish equivalent of BBC) broadcasted an Olympic game.
for the 2014 and 2016 the commercial media company Viasat have bough the rights. Meaning that those who want to see it all have to pay up.
Some of it will be available in their public Tv-channels but far far from as much as with SVT.

[anthonyvop]

Considering that the last Olympic host city that actually made money was Los Angeles then one can understand how the committees would want to protect their sponsors.

And

seeing that this is a Motorsports forum should it is bewildering that some have a hard time accepting the general rules behind sponsorship. I deal is sponsorship and when you are paying $$$ for an event or competitor it comes with a contract. You expect that contract to be honored.

[Malbec]

Considering that the last Olympic host city that actually made money was Los Angeles then one can understand how the committees would want to protect their sponsors.

And

seeing that this is a Motorsports forum should it is bewildering that some have a hard time accepting the general rules behind sponsorship. I deal is sponsorship and when you are paying $$$ for an event or competitor it comes with a contract. You expect that contract to be honored.

Agreed.

I don't see the problem with Olympics and sponsorship.

Perhaps some people would prefer if the IOC didn't involve itself in sponsorship in any way and lost out on a good revenue stream that could be used to either improve the games, reduce the costs for the hosting city or both.

If they're going to be taking money from sponsors then they need to do it properly, set out contracts and honour them. Olympians are perfectly free not to agree with any aspect of the Olympic games and not turn up.

BTW how many stadia, tube stations and athletes' flats have been built on Olympic spirit? As a London taxpayer I'm glad bluechip companies were prepared to stump up so much money and reduce our tax bill.

[BDunnell]

Considering that the last Olympic host city that actually made money was Los Angeles then one can understand how the committees would want to protect their sponsors.

And

seeing that this is a Motorsports forum should it is bewildering that some have a hard time accepting the general rules behind sponsorship. I deal is sponsorship and when you are paying $$$ for an event or competitor it comes with a contract. You expect that contract to be honored.

I generally agree with you, though I believe companies should be less sensitive about breaches, parodies, etc.

[BDunnell]

My beef is with that specific rule 40, but that shouldn't stop your rambling, eh?!

If that post was your definition of 'rambling' — well, words fail me.

[anthonyvop]

I generally agree with you, though I believe companies should be less sensitive about breaches, parodies, etc.


Sure. Why not? It isn't your money after all.

Breaches are very important. One of the reasons that Olympic sponsorship is so expensive is that you are paying for EXCLUSIVE rights. To violate it is equal to theft.

[BDunnell]

Sure. Why not? It isn't your money after all.

Breaches are very important. One of the reasons that Olympic sponsorship is so expensive is that you are paying for EXCLUSIVE rights. To violate it is equal to theft.

You hold freedom of speech very dear, no? In that case, why do you feel it can be restricted in exchange for large sums of money? This is, in effect, what you're arguing.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I'm so happy we are a small country and have no chance of hosting Olympics. At least we are spared that meaningless hysteria. Of all the Olympics I've seen Barcelona was the last example of a half-decent balance between sports and commerce. Ever since we've seen nothing but a thinly disguised commerce. In London it was all commerce and no sports.

[Malbec]

In London it was all commerce and no sports.

?

Once inside the events I have to say the commercial aspect was largely invisible except for the odd ad here and there during breaks, and certainly far less intrusive than other sports events I've been to.

As has already been mentioned its odd that fans of such a sponsorship intensive sport should take exception to sponsorship...

[BDunnell]

As has already been mentioned its odd that fans of such a sponsorship intensive sport should take exception to sponsorship...

I have no objections to sponsorship, but I do have serious problems with the reverence that now has to be demonstrated towards those that provide it.

[anthonyvop]

You hold freedom of speech very dear, no? In that case, why do you feel it can be restricted in exchange for large sums of money? This is, in effect, what you're arguing.

The Olympics are a PRIVATE event. Any athlete who competes agrees to knowing full well what the rules are. By competing and signing the agreement you have legally agreed to those terms.
Don't like it? Do compete in the Olympics and sign whichever sponsor you wish.

[anthonyvop]

I have no objections to sponsorship, but I do have serious problems with the reverence that now has to be demonstrated towards those that provide it.

Don't like it? Don't go.

If you think the Olympics would be anywhere as big and impressive as it is now without the massive infusion of sponsorship $$$ and the actions it brings then I want to show you a bridge I have in Brooklyn that I can let you have for a song.

[anthonyvop]

Anybody else notice how that bastion of Marxist Leninism that calls itself the The Democratic People's Republic of Korea but we known it as North Korea was wearing an undecidely non-socialist sponsor logo on some of their uniforms?

http://c.o0bc.com/rf/image_539o215/Boston/2011-2020/Wires/2012/08/04/Boston.com/APOnlineImages/2012-08-04/fa494c62d5e54a15170f6a706700983a.jpg

[janvanvurpa]

The Olympics are a PRIVATE event. Any athlete who competes agrees to knowing full well what the rules are. By competing and signing the agreement you have legally agreed to those terms.
Don't like it? Do compete in the Olympics and sign whichever sponsor you wish.

Of course Vop in his usual extremely short and one sided way forgets that the Olympics while a private organisation, always depend on enormous trainloads of public money--that's TAXPAYER--subsidies, and costs like Police and Army AA sites, and traffic control etc...
All the people taxed and all the business and travel disrupted, they didn't sign contracts, and they didn't benefit from the millions exchanging hands..

But since when does reality impinge on Mr Vop?

[BDunnell]

The Olympics are a PRIVATE event. Any athlete who competes agrees to knowing full well what the rules are. By competing and signing the agreement you have legally agreed to those terms.
Don't like it? Do compete in the Olympics and sign whichever sponsor you wish.

So, like I said, you don't actually consider freedom of speech to be universal, despite what you may otherwise say. Glad to get that clear.

[BDunnell]

Don't like it? Don't go.

If you think the Olympics would be anywhere as big and impressive as it is now without the massive infusion of sponsorship $$$ and the actions it brings then I want to show you a bridge I have in Brooklyn that I can let you have for a song.

Depends what one considers as 'impressive'. As I said earlier, I agree with your underlying point about sponsorship of sport, but am not comfortable with the undue respect that is now expected to be shown towards sponsors merely on grounds of money.

[BDunnell]

Of course Vop in his usual extremely short and one sided way forgets that the Olympics while a private organisation, always depend on enormous trainloads of public money--that's TAXPAYER--subsidies, and costs like Police and Army AA sites, and traffic control etc...
All the people taxed and all the business and travel disrupted, they didn't sign contracts, and they didn't benefit from the millions exchanging hands..

But since when does reality impinge on Mr Vop?

And, mysteriously, to him they are not deserving of the same respect as are the sources of private funds. Somewhat inconsistent.

[Mark]

Considering that the last Olympic host city that actually made money was Los Angeles then one can understand how the committees would want to protect their sponsors.

.

It was my understanding that Atlanta also made a profit.

[ioan]

I have no objections to sponsorship, but I do have serious problems with the reverence that now has to be demonstrated towards those that provide it.

Agreed, the sponsors get exposure for their money, at least this is how it used to be.
Nowadays the exposure is not enough, they expect those at the receiving end to totally give up on their rights for a handful of money.

[BDunnell]

Agreed, the sponsors get exposure for their money, at least this is how it used to be.
Nowadays the exposure is not enough, they expect those at the receiving end to totally give up on their rights for a handful of money.

For all their power they seem curiously insecure, as well — as though their massive corporate might can be overturned by a group of people waving a home-made banner suggesting that, for instance, McDonald's food might not be very good.

[cali]

For all their power they seem curiously insecure, as well — as though their massive corporate might can be overturned by a group of people waving a home-made banner suggesting that, for instance, McDonald's food might not be very good.
Which is actually very true statement :D

[ioan]

If you think the Olympics would be anywhere as big and impressive as it is now without the massive infusion of sponsorship $$$ and the actions it brings then I want to show you a bridge I have in Brooklyn that I can let you have for a song.

I took some time to do a bit of research and found that the Olympic Games were always financed by someone, at the begining by philanthropists like Evangelos Zappas, who actually revived and sponsored the first editions of the modern Olympic Games starting back in 1859, long before Pierre de Coubertin founded the IOC in 1894.
Nowadays the whole thing turned into big business for the IOC and various corporations who buy the exclusive sponsorship rights.

And A Vop, you should understand that the Games are about the athletes not about sponsorship. With all the money the games would be nothing without the main actors.

[ioan]

For all their power they seem curiously insecure, as well — as though their massive corporate might can be overturned by a group of people waving a home-made banner suggesting that, for instance, McDonald's food might not be very good.

I think it's more about the hold that lawyers have got on our society then about other things (image is also important though).

[BDunnell]

And A Vop, you should understand that the Games are about the athletes not about sponsorship. With all the money the games would be nothing without the main actors.

Nor, indeed, should it be forgotten that not all excellent athletes attract the backing they deserve, whether from national organisations or the much-vaunted corporate sponsors. And the rows of empty seats reserved for corporate clients at the London Games shows their level of interest in the sports being put on.

[BDunnell]

I think it's more about the hold that lawyers have got on our society then about other things (image is also important though).

That too.

[anthonyvop]

Of course Vop in his usual extremely short and one sided way forgets that the Olympics while a private organisation, always depend on enormous trainloads of public money--that's TAXPAYER--subsidies, and costs like Police and Army AA sites, and traffic control etc...
All the people taxed and all the business and travel disrupted, they didn't sign contracts, and they didn't benefit from the millions exchanging hands..

But since when does reality impinge on Mr Vop?

Still a 100% Private event. Just because Governments are stupid enough to throw money at it doesn't change that FACT.

In your case reality just bit you in the rear.

[anthonyvop]

So, like I said, you don't actually consider freedom of speech to be universal, despite what you may otherwise say. Glad to get that clear.

Freedom of speech is the right that no government can prevent you from expressing your views.

An athlete has no more right to violate the sponsorship agreement they VOLUNTARILY SIGNED than you have to espouse your tired, jealous views in My home without expecting repercussions.

[BDunnell]

Freedom of speech is the right that no government can prevent you from expressing your views.

An athlete has no more right to violate the sponsorship agreement they VOLUNTARILY SIGNED than you have to espouse your tired, jealous views in My home without expecting repercussions.

What would the repercussions be were I to begin expressing my views in your home, then?

[BDunnell]

Still a 100% Private event. Just because Governments are stupid enough to throw money at it doesn't change that FACT.

In your case reality just bit you in the rear.

How can an event be '100 per cent private' if (a) it receives a substantial percentage of public funding, and (b) the public are admitted? Neither of those two facts (a word I tend to use in its correct sense, rather than that of 'my opinion') renders an event '100 per cent private'.

[anthonyvop]

What would the repercussions be were I to begin expressing my views in your home, then?


I live in Florida :)

[anthonyvop]

How can an event be '100 per cent private' if (a) it receives a substantial percentage of public funding, and (b) the public are admitted? Neither of those two facts (a word I tend to use in its correct sense, rather than that of 'my opinion') renders an event '100 per cent private'.

Seriously? You don't know how an event can be Private even though the Government provides funding?

Try to walk in without a ticket and you will get your answer.

[gloomyDAY]

Spirit of the games? Don't make me laugh! Living in USA made it hard to watch commercial-free and live Olympic events. Of course it's all about the money, and the 2012 games were such a drag. Knowing the results prior to watching an event made it a really dull affair. NBC (rights holder to the Olympics in USA) said after the games that it profited more by tape-delaying the main events during prime-time, and generating more advertising dollars.

The IOC should do its job of regulating events instead of throwing a little fit over leaked photos. Boxing was such a catastrophe! I can't believe boxing is still an Olympic sport with the nauseating amount of graft that's never been near eradicated.

The IOC hates for the participating athletes to have free speech. Hates it! For example, Phelps smokes out of a bong and gets reprimanded by the IOC. Shaun White said a few curse words while live on the air, and the IOC starts acting high and mighty once again. Athletes are human, but according to the IOC you cannot act like a human or else there will be severe consequences.


I live in Florida :) Well, that explains it. Enjoy hurricane Isaac!

[BDunnell]

Seriously? You don't know how an event can be Private even though the Government provides funding?

Try to walk in without a ticket and you will get your answer.

Your definition of 'private' is utterly bizarre, I have to say. Events classed as 'public' or 'private' may both have ticketed entry, but as far as I, and I'm sure most sensible people, are concerned, an event is 'public' if tickets are made available for general sale to the public, and private if they are not.

[ioan]

Your definition of 'private' is utterly bizarre, I have to say. Events classed as 'public' or 'private' may both have ticketed entry, but as far as I, and I'm sure most sensible people, are concerned, an event is 'public' if tickets are made available for general sale to the public, and private if they are not.

Exactly.

[ioan]

Spirit of the games? Don't make me laugh! Living in USA made it hard to watch commercial-free and live Olympic events. Of course it's all about the money, and the 2012 games were such a drag. Knowing the results prior to watching an event made it a really dull affair. NBC (rights holder to the Olympics in USA) said after the games that it profited more by tape-delaying the main events during prime-time, and generating more advertising dollars.

The IOC should do its job of regulating events instead of throwing a little fit over leaked photos. Boxing was such a catastrophe! I can't believe boxing is still an Olympic sport with the nauseating amount of graft that's never been near eradicated.

The IOC hates for the participating athletes to have free speech. Hates it! For example, Phelps smokes out of a bong and gets reprimanded by the IOC. Shaun White said a few curse words while live on the air, and the IOC starts acting high and mighty once again. Athletes are human, but according to the IOC you cannot act like a human or else there will be severe consequences.

Well, that explains it. Enjoy hurricane Isaac!

The IOC is just another corrupt sports governing body, right up there with the likes of UEFA, FIA, FIS etc
They talk about spirit of the games and so on yet they use double measures by accepting that certain participants (i.e. North Korea) do not take anti doping tests while other athletes are thrown out for taking flu medication cause they are really sick. And there are countless examples of similar double measures.

[Malbec]

Your definition of 'private' is utterly bizarre.

No its not.

The Olympics is privately run. It is no different to an F1 race which is promoted and organised by private organisations. This does not preclude F1 from using publicly owned facilities and land, using public funds or even requesting improvements in public infrastructure as a condition for holding an event there.

I think you and anthony are confusing the use of the word private/public here.

[Mark]

Public being owned by government. Private by a corporation etc.

[BDunnell]

No its not.

The Olympics is privately run. It is no different to an F1 race which is promoted and organised by private organisations. This does not preclude F1 from using publicly owned facilities and land, using public funds or even requesting improvements in public infrastructure as a condition for holding an event there.

I think you and anthony are confusing the use of the word private/public here.

That's as maybe, but I would have thought my definition is the one used much more often by English speakers for a 'private event'.

[BDunnell]

Public being owned by government. Private by a corporation etc.

If you saw an event being described as 'private', you would assume that this meant access was restricted to invitees, would you not?

[Mark]

Sure; but I believe that's not what is being discussed in this instance.

[donKey jote]

certain participants (i.e. North Korea) do not take anti doping tests

i.e. US Basketball team, or is that just a myth I heard ?

[ioan]

If you saw an event being described as 'private', you would assume that this meant access was restricted to invitees, would you not?

Exactly. That is what private means.

[ioan]

i.e. US Basketball team, or is that just a myth I heard ?

Not sure as I do not consider Basketball worthy of being an olympic sport so I didn't follow it at all.

[Malbec]

If you saw an event being described as 'private', you would assume that this meant access was restricted to invitees, would you not?

I think it was clear from Anthony's description that he was referring to the Olympics as being privately owned/run rather than access.

He must have hit his head hard during the Olympics because I find myself agreeing with everything he's said on the topic.

[BDunnell]

I think it was clear from Anthony's description that he was referring to the Olympics as being privately owned/run rather than access.

He must have hit his head hard during the Olympics because I find myself agreeing with everything he's said on the topic.

But do you not also agree that corporations should cease being so insecure about little bits of damage to their image?

[ioan]

But do you not also agree that corporations should cease being so insecure about little bits of damage to their image?

I prefer them continuing to shoot themselves in the foot, it gives a bit of an insight into the whole mess that would be hidden otherwise, it's better for everyone.

[Malbec]

But do you not also agree that corporations should cease being so insecure about little bits of damage to their image?

Companies are not people. You seem to ascribe characteristics to them that are fine for individuals but do not apply to a company. Insecurity is one of them.

If I represented a company and forked over however much money these companies do for the Olympic rights I would expect that steps be taken not to muddy my image. I understand what you describe sounds petty and I guess there would have to be a balance between stopping those protests and not appearing too heavy handed but I would want steps taken to ensure that my company looked good as well as having exclusivity.

[BDunnell]

Companies are not people. You seem to ascribe characteristics to them that are fine for individuals but do not apply to a company. Insecurity is one of them.

If I represented a company and forked over however much money these companies do for the Olympic rights I would expect that steps be taken not to muddy my image. I understand what you describe sounds petty and I guess there would have to be a balance between stopping those protests and not appearing too heavy handed but I would want steps taken to ensure that my company looked good as well as having exclusivity.

To the point of legislation?

And, with respect, I disagree completely about it not being possible to characterise companies as 'insecure'. I would suggest it's a perfectly legitimate description of some corporate behaviour.

[ioan]

To the point of legislation?

And, with respect, I disagree completely about it not being possible to characterise companies as 'insecure'. I would suggest it's a perfectly legitimate description of some corporate behaviour.

Fully agree.

[Malbec]

To the point of legislation?

As I'm sure you're aware legislation is one tool companies may ask for amongst many.


And, with respect, I disagree completely about it not being possible to characterise companies as 'insecure'. I would suggest it's a perfectly legitimate description of some corporate behaviour.

Corporate behaviour may appear to have human attributes but again I believe that it would be inaccurate to do so.

Lets compare McDonald's response to these protests you've mentioned with me making a derogatory comment about you that trigger a reaction arising from your feelings of insecurity (hypothetically).

Your response would be on an emotional level and unless you had a degree of insight that I was pressing your insecurity buttons would be inappropriately strong for the comments I'd made about you. It would thus be fair to say that your over the top response was as a result of insecurity on your part.

Compare that with a company. There is no reason for McDonalds to feel bad about the quality of the products it provides because its purely intentional to differentiate it from other chains that occupy different parts of the burger market like Burger King. It performs research and frequent quality control to ensure that its food is as cheap and as good (or bad) as intended. If McDonalds then knows that its Olympic restaurant will get protestors outside its response is not an emotionally based one (unlike yours). Its response will be based on much research as to options, legal position, effect on branding, share price and countless other factors. It will be a cold rational decision many different people being consulted at several stages. Emotion will not play a strong role if any.

I accept that there are some companies where a single individual does shape corporate decisions strongly (Steve Jobs at Apple, Henry Ford at Ford for instance) and there the borders become blurred between human and corporate characteristics, however for the most part I think that giving companies (and for that matter governments) human attributes is simply wrong.