Study calls for IOC to re-examine sponsorships

The marketing and advertising of fizzy drinks, junk and fast-foods at the Olympic Games has been criticised in a study by public-interest group, Commercial Alert (CA).
The study, âThe Commercial Gamesâ, is the product of co-operation between the Washington, USA-based CA and Multinational Monitor (a company that tracks the activities of big corporations). It argues that the marketing policies of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the various sports federations and national committees under its auspices, need to be re-examined.
The report states that the promotion of Olympic sponsorsâ fizzy drink, junk and fast-food products conflict with the Olympicsâ stated purpose to "celebrate healthful living." Promoting such products in the widely watched Olympics, the study says, is "unhealthful," and particularly inappropriate "for an event with enormous appeal to children."
The study also chastises the IOC for what the groups believe is its lack of concern that some companies with marketing ties to the Games rely on so-called âsweatshops�? that offer substandard wages and working conditions to produce goods.
âThe Commercial Gamesâ specifically cites Nike and Adidas as companies that havenât taken effective steps to eliminate sweatshop conditions within their supply chains.
The study also criticizes the IOC for awarding âmonopoliesâ to sponsors such as Visa and Coke that limit spectator choices at the Games themselves. Only non-alcoholic beverages marketed by Coca-Cola are available at the Olympics, and Visa is the only credit card accepted there.
âThe Commercial Gamesâ concludes that the Olympics were overly-commercialised and recommended that the IOC scale back the overall number of sponsors.
Agreeing with one assertion in the report, that the Games, with a total of 63 âofficialâ sponsors, are probably over-commercialised Robert Passikoff, Chief Executive of New York-based Brandkeys, stated, âthe question is why should they cut back? Theyâre making an awful lot of money on it. Why should anyone other than the consumers and the marketing folks be the arbiter of whatâs right and wrong? No research group should have the right to tell them who to do business with; who put them in charge?�?

http://www.commercialalert.org