Football may celebrated as the ‘international sport of the world’, bringing people together from every corner of the world in a way that few cultural events truly do, but it’s easy to forget that behind the glamour and fun, it’s big business too. For example, this is estimated to be the most expensive World Cup ever, costing Brazil more than the previous two Cups combined at roughly $14-16bn. It also represents the biggest single-event sporting competition in the world, with more than 1 billion unique viewers expected to watch online, by smartphone, TV and in public places. Just imagine what those figures mean to companies in communications, PR, marketing, also for merchandise producers and a whole lot more. Like Sony, for example.
FIFA has just announced that it’s banning players from wearing Beats branded headphones from all stadia involved in the World Cup.
Read on to find out why.
Why Beats? Neymar, Suarez, Cesc Fabregas. Three hot football stars and likely three hot contracts for endorsing the Beats brand. Start with Brazilian football star Neymar who was seen wearing Beats headphones at the Castelao stadium of Fortaleza while getting off the bus before a match. Another player, Suarez was spotted carrying Beats headphones during a practice break too. Cesc Fabregas, a Spanish start has his own Beats adverts. There’s little doubt of direct partnerships with these players, rather than genuine personal preference for the type of headphones. But when these endorsements happen on FIFA territory, conflict occurs. It seems to count up to a direct circumvention of FIFA partnerships with official sponsors, and Beats have been so flagrant in this regard, they just got their headphones banned at FIFA stadia at the 2014 World Cup.
Neymar in a Beats advertisement two weeks ago:
A Peek Behind the Curtains
What’s just happened is that consumers have just caught a deeper glimpse of the extensive nature of business behind the World Cup. The legal considerations behind these ‘subtle’ events are serious for the companies and organisations involved. Players are not permitted to exhibit existing personal endorsements at FIFA events. So it’s not hard to see that players that may have contracts with Beats could be breaking FIFA rules by suddenly wandering around wearing the brand at every given opportunity. Beats is not an official FIFA 2014 sponsor.
Surely this would antagonise both FIFA and relevant partners. After all branding agreements have been signed and sealed, would FIFA appreciate renegade companies attempting to undermine the organisation of official sponsors, trying getting a free lunch out of it? As for official partners, clearly they won’t want to see their agreements wasted with FIFA, or that FIFA can’t manage the agreed interests of official partners at FIFA events. That would undermine the entire contract of being an official sponsor.
On the other hand, it’s interesting to see that some companies may be trying to circumvent the FIFA organisation of official partners to further their own interests. It’s a rebellion of organised, big business. But it’s clear why particular official FIFA sponsors would put pressure on FIFA to keep it’s house in order.
Beats is Banned – Again
When we read Beats headphones, we now think of its new owner – Apple Inc, who bought the company in a $3bn deal in May. When marketing and branding are involved with consumer products, it’s all about popularity. That’s surely why the Beats threat is so urgent – they appear to be winning the hearts of music-lovers better than most brands, perhaps including Sony right now. As for the marketing techniques that Beats has used here, flouting FIFA business and also signing on star players, there’s no mystery why Apple took such an interest in them, being a tech industry marketing legend.
It turns out that this is not the first time that Beats has been shunned for stepping too far – the company reportedly sent thousands of free headphones to athletes for the London 2012 Olympic Games, also leading to a ban of Beats products by athletes at Olympic events by the Committee.
As for Sony, the corporation is understood to have sent FIFA players free headphones earlier this month, though players have yet to be seen wearing them.
Key FIFA Partners 2014
Adidas – contracted to 2030 Coca-Cola – contracted to 2020
Hundai VISA
Emirates Budweiser
Sony
Note from Sohrab Osati
Editor-in-Chief
I think the interesting part about all of this is the casualness of Sony on the matter, despite being one of the major sponsors at World Cup 2014. With record viewership and record spending by the host nation, it likely that it cost Sony more money than previous sporting events in order to be one of the major sponsors. To that end, it remains unclear why IF Sony actually did send every player a headphone (and I’m not convinced they have as I’ve yet to see a single player wear them), that it’s not in contract that players have to be seen with them.
As Jonathan pointed out, did Beats partner with these athletes and ask them to wear it or was it truly their own personal preference? I’m not convinced it was the former due to the fact that such deals and marketing campaigns happen months in advance. Surely these players were aware that they’d be doing an advertisement for Beats and that they would attend an event that would be sponsored by Sony. And when big money like that exchanges hands, you can be sure that there will be lawyers going down the contract, line by line to enforce what each party will be agreeing upon.
Instead, this whole thing, banned by FIFA or not, and be it if Sony actually sent these players headphones or not, seems like a massively missed opportunity for Sony. For a company who is in such dire shape to be seen cool and relevant again by the masses, you can’t ask for a more watched event than the World Cup. To have paid a large sum of money to sponsor the event and not have your products actually be seen and be used by the players seems like a lack of clear focus on what Sony is actually trying to achieve.
On the other hand, be if Beats intentionally asked players to wear their headphones or if it was done as a personal choice by the athletes which speaks volumes on its own, goes to show an understanding of marketing and targeting the consumers that you want with a fraction of the cost. Either Beats paid the athletes for the advertisement and they chose to wear the headphones at the World Cup. Or Beats further enticed the athletes to also wear them at the World Cup which I’m sure still cost the company far less money that being a major sponsor like Sony. No matter how it all transpired, Beats is clearly getting more mileage out of this World Cup than Sony and it’s a shame not because they’re somehow an evil company, but that this another typical situation where Sony seems unable to capitalize on an event and market itself, even when its paid millions for it.
Discuss:
What do you think about FIFA banning Beats headphones at the stadia?
You must be logged in to post a comment.