It's a good thing the poets and playwrights of Ancient Greece are all dead. The Olympics may be Greek in origin, but had Homer or Aeschylus tried to make capital out of the Games, they would have faced the Furies of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). What about freedom of expression? Yes, but it comes at a price around $200m.
You see, under Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter, you're not allowed to mention the Games in any kind of commercial capacity especially on Facebook and Twitter if you're not an official sponsor. So, if Homer and Aeschylus were alive today, perhaps eking out livings by touting their advertising slogans or dreaming up marketing campaigns, they must on no account mention Hermes, Argos and Olympus in their writings all companies and none of them sponsors.
You might just get away with celebrating the Greek goddess of victory. Nike is at least an "official supplier" a lesser rank. But please don't mention that tribe of women warriors. From here on in, Amazon shall be the "big wet thing" that flows through host nation Brazil, or the "big green thing" that is 60% within it.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
A spot of bother
Rule 40 was relaxed a bit last year amid complaints it was overly tyrannical (from the Greek word tyrannos). Remember four years ago when everybody was banned from selling French fries at London 2012 except for MacDonald's because Ronald had paid for the pleasure? Well, now non-Games sponsors are allowed to feature athletes in their ads so long as they sponsor them and the ads have been running for at least four months prior to the Olympics, as Professor Charles R Taylor explains on Forbes.com. But they must shun Olympic terminology and symbols and the words "effort" and "performance". They're trademarked for some reason.
And if you were hoping to see one of the greatest Brazilian athletes of all time light the Olympic cauldron, you might be in for a disappointment, according to Business Insider. Apparently, Pel, who the organisers had approached, might not be allowed to because he is the face of the "wrong" companies. We shall see tonight.
Rio 2016 isn't cheap
The problem is, maybe the sponsors have a bit too much financial muscle. Not only are the corporations funding the show, they're policing it too. Now don't get me wrong. It's great that mega-sponsor Coca-Cola has "begun to speak up about how its partners do business", as Bloomberg puts it, with regards to how the IOC handles the Russian doping scandal.
"We listen to consumers and see that actually there is indignation," Coke's Latin American president said. "Obviously, as a sponsor, we don't like to see it because I think it damages the sport, it damages the Olympic ideals."
True, but that makes big companies the arbiters of fairness and ultimately, the rule-makers. Rule 40 may have been relaxed. But as Professor Taylor notes on Forbes.com, if the mega-sponsors aren't making as much money as a result, they "may increase pressure to go back to the old rule as it would likely reduce the fee official global partners would be willing pay".
So, the mega-sponsors are the policemen and the judges, beholden to their customers, and, of course, their shareholders. We've already started to see corporate bullying creeping in, as MoneyWeek magazine regular Matthew Lynn wrote recently. Let's thank the gods we're only talking about sport for now.
-
Who is the richest person in the world?The top five richest people in the world have a combined net worth of $825 billion. Who takes the crown for the richest person in the world?
-
Top 10 stocks with highest growth over past decade - from Nvidia, Microsoft to Netflix, which companies made you the most money?
We reveal the 10 global companies with the biggest returns since 2013. One firm has posted an astonishing 9,870% return, meaning a £1,000 investment would now be worth almost £82,000.
