Opinion

Is The Melbourne Cup too much of a gamble for sponsors?

The Melbourne Cup is approaching, and the public narrative around the race that stops a nation has become a conflicted one.

Patrice Pandeleos, managing director of Seven Communications, writes that sponsors who once flaunted their association as a mark of status are now paying the price in trust and credibility.

PATRICE PANDELEOS

October 24, 2025 10:41

Is The Melbourne Cup too much of a gamble for sponsors?

Patrice Pandeleos explains why sponsors are saying 'nup' to the cup

For decades, the Melbourne Cup was a marketer’s dream – prestige, glamour, and a guaranteed engaged nationwide audience swept up with “the race that stops a nation.”

However, with growing outrage over gambling, animal welfare, and entrenched privilege, the Cup has slowly become a reputational minefield. Controversial betting campaigns dominate social media, while incidents involving injured horses and extravagant celebrations are magnified – turning Cup Day into a lightning rod for vitriol.

The Melbourne Cup has become a test of whether companies prioritise integrity or short-term visibility. Sponsors who once flaunted their association as a mark of status are now paying the price in trust and credibility. The most strategic brands are those willing to evolve, step back from spectacle, and consider what their reputation is truly worth.

Enjoying Mumbrella? Sign up for our free daily newsletter.

Public trust has collapsed

The first warning comes from the crowd. Attendance at Flemington has dropped from 122,736 in 2003 to 91,168 in 2024, showing that the Cup’s reach, which was once a powerful draw for sponsors, has weakened. This decline reflects a waning public interest and signals that the event no longer holds the influence it once did. Sponsoring the Cup now risks sending the message that a brand prioritises visibility over values, and that prestige can excuse complicity.

Penfolds’ exit from its long-standing partnership with the Victoria Racing Club, including the Birdcage and Victoria Derby naming rights, underscores the stakes. The company framed the decision as a strategic business move, while others may see it as an effort to maintain neutrality and avoid alienating supporters of the event.

The only defensible path forward for brands is decisive action. Associations with the Melbourne Cup must reflect a company’s values and be communicated clearly, ensuring sponsorship does not signal indifference to gambling, animal welfare, or social harm. Anything less hands your brand over to public scorn.

The Melbourne Cup is dividing opinions and putting brand reputations at risk

A reputational gamble no brand can afford

Sponsoring the Cup ties a company to a day that amplifies gambling and its social consequences, and Aussies notice. For brands, every sponsorship and activation is now a statement of values. How a company chooses to engage communicates as loudly as any marketing message, and those that fail to align their messaging with ethical standards risk being defined by the harms the event magnifies.

If engaging with an event, brand, or individual raises too many questions in the upfront planning stage, it’s probably the wrong choice. Marketing and communications gambles are part of business, but they must be deliberate, backed by rigorous vetting, and clear internal processes. Brands need to understand not just the exposure they gain, but the ethical and reputational implications of their association. For companies weighing their options, the question is no longer just whether the Cup can deliver an audience, but whether that audience is worth the reputational risk.

Social media amplifies every misstep

In 2025, brands cannot control how their association with the Melbourne Cup is perceived. Social media gives the public a platform to share opinions, highlight shocking statistics, and circulate images of incidents, from horse fatalities to controversial betting campaigns. The Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses recorded 151 deaths in the 2023/24 season, with many shared and dissected across feeds. In this environment, a passive approach exposes brands to scrutiny as audiences connect logos with practices they find abhorrent.

Brands must take ownership of the conversation around their association with the Cup. This requires setting clear boundaries for sponsorship, controlling the tone and visibility of activations, and proactively communicating the principles guiding their involvement. Framing participation around accountability and transparency allows companies to transform scrutiny into leadership, demonstrating integrity and values-driven decision-making.

Organisations must act with conviction, prioritising responsibility over spectacle and pairing sponsorship with initiatives that reflect their values. Companies that take visible, values-based action convert potential risk into trust. Those that fail to act leave their reputations exposed, defined by complacency and ethical compromise rather than leadership.