Overt sportswashing: the ethical landmine for media agencies
With sportswashing accusations in focus following the Qatar FIFA World Cup, Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, and sponsorship of our own Women's World Cup, Speed's Ian Perrin asks what questions media agencies and media companies have to answer, when going into business with government-backed sports.
There is no doubt that the craft of media planning has become more complex in a data, digital and technology-driven world. This complexity has increased due to the rise of a polarized media environment and many brands taking social and political positions that they historically shied away from.
With change being the only constant, media agencies have had to adapt quickly and build agile operating models that respond at speed to market forces. This means creating protocols and response mechanisms to ensure that brands they represent don’t appear in compromising content.
And for many years this approach has been applied to the grey area of sports washing. For example, a brand that champions human rights may decide to avoid broadcast coverage of the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, due to the Kingdom’s human rights record and involvement in the conflict with Yemen. Recently FIFA made the decision not to allow Saudi Arabian tourism to sponsor the Women’s World Cup, likely due to fears it may deter other sponsors.
But for the most part, these associations are clear and obvious, making decision-making somewhat straightforward. The sponsorship deals are written with broadcasters delivering content on behalf of autonomous sporting bodies.
However, that dynamic is changing quickly in the staid and boring world of professional golf. For those who don’t know, the Saudi government through their Public Investment Fund has launched a takeover bid for the sport through their LIV Tour. The difference here is they aren’t hosting an event or sponsoring a team but investing billions of dollars to take on an existing professional code by stealing their players, sponsors, and broadcast deals. In Australia that is a deal with Seven, which is reportedly a profit share arrangement.
Regardless of your views on their motives, this new reality creates a difficult precedent for media agencies. The fundamental question has changed from “should we advertise in an independent property such as the Grand Prix that has compromising partners” to “should we advertise with a state-owned and operated property where the revenue is channeled directly to that state”. That is a profound and consequential change.
Fortunately, at this stage the issue is limited to a sport that, let’s be honest, nobody is interested in. And perhaps fortunately for Seven, the LIV viewership figures have been practically non-existent. However, in the unlikely event that LIV becomes even remotely successful, then what is to stop other countries from taking over sporting codes for their own political or economic means? Vladimir Putin building Russia’s image and diversifying its economic dependency on oil by launching a rival AFL code.
With the spiraling costs of sports rights, it makes sense for the likes of Seven to do direct business with the Saudi government for cheaper content. But should media agencies be supporting such business models? What moral standards should they be applying on behalf of their clients?
Group M appears to be leading the way with its ethical investment framework, but also appear to be silent on this matter. Can they, as the largest investment group in Australia afford to boycott the second-largest broadcaster to enforce their ethical framework? Who is to determine which despotic nations can sports wash their image?
These are significant and weighty issues that certainly transcend the domain of media agencies. But with the responsibility of making split-second decisions on whether an environment is right for a brand, it is critical for them to understand the implications of the decisions they make.
Ian Perrin is managing partner at Speed.
Yes, the goal posts (excuse the pun) are changing for ethics in media.
And it’s not just Saudi Arabia’s human rights record that is important – it is also a petrostate fuelling global warming.
Saudi Aramco employs at least 17 agencies.
Group M/WPP represents BP, Chevron and Woodside, among others.
If they are the gold standard in ethics we’re in deep trouble.
User ID not verified.