Olympic sponsorship

Today's post follows on from Newsnight last night, and the discussion on the sponsorship of the Olympics by Big Food.

The "choice" of sponsors for the Olympics has long bothered me. The event that symbolises the very peak of athletic performance being associated with major global brands that sell the key products that make the general population obese seems like a case of strange bedfellows.

Dig a little deeper and of course there is no strange relationship here. The crux of the matter is money. That is the common tie that binds. The Olympics needs money from sponsors, and the sponsors make lots of money out of willing consumers interested in the Olympics. A marriage made in heaven?

But let's dig another level...

The Olympics needs money from sponsors?
Or does it? Sure, to be on the scale it is, to have the ticket prices it does, to have the massive Opening and Closing ceremonies etc, the Olympics needs money. But surely the point is that there are a number of choices that are made by the IOC that drive the need for this sponsorship money:

1. Scale. The Olympics, at least in the ideal, is about the sport. The provision of the facilities needs money, but surely we the taxpayers are paying for that. The actual Games themselves don't need the sponsorship. I'm not so close to how the funding works: I suspect the sponsorship money goes directly to the IOC and has little to do with LOCOG. How the largest McDonalds in the world, based on the Olympic Park, interplays between the two, I'm not sure. An aside is also the question of what happens after the Games; my prediction - it will be the only money-making location on the Park for many years to come!
2. Ticket prices. All other things being equal, the ticket prices represent price points that are too low, if the Olympics needs sponsorship money to make up the difference in the coffers.
3. Ceremonies. In "the good old days" there was no major ceremony....the athletes paraded with flags and anthems were played. Done. Yes, we've all got used to lavish choreographed events with a cast of thousands. But necessary? I think not.

The real point is this...the IOC makes a whole lot of inter-related choices that result in the whole Olympics as it is. That includes the scale it is, the ticket prices, the ceremonies and the sponsorship, and the funding from the taxpayers. There are lots of moving parts...and it may well be that to choose not to take the money from Big Food sponsors may require a rethink of the whole scale of the thing, or ticket pricing, or both.

My interest in nutrition leads me to other observations too...

Real food will never have sponsors available to promote the alternatives to Big Food. Real food is locally grown, sustainable and usually small-scale. Making any money in that market is tough enough, but making enough to sponsor an event like the Olympics is so far out of sight. Given this void, it's not surprising that Big Food steps in. The harsh business reality is that they only have the money to fund sponsorship because lots of people choose to feed themselves on their offerings, both at the Olympics and the rest of the time.

Ultimately, the consumer choices decide the world we have. If enough people choose to eat real food instead of the fodder served up by Big Food, then the profits will not be there to be re-invested in sponsorship deals. I for one will be continuing not to eat McDonalds' Big Macs or Cadbury's chocolate, nor to drink Coca Cola, during these Olympics. But then I eat and drink only a tiny amount of them anyway. That's my choice.

Given the links though, I am also considering my "involvement" in the Olympics in terms of spectating and viewing. Something deep inside of me tells me I should probably be "boycotting" the Games...until they return to the wholesome, sport-focussed, Olympic ideal principles. I fear that means boycotting them for the rest of my days...