Analyzing Rule 40’s Restrictions on Using Athletes in Olympic Sponsorship at Rio 2016

Abstract

This intervention considers changes to Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter during the 2016 Summer Games. It compares predictions made prior to the Games relating to legal issues in Olympic sponsorship and ambush marketing with what was observed on-site and what occurred online pertaining to legal issues in sponsorship at Rio 2016. Using examples from the United States and efforts by the USOC to enforce Rule 40, the author considers how Olympic officials have shifted their emphasis toward regulatory efforts aimed at athletes, such as through a relaxed Rule 40, rather than via traditional brand-protection efforts. The implications of this change are suggested in the context of the Olympic legal and business environment.

Ambush Marketing Via Social Media: The Case of the Three Most Recent Olympic Games

“…Twitter was selected as the sample SM platform. The selection of Twitter is believed to help build on the existing literature on the topic area (Finlay, 2018;Grady, 2017;Schwabe, 2018). The data collection process was informed by two conditions: (a) Olympic sponsors and their DICs list with a verified Twitter account (see Appendix) and (b) a time period meant to capture the highest exposure time (i.e., during the Games).…”

“…Rule 40 is designed to protect the exclusivity of IOC official sponsors by prohibiting nonsponsors from benefitting from the goodwill of the Olympics Games and to protect the reputation and monetary value of being an "official sponsor" of the Games (Finlay, 2018). Of particular note, the rule restrained athletes' promotion of their own sponsors during the blackout period, which runs for the duration of the 2 weeks of the Games (i.e., from the opening to the closing day of the Olympic villages; Grady, 2017).…”

Ambush Marketing and Rule 40 for Tokyo 2020: A Shifting Landscape for Olympic Athletes and Their Sponsors

“…Inevitably, this has resulted in a patchwork of practical guidance from each NOC, each with slight variations due to the legal framework within that country as well as policy considerations taken by each NOC to address athletes' and other stakeholders' concerns particular to that country. The guidance developed by each NOC is intended to help clarify some of these marketing scenarios and permissible activities for athletes and their personal sponsors (Grady, 2017).…”

Athletes as ambush marketers? An examination of Rule 40 and athletes’ social media use during the 2016 Rio Olympic Games

“…NOCs, such as the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) or the British Olympic Association (BOA), are tasked with enforcing the rule with their athletes (IOC, 2016). This leaves the rule open to interpretation by each NOC, who may enforce the rule differently from each other (Grady, 2017). Additionally, the rise of social media as a means by which athletes communicate with their fans and other stakeholders presents challenges to Rule 40.…”

“…By not allowing athletes to post about their personal sponsors, athletes are unable to capitalize on the small window of opportunity to bring greater attention ATHLETES AS AMBUSH MARKETERS 12 to their personal sponsors during the few weeks every four years when the eyes of the world are on them. Some argue that this may actually dissuade companies from entering into sponsorships and endorsements with Olympic athletes, further disadvantaging them (Grady, 2017), or could potentially lead to athletes creatively engaging in ambush marketing via social media in order to highlight their personal sponsors (Grady, 2016).…”