Maybe there will be, in the not-too-distant future, some sort of international law or convention forbidding sportswashing.
Naive? Overly optimistic? More than likely. But the reports this week that Premier League football club Tottenham Hotspur are set to be paid $80m by South Africa for that country to betheir sleeve sponsor for the next three years was the final straw for me.
The sleeve deal made me, a Spurs fan since boyhood, cringe; South Africa, wracked by poverty and crime, is considering declaring a state of emergency over an energy crisis, with power cuts crippling the economy.
So, let’s get this straight - $80m for sleeve branding by a land that can’t keep the lights on, where the economy is tanking and civil unrest is stirring? If the deal goes through, from next season South Africa will be promoted as a tourist destination on Spurs’ kit branding, TV interview backdrops and advertising, while the team will hold training camps in that country.
There is some political/economic justification; in New Zealand tourism became, at one stage, our largest industry.
Rivals Arsenal have had a “Visit Rwanda” sleeve sponsorship since 2018; their three-year deal worth $57m. Rwanda’s critics say a repressive government is behind torture, disappearances and deaths in custody – suspicions rather backed up by the treatment of Paul Rusesabagina.
He was the hotelier who saved lives during the genocide, an act of heroism portrayed by US actor Don Cheadle in the movie Hotel Rwanda. After he had fled Rwanda, he boarded a flight in Dubai he thought was taking him to Burundi – but delivered him to Rwanda where he was put on trial on charges of terrorism relating to his alleged association with a militant group said to be responsible for 2018 terrorism that killed nine people.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said last year Rusesabagina had been illegally kidnapped, tortured, and sentenced after an unfair trial, targeted because of his work as a human rights defender and criticism of the government on a broad range of issues.
You can see the dilemma. South Africa and Rwanda have tourism industries which involve ordinary people who benefit – even if the sponsorships also have the convenient element of glossing over unsavoury circumstances in those countries, especially where human rights are concerned. Rwanda says tourism has grown by eight per cent since the sponsorship – though these figures are not independently audited, and you wonder if eight per cent is enough of a payback for $57m.
The kings of sportswashing, Saudi Arabia, have extensive involvement in the world of sport – occasioned, they say, to help their transition from over-dependence on oil. They own Newcastle United, LIV golf, and have made huge sponsorship/investments in Formula 1, WWE wrestling, Real Madrid, the Spanish Football Association, snooker and boxing (British heavyweight Anthony Joshua has fought two headline bouts there).
New Zealand can’t be smug. The All Blacks are sponsored by two companies, Ineos and Altrad, who provoke suspicion among some for different reasons. Ineos is a global manufacturer of petrochemicals, speciality chemicals and oil products – and a heavy investor in sport. It sponsors the All Blacks, Formula 1 (with Mercedes), a top cycling team (Ineos Grenadiers), the America’s Cup (Team Britannia), football clubs Nice and Lausanne and marathon runner Eliud Kipchoge.
Sam Cane's All Blacks are sponsored by Altrad. Photo / Photosport
Late last year Altrad’s billionaire owner Mohed Altrad was handed an 18-month suspended jail term for corruption, a case that also helped bring about the downfall of World Rugby vice chairman (and former French coach) Bernard Laporte for corruption, a verdict he is appealing. According to the court, Altrad conspired with Laporte to make his Altrad Group the front-of-shirt sponsor for the French national rugby team in exchange for a $300,000 payment. Laporte had also denied allegations he pressured French rugby to reduce sanctions against Montpellier, owned by close friend Altrad.
Ineos was criticised by those who decried their sponsorship deal, including former All Black Chris Laidlaw, saying that Ineos was seen at the time “as not playing their part in climate change mitigation and obviously positioning themselves accordingly”. For the most part, however, fans tend to look the other way when it comes to questionable taste sponsorships - anything that will allow their game/club/country to flourish.
Nothing can be done right now about the use of funds to buy brand positivity through sports sponsorship, apart from the sponsored organisation using its moral compass. Maybe, in a time of real global change, such things could soon go the same way as cigarette advertising and sponsorship. Perhaps it’s not too far away to see a time when international rules and regulations look into potential community damage before approving such sponsorships.
Some will see alcohol as a higher priority sports sponsorship target. Maybe, but at least alcohol is a personal choice, as is showing disapproval of sleeve sponsorships by not travelling to Rwanda or South Africa.
