Content uploaded by Monika Piątkowska
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Monika Piątkowska on Jan 20, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
118 2010 • VOLUME XLIX
DOI: 10.2478/v10141-010-0029-6
Off-Field Competition at Major Sport
Events. Case Study of 2010 FIFA
World Cup South Africa
TM
Monika Piątkowska, Jolanta Żyśko
Josef Pilsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw, Poland
ABSTRACT
The major growth in commercial sponsorship has occurred over the past three decades as a
symptom of the desire of marketing communicators to set up new and cost-efficient ways of reaching
audience groups. Commercial sponsorship of sporting, artistic and other events offers an opportunity
to marketers to make their voices heard in a cluttered media environment. It also provides an
opportunity to develop positioning and branding strategies through association with events of defined
status and value (O'Sullivan & Murphy 1998). Thus, it represents one of the most significant and
striking marketing developments in recent decades (Crompton 2004, Meenaghan 1998, Tripodi &
Sutherland 2000). Up until now, worldwide sponsorship spending has increased to enormous
proportions. It grew from estimated $2 billion in 1984 according to Meenaghan (1991) to $45 billion
in 2009 according to IEG (2009). The year 2008 was full of mega sport events, and of sport
sponsorship including Summer Olympics in Beijing, the European Football Championships in Austria
Over the past twenty years sponsorship has outperformed all other marketing
communication tools in terms of growth. With their massive audiences,
major sport events create great opportunity for global companies to
showcase their brands and products. Due to rapidly rising costs for securing
sponsorship rights, ambush marketing has emerged as a growing option for
different kind of companies.
The aim of ambush marketing is to obtain more of the gains associated with
an official event sponsorship but without incurring the same extent of its
costs. “Ambushers” are becoming increasingly astute at developing ways to
circumvent legal attempts to control non-sponsor marketing strategies.
Therefore, the aim of the paper is to introduce and categorize various
ambush marketing
methods and counter-ambushing strategies. As ambush
marketing has shifted over time from broadcast sponsorship campaigns and
venue surrounding advertising to more off-site venue marketing, it is also
important to analyze how the organizers of major sport event prevent the
event itself, the sponsorship rights and how they deal with ambush
marketing issue. The case of 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa has been
studied.
sport marketing, ambush marketing, mega events, 2010 FIFA World Cup
South Africa
KEYWORDS
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 1/20/17 11:20 AM
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
2010 • VOLUME L 119
and Switzerland, and other events such as the French Open (Roland Garros) and English Open
(Wimbledon) in tennis and the Tour de France in cycling. In 2008, companies were estimated to have
spent $ 43.5 billion on sponsorship worldwide, with $30 billion (69%) of this amount being devoted to
sport sponsorship. This marks in increase of 14.8% over 2007, with a total of $ 37.9 billion, of which
$26.1 billion went to sport sponsorships (IEG 2008). Figure 1 presents the global sponsorship
expenditure spent over the last few years.
Figure 2. Worldwide sponsorship spend in 2006-2009
Source: (IEG 2009).
These sums suggest that sponsorship has become an integral part of the communications mix –
alongside publicity, public relations, sales promotions and advertising – resulting from its role in
supporting an organisation’s attainment of its communications objectives.
Commercial sponsorship of sporting events offers an opportunity to marketers to make their
voices heard in a cluttered media environment (O'Sullivan & Murphy 1998). It also provides an
opportunity to attract large-scale publicity and so develop effective positioning and branding
strategies. Hosting mega events is now a complex and expensive undertaking requiring the
commercial support of the private sector. J. Rogge (2009), the President of the International Olympic
Committee underlined the fundamental importance of the relationship between the Olympic
movement and its partners:
“Without the support of the business community, without its technology, expertise,
people, services, products, telecommunications, its financing –the Olympic Games could
not and cannot happen. Without this support, the athletes cannot compete and achieve
their very best in the world's best sporting event” (p. 52).
The European Commission underlines that from a sport point of view, sponsorship makes a
significant contribution to many sport activities and is an important source of revenue for sport right
holders (federations, clubs, teams or individual sportspersons) (EC 2007).
Companies are able to pay hefty sums of money to be called “official sponsor” of the mega
event and to gain the attention of a worldwide audience. For the event organisers and rights holders,
such as FIFA and the IOC, it is a multi-billion-dollar business. The major sport events such as the
Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup have experienced phenomenal growth over the past 30 years.
For instance, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) worldwide sponsorship programme (TOP)
has increased income by 900 per cent over a 20-year period (Table 1) (Preuss, Gemeinder & Séguin
2008).
33,7
13,4
9,5
6,4
2,7
37,7
14,9
10,6
7,4
3,0
43,5
16,8
11,7 9,5
3,5
45,2
17,2
12,2 10,2
3,6
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
Global
United States
Europe
Asia
-
Pacific
Latin America
2006
2007
2008
2009 (estimated)
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 1/20/17 11:20 AM
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
120 2010 • VOLUME XLIX
Table 1. Top Programme Evolution
Quadrennium Games
(winter/ summer)
Partners NOCs Revenue
(US$ million)
1985-1988 Calgary/ Seoul 9 159 96
1989-1992 Albertville/ Barcelona 12 169 172
1993-1996 Lillehammer/ Atlanta 10 197 279
1997-2000 Nagano/ Sydney 11 199 579
2001-2004 Salt Lake/Athens 11 201 663
2005-2008 Torino/Beijing 12 205 866
Source: (IOC 2010).
Apart from the Olympic Games, the organizers of other major events manage to sign very high
sponsorship contracts. Only for the FIFA 2002 World Cup organized in Korea and Japan Gillette spent
U.S.$40 million. In 2008 UEFA expected sponsorship revenues of around CHF 400 million compared
with CHF 278 million in 2004 and CHF 81 million in 2000 (SwissInfo 2006). This suggests that the
Olympic Games - but also other major sport events - are powerful brands with the ability to provide
much benefit to commercial partners.
On the other hand, the value of sponsorship as an effective promotional tool is increasingly
being questioned (Shani & Sandler 1998). First, there is a growing concern that the excessive
sponsorship linked with marketing activities surrounding Olympic Games, World Championships and
other major sport events led to overcommercialization of the events. Second, the increasing variety of
official sponsors designations creates confusion in the minds of consumers who consequently have
difficulties in identifying sponsors. Third, it is not surprising that despite their exclusive worldwide
rights, TOP sponsors are not the only companies seeking to create a cognitive association with sport
values. There are a growing number of companies without any official designation that are finding
creative ways to associate themselves with the event and engage in the tactic of ambush marketing
(Graham 1997). Consequently, it creates an environment of consumer confusion where consumers
cannot distinguish between the companies and their level of association with the event. Thus, official
sponsors and potential sponsors are beginning to question their return on the sponsorship investment.
The aim of the paper is to outline the evolution of ambush marketing methods and to examine
possible ways of anti-ambushing strategies. The case study of 2010 FIFA World Cup organized from
11 June – 11 July 2010 in the Republic of South Africa is taken into account.
Defining ambush marketing
Over the past 25 years, ambush marketing has become a growing concern not only for sport
event organizers and rights holders but for official sponsors as well (Burton & Chadwick 2008).
D. M. Sandler and D. Shani (1989) were among the first researchers to raise an issue of ambush
marketing which they suggested occurred when a non-sponsor of an event attempted to pass itself as
an official sponsor. T. Meenaghan (1994) developed a definition describing ambush marketing as
“The practice whereby another company, often a competitor, intrudes upon public
attention surrounding the event, thereby deflecting attention toward themselves and away
from the sponsor (…)” (p. 79).
N. Burton and S. Chadwick (2008) emphasise the long-term aspect of this tactic by stating
“Ambush marketing is a form of strategic marketing which is designed to capitalize upon
the awareness, attention, goodwill, and other benefits, generated by having an
association with an event or property, without an official or direct connection to that
event or property” (p. 2).
Thus, ambush marketing is the attempt to create direct, but what is more important, indirect
association with a sport facility, the event being hosted, or even its participants without their approval
without official designation. Entities enagage in ambush marketing as they are not able to pay the
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 1/20/17 11:20 AM
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
2010 • VOLUME L 121
sponsorhip fees, or they are prevented from entering into an association with a sport event due to a
contract of exclusivity or long-term association with a competitor (Schwarz, Hall & Shibi 2010).
In regard to the threat that is carried by ambushers, many sport organizations have also stated
their point of view to meet their needs (Schwarz 2009). For instance, the Vancouver Organizing
Committee at the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games has broadly defined ambush
marketing as “Only official sponsors, licensees and government partners of the Olympic Movement in
Canada are allowed to suggest an affiliation or connection with the Olympic Movement or any
Olympic Games. Unfortunately, those exclusive rights can be infringed by “ambush marketing” –
marketing that capitalizes on the goodwill of the Movement by creating a false, unauthorized
association with the Olympic Movement, Olympic Games or Olympic athletes without making the
financial investment required to secure official sponsorship rights” (VANOC 2009). Moreover, the
European Sponsorship Association, in its recently released Position Statement on Ambush Marketing,
defines the term broadly as encompassing: "Any kind of marketing activity undertaken around a
property by an entity that is not a sponsor, where the entity seeks commercial benefit from associating
itself with the property" (ESA 2005).
Within the context of Olympic Games but also other major sport events, H. Preuss,
K. Gemeinder and B. Séguin (2008) suggested that the most common aims of ambush marketing are:
− to benefit from the image of being a sponsor without paying for it,
− to counterbalance the Olympic (or other major sport event’s) commitment of market
competitors,
− to correct ‘misleading’ campaigns of sponsors,
− to benefit from Olympic Games (or other major sport event) if sponsorship rights are too
expensive or the category is blocked,
− to benefit by saving the money that would have been spent for the sponsoring rights in order to
spend it on advertisements.
Ambush marketing literature review
As far as the academic research is concerned, the related studies mainly focus on three aspects.
The first one encompasses the impact of ambush efforts on consumer recognition and recall of
sponsors (Lyberger & McCarthy 2001, McDaniel & Kinney 1996, Meenaghan 1998, Preuss 2004,
Sandler & Shani 1989, Séguin, Lyberger, O'Reilly & McCarthy 2005, Stotlar 1993). Authors indicate
that consumers had considerable difficulties naming official sponsors versus ambushers. The results
gathered from different countries and events underline the effectiveness of ambush marketing
campaigns.
The related academic research also focuses on the ethical considerations and implications of
ambushing (Ettorre 1993, Meenaghan 1994, O'Sullivan & Murphy 1998, Payne 1998). The question of
whether ambush marketing is an immoral or imaginative practice is one that has been widely debated
within the sponsorship industry. In truth the answer may well lie in the eye of the beholder. Of course,
ambush marketing is regarded as an immoral practice by event owners who see the non-sponsoring
companies deriving benefit from their events without payment. Similarly official sponsors are also
likely to regard ambushing as an immoral practice. In spite of these attitudes, there are many
companies which persist with their ambushing activity, believing that such activity is part of the
normal “cut and thrust” of business activity based on a strong economic justification. They simply
can’t afford sponsorship fees so they regard these practices as a legitimate form of defensive,
competitive behaviour and perhaps even deny that what they are doing is ambush marketing.
Ambushers have taught both event owners and sponsors many important lessons regarding the
adverse effects of “ambushing” and the need to devise strategies to counter such possibilities.
Therefore, numerous studies also concentrate on the legal framework surrounding ambush marketing
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 1/20/17 11:20 AM
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
122 2010 • VOLUME XLIX
along with potential defenses against it (Crow & Hoek 2003, Farrelly, Quester & Greyser 2005,
Schwarz 2009, Schwarz et al. 2010, Townley, Harrington & Couchman 1998).
The evolution of ambush marketing campaigns. Methods of ambush marketing
Ambush marketing has been first recognized in 1984 with the Los Angeles Olympic Games as a
consequence of changes introduced by the IOC (Shani & Sandler 1998). Before that time, Olympic
Game sponsorship was an open market, where any company without any limitations wishing to
finance the Games could have become an “official” sponsor of the event. As a result, the 1976
Olympic Games in Montreal gained 628 sponsors and with it confusion around the awareness of the
“official” sponsors. In order to provide higher financial benefits for both sponsors and Olympic
organizers, IOC decided to grant exclusivity to its partners and implemented three categories (official
sponsors, suppliers, licensees) in the sponsorship platform and limited the number of sponsors in each
category. As for the financial profits, the strategy turned out be very effective: the event, without any
public funding, generated over $200 income. But on the other hand the “exclusivity” effect gave birth
to the tactics of ambush marketing.
“Ambushers” have been becoming increasingly astute at developing ways to circumvent legal
attempts to control non-sponsor marketing strategies. Several methods could be identified (Meenaghan
1994, 1998):
1. Sponsor the broadcast of the event
The benefits of this method are obvious when one considers the media audience for most events
is much larger than the on-site audience. In such an instance the ambusher is seeking perfectly
legitimate sponsorship opportunity in its own right.
The first instance of ambush marketing and perhaps the most famous occurred at Los Angeles
Olympic Games in 1984 when Kodak lost its attempt to secure sponsorship rights for the 1984
Olympic Games to Fuji which became the official sponsor of the Games. Kodak decided to became
the sponsor of the ABC’s broadcasts of those Games, gained rights to the network’s own set of
symbols and then proceeded to use these logos to merchandise the buy. As for Fuji’s return on
investment, its market share increased from 11% before the Olympic Games to 15% in 1988, the
company was not overly impressed with the contribution from their Olympic involvement (Fannin,
1988).
A similar example occurred at the Calgary Olympic Winter Games in 1988 between
McDonald’s – an official sponsor - and Wendy’s which became the proud sponsor of ABC’s broadcast
of the Games. Wendy’s was very successful in undermining the branding efforts of rivals by stealing
the attention through printing Olympic stories on its tray liners and by slapping the broadcast
sponsorship logo on napkins, bags and signs in all its restaurants (Fannin 1988).
2. Sponsor subcategories within the event and exploit this investment aggressively
The ambusher manages to catch the audience’s attention by sponsoring some lesser element
(such as a sport federation or team) attached to the overall event and exploits this association through
major promotional effort.
The history of ambush marketing has recorded numerous instances of this category. Returning
to the previous example: when Fuji was the victim of ambush marketing in 1984, the company
decided to exact its revenge on Kodak in 1988. Kodak sponsored the media coverage of the 1988
Olympic Games, but Fuji aggressively promoted its sponsorship of the U.S. swimming team. Such an
arrangement allowed Fuji to get the Olympic association far less expensively with the opportunities to
use the athletes in promotions.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 1/20/17 11:20 AM
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
2010 • VOLUME L 123
A similar case was present at the 1992 Summer Games in Barcelona between the competing
companies Reebok and Nike. Reebok had exclusive rights to produce warm-up outfits and other
apparel for American athletes whereas Michael Jordan and other members of the USA basketball team
had contracts with Nike. The U.S. team refused to bare the Reebok logos and covered the Reebok logo
by draping themselves in the American flag when they accepted their gold medals.
The subcategory method is also visible during FIFA World Cups as football attracts large
audience all over the world. For instance, during the 1990 FIFA World Cup in Italy, Coca-Cola was
the official worldwide sponsor of the tournament while Pepsi sponsored the Brazilian team (Kelehar
1990). As one of the best teams, the Brazilians provided a good target for ambushers. During the 1998
FIFA World Cup in France, Adidas was the official sponsor of the sports manufacturer category of the
event, whereas Nike had a great deal of success through sponsorship of the Brazil National Football
Team (Masterman 2009). According to a sport and market study, Adidas achieved a sponsor
recognition rate of 35%, yet Nike managed a rate of 32% without a purchase of event rights
1
.
3. Make a sponsorship-related contribution to the “players pool”
As the ground rules regarding the athletes’ payment and contracts have changed, this practice is
today regarded as a legitimate way of achieving promotional objectives.
In this case one may indentify one of the most striking and most innovative tactics. At the 1996
Olympic games in Atlanta, Linford Christie, the defending 100 m champion, appeared at a press
conference wearing electric blue contact lenses with the Puma logo clearly visible in the centre of each
eye. Reebok was the official sponsor, but Linford Christie got more coverage that day than any of the
medal winners.
Similarly, the sponsorship of Ian Thorpe at the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games provided
headaches for Nike – the official clothing supplier for the Australian Olympic team, as Thorpe
individually was sponsored by Adidas (Curthoys & Kendall 2001). At a medal presentation ceremony,
the swimmer had his towel draped over the Nike logo on his official team tracksuit. His photo
subsequently appeared throughout Australia. Thorpe and Adidas have denied that this was done
deliberately. Nonetheless, one can understand Nike's concern that the public might not see it as the
official Olympic sponsor.
4. Purchasing advertising time around relays of the competitor’s event
This practice has been successfully used by many ambushers in the past. Now it is definitely
less prevalent as the organisers cooperate with the broadcasters and either only give the opportunity to
carry out promotional campaigns to the official sponsors or refuse to allow any competing advertising
slots in media.
5. Engage in major non-sponsorship promotions to coincide with the event
Due to the development of numerous promotional techniques this category is very broad. It
includes intense advertising done by a competitor during or around a sponsored event. For example:
1
As a matter of fact, Nike is considered the benchmark when formulating and implementing successful ambush
marketing strategies. Nielsen’s study, conducted between May 7th to June 6th 2010, looked at English language
World Cup-related messages on blogs, message boards, social networking, video and image sites (Flickr,
YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter) that mentioned at least one of the 10 official FIFA partners and sponsors with
a global footprint or two of their top competitors (30 brands in all). Despite not being an official sponsor of the
2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa, Nike gained a 30,2% share of online buzz and was ranked at the first
position (Nielsen Company 2010). M. Shank (Shank 1999) maintains that the company holds the position of the
ambush marketing director.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 1/20/17 11:20 AM
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
124 2010 • VOLUME XLIX
organize contests to send consumers to the event, placement of advertisement hoarding or booths at
strategic locations during the event etc.
Such forms of advertising were resorted to in the Winter Olympics held in Lillehammer,
Norway in 1994, where Visa was one of the official sponsors for the Olympic Games. American
Express (Visa’s counterpart) launched an advertising campaign with the slogan: “If you are traveling
to Lillehammer, you will need a passport, but you don’t need a visa”. A survey later found that 52% of
the respondents thought that American Express was the official sponsor of the Games. Although it was
lower than Visa’s 72%, American Express had a reason to be pleased since it had not paid a penny for
the event while Visa paid $40 million to gain official sponsor status.
Nike’s ambush of the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games is still seen as the ambush of all ambushes.
Saving the U.S.$50 million that an official sponsorship would have cost, Nike constructed a Nike store
outside the athletes’ village with billboards, handed out swoosh banners to wave at the competitions
and erected an enormous Nike centre overlooking the stadium. The complex was highly visible
throughout coverage of the Games, and became a visitor attraction around the venue (Burton &
Chadwick 2008).
The new examples of ambush campaigns show that this kind of marketing evolves mainly
towards below-the-line promotions to achieve its communications objectives during the course of the
event.
During 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany, Lufthansa managed to catch audience attention by
painting soccer balls on the nose of its planes, to the annoyance of FIFA, and to Air Emirates, which
paid a lot of money to FIFA for the right to tell consumers that it paid a lot of money to FIFA
(Carvajal 2006).
Simultaneously, competition was also running between the rivals – Budweiser (ambushee,
official sponsor of 2006 FIFA World Cup) and Bavaria Brewery (ambusher) (Burton & Chadwick
2008). Bavaria Brewery provided orange leather trousers to fans attending games, stadium officials
made them remove the trousers before entering the stadium. Obviously fans attracted enormous media
attention by disrobing and watching the game in their underwear. As this campaign turned out to be
very successful, Bavaria Brewery decided to reenact this tactic during 2010 FIFA World Cup in South
Africa. 36 female fans wearing orange mini-dresses provided by Bavaria were engaged in the
promotional campaign. They cheered their team on during the Netherlands-Denmark match and as a
consequence were accused of being part of an ambush campaign to promote a Dutch brewery ("World
Cup 2010: Women arrested over 'ambush marketing' freed on bail" 2010).
As it shown in different cases, ambush marketing has shifted over time from broadcast
sponsorship campaigns and the venues surrounding advertising, to more off-site venue marketing and
greater creative efforts, to even more bold and aggressive strategies such as using spectators or fans as
promotional tools (Burton & Chadwick 2009).
Counter-ambushing strategies
Ambushers have taught both event owners and sponsors many important lessons regarding the
adverse effects of ambushing and the need to devise strategies to counter such possibilities
(Meenaghan 1994). Therefore, studies also concentrate on the legal framework surrounding ambush
marketing and potential defenses against it. Throughout the evolution of ambush tactics, two main
categories of counter-strategies emerge (Figure 2) (Burton & Chadwick 2008).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 1/20/17 11:20 AM
2010 • VOLUME L
Figure 3. Anti-ambushing strategies
Source: (Burton & Chadwick 2008)
.
Reactive strategies are aimed at countering ambush attempts and compensating for the damages
caused. The majority of ambu
sh defense strategies of the very early cases have been of a reactive, and
typically defensive, nature. One of the most common reactive strategies used over time is “name and
shame” which refers to speaking out in the media about the unethical, inappropria
marketing attempts by a sponsor’s competitor
of the added media attention given to ambushers by naming and shaming, thus this technique might
provide added promotional benefit to the ambusher.
Legal action as a valuable tool in protecting sponsorship is a further examp
measures identified throughout the database in countering ambush marketing efforts
Chadwick, 2008)
. Of the over 300 cases examined by CIBS (Centre for the International Business of
Sport), approximately 10% have resulted in lawsuits or legal action taken by sponsors or rights
holders. These cases included
trademark or copyright infringement, or unauthorized distribution of tickets; and issues of passing
or misappropriation, defined as the act of selling products (goods or services) under
connection with another organization. The percentage is so low as it is very problematic to prove the
“ambush” attempt as an illegal action.
Proactive attempts focus mainly on anticipating, deterring and preventing ambush marketing
campaigns. T. Meenaghan
(1994)
The first one co
nsiders pressurizing event owners (or organizers) to protect their events.
Dissatisfied sponsors of major events can demand protection from event owners for the rights they
have purchased in the sponsorship contracts. An example of such protection is provi
International Olympic Committee and FIFA World Cup organizers, both of which are aware of
potential damage to their products and, responding to sponsor concern, have gone on the offensive
against ambushers by creating their own regulations again
be observed by the countries or regions hosting the events.
Linking the event and broadcast sponsorship is another tactic carried out against potential
ambushers. However, it seems to be a very
broadcast of the event. Indeed many major event organizers offer combined packages of event
sponsorship, broadcast of the event, and in some instances even advertising time around television
broadcasts of the event. UEFA wa
events, along with the IOC, further offering such combined
other easy opportunities for ambushers. Unfortunately, while both of these strategies suc
limited ambushers use of such attempts, the creativity of ambush marketers, as well as the continuous
growth and development of new marketing opportunities, has meant that to a large extent, ambushing
has grown and developed, rather than decrease
2008). Moreover,
the Internation
•"Name and shame”
•Legal action
Reactive strategies
•Pressurize event owners to
protect
•Link event and broadcast
sponsorship
•Anticipate potential
competitive
•Adopt anti-ambushing laws
Proactive strategies
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
.
Reactive strategies are aimed at countering ambush attempts and compensating for the damages
sh defense strategies of the very early cases have been of a reactive, and
typically defensive, nature. One of the most common reactive strategies used over time is “name and
shame” which refers to speaking out in the media about the unethical, inappropria
marketing attempts by a sponsor’s competitor
(Burton & Chadwick 2008)
. Sports properties are aware
of the added media attention given to ambushers by naming and shaming, thus this technique might
provide added promotional benefit to the ambusher.
Legal action as a valuable tool in protecting sponsorship is a further examp
measures identified throughout the database in countering ambush marketing efforts
. Of the over 300 cases examined by CIBS (Centre for the International Business of
Sport), approximately 10% have resulted in lawsuits or legal action taken by sponsors or rights
holders. These cases included
mostly intellectual property rights cases; dealing with issues of
trademark or copyright infringement, or unauthorized distribution of tickets; and issues of passing
or misappropriation, defined as the act of selling products (goods or services) under
connection with another organization. The percentage is so low as it is very problematic to prove the
“ambush” attempt as an illegal action.
Proactive attempts focus mainly on anticipating, deterring and preventing ambush marketing
(1994)
identifies a few tactics in this area.
nsiders pressurizing event owners (or organizers) to protect their events.
Dissatisfied sponsors of major events can demand protection from event owners for the rights they
have purchased in the sponsorship contracts. An example of such protection is provi
International Olympic Committee and FIFA World Cup organizers, both of which are aware of
potential damage to their products and, responding to sponsor concern, have gone on the offensive
against ambushers by creating their own regulations again
st ambush marketing. The regulations must
be observed by the countries or regions hosting the events.
Linking the event and broadcast sponsorship is another tactic carried out against potential
ambushers. However, it seems to be a very
expensive strategy
to sponsor both the vent and the
broadcast of the event. Indeed many major event organizers offer combined packages of event
sponsorship, broadcast of the event, and in some instances even advertising time around television
broadcasts of the event. UEFA wa
s again among the first to regulate
broadcast advertising for its
events, along with the IOC, further offering such combined
promotional opportunities
other easy opportunities for ambushers. Unfortunately, while both of these strategies suc
limited ambushers use of such attempts, the creativity of ambush marketers, as well as the continuous
growth and development of new marketing opportunities, has meant that to a large extent, ambushing
has grown and developed, rather than decrease
d in effectiveness or frequency
(Burton & Chadwick
the Internation
al Cricket Council (ICC) instituted ambush marketing protection
protect
their events
sponsorship
competitive
promotions
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
125
Reactive strategies are aimed at countering ambush attempts and compensating for the damages
sh defense strategies of the very early cases have been of a reactive, and
typically defensive, nature. One of the most common reactive strategies used over time is “name and
shame” which refers to speaking out in the media about the unethical, inappropria
te, or unlawful
. Sports properties are aware
of the added media attention given to ambushers by naming and shaming, thus this technique might
Legal action as a valuable tool in protecting sponsorship is a further examp
le of the reactionary
measures identified throughout the database in countering ambush marketing efforts
(Burton &
. Of the over 300 cases examined by CIBS (Centre for the International Business of
Sport), approximately 10% have resulted in lawsuits or legal action taken by sponsors or rights
mostly intellectual property rights cases; dealing with issues of
trademark or copyright infringement, or unauthorized distribution of tickets; and issues of passing
-off
or misappropriation, defined as the act of selling products (goods or services) under
the intention of
connection with another organization. The percentage is so low as it is very problematic to prove the
Proactive attempts focus mainly on anticipating, deterring and preventing ambush marketing
nsiders pressurizing event owners (or organizers) to protect their events.
Dissatisfied sponsors of major events can demand protection from event owners for the rights they
have purchased in the sponsorship contracts. An example of such protection is provi
ded by the
International Olympic Committee and FIFA World Cup organizers, both of which are aware of
potential damage to their products and, responding to sponsor concern, have gone on the offensive
st ambush marketing. The regulations must
Linking the event and broadcast sponsorship is another tactic carried out against potential
to sponsor both the vent and the
broadcast of the event. Indeed many major event organizers offer combined packages of event
sponsorship, broadcast of the event, and in some instances even advertising time around television
broadcast advertising for its
promotional opportunities
and eliminating
other easy opportunities for ambushers. Unfortunately, while both of these strategies suc
cessfully
limited ambushers use of such attempts, the creativity of ambush marketers, as well as the continuous
growth and development of new marketing opportunities, has meant that to a large extent, ambushing
(Burton & Chadwick
al Cricket Council (ICC) instituted ambush marketing protection
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 1/20/17 11:20 AM
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
126 2010 • VOLUME XLIX
contracts with sponsors, and has encourage individual boards to have their players follow an approved
agreement for tournaments (Schwarz & Hunter 2008). The National Football League (NFL) now has
also requirements for Super Bowl bids that require host cities to address ambush marketing (Schwarz
2009).
Another strategy undertaken, as suggested by T. Meenaghan (1994), has been anticipating
potential competitive promotions. It is very important to discover the environment of other official
sponsors of the event and answer questions such as whether as a sponsor an entity is the sole sponsor
or merely a co-sponsor, which sector the “other competitors” operate in, and how to come in the front.
The potential official sponsors should identify all potential avenues for competitive promotion and
search, where economically feasible to close these off. Obviously due to multiplicity of opportunities
involved in major events the ambushers are becoming more and more creative.
Event organizers have also moved to develop legal protection for the rights they sell to official
sponsors. Before the introduction of specific legislation to address the potential for ambush marketing,
event owners and sponsors had to rely on trademark and fair trading statutes (Crow & Hoek 2003).
For many municipalities around globe, it became necessary to ensure sponsor protection during
hallmark events. However, it must be emphasized that very few ambushers use the exact logos or
insignia of the event owner. On the contrary, it is typical for ambushers to create alternative devices
that recall the event without breaching registered trademarks (Crow & Hoek 2003). Australia has been
at the forefront of controlling ambush marketing (Schwarz et al. 2010). With the 2000 Summer
Olympic Games coming to Sydney, the Australian government passed the Sydney 2000 Games
(Indicia and Images) Protection Act 1996, and the New South Wales government passed the Olympic
Arrangements Act 2000. A significant part of both laws enacted prevent ambush marketing and
provide for “clean” Games venues to equip New South Wales and Australia for future sporting and
large marketing programs.
Since these Olympics, other host countries or regions have adopted anti-ambushing laws
(Table 2). As given in the examples, there are two main streams as far as the implementation of the
legal acts are concerned. The ambush laws can be divided into those that consider ambush marketing
as a legal issue (specific law) and as a business issue (entrepreneurial law).
Table 2. Global anti-ambushing legislation
Country/ Region Year Event Anti-ambushing legislation
Australia 2000 Sydney 2000 Summer Olympic
Games
Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and
Images) Protection Act 1996
New South Wales 2000 Sydney 2000 Summer Olympic
Games
Olympic Arrangements Act 2000
New Zealand 2007 FIFA U- 17 Women’s Football
World Cup 2008
Rowing World Championships 2010
2011 Rugby World Cup
2015 ICC Cricket World Cup
Major Events Management Act
2007 (MEMA)
China 2002 2008 Summer Olympic Games in
Beijing
Protection of Olympic Symbols
Relations 2002
England 2006 2012 Summer Olympic Games
in United Kingdom
London Olympic Games and
Paralympic Games Act 2006
South Africa 2002
(amended)
2003 Cricket World Cup in South
Africa
2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa
Merchandise Marks Act 1941
South African Trade Practices Act
1976
Canada 2007 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Marks
Act
Source: (Schwarz et al. 2010).
Case of 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa – 11th June to 11th July 2010
The 2010 FIFA World Cup had a gripping effect on the ever-increasing world audience. RSA
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 1/20/17 11:20 AM
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
2010 • VOLUME L 127
hosted 32 teams across the globe with an average of 50 people per team, 500 match officials and
10,500 members of the media. In the case of the South Africa games, 14,500 VIPs and dignitaries
were expected to see the opening and closing ceremonies while a projected number of half a million
foreign tourists were expected to visit and stay an average of 15 days (Nwosu 2010).
The case of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa shows a very strong determination by
both the hosting country and the sport governing body to counter-act ambush marketing tactics.
From a country’s point of view, there is considerable merit and benefit to be gained from
putting in place effective laws to deal with ambush marketing. The fact that such laws exist in a
potential host country for a major international sporting event is a strong positive factor making that
country an attractive candidate for the staging of such an event (Dean 2010).
The South African Parliament enacted wide-ranging ambush marketing legislation to create
boundaries for the sport marketing industry (Schwarz et al. 2010). The restrictions were ready before
the Cricket World Cup in 2003. The legislation, which amends the Merchandise Marks Act 1941 and
South African Trade Practices Act 1976, enabled South Africa's government to designate the Cricket
World Cup in 2003 and the FIFA World Cup in 2010. The law prohibits the use of any brand in
relation to a designated event in such a manner that is calculated to achieve publicity for that
trademark and thereby derive promotional benefit from the event without the prior authority of the
organiser.
As for the protective activities of the sport governing body, FIFA launched The FIFA Rights
Protection Programme prior to the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa. It was aimed primarily at
tackling organised ambush marketers, counterfeiters and unauthorized traders, all of whom seek to
profit from an event to which they have not contributed (FIFA 2010). In this way, the organiser
wanted to ensure not only that its official trademarks and other intellectual property rights are properly
protected and enforced, but also wanted to guarantee official sponsors exclusive marketing association
with the event.
FIFA’s rights protection panel, working together with local law enforcement authorities,
customs officials and external legal advisers, used these legislative tools to combat ambush marketing
issue. The strategy encompassed (Dean 2010, FIFA 2010):
− registered trademarks – FIFA has registered an extensive portfolio of trademarks under the
Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993. The most important trademarked terms included 2010 FIFA
World Cup South Africa; 2010 FIFA World Cup; FIFA World Cup; World Cup; World Cup
2010; Football World Cup; SA 2010; ZA 2010; South Africa 2010; Ke Nako – Celebrate
Africa’s Humanity; Soccer World Cup; Zakumi. In terms of section 34 of the Trade Marks Act,
the use of any of these trademarks without FIFA’s authority (or marks that are confusingly
similar to them) may constitute trademark infringement.
− registered designs – The federation registered the official emblem, the appearance of the official
mascot, Zakumi, and other designs as designs under the Designs Act 195 of 1993.
− copyright – the official logo and the appearance of the mascot Zakumi - owned by FIFA -
constitute artistic works in terms of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978.
− Trade Practices Act – section 9(d) of the Trade Practices Act 76 of 1976 stands out
“No person shall – in connection with a sponsored event, make, publish or display any
false or misleading statement, communication or advertisement which represents, implies
or suggests a contractual or other connection or association between that person and the
event, or the person sponsoring the event, or cause such statement, communication or
advertisement to be made, published or displayed.”
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 1/20/17 11:20 AM
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
128 2010 • VOLUME XLIX
− Merchandise Marks Act (section 15) gives the legal right to the Minister of Trade and Industry
to prohibit the use of any mark in connection with any trade, business, profession, occupation,
or event, or in connection with a trademark, mark or trade description applied to goods.
− Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) promulgated a Sponsorship Code, article 11 of which
corresponds broadly to section 9(d) of the Trade Practices Act. Accordingly, recourse can be
had in appropriate circumstances to the mechanisms provided by the ASA to enforce its code.
Although strong anti-ambush strategies were taken, the FIFA World Cup in South Africa
attracted a few ambushers from different sectors that carried out promotional campaigns without the
official designation. S. I. Ironside (2010) and O. Dean (2010) identified at least three cases in the High
Court of South Africa in which civil law causes of action have been pursued on the ground of ambush
marketing attempt. FIFA lawyers have filed 2,519 other cases globally against parties it accuses of so-
called ambush marketing (Panja & Cohen 2010). Some of the instances are presented below.
1. The Tavern Case – Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v Eastwood Tavern
(GNP) (unreported case no. 52309/07, 12-15-2009)
The first case involved FIFA’s action brought to Northern Gauteng High Court against a
restaurant in Pretoria, located close to the Loftus Stadium, one of the venues that hosted matches of
FIFA World Cup. The fascias of the restaurant included signs containing World Cup 2010, the
national flags of competing nations in the FIFA tournament, Twenty Ten South Africa and South
Africa 2010 next to its own branding. FIFA obtained a judgment with costs against Eastwood Tavern
over a year before the main tournament itself. The organisation claimed infringement of the registered
World Cup 2010 trademark; passing-off; and unlawful competition based on contraventions of section
9(d) of the Trade Practices Act and section 15A of the Merchandise Marks Act. The parties settled the
matter before it proceeded to Court but the High Court of South Africa issued an order that prohibited
Eastwood Tavern from, inter alia, obtaining special promotional benefit from, or associating its
business with, the 2010 FIFA World Cup. An order granting all the relief sought was made in the
Pretoria High Court.
2. The Lollipop Case - Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v Metcash Trading
Africa (Pty) Limited (unreported case no. 53304/07, 1-10-2009)
In this case, Metcash Trading Africa, a major distributor in South Africa, was selling “Astor
2010 Pops” – lollipops which were packaged in wrappers featuring its trademark with imagery
depicting a soccer ball, the South African flag and the date 2010, with the zeros of the date taking the
form of soccer balls, which are trade mark registered by FIFA. Once again, the organisation claimed
trademark infringement, passing-off and unlawful competition based on the contravention of section
15A of the Merchandise Marks Act and section 9(d) of the Trade Practices Act. The court handed
down a written judgment that upheld FIFA’s claims unequivocally, and in particular, upheld FIFA’s
unlawful competition by deriving special promotional benefit from the tournament without the
organiser’s approval. Costs were also awarded against Metcash Trading Africa.
3. The Keyring Case - Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v Executive Trading
Cc and the Registrar of Designs (Case No 52308/07)
FIFA issued proceedings against Executive Trading and the Registrar of Designs in relation to
the use and registration of a design depicting a vuvuzela trumpet, with a football and 2010 written
beside it. Executive Trading used the design in relation to a key holder that had been registered in the
Department of Trade and Industry's Registry of Designs in December 2004. FIFA was trying to
prevent the use of the design by Executive Trading on ambush marketing grounds – infringement of its
trademark or intellectual property rights in terms of the Merchandise Marks Act and Trade Practices.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 1/20/17 11:20 AM
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
2010 • VOLUME L 129
Moreover, the event organiser was applying for an order against the Registrar of Designs to cancel the
registration of the design. The case is yet to be heard by the Courts.
4. Comair Ltd case
FIFA objected to Comair Ltd (a British Airways franchise), owners of the Kulula.com airline.
Kulula using an advertisement, which while not specifically referring to the 2010 FIFA World Cup,
used terms that, in the organiser’s view, alluded to the event and otherwise comprised all the elements
of ambush marketing by intrusion. The company launched the advertisement “Unofficial National
Carrier” of the “You-Know-What” depicting the Cape Town Stadium, soccer balls, the date 2010,
vuvuzelas and other items associated with soccer. It did not however contain any direct reference to
the tournament. FIFA served a cease and desist letter to kulula.com alleging that the sum of the
elements contained in the advertisement brought to mind the 2010 FIFA World Cup. As reported in
the media, Kulula immediately complied with FIFA’s demands and discontinued the use of the
contentious advertisement.
5. Bavaria Brewery case
This case has already been described while presenting the “Engage in major non-sponsorship
promotions to coincide with the event” ambush strategy. Two Dutch women were arrested on over
alleged ambush marketing for organising 36 women to wear short orange dresses with small Bavaria
emblems made by a Dutch brewery to a World Cup match between the Netherlands and Denmark.
They appeared at a Johannesburg magistrate’s court and were released on bail of 10,000 rand (£900)
each. Bavaria scored a direct ambush marketing campaign on Budweiser Beer, the official beer
sponsor of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. It was reported in media that the Bavaria website was the fifth
most visited beer website in the United Kingdom the week after the stunt, which also caused
international headlines for several days as the world watched and waited for the outcome of the case.
S. I. Ironside (2010) regards this case as the most successful counter attack against FIFA and South
Africa’s ambush marketing laws in terms of gaining international exposure for a very successful
ambush marketing event.
Conclusions
The growth in sponsorship expenditure worldwide has been accompanied by a parallel growth
in the practice of ambush marketing. The case of 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa shows the very
strong determination of both hosting country and the sport governing body to combat tactics of
ambush marketing which might be regarded as a threat to future sponsorship market and mega sport
events at the same time. In South Africa the counter-acting ambush strategies are well visible, not only
reactive ones but especially proactive ones. The organisers took much effort in order to protect its
brand and official partners of the event and in consequence stop illegal and unethical practices.
However, companies will always find creative and - what is more important - legal ways to carry out
ambush marketing campaigns if they feel they can benefit from it. It is advisable to clarify the actual
rights purchased by sponsors that may help minimise the negative impact of these practices on both
sponsors and event managers.
The issue of ambushing sponsored properties is of increasing concern not only for sponsors and
right-holders, but also the European Commission, which has expressed its anxiety. In the White Paper
on Sport (EC 2007) it is underlined that in most countries the notion of "ambush marketing" is
undefined and there is little legislation in this area. Where protection is offered, it has been developed
through case law as an extension of the applicability of rules on intellectual property, unfair
competition and, to a lesser extent, advertising and consumer protection. As a general rule, protection
against ambush marketing tactics used within the stadium where a sport event occurs is most
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 1/20/17 11:20 AM
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
130 2010 • VOLUME XLIX
efficiently obtained through a well-drafted contract between the sponsor and the event organiser.
However, protection against such tactics used outside the physical location under the control of the
event organiser is much more difficult to obtain.
Therefore, it becomes clear that strong anti-ambushing policies need to be adopted, preferably at
legislative level. The examples of legal acts might be regarded as best practice for both future
organizers and hosting countries. However, the real problem is the consumer’s lack of knowledge and
confusion about the sponsors and their contribution to the sponsored event. It must be take into
account that this confusion will not disappear through various legal efforts that event organisers have
been taking.
Additional control is needed over issues such as media coverage of events. For example a large
percentage of consumers believed that anyone advertising during the telecast is an official sponsor.
The problem is created by the need for the media to cover their rights fees to the organizers. Perhaps a
new arrangement should be developed to limit non-sponsor advertisers are not associated with any
sponsorship agreement of the event.
Organisers should focus more direct effort on educating and providing information to
consumers. In order the raise the awareness of the consumers, an educational program covering
massages could be run before, during and after the event. Public relations is becoming one of the best
ways to control ambush marketing and even deter it from happening in the first place. Educating
opinion leaders, the media, and consumers can affect how the activity is perceived and reported. Most
ambush marketers are not actually breaking the law. They pursue a narrow path, skirting as close as
possible to the law without actually breaching it. In such cases, public exposure may well be the best
deterrent. Effectively this involves telling the consumer how the ambusher is trying to deceive them
into believing that they too are supporting the event, when they clearly are not.
Implementing such steps can go a long way toward removing the incentive for companies to use
ambush marketing and preventing problems caused by these unethical practices.
Despite the growing phenomenon of ambush marketing, research on this subject has been
minimal in the context of sport marketing. There is a need for more studies conducted to examine the
effects of ambush marketing that are primarily focused on consumers’ attitudes, recall and recognition.
Moreover, scientists ought to concentrate on the effectiveness of existing anti-ambush strategies on the
basis of major sports events. Thus, the authors issue a call for further research into the phenomenon of
ambush marketing.
REFERENCES
Burton, N., & Chadwick, S. (2008). Ambush Marketing in Sport: An Assessment of Implications and
Management Strategies. Coventry University: CIBS.
Burton, N., & Chadwick, S. (2009). A typology of ambush marketing: the methods and strategies of ambushing
in sport. Coventry: CIBS.
Carvajal, D. (2006). Can't tell the sponsors without a scorecard - Technology. International Herald Tribune,
May(3).
Crompton, J. L. (2004). Sponsorship ambushing in sport. Managing Leisure, 9(1), 1-12.
Crow, D., & Hoek, J. (2003). Ambush marketing: a critical review and some practical advice. Marketing
Bulletin, 14(1), 1-14.
Curthoys, J., & Kendall, C. (2001). Ambush Marketing and the Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images)
Protection Act: A Retrospective. Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, 8(2).
Dean, O. (2010). Ambush marketing and the Fifa 2010 World Cup. De Rebus, June, 17-20.
EC (2007). White Paper on Sport. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
ESA (2005). The European sponsorship association position statement on ambush marketing. Surrey. UK:
European Sponsorship Association.
Ettorre, B. (1993). Ambush marketing: heading them off at the pass. Management Review, 82(3), 53–57.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 1/20/17 11:20 AM
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
2010 • VOLUME L 131
Fannin, R. (1988). Gold Rings or Smoke Rings? Marketing and Media Decisions, September, 64–70.
Farrelly, F., Quester, P., & Greyser, S. A. (2005). Defending the Co-Branding Benefits of Sponsorship B2B
Partnerships: The Case of Ambush Marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(3), 339-348.
FIFA (2010). The FIFA Rights Protection Programme at the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa. Zurich:
Communications and Public Affairs Division.
Graham, J. P. (1997). Ambush marketing. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6(1), 10-13.
IEG (2008). Sponsorship spending to total $ 16.78 billion in 2008. Retrieved 10.10.2009, from http://
www.sponsorship.com/About-IEG/Press-Room/Sponsorship-Spending-To-Total-$16.78-Billion-In-20.aspx
IEG (2009). Global Sponsorship Expenditure Reports. Retrieved 12.05.2009, from www.sponsorhip.com
IOC (2010). Olympic Marketing Fact File. Retrieved 14.10.2010, from http://www.
olympic.org/Documents/fact_file_2010.pdf
Ironside, S. I. (2010). FIFA 2010 – What Can We Learn From an Ambush Marketing Perspective? Retrieved
26.10.2010, from http://www.baldwins.com
Kelehar, R. (1990). Ambush. The Soccer Sponsors Cry Foul. Campaign, June, 28-30.
Lyberger, M. R., & McCarthy, L. (2001). An assessment of consumer knowledge of, interest in, and perceptions
of ambush marketing strategies. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 10(2), 130-137.
Masterman, G. (2009). Strategic Sports Event Management. Olympic Edition. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
McDaniel, S. R., & Kinney, L. (1996). Ambush marketing revisited: an experimental study of perceived
sponsorship effects on brand awareness, attitude towards the brand and purchase intention. Journal of Promotion
Management, 3(1/2), 141-167.
Meenaghan, T. (1991). Sponsorship - legitimising the medium. European Journal of Marketing, 25(11), 5-10.
Meenaghan, T. (1994). Ambush marketing – immoral or imaginative practice? Journal of Advertising Research,
34(5), 77-88.
Meenaghan, T. (1998). Ambush marketing: corporate strategy and consumer reaction. Psychology & Marketing,
15(4), 305-322.
Nielsen Company. (2010). Highest share of online World Cup buzz. Retrieved 24.10.2010, from
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/nike-ambushes-official-world-cup-sponsors/
Nwosu, N. (2010). FIFA battles ambush marketing at South Africa World Cup 2010. Cases of rights
infringement rise. http://www.nigerianbestforum.com.
O'Sullivan, P., & Murphy, P. (1998). Ambush Marketing: The Ethical Issues. Psychology & Marketing, 15(4),
349-366.
Panja, T., & Cohen, M. (2010). FIFA battles ‘ambush marketers’ targeting World Cup. The Washington Post, 13
June (Sun).
Payne, M. (1998). Ambush marketing: the undeserved advantage. Psychology & Marketing, 15(4), 323-331.
Preuss, H. (2004). Economics of Staging the Olympic. The comparisons of the Games 1972-2008. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Preuss, H., Gemeinder, K., & Séguin, B. (2008). Ambush Marketing in China: Counterbalancing Olympic
Sponsorship Efforts. Asian Business & Management, 7, 243–263.
Rogge, J. (2009). Top Quality. Olympic Review, 73, 50-55.
Sandler, D. M., & Shani, D. (1989). Olympic Sponsorship vs. 'Ambush' marketing: who gets the gold? Journal
of Advertising Research, 29(4), 3-14.
Schwarz, E. C. (2009). The evolution of global anti-ambush marketing laws. Paper presented at the 7th annual
conference of the Sport Marketing Association, Cleveland, Ohio.
Schwarz, E. C., Hall, S. A., & Shibi, S. (2010). Sport Facility Operations Management: A Global Perspective.
Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Schwarz, E. C., & Hunter, J. D. (2008). Advanced theory and practice in sport marketing. Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann/Elsevier.
Séguin, B., Lyberger, M., O'Reilly, N., & McCarthy, L. (2005). Internationalising ambush marketing – a
comparative study. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 6(4), 216-230.
Shani, D., & Sandler, D. M. (1998). Ambush marketing: is confusion to blame for the flickering of the flame?
Psychology & Marketing, 15(4), 367–383.
Shank, M. D. (1999). Sports Marketing – strategic perspective. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Stotlar, D. K. (1993). Sponsorship and the olympic winter Games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2(1), 35-43.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 1/20/17 11:20 AM
PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT STUDIES AND RESEARCH
132 2010 • VOLUME XLIX
SwissInfo. (2006). Swiss firms reluctant to sponsor Euro 2008. Retrieved 20.05. 2007, from http://
www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/Swiss_firms_reluctant_to_sponsor_Euro_2008.html?cid=53316
Townley, S., Harrington, D., & Couchman, N. (1998). The legal and practical prevention of ambush marketing
in sports. Psychology & Marketing, 15(4), 333–348.
Tripodi, J. A., & Sutherland, M. (2000). Ambush marketing – “An Olympic event”. The Journal of Brand
Management, 7(6), 412-422.
VANOC (2009). Vancouver 2010 – The Importance of Protecting the Olympic Brand. Retrieved 2010.11.20,
from http://www.imakenews.com/eletra/gow.cfm?z=iln%2C197649%2C0%2C1633570%2Cb11.
World Cup 2010: Women arrested over 'ambush marketing' freed on bail. (2010). www.guardian.co.uk, 16 June.
AUTHOR’S ADDRESS: Monika Piątkowska
Josef Pilsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw
Department of Organisation of Physical Culture
34 Marymoncka str., 00-968 Warsaw, Poland
Email: monika.piatkowska@awf.edu.pl
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 1/20/17 11:20 AM
