The controversy of Cristiano Ronaldo’s removal of two Coca-Cola bottles from view at a press conference of the European Championship has taken social media by storm. Soon after the incident, the Coca-Cola company experienced a dent of US$ 4 billion in market capitalization. This episode has highlighted the risks that brands associated with sports stars are facing. With millions of followers looking up to them, sports stars have been using their influence to bring about Athlete activism. The question that now arises is – Where to draw the line?
Cristiano Ronaldo is a health fanatic who doesn’t consume carbonated drinks or junk food (but he has yet endorsed such brands). Yesterday, he removed the coke bottles and said “agua” while holding the water bottle, which means “Drink water”. Even though Coca-Cola owned the water brand, the damage was already done.
Football sponsorships
The sponsors of sports events pay for the sponsorship in return for the contractual right to place their product on the rostrum. Sponsors like Coca-Cola and Heineken are among the 12 top-tier sponsors for Euro 2020 who contribute to UEFA’s (Union of European Football Associations) total tournament revenue of almost 2 billion euros (US$ 2.4B).
The football players indirectly get money from Euro 2020 commercial income via their national federations and clubs. The 24 national federations competing at Euro 2020 will share 371 million euros (US$ 442M) in UEFA prize money. The champions can get around 34 million euros (US$ 40.6M) from UEFA by winning all three of their group games.
Later, a statement released by Coca-Cola said that athletes are given a beverage choice, and the water bottle was also a Coca-Cola product. At the time of publishing the comment, Coca-Cola shares were trading at US$ 54.95 apiece, still below the opening share price of US$ 55.69 on the day of the press conference.
After the bottle removal became a trend as two other players Paul Pogba and Manuel Locatelli did the same, UEFA had to ask all players on the 24 teams to stop removing strategically placed sponsor bottles from the press conference platforms.
Paul Pogba incident
Inspired by Ronaldo, Paul Pogba pulled a similar stunt against Heineken. After Ronaldo’s press conference move, Heineken shared a tweet –
As the beverage giants openly acknowledged Ronaldo for choosing ‘agua’ over soft drinks, Pogba later made the move of removing the Heineken pet bottle in front of him. Pogba, who is a Muslim and does not drink alcohol, removed the green bottle of official Euro 2020 beer sponsor Heineken. However, the beer was completely non-alcoholic. He moved away from the beer bottle before his interaction with reporters following France’s win over Germany. Soon after, Heineken deleted the above tweet.
Euro 2020 tournament director Martin Kallen said “UEFA has communicated with the teams regarding this matter. It is essential because the revenues of the sponsors are important for the tournament and European football. Tournament rules require compliance with UEFA’s promises to sponsors, though players with religious objections don’t need to have a bottle there.
Athletic Activism vs. Brand sponsorships
Athletic activism is a broad topic. Athletes have been bringing about social change by raising awareness and fostering dialogues around various issues like inequality and racial injustice in and out of sports While athlete activism can be isolating and contain significant risks, it also creates opportunities for meaningful social change to occur. Nowadays, athletes are taking a more activist view, most recently in press conferences.
We are seeing a shift in the areas of health and celebrity endorsements. It is obvious that sportspersons are health conscious and avoid consuming carbonated drinks and junk food at all costs. Thus, the million-dollar question arises – Should they be allowed to use platforms such as sports to promote unhealthy products? Just like tobacco sponsorships have become a thing of the past, is it time to ban unhealthy food sponsorship from sports events?
It is for the sports organisers to contemplate which brands to approach for sponsorships. Ronaldo’s action has marked the beginning of these discussions on product placement and event sponsorships. Especially when star athletes like Ronaldo take such measures, it might be possible that sports event organisers shun sponsorship by brands that clash with the values of sport.
But at the same time, one cannot ignore the responsibility of athletes to prevent such a clash of brands. CR7 is a big brand himself, just like Coke. “I respect the rights of players to stand up for issues and values that they feel strongly about. But I wish they did it more discreetly. Right now, he (Ronaldo) showed total contempt and disgust, which I thought was a little over the top,” said Lloyd Mathias, former marketing head at HP, Asia-PAC and PepsiCo India.
An athlete showing disgust openly to a tournament sponsor’s product that pays millions for supporting a sport/tournament is bound to have repercussions not only on the particular event but also on the sporting landscape. Out of the US$ 4 billion that Coca-Cola lost, a percentage goes into supporting lower division football tournaments as well. It is highly possible that it is going to be the first thing Coca-Cola cuts back on.
The takeaway from the controversy
One thing is clear that big brand sponsors can no longer place themselves where they want to in the eyes of consumers. The power that celebs exercise over people’s views through social media is much stronger than what the brands can manage. Today brands are not in a position to choose which celebrity is suited to represent them, but it is the other way round.
Even Ronaldo has sold junk food on TV (KFC). He is a lifelong Nike brand ambassador, a company that is time and again accused of running sweatshops in China. But an act like the press conference one shows the celebrities as heroes in social media, advocating what is ‘right’ (which can be superficial too) and what is wrong. And no matter how big the brand is, they are bound to suffer the impact.
It is time for brands selling unhealthy products to rethink their strategies. While the immediate effects of such controversies might weather out soon, the longer-term consequences are undeniable. This is the biggest lesson that brands can learn from this incident.
For more extensive analysis and Market Intelligence reports feel free to approach us or visit our website: Venture Capital Market Intelligence Reports | VCBay.
We try our best to fact check and bring the best, well-researched and non-plagiarized content to you. Please let us know
-if there are any discrepancies in any of our published stories,
-how we can improve,
-what stories you would like us to cover and what information you are looking for, in the comments section below or through our contact form! We look forward to your feedback and thank you for stopping by!
Next article
