Comment on My favourite moment of the world cup is when there's more rules about advertising than the sport
SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 5 days agoSeems insane that they should have to tbh. They’re providing the stadium, you’d think that’d be an even trade.
Example of somethibg not true: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHPArena
Essentially: The stadion is called “Neckarstadion” but while under sponsoring it’s being renamed.
Forner 21st century names were:
So yeah. It is operated by the local football club but renamed while under sponsoring.
They’re not providing the stadium. What, you think random car manufacturer or telecoms operator has a team dedicated to running highly specialised facilities like a stadium? They pay money to have their name on stadium for X years so you and I are “forced” to see and say their name when talking about stadium X. Then that deal changes hands and another company pays for the privilege of forcing their brand on us.
FIFA offers an even bigger deal, so now the stadium covers the first advertiser to comply with the second advertiser.
In the Olympics, this is also the same for equipment the athletes use.
In 2006, the brand Warrior did not pay the Olympic ad fee, thus ice hockey players needed to spray paint the logos on their sticks.
It’s all a game for money.
exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
The actual brand owners are not providing the stadium. Some stadium operator who accepted the brand money for the normal use of that stadium is providing the stadium, and FIFA said they’d require that any branded stadiums remove their corporate sponsorships in order to be considered as a site.