Its well known that many of the big sports brands sponsor the sporting superstars. But is this good for sport?
When Woodworm Cricket Bats got in to trouble in 2008, it was reported that KP and Flintoff got £1m each for using the bats. They sold around 15,000 bats in 2005 their best year at an average of around £110. Easy to see why the company got in to trouble.
If the number of high profile events and sportsmen that can actually drive sales is limited, then naturally the price of sponsoring them will rise, to a level where only the sportsmen will benefit. The company will end up giving away all the money it can raise. And where does the money come from? From the average player. From the club cricketer, or the schoolboy.
Prices have to take in to account the sponsorship and marketing spends. So, for Rugby Balls, perhaps 30% of the price is sponsorship. For Cricket Balls it is much less, but for the bats it can be 20-30%.
Perhaps the sports companies would be better off spending on supporting the brand with more grass roots level activity and taking a stance that syas : We don't pay inflated sponsorships. No one is paid to use our equipment.'
Agree, all the money ends up with the star players, but is taken from the club player. The governing bodies rarely use it for the benefit of the average player
ReplyDelete