Article Tools
In the golden years of sports, there was a tacit understanding between players and beat writers that unseemly behaviour on both sides would largely be swept under the rug. That’s not the case today. Take Michael Vick — once a promising star football player and role model for underprivileged youth, now just another victim of his own bad judgment for killing dogs who were losers in his canine-fighting gambling ring. He’s getting as much bad press as the basket case who used to be superstar Britney Spears. It’s hard to feel sorry for Vick (he admitted to killing dogs, for crying out loud), but he did get some support from columnist Barbara Amiel, who in Maclean’s wrote that he is the victim of U.S. persecution — a status her hubby, Conrad Black, has claimed as well. Boo hoo.
There are a couple of major differences. First of all, Vick had the good sense and cojones to fess up, putting him back on the road to redemption. As much as the public enjoys seeing someone fall from grace, it loves a reclamation project even more. Vick, also to his credit, took up an offer from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to attend a one-day class, and apparently got something out of it — even if it was just some good publicity.
Black’s fall from grace also hasn’t had the same widespread impact that Vick’s tumble has. “With a CEO who is indicted, the company can fire him and it’s business as usual,” says Ronn Torossian, founder and CEO of 5W Public Relations in New York. “High-profile athletes and individuals are brands unto themselves. They stand for something on their own.”
Vick put his team and his league, as well as sponsors such as Nike and Rawlings who paid him millions, into a tricky situation. Immediately sever ties with Vick once the scandal breaks, and they’re open to charges of discrimination or insensitivity. Act too slowly, and they suffer the howls of public indignation. But Vick is hardly an exception. Every major sport has its scandals these days, from baseball’s steroid witch hunt, which has snared stars such as Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, to suspected match-fixing in tennis and a host of on- and off-field misdemeanors in other sports.
It’s enough to make companies throw away their sports-marketing and sponsorship plans. But the worst thing a sponsor can do when one of its celebrity pitchmen is disgraced is deviate from strategy. Presumably, a good deal of thought was put into using athletes as marketing vehicles. They bring immediate name recognition, but are expensive and can’t be looked at as a one-off. “Companies need to look at celebrities as long-term relationships, and sometimes they’re going to go wrong,” says Torossian. “But that doesn’t mean you abandon the boat because of one bad apple. It simply means you switch gears a little.”
That said, a company that is completely risk-averse should not be involved with any individual celebrity. Even if an athlete isn’t convicted by a court of law, a company’s reputation can be tarnished if the court of public opinion swings to the negative. Does anyone believe Clemens’ claims of innocence? Not really — at least not yet — but there’s more dirty laundry coming down the chute.
Sports has entered the realm of celebrity culture, and its purity has been compromised. No longer do kids play for the love of the game. They want the $25-million contract, and they have to accept the spotlight. “The media is obsessed with celebrities,” says Torossian. “That’s going to last forever.” And their sponsors have to accept that, too.
Rate this article
