Olympic Partnerships at a Crossroads: Which Way Will They Go?

Now that the Olympic flame has been extinguished in the Jardin des Tuileries and Tom Cruise is safely back on solid ground, how about a last word (ha!) on Paris 2024’s impact on the future of Olympic Games partnerships?

In the immediate aftermath of a wildly successful 16 days of competition and ceremonies, there appears to be a division among Olympic marketers and sponsorship industry veterans about whether the new twists on brand involvement that were introduced in the City of Lights—most prominently French luxury giant LVMH being featured throughout the Opening Ceremonies—were an aberration to be cracked down upon, or the dawn of a new era of integrating nine-figure corporate partners further into Games content and action.

The IOC itself, according to Anne-Sophie Voumard, managing director of television and marketing services, is heading down the latter path. Speaking about the integration of TOP partners Samsung and Coca-Cola’s Smartwater into the opening ceremonies—and in the case of Samsung’s phones, also the medal ceremonies—Voumard told SportsPro: “That’s something I clearly want to push forward and continue working with all our partners to find the best way to do it. It’s maybe more obvious with the partners that have a finished product, and we have to be creative for the other partners.”

The piece went on to say that Voumard “was conscious of the need to strike the right balance as she looks to create more branding opportunities for the IOC’s partners, but suggested the approach is not an overhaul of the organization’s commercial strategy.”

Regardless, some within the Olympic movement are not happy about the Games creating additional promotional opportunities for their partners. In an article in The New York Times, Tak Kosugi, head of global brand strategy and Olympic & Paralympic marketing at TOP partner Panasonic, lamented that not maintaining the Games’ unique rules about keeping fields of play clean from sponsor branding could diminish the value of the Olympic competition versus other international sporting events.

And there lies the dichotomy that all sponsored properties—but the Olympic Games most of all—must live with. Where do you draw the line between a) ensuring your multimillion-dollar sponsors can effectively activate their partnerships and b) limiting such activities to preserve the character and exclusivity of a one-of-a-kind event?

It’s clear that the IOC, its local Games organizing committees and national Olympic committees—as reflected in Voumard’s comments—will need to continue to push the commercial envelope in order to continue to secure billions of dollars in partnership revenue. And while Tak Kosugi’s point is well taken—especially given the source—if the public interest in and adoration for the Paris Games proves anything, it is that the Olympic brand is strong enough to allow additional partner brand visibility without being tarnished.

Olympic veterans and other observers who insist on using terms such as “sacred” and “sacrosanct” to describe the Games and to justify cutting off “creeping commercialism” such as the Samsung victory selfies need to get a grip on reality. As unique and truly special as the Olympic Games are, they are an athletic competition organized by a multi-billion-dollar conglomerate, not the Vatican, Temple Mount or Mecca.

The only outrage over those types of activations the last two weeks came from other marketers. The fans—the ones who matter—didn’t seem to mind at all.