Does belief mean sacrifice? Athlete activism and sponsorship in sport.

It is no secret that athlete activism is now part of sport. But what does the resurgence of athlete activism mean for sport and its stakeholders? While recent media indicates that the trend is challenging, it could also represent an opportunity for sport to re-examine its values of inclusion to ensure that beliefs are respected, even when expressed publicly. Contrary to Nike’s campaign that showcased NFL player activist, Colin Kaepernick quoted as stating, “Believe in something. Sacrifice everything,” sport, its athletes and sponsors can work to embrace different beliefs without sacrificing athlete wellbeing and brand backlash. 

Elite athletes are influential figures in society, embodying the universal values of sport, which is why their visibility attracts endorsement. This power afforded to athletes through the high-profile platform of sport, affords them the capacity to become agents of social change. However, in some cases, activism risks controversy and loss of significant endorsements, which traditionally rely upon an apolitical and uncontroversial sporting and athlete image. For minority athletes, advocacy can lead to isolation and adverse financial ramifications, which have wider impacts upon team culture, sport reputation and the sustainability of sponsorship as a key revenue source for sport. In the wake of the very real risk of sponsor brand backlash related to athlete boycotts or advocacy, sport may be viewed as a risky asset with which to partner.  Global betting company, Ladbrokes, recently announced its intention to step away from sports sponsorship due to community sentiment relating to betting in sport, and citing other categories facing public and athlete criticism.

While sport is premised upon values of fairness, trust, respect and excellence, individual, collective, and institutional activism is on the rise. This is because sport is a reflection of society and not immune to injustices in terms of racism, inequalities and global threats. Activism in sport has been conceptualised as a typology including community engagement, collective action, public statements or protests. Examples of social justice stances made by sports and athletes range from anti-discrimination campaigns such as the Kick it Out #kickitoutgeneration anti-racism initiative through to the Stonewall #rainbowlaces LGBTQ awareness campaign in UK sport and #BlackLivesMatter kneeling in the NFL. Activism now includes wide-ranging causes championing climate change, women’s equal pay, disability rights and mental health.

While there are some positive consequences of athletes’ activism, including deriving a sense of purpose, communication and vocational skills, there are downsides which may include stress, team division and public criticism. This was the case with Colin Kaepernick who commenced peacefully protesting racial injustice during the national anthem at NFL games, leading to his inability to be re-signed for another season. One argument often raised against athlete activism is that it distracts athletes from performance, a proposition proven to be untrue by a recent study which tested how athlete activism affected performance of the individual and teams during the 2017 NFL season, following Kaepernick’s 2016 demonstration.

Sports management commentators argue that sports and athletes are well positioned to improve society through social justice causes. Indeed, human rights in sport are reflected in the Olympic and Paralympic movements and sport is recognised as a human right in the United Nations in the Universal  Declaration of Human Rights. As global sport doesn’t exist in isolation of global issues including climate crisis, humanitarian disaster and war, it is not surprising that athletes may seek to leverage their visibility and social credibility through championing issues that personally resonate or reflect the concerns of their fans or society.

Our athletes are a microcosm of society – they are also young people, who are our employees, our kids, and our voters and therefore activism in sport reflects activism in society and we should all be listening and developing strategies to respond. While many argue that activism has no place in sport, the reality is that sport is more than what happens on the field. The diverse and inclusive nature of sport means that the community of sport and its stakeholders are multicultural, multireligious and multigendered. To attempt to prevent freedoms of speech, association and choice is to counter a key pillar of sport- inclusion. Instead, sport must accept its role as a visible, relevant, and important vehicle for social cohesion and culture, and presume that its athletes, fans, volunteers, administrators and sponsors will all engage in activism, or hold a publicly communicated position from time to time, and that sometimes these perspectives may oppose the values of the sport, its sponsors, or even other team members.

There is evidence suggesting that fan and societal reactions to athlete activism and associated sponsoring brands is contingent upon media framing of the athlete’s stance. If the values communicated through the activism resonate with fans, then the athlete, sport and sponsor will be perceived favourably, based upon social identity theory, according to a study we undertook recently. Some sponsoring brands, such as Nike’s sponsorship of Kaepernick and Caster Semenya have endorsed athletes on the basis of their activism, presumably with a mission of resonating with next generation consumers and fans who are themselves activists. Recent research suggests that fans can hold opposing high and low levels of identification with team and sponsors simultaneously, known as split identification. In short, “I love my team, but I don’t like the sponsor.”

The rise of celebrity athletes has been driven by commercialisation of sport and augmentation enabled by social media. This represents both an opportunity and a challenge for sport and sponsors. If a brand aligns with values communicated by a celebrity athlete, then the authenticity of the sponsorship may be enhanced to mutually benefit both parties. But if the platform is used to denigrate a sponsor brand, then a response from either the sport or the sponsor becomes complex, given they have become linked in a joint brand profile through the partnership.

For sponsors, terminating can risk brand backlash, particularly when significant investment has been made over a long duration. Sponsorship sticks, and the athlete and sponsor brands are often inextricably linked in their brand associations and equity. In short, it becomes difficult for fans to forget a pairing of brands long after they may go their separate ways, a concept called spontaneous recovery, which my colleagues and I established through a published study a few years ago. Reneging from support for the sport on the basis of athlete activism is a commercial decision, but with the resurgence of athlete activism, it is a risk that is foreseeable and could potentially be managed in the negotiation process by both the sport and the sponsoring brand. For example, including athletes in negotiations, providing a clear articulation for the partnership, authentic activations related to the partnership and the goodwill of the sponsor in terms of its genuine support and community enhancement mission would all help in mitigating any negative fallout from a proposed sponsorship. Individual freedoms should also be recognised by sports and sponsors, such as constitutional rights to religious freedom, anti-discrimination, and freedom of speech. When these rights clash with those of the brands seeking to sponsor sport, while untested legally, athletes should be afforded these freedoms as basic human rights and there should be awareness of and compassion towards minority perspectives. To attempt to override them renders sport not inclusive. However, the issue becomes more complex when opposing freedoms are expressed within a team or between sponsor and athlete, as was the case with Israel Fallou and the Manly NRL team in which religious freedom clashed with LGBTQI+ inclusion values, with both freedoms enshrined in our law.

When activism risks commercial fallout, such as boycotting a sponsorship from a “harmful” product category, then the scenario is different. Can an athlete express a belief that they may hold off the field that adversely affects the sustainability of their sport? While there are contractual limits to activism in athletes’ contracts through broadly drafted morality clauses typically triggered by the catch all, “bringing the sport or sponsor into disrepute,” standing down athletes to appease sponsors risks alienating significant fan following, team performance and fracturing culture. There is also a duty of care to ensure that the wellbeing of athletes is considered in the fray as they are effectively employees who are young and vulnerable.