GENEVA: Amid the governance crisis shaking world football, one question is still not being asked loudly enough – where are the voices of commercial partners, sponsors, broadcasters and investors?
Sport Integrity Global Alliance (SIGA) global chief executive officer Emanuel Macedo de Medeiros said these stakeholders invest billions of dollars in sport and compete fiercely for the rights to associate their brands with competitions, clubs and athletes.
They also benefit from sport’s extraordinary global reach, emotional power and the loyalty of millions of fans and consumers.
“That is entirely legitimate. Modern sport needs commercial investment. But those who benefit from sports cannot simply enjoy the upside and look away when difficult questions arise. A commercial association with sports carries not only benefits, but also responsibilities,” said de Medeiros in his latest article published on SIGA’s website.
“There is an old English saying: ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’ I am not suggesting that those who finance sports should dictate how it is governed. They should not.
“But one would surely expect those whose money, brands and reputations are so deeply intertwined with sports to take an active interest when the credibility and integrity of the institutions they support are called into question. And yet, are we hearing enough from them?”
His comments follow Gianni Infantino’s plan to bring private investment into Fifa events, including the World Cup. Although the plan has been aborted, the Fifa president continues to face criticism from regional bodies and world leaders. Former UEFA president and French football great Michel Platini on Sunday said Infantino “must go” following the scandals that have rocked world football’s governing body.
“We have seen a different response before. In 2015, when Fifa was engulfed by one of the gravest crises in its history, several major sponsors raised serious concerns and called for change.
“They understood a simple reality: reputational risk does not stop at the door of the institution in crisis. Consumers are watching. Shareholders are watching. Clients and employees are watching. Their brands were on the line too.
“The institutional voice of another enormously influential constituency – the broadcasters – was less evident.
“They reported the crisis, investigated it and analysed it. But as rights-holders investing vast sums in football, what was their own corporate position? More than 10 years later, that question remains relevant,” de Medeiros added.
He added that in May 2015, he had met the chief executive officer of a major global corporation at his office on First Avenue in Manhattan.
“I asked him what concerned him most about his company’s involvement in sports. His answer was immediate: reputational damage.”
Companies, he explained, do not always know whom they are sponsoring. This is not because major corporations fail to conduct due diligence. They do. The problem is that conventional due diligence is generally not built around criteria designed for the distinctive nature, structures, risks and governance challenges of sports.
He said this was why good governance in sports is responsible business.
“And it is good business. Governance failures destroy value. They damage reputations, destabilise institutions, undermine confidence and affect the competitions, rights and properties in which commercial partners invest.
“Good governance protects value, strengthens confidence, safeguards reputation and creates stability.
“Regulators are increasingly recognising this connection. Earlier this year, the UK Financial Conduct Authority warned football clubs about the risks associated with questionable sponsorship arrangements and stressed the importance of proper due diligence before agreements are signed and throughout the commercial relationship.
“Among the risks identified were legal liability, money laundering and serious reputational damage. The principle is absolutely right. But why should it operate in only one direction?”
He added that if a sports organisation is expected to know who is sponsoring it, surely a company investing millions – sometimes hundreds of millions – has an equally legitimate interest in knowing the organisation it is sponsoring.
De Medeiros said sponsors, broadcasters and investors rightly demand performance, audiences, visibility and return on investment.
“There is one more return they should demand: integrity. Not as a slogan, not as a contractual clause and not as a public-relations exercise, but as independently verified reality,” he added.
