Features
‘Ambushing’, marketing and Fifa
Booze, women and South Africa’s World Cup
Alex Free
2010-06-24, Issue 487
http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/65435
Printer friendly version
In the wake of recent reports on the arrests of two Dutch women accused of ‘ambush marketing’ for a non-official product, questions should again be raised about Fifa’s (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) role in the South African World Cup and the organisation’s drain on a country’s public finances. In an internationally reported incident, a total of some 36 women were ejected from the Soccer City stadium during the Netherlands–Denmark game of Monday 14 June – the majority of whom were reportedly white South Africans[1] – with Dutch nationals Barbara Castelien and Mirthe Nieuwpoort subsequently arrested and charged. The scandal led to the sacking of former Jamaica international and pundit for British broadcaster ITV Robbie Earle, who was implicated by virtue of having given tickets to a third party who subsequently sold them on to Bavaria, the brewer behind the contentious marketing strategy.[2]
‘AMBUSH MARKETING’
The stadium arrests were on the strength of alleged ‘ambush marketing’. At the 2010 World Cup this is a practice which consists of attempting to promote a product or service that is not officially sanctioned by Fifa, specifically via sneakily ducking under the official radar before ultimately emerging to great attention and fanfare. In this archetypal case, the ambushing apparently took the form of a group of female fans disguising themselves as Denmark followers, only to morph into a scantily-clad, dancing blonde troupe sporting orange dresses well known to Bavaria drinkers in Europe. The South African women involved were looked upon sympathetically by the authorities and not arrested, while the country’s National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) ultimately dropped all charges against Castelien and Nieuwpoort following pressure from the Dutch government and the derision implicit within the attention of the media.[3]
Though on the surface a quasi-comic instance of an institution’s pretence towards a level of control beyond its status, the event has been most significant as a further example of Fifa’s capacity to bend the tournament to its own corporate interests at the expense of the broader benefits it has touted for South Africans at large. While it has speedily distanced itself in the face of pressure from a relatively powerful Western government and international media alert to a potential damsels-in-distress narrative, the governing body’s ability to oblige the South African state to restrict opportunities for local and ‘informal’ traders, divert public funding towards short-lived infrastructural projects and evict local residents has been well documented by alternative media channels. In many respects it is regrettable that Fifa has been forced through its actions to tacitly backtrack and admit heavy-handedness when faced with Dutch pressure and international media attention, while at the same time largely escaping mainstream, broader scrutiny around its own ambushing of the South African state and people when it comes to the fundamental structures underpinning the hosting of the World Cup.
DEVELOPING ‘THE BEAUTIFUL GAME’?
While it may publicly claim its greatest goal to be promoting and developing ‘the beautiful game’, the contemporary Fifa is arguably most concerned with protecting its profit base through a policy of official product sanctioning. In practical terms this means pursuing sponsorship agreements with the international owners of the financially strongest multinational brands, deals with whom are presumably the most lucrative.[4] Despite apparently falling short of this privileged elite, the Dutch brewer Bavaria does not appear to have done badly out of the episode. Fifa’s insistence on ‘official’ brands and its desperation to fortify a self-serving commercial enclave lends itself to easy derision, but Bavaria’s brand has achieved tremendous online exposure in the wake of a decidedly ‘any publicity is good publicity’ story.[5] (Incidentally, while Bavaria’s apparent scheme may come across as a cynical, unsophisticated attempt to marry sex appeal with brand exposure, it proved savvy given the habit of sports broadcasters to scour the crowd filming female fans they like the look of.)
Though ultimately politic enough not to entirely exclude local businesses and ‘informal’ traders from capitalising on the tourist boom, Fifa’s presence has been about protecting and maximising the profits to be derived from running the world’s most popular sporting event and trading on the pervasive sentimentality surrounding football. Belying a public rhetoric of economic benefits for all through a self-evident trickle-down form of distribution, in commercial terms hosting the World Cup has largely been about further opening up an ‘emerging market’ for global brands protected by a non-accountable, non-democratic international sporting entity seemingly aspiring to legal and judicial powers.[6] Though some local traders will have been able to carve out new financial opportunities, Fifa has been instrumental in imposing a corporate-friendly commercial milieu designed to enrich multinationals and well-positioned members of the South African elite, earning it the title of ‘Thiefa’ among some quarters. Public spending has been directed towards projects designed for private profit, just as local shackdwellers around major cities such as Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg have been evicted from their homes to make way for World Cup infrastructural developments.
FIFA-FRIENDLY LAWS
Responding to the arrest of the two accused, the Dutch government’s foreign ministry spokesperson Aad Meijer stressed: ‘We are not aware of any South African legislation that allows people to be detained for wearing an orange dress.’[7] Orange dresses may well not be fair game, but that is not to say that there hasn’t been other questionable legislation rolled out as a result of the South African government’s deference to Fifa. In a country in which many will have been unable to even afford to attend matches at a tournament taking place on their own soil, Fifa-friendly acts such as the 2010 Fifa World Cup South Africa Special Measures Act produce further costs and reportedly serve as legislation which ‘contravenes rights enshrined in South Africa's constitution’.[8] In its desire to show itself off to the world, the South Africa state has effectively been obliged to subordinate a slice of its law-making to an unaccountable, international body. Just as appropriating a state’s legal resources to pursue ‘unofficial’ brands represents a clear waste of national funds and detracts from tackling serious crime, it seems Fifa should instead concern itself with its own shameless ‘ambush’ on the public purse.
UNDERMINING SOUTH AFRICA’S PROGRESS
While the arrest of two Dutch women has become something of a cause célèbre, the incident must be seen as a further example of the dubious role Fifa has played in imposing itself on its hosts. Far from stimulating universal economic benefits, Fifa’s approach to World Cup management has at once leeched from the public purse, diverted funds away from serious legal matters and subordinated the South African judiciary to its commercially rapacious will. In much of the international media much has been made of the inequality and deep social divisions still endured by a majority of South Africans, but the sentimentality surrounding football should not work to conceal Fifa’s questionable role in the hosting of Africa’s first World Cup and the ugly side of the beautiful game.
If Fifa has been restrained and even made to look a bit silly (ultimately the brand it was trying to quash did very well out of the incident), the concern surrounds its own particular brand of ambushing and capacity to bend South Africa’s laws for its own benefit. While an easy-reading tale of a load of half-dressed young women being dubiously chucked out of a stadium may sell papers, the real story remains the social and financial costs of hosting the World Cup and the unfortunate self-subjugation of the South African state to an unelected, unaccountable and profit-thirsty external institution.
BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* Alex Free is assistant editor of Pambazuka News and Pambazuka Press's publications officer.
* Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at Pambazuka News.
NOTES
[1] Sthembile Shelembe, ‘Fifa defends decision to only charge Dutch over Bavaria beer outfit’, 18 June 2010, Newstime, http://tiny.cc/iu0ty
[2] Owen Gibson, ‘World Cup 2010: ITV sacks Robbie Earle for breaking ticket regulations’, 15 June 2010, The Guardian, http://tiny.cc/c5nja
[3] Anon, ‘World Cup Dutch “beer stunt” charges dropped’, 22 June 2010, BBC News, http://tiny.cc/0g4aw
[4] Anon, ‘World Cup Dutch “beer stunt” charges dropped’, 22 June 2010, BBC News, http://tiny.cc/imxnl
[5] Katherine Levy, 'Bavaria Beer website traffic rockets after World Cup stunt', 18 June 2010, Marketing Magazine, http://tiny.cc/bqakl
[6] Sthembile Shelembe, ‘Fifa defends decision to only charge Dutch over Bavaria beer outfit’, 18 June 2010, Newstime, http://bit.ly/dzjGaA
[7] Sthembile Shelembe, ‘FIFA files charges, ITV fires its World Cup pundit for Bavaria beer stunt’, 16 June 2010, Newstime, http://bit.ly/ctpfCY
[8] Marina Hyde, ‘World Cup 2010: Fans, robbers and a marketing stunt face justice, Fifa style’, 20 June 2010, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/20/world-cup-2010-fans-marketing-justice-fifa
Readers' Comments
Let your voice be heard. Comment on this article.