RULE 40, is it BS?

I have no problem with the rule from a brand/company perspective. The Olympics are a valuable entity and you pay to play. If a company wants to shell out $20-50 million to advertise during the Olympics then they should have exclusive rights.

I DO have a problem with restricting the athletes voices. It would be one thing if the IOC payed athletes who made the Olympics. Then no problem. Make the rules as to what can be said and worn. No different than the NFL or NBA. But Olympians are not being paid by the IOC, yet still having their voice restricted. Olympic athletes are independent contractors NOT employees for their sponsors. If they want to say something about a sponsor than they should be allowed. Its how they get paid. It's rediculous to restrict what an athlete can say without payment. After all there is no Olympics without the athletes.

Just a way for the organizers to profit at the expense of the athletes.

Please stop linking to that Crap. Sally is making here Anti-rule 40 crap into a marketing campaign and you are just push that as well.

Sally doesn't give one crap about the sport. she only cares about not paying for marketing. She has her "flock" pay to brand the sport. She uses the media to promote her "outrage" (ie Brand)

She doesn't support the sport at all.

Sally and most runners have a severe lack of knowledge about how sponsorship of big events works (or in fact how the real world works really)

Is there corruption at the IOC? yes and it sucks. But they lie and say stupid stuff like "NO money goes to the athletes." It goes through the federations. Sally and her ilk only see track - they don't seen the 27 other sports at the Olympics each with their own federations, athletes and funding needs.

And the USA's track federations covers 5 sports.

Plus they have no clue how to operate a world event.

it's easy to complain and offer no real solution. If the Rule wasn't in place, then why would sponsors pay big money to the IOC. They just wouldn't.

Still better than that first wrote:

I DO have a problem with restricting the athletes voices. It would be one thing if the IOC payed athletes who made the Olympics.

do your research please.

Marco YOLO wrote:

Still better than that first wrote:

I DO have a problem with restricting the athletes voices. It would be one thing if the IOC payed athletes who made the Olympics.

do your research please.

Enlighten me please.

It's an issue where I can really see both sides. If I run a company and I shell ut the big big dollars to be THE title sponsor I sure as heck didn't do that so all my competitors can then use MY event to advertise THEIR products. This isn't a charity, it's a professional event, with professional business relationships.

Now I can also see the athlete side of things. They get sponsored because these companies want to have Olympic and top athletes seen wearing their shoes, clothes, etc.. The athlete feels (and has a contractual) responsibility to get the name of their sponsor out there as much as possible.

In the end I tend to favor the "bad guys" in this debate because with out Coke, Nike, etc we wouldn't have these big events. Also the smaller companies know when they sign an athlete that IF this person makes an Olympic team Rule 40 exits. This isn't new information.

A middle ground would be nice, but with the money at stake and the very limited window in which these athletes are relevant, I don't see that happening.

Still better than that first wrote:I have no problem with the rule from a brand/company perspective. The Olympics are a valuable entity and you pay to play. If a company wants to shell out $20-50 million to advertise during the Olympics then they should have exclusive rights.

This is question begging. An official sponsor can only purchase the rights that the IOC or other entities actually have to sell. The IOC has rights to Olympic trademarks and copyright in the live broadcasts (though not in the events themselves). But Rule 40 is overbroad in that it purports to prevent companies from doing things that would almost certainly not infringe any IP rights. Using the word "Olympic" in a factual statement about an athlete that you sponsor is not trademark infringement.

I'd also add that, setting aside legal considerations, one could just as easily say that the title sponsors are freeloading off of the athletes' sponsors. The IOC is only relevant because it owns a valuable trademark. The real value of the Games comes from the athletes themselves, and their performances are made possible by many individual sponsors who are then prevented from capitalizing on their investments during the moment when they are most likely to pay off.

800 dude wrote:

I'd also add that, setting aside legal considerations, one could just as easily say that the title sponsors are freeloading off of the athletes' sponsors. The IOC is only relevant because it owns a valuable trademark. The real value of the Games comes from the athletes themselves, and their performances are made possible by many individual sponsors who are then prevented from capitalizing on their investments during the moment when they are most likely to pay off.

I bet to differ. The real value is from the prestige of the event, the "who" isn't relevant.

Ex. if some dude were to win the Oly 5000m with a 15:00 finishing time the slowness of the race wouldn't matter because forever he would be an Olympic Gold Medalist.

Without a Rule 40 nobody is going to sign on to be a title sponsor.

bump

WhiteTrash wrote:

Without a Rule 40 nobody is going to sign on to be a title sponsor.

Really? World Cup soccer, US Pro sports do not have anything as restrictive. Those leagues seem to have no issue with sponsors.

It is BS to the extent it claims this is its goal "To preserve the unique nature of the Olympic Games by preventing overcommercialisation."

The Olympics are one long commercial

http://inside.fei.org/system/files/Rule_40-Rio_2016-QA_for_Athletes_0.pdf

No one can use the phrase "Super Bowl" in an advertisement

luv2run wrote:

WhiteTrash wrote:

Without a Rule 40 nobody is going to sign on to be a title sponsor.

Really? World Cup soccer, US Pro sports do not have anything as restrictive. Those leagues seem to have no issue with sponsors.

Rule 40 is total bs, but so is the idea that athletes have to go to the Olympics. With all the doping, economic restrictions, and corruption involved why do athletes continue to buy into and promote the lie that the Olympics are necessary?

The mafia would be proud of set up like this. Lets shake down all the companies in the world to see who will give us the most money and then we will go break the legs of every other company.

I will be doing my part and boycotting every American company that is a sponsor of the Five Ring Festival. (except Hershey)

Someone who says payed and rediculous has no valid opinion....

totally man wrote:

No one can use the phrase "Super Bowl" in an advertisement

luv2run wrote:

Really? World Cup soccer, US Pro sports do not have anything as restrictive. Those leagues seem to have no issue with sponsors.

Ok, I am ok with Oiselle (as an example) not using Olympics in its advertising, but to ban "gold", "silver", "bronze" and some others terms is over the top. Oiselle should be able to congratulate its gold medal winner XXXXX with getting a cease and desist letter or dragged into court.