The Bottlegate of EURO 2020: Cristiano Ronaldo versus Coca-Cola
Group F went from being the “group of death” in EURO 2020 to becoming the “group of beverage controversy” this past week.
As Portuguese superstar Cristiano Ronaldo took his seat to speak to the media during the press conference before Portugal’s match against Hungary, he removed two Coca-Cola bottles sitting on the podium. He then picked up a water bottle and emphatically proclaimed “Agua” (water in Portuguese) followed by him rolling his eyes while saying “Coca-Cola.” Not surprisingly, the clip has gone viral and created a controversy outside the playing field regarding the role of athletes and sponsors in major tournaments like UEFA’s EURO tournament.
Some were quick to praise him for taking a stand in promoting a healthy alternative over a sugary carbonated beverage. Others called him a hypocrite while pointing out that he has endorsed unhealthy products (even Coca-Cola in the past) when he gets paid.
And many criticized him for defying the “rules” — removing a sponsor from a place that the brand deserved to be at, given they had purchased the sponsorship rights.
While the bulk of the world’s attention was given to the Ronaldo incident, there were two more cases of players removing a sponsor’s product from the podium during their press conference. French star Paul Pogba removed a bottle of Heineken for religious reasons (as a Muslim he does not drink alcohol).
And after Italy’s win over Switzerland, Manuel Locatelli, the star of the match for the Azzuri, copied Ronaldo and also removed two Coke bottles and, like Ronaldo, said “acqua,” Italian for water.
Sponsorships and endorsements
Sponsors pay a lot of money for buying the rights to associate with major sports tournaments like the EURO, expecting that association to help them build their brands and help their business. Needless to say, players acting this way is not what they had in mind when they bought the sponsorship.
Understandably, UEFA is not happy either given that these actions undermine the value of its sponsorships and, consequently, its ability to charge high prices for selling sponsorships.
Players of course can sign their own endorsement deals both with sports brands and with brands unrelated to sport (for example, Polish star Robert Lewandowski has an endorsement deal with Gilette). But when it comes to tournaments (like EURO 2020), players cannot promote any brand that is not an official partner of the tournament itself, during press conferences, or while on the field. That includes the brands they personally endorse (except for their footwear brand which they are allowed to wear while competing).
Moreover, when it comes to apparel or equipment, players have to abide by the deals made by their team or the tournament they are playing in. For example, during the EURO, Ronaldo, a Nike athlete can play in his Nike shoes but has to play with an Adidas ball, as Adidas is the official partner of UEFA for the tournament. Similarly, Pogba, who is an Adidas endorser, when he competes for France has to play in a Nike kit, as the brand is the official partner of the French national team.
There is one high-profile case of an athlete who creatively circumvented these restrictions.
Back in 1992, when the US Dream Team dominated men’s basketball in the Barcelona Olympics, Reebok was the official uniform for the US team. Therefore, Michael Jordan, probably the most prominent Nike athlete of all time, who was on the team, had to wear the official Reebok team uniform during the medal ceremony. However, he strategically placed an American flag over the Reebok logo, so he could not be seen wearing Reebok.
But what about actively removing a sponsor’s product, as Ronaldo (and Pogba and Locatelli) did?
Red card for Ronaldo?
As the Ronaldo clip was widely shared on social media, a debate ensued. Many people, experts and non-experts alike, claimed that a player should not have any say at all in situations like this. The argument used is the players are part of a team that is part of the tournament in which they play. Therefore, they should follow the rules and if these rules say that a sponsor’s product will be front and center during a player’s press conference, the player should do the press conference with the sponsor’s product in front of him.
Some even argued that if Ronaldo does this at a press conference, where does it stop? Will he refuse to play in a stadium that bears Coke’s name? Or refuse to lift a trophy named after the sponsor? And what about other players with sponsoring brands that they object to for their reasons?
The prevailing argument, in this case, is that sponsors are an unavoidable part of sports (in a variety of ways) and players have to accept this reality and play along, whether they like it or not.
Although this is generally correct, we should note there is a fairly important difference between the setting of players talking at a press conference with a sponsor’s product in front of them and other cases (like competing in a stadium that is named after a corporate partner or on a pitch surrounded by signage promoting many different brands).
In fact, I could argue that the difference is, to a large extent, why sponsors like Coca-Cola and Heineken want their product right there in front of the players when the players talk to the media.
The difference is that having a Coca-Cola or Heineken bottle right by a superstar like Ronaldo or Pogba creates an implied association between the brand and the player. An image from the press conference posted on social media is much more than the total number of impressions it will generate for the brand. It is also a connection between the brand and specific players. A subtle connection but a connection nonetheless.
In that respect, I can see why some players would make a conscious choice to not let their image be associated with a brand/product they are against. The fact that the specific Heineken in front of Paul Pogba was a non-alcoholic version does not change the fact that he is considering it inappropriate for him to be seen with a well-known alcoholic brand’s product beside him, especially when it is inconsistent with his faith.
What happens next?
To make things more complicated (and also more interesting), the end of the press conference coincided with a 1.6% drop in Coca-Cola’s share value, equating to a $4 billion dollar drop in the company’s market value. Which made Ronaldo’s marketing power seem incredibly gigantic.
As much as Ronaldo is indeed a marketing giant and as tempting as it is to link this drop entirely to the Ronaldo incident, we should be careful about not equating correlation with causation. A more careful look at the day’s events by Brendan Coffey at Sportico suggests that this was not really what moved the needle that day.
Nevertheless, the question remains how should Coca-Cola (and UEFA) deal with this?
Coca-Cola issued a simple announcement about the Ronaldo incident about how everyone is entitled to their preferences. Overall, it has downplayed the incident (despite the call or expectation by many commenting on social media for legal action against Ronaldo). Frankly, I think this was a wise choice.
Enforcing any kind of punishment would likely cause an uproar and probably would not do the brand any good. Imagine having UEFA suspend Ronaldo over this and potentially costing Portugal the chance to move to the next round because they had to face Germany and/or France without their superstar (in the so-called “group of death”)? Coca-Cola’s share in the Portuguese market will drop immediately and dramatically.
What about having him pay a fine? Yes, I can hear you laughing… Asking a player who has surpassed $1 billion dollars in earnings over his career to pay a fine of a few thousand and expecting that to “hurt” him is truly laughable. Moreover, think of the message this would send to the world: Ronaldo dislikes Coca-Cola so much that he is willing to even pay fines to express his dislike for it? That would make things even worse for Coke!
The fact that two more similar incidents (Pogba’s and Locatelli’s) happened shortly after Ronaldo’s makes it clear that UEFA cannot simply ignore this as it can easily become the sponsor fiasco for the ages. UEFA realized this and asked every team to remind its players about the importance of the sponsors requesting they do not remove the sponsors’ products during press conferences. They implied that fines and other forms of discipline may occur if this happens again. As mentioned earlier, this sounds threatening, but I can’t imagine it will actually happen as it may hurt the sponsor brands more than help them.
Also, UEFA will note whether a Muslim player is at the press conference and will not include bottles of alcohol sponsors in those cases.
Another reasonable solution that I am surprised has not been mentioned, yet, would be to check with the players who will be at the press conference beforehand about favorite (or less objectionable) Coke products and include those on the podium. Coca-Cola has dozens of different products it can showcase (including a water brand). Why not make it look more authentic by having player favorites rather than ones they dislike or object to?
Time to rethink sponsor “exposure”?
The bottlegate fiasco may be the impetus to revisit the idea of sponsor product placement in this context, along with the broader model it represents that emphasizes brand exposure. Measuring sponsorship impact by solely (or mostly) counting impressions of a brand’s logo or product during a sporting event is becoming more and more outdated.
Ideally, the best sponsorships are the ones that engage the fans/consumers. Maybe this situation signals that it is time to shift measuring sponsorship impact more along those lines. Especially for brands that really do not need exposure (like Coca-Cola).
The main benefit of a brand sponsoring sports is the ability to tap into the passion sports elicit among its target consumers. And a simple logo around the pitch during play or behind the players during press conferences doesn’t help much in that respect.
Maybe down the road, sponsors will actually be grateful for what Cristiano Ronaldo did in June of 2021 during EURO 2020 as it may nudge them toward a better way of leveraging and activating their sports sponsorships.
