How Nike Stole The Olympics

It's 1996, the Atlanta Olympics. Away from home, Johnson got off to a great start. We are already above García. Look at him, he's running away. Magnificent career. Look the hour! Incredible! With that world-record run, Michael Johnson became the only man in history to win the 400 and 200 meters at the same Olympic Games, each time wearing a pair of gold-colored spikes made specifically for him by Nike. Photographs of Johnson running the race in his legendary gold shoes went around the world. Johnson was the fastest man in the world. Millions of viewers not only saw those Nike shoes on their screens, millions also saw those same shoes hanging from Johnson's neck a few days later on the cover of Time magazine.

It's hard to imagine better marketing for any Olympic sponsor. The only problem: Nike was not an Olympic sponsor. Reebok was. But when people were asked: who was the official Olympic partner? - More people chose Nike than Reebok. Reebok had paid millions of dollars to be the official Olympic partner, but consumers only remembered its competitor: it seems like a bad deal. Then Reebok ended its sponsorship with the Olympic Games. And the Olympics began taking action against Nike and other companies that used the Games for marketing without paying for it. Fast forward to today, and you're not even allowed to tweet about the Olympics without being sued.

Even baking a cake with the Olympic rings on it can get you in trouble. Why did it become so ridiculous? It all goes back to that legendary race in Atlanta. Welcome to Athletic Interest - this is the story of how Nike hijacked the Olympic Games. Kidnapping is a strong word. It also raises the question of who is the real owner of the Olympic Games? The easy answer: the International Olympic Committee. Founded by Pierre de Coubertin in 1894, it is the organizing authority for the modern Summer and Winter Olympic Games. Coubertin's idea was that athletic competition would promote understanding between cultures and therefore reduce the dangers of war.

He also stressed the importance of the competition itself rather than winning. “The important thing in life is not the triumph but the fight, the essential thing is not to have won but to have fought well.” This laid the foundations for the modern Olympic movement, which is today led and managed by the IOC. Although criticized in recent years, the Olympic movement is an unprecedented success story. The Summer Olympics have gone from having a couple hundred (241) participants representing 14 nations in 1896, to more than 11,000 competitors representing more than 200 nations around the world in 2016. Money was not an issue at first.

During the first half of the 20th century, the Games operated on a shoestring budget. In fact, attempts to link the Olympic Games with commercial interests were rejected. The IOC believed that lobbying by corporate interests would unduly affect its decision-making. But in the 1970s, the Olympic Games ran into financial problems. In fact, the Montreal Games generated a loss of almost one billion US dollars. So the IOC and its new president Juan Antonio Samaranch began to look for new sources of income to become financially independent. His solution would change the world of sports forever. Introduced exclusivity of sponsorship rights.

The Games have had some form of sponsorship since their inception, but for many years anyone who wanted to become a sponsor could reach some form of agreement. In theory, it was possible for both Coca-Cola and Pepsi to sponsor the same Olympic Games. Samaranch and the team for the 1984 Games in Los Angeles changed that. They began selling official global sponsorship and broadcast rights, which had the defining characteristic of being exclusive. Unofficial vendors who were unwilling or unable to pay the money to become official Olympic partners were excluded. The move significantly limited the offering of marketing opportunities around the Olympic Games.

And package prices skyrocketed. That revolution had two consequences. First, the IOC made much more money than before. The Los Angeles Games made profits of more than 200 million US dollars. Its organizer even appeared on the cover of Time magazine. And secondly, companies that were no longer official sponsors had to get creative if they still wanted to be seen at the Olympics. It was the birth of ambush marketing. The IOC describes ambush marketing as "a planned attempt by a third party to associate itself directly or indirectly with the Olympic Games in order to obtain the recognition and benefits associated with being an Olympic partner." Instead of investing millions of dollars to become an official Olympic partner, Nike preferred to invest elsewhere.

In the run-up to the Games, Nike purchased all available billboards and advertising space around the Olympic venues. Thus, the swoosh was picked up by television broadcasts and beamed into the homes of billions of people around the world. Of course, they took advantage of their best athletes like Michael Johnson or Carl Lewis in an almost aggressive commercial. And Nike even handed out flags to fans, guaranteeing that the Swoosh logo would be on display at all Olympic venues. But the biggest marketing stunt was the construction of the so-called Nike Center in a three-story parking lot outside the Olympic Park.

The prime location, which included a retail store, became a major attraction for visitors. It featured a basketball court, a video room and a hospitality area for athletes sponsored by Nike. Nike's ambush marketing in Atlanta was responsible for the IOC taking a hard line regarding unofficial brands approaching the Olympics. To understand what happened next, we first have to return to the question of who owns the Olympic Games. When we say IOC it is not entirely true. No one can own an event. But what you can possess is the right to a name or symbol. These are protected by intellectual property laws.

An example would be trademarks, that is, the logos that companies use to build their brands. The Olympic properties owned by the IOC are the Olympic rings, the flag, the motto, the emblems, the anthem, the flame and the torch, as well as the name. The IOC requires all member countries to take appropriate measures to protect these properties by law. But that is not all. As a result of Nike's ambush marketing in Atlanta, each country that wants to host the Games must now create special laws to protect the event from ambush marketing. One of the first such laws was created in the United Kingdom for the London Olympics, to prevent people from using innovative ways to associate themselves with the Games.

Yes, you heard that right. They created laws against (or let's say because of) Nike marketing. These special event laws offer very broad protection to organizers, sometimes to a ridiculous degree. Just ask the Weymouth butcher, who was given official warnings for putting up depictions of five interconnected sausage rings in the run-up to London 2012. He wasn't even allowed to combine '2012' and 'London' into a single text... So How did Nike react to these new challenges? On the eve of the London Olympics, Nike launched a video campaign called "Find Your Greatness." With this ad, Nike really tested the limits of ambush marketing laws.

The clip showed everyday athletes competing in locations around the world called London, except London in the United Kingdom, which they could not show for legal reasons. But the message was pretty clear to everyone: athletes performing in London in a Nike ad. A spokesperson for Adidas, the official sponsor, attempted to downplay the Nike campaign: “We have no problem with it. No signs of ambush marketing. "I don't think Nike's ad is related to the Olympics at all." The Adidas spokesperson probably felt less relaxed when he realized that the Nike clip went viral and became the most viewed ad during the Olympics, easily surpassing the Adidas campaign.

In a study conducted after the Olympic Games, 37% identified Nike as the official Olympic sponsor and only 24% voted for Adidas. Despite specific laws against it, Nike simply did it again. They seized public attention around the Olympic Games that their official partners paid for. It is a common argument that Nike and other ambush sellers harm official sponsors and, in the long term, the Olympic movement itself that depends on sponsorship money. The IOC, as guardian of the Games and leader of the Olympic movement, has to protect the Olympic Games against ambush marketing. But, on the other hand, we must also give credit to the creativity of marketing campaigns that reveal the ridiculousness of certain intellectual property protection.

Basically, ambush marketing works like a circle today. Exclusive rights are followed by creative marketing, leading to stricter laws which, in turn, reinvigorate the creativity of marketing teams. From a moral perspective, it is about finding a balance between the protection of freedom of expression and the interests of the Olympic movement and its partners. It all comes down to the question we asked ourselves at the beginning: Who owns the Olympic Games? On paper, it could be the IOC. But the Olympic movement is underpinned by global public goodwill. The Olympic Games and sport itself can never be owned by anyone other than its people: the athletes.

We believe everyone should be able to tell their stories about sport. Whether it's a local butcher, a powerful sports brand or some random YouTube channel. If you want to help us create more videos to share our fascination with sports, you can support us on Patreon! Like our new MVP, Eli Iske.