Draconian IRB - World Cup Advertising.

thomond2006

World Cup regulations ensure only the rugby has any chance of being open

Hard-line restrictions imposed by the IRB to keep the Rugby World Cup 'on message' make you wonder if the event is worth it

Paul Rees

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 October 2010 10.24 BST

Is the World Cup worth it? The New Zealand Rugby Union has been asking itself that question virtually ever since it was awarded the right to stage next year's tournament. It will make a loss: it is merely a matter of scale.

The International Rugby Board will make a substantial profit: the more it makes, the more individual unions will receive, from big to small. It is one reason why the Rugby Football Union plans to clamp down on the commercial and media activities of the England players during the tournament.

Players will be banned from using social networking sites as long as England are involved in the tournament. No making twits of themselves on Twitter or having to face punishment for a Facebook faux pas. And no newspaper columns, which would not be much of a loss given that they are already carefully censored.

The ostensible reason for the crackdown is that the RFU does not want a repeat of some episodes in cricket in the summer when players, led by Kevin Pietersen, found that free speech cost. Remarks posted in the heat of the moment generated headlines and fines.

England do not want their campaign undermined by having to put out fires lit on social networking sites. That is understandable, if symptomatic of the way a sport that used to be known for its close relationship with the media keeps on building walls and barriers.

There is another reason for the determination to keep players in line, and it has as much to do with images as words.

The IRB has had to fight hard for sponsors during a time of economic gloom and it has put up a number of restrictions in New Zealand, helped by a government act passed in 2007.

Each stadium used in the World Cup will have a clean zone, with a five-mile radius, in which no rival of one of the official sponsors will be allowed to advertise. A group of supporters wearing, for example, a club jersey that bore the logo of a competitor to one of the official backers would have to remove it or be thrown out of the zone, never mind gain entry to the stadium.

If someone puts up an advertising hoarding that is not inside the zone but can be seen from it, such as in the air, they will be breaking the law and would face a fine of up to £70,000 as well as a criminal record.

The IRB's success in getting the law to support an assault on ambush marketing may persuade the organisers of other events to seek a similar sanctuary.

The RFU is concerned that one of its players, posting a picture of himself on the internet wearing something that would embarrass the IRB because it contained a forbidden logo, would undermine the official crackdown.
It is one thing to use the law to force groups and individuals to comply, but if the Rugby World Cup was ever held in the United States, where the freedom of speech is deemed more important than a sponsor, the Board would face many more obstacles than it did in New Zealand where every cent will count.

Is the World Cup worth it? The IRB, or powerful sections of it, were so appalled by the quality of rugby in the last two tournaments that the experimental law variations were introduced.

England especially were deemed to be a threat to the tournament's commercial appeal with their lamented limited approach, not that either Australia or France, never mind the IRB, did badly financially as hosts.

The RFU will have to negotiate a deal with its players if it wants them to give up commercial activity and there will doubtless be several meetings between the two parties in the coming months. Any union that fails to control its players' activities off the field faces forfeiting some of its participation money if the tournament rules over advertising are broken and there is a danger that squads will be so tightly controlled and monitored that they will feel more in prison than an hotel.

And what restrictions will be imposed on the family and friends of players who go to New Zealand. Will there be any comeback if 'wrong' images are posted on the internet? Or a politically incorrect message gains a wide currency? Will mobile phones, iPods, iPads and laptops have to be handed in before anyone is allowed into a team hotel?

The IRB has a duty to protect its sponsors, some of whom are paying more than £2m for the privilege, but should it do so to the point where someone offering their house for rent during the tournament faced prosecution if they used the words rugby, world and cup in their advertisement?

Ambush advertisers know that the best way to secure attention for their wares is through publicity, as happened during the football World Cup in South Africa earlier this year when a group of women, arrested for wearing orange miniskirts, were thrown out of a ground because the colour represented one that was a symbol of a brewer that was a rival to one of the main sponsors.

How many would have got the message but for the subsequent fuss? Just as the IRB needs to make money out of the World Cup, so do traders in New Zealand, who may never get a similar opportunity again. The word open should not just be applied to the rugby.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/oct/14/the-breakdown-rugby-world-cup

I cannot believe the bolded bit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, does this mean you can't go to Ireland games with a shirt emblazoned with "O2"?

backrow67n8

:eek: I can't believe that bolded bit as well. Thats crazy!!!

lologram

They're following Fifa's lead. They were draconian in 06, made thousands of Dutch stand in their underwear because they were wearing Bavaria orange jumpsuits and Heineken was the official sponsor.

The bit about being thrown out of the 5 mile radius zone for wearing the wrong jersey is just farcical

bleg

So, the world cup is in crisis and won't make a profit and they're giving fans more reasons not to go?

Idiots.

Sangre

standard for any large scale sporting event. Olympics and world cup have done it for years.

Nukem

WTF?

JustinDee

thomond2006 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, does this mean you can't go to Ireland games with a shirt emblazoned with "O2"?

Nope, it doesn't.

Its just an filler 'outrage' piece. No biggie. Nothing new being done in the next RWC to the last few. They'll be on the lookout for cheeky promotional gimmicks that conflict with the tournament's sponsors.

Judgement Day

I'm doing my own bit of advertising for the RWC with my new hoodie - designed and ordered today - with the money that I saved not going to see the Munster vs Toulon game. Now Thomond says JW is in the Toulon squad but it's too late to change my revised plans. I don't suppose my hoodie will upset the IRB, but not so sure about the boys down at the Antique Tavern during the Ireland vs All Blacks game on the 20th November.

copacetic

lologram wrote: »

They're following Fifa's lead. They were draconian in 06, made thousands of Dutch stand in their underwear because they were wearing Bavaria orange jumpsuits and Heineken was the official sponsor.The bit about being thrown out of the 5 mile radius zone for wearing the wrong jersey is just farcical

heh, thats appears to be a massive urban myth? In the world cup this year, some models were hired to dress up in Orange as a guerilla marketing campaign in the stadium the dutch were playing in. They were thrown out/arrested, not made to stand in their underwear and there were only 15 of them.

Loads of companies who don't actually sponsor the events try to get free publicity on the back of them, if they don't crack down on it, why would sponsors come forward at all?

The bolded bit in OP is just rubbish paper talk though, any unorganised stuff or what fans wear won't be affected in the slightest. It will be more aimed at players.

lologram

copacetic wrote: »

heh, thats appears to be a massive urban myth? In the world cup this year, some models were hired to dress up in Orange as a guerilla marketing campaign in the stadium the dutch were playing in. They were thrown out/arrested, not made to stand in their underwear and there were only 15 of them.

No, not actually an urban myth. I'm talking about 2006 in Germany, not the ambush marketing from 2010.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5091154.stm

The 'official beer' they mention is Heineken, the 'Dutch brewery' is Bavaria and many fans ended up watching the game in their underwear