August 24, 2023 • 50 mins
Advertising is supposed to be a way for businesses and entrepreneurs to show you how good their products are. But what if many of the products in adverts are actually bad? They could be bad for you or potentially bad for this planet and its delicately balanced biosphere.
Today’s topic is bad advertising. We are talking to researcher Freddie Daley who works as a coordinator for a tremendous organisation called Badvertising. As sport holds a powerful place in the hearts and minds of fans and athletes around the world, it is a potent tool for advertisers. According to Statista, in 2022 the global sports sponsorship market was worth an estimated 66 billion U.S. dollars and is expected to grow to 107 billion U.S. dollars by 2030. It is one of sport’s biggest revenue streams, dwarfing that of merchandise and tickets.
Freddie and his colleagues know this and therefore must dedicate a lot of time calling out and campaigning against adverts that contain false information or normalise businesses whose operations are harmful to people and the environment.
Freddie joins us today to discuss this sport, sustainability, and advertising intersection. It’s a complex and arduous topic at times but his pragmatism and belief in the possibility of a better system makes it very much worth a listen!
You can also find more research and work on this at the Rapid Transition Alliance.
Please feel free to reach out to the show on
Web: sustainingsport.com
Instagram: @sustainingsport
Linkedin: /sustaining-sport
Facebook: @sustainingsport
Twitter: @SustainSportPod
Now on Bluesky /sustainingsport.bsky.social
or contact us at: benmole@sustainingsport.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Ben (00:11):
Welcome back to the sustaining sport podcast.
Advertising is supposed to be away for businesses and
entrepreneurs to show you howgood their products are.
But what if many of theproducts in ads are actually bad
?
Maybe bad for you orpotentially bad for this planet
and its delicately balancedbiosphere?
Today's topic is badadvertising.
(00:33):
We are talking to researcherFreddie Daley, who works as a
coordinator for an organizationcalled Advertising.
As sport holds a powerful placein the hearts and minds of fans
and athletes around the world,it is a potent tool for
advertisers.
According to Statista, in 2022,the global sports sponsorship
market was worth an estimated$66 billion and is expected to
(00:57):
grow to $107 billion by 2030.
It is one of sport's biggestrevenue streams, dwarfing that
of merchandise and tickets.
Freddie and his colleagues knowthis and therefore must
dedicate a lot of time callingout and campaigning against
adverts that contain falseinformation or normalize
businesses whose operations areharmful to people and the
(01:18):
environment.
Freddie joins us today todiscuss this sport's
sustainability and advertisingintersection.
It is a complex and, at times,arduous topic, but his
pragmatism and belief in thepossibility of a better system
makes it well worth a listen, soplease enjoy our conversation.
Welcome, freddie, to theSustaining Sport podcast.
Freddie (01:48):
Hey Ben, thanks for having me on.
You're so welcome.
Ben (01:51):
As I like to do with everyone now, let us begin at
the beginning.
How did you enter this space?
Freddie (01:59):
Well, I guess my journey into the world of
climate and sport is quite aninteresting one.
About five years ago, I startedworking as a researcher at the
University of Sussex, andthrough that work I was
exploring topics such assustainable behaviour change and
trying to answer questions suchas how we scale certain
(02:19):
behaviours up, what are thebarriers to that, and what role
does culture and otherinstitutions governing
institutions, what role do theyplay in sustainable behaviour
change?
And then another project that Iwas working on was looking at
the fossil fuel supply aroundthe world basically oil, coal
(02:39):
and gas infrastructures and thepolicies required to regulate
them, to curtail them and tohopefully phase them out in line
with emissions reductionsrequired under the Paris
Agreement.
And through this work I startedlooking at fossil fuels and
fossil fuel interests, how theybuy social licence, how they
(03:01):
sustain their social licence,and inevitably this led to sport
, which is arguably the biggestarea in which fossil fuel
interests try to improve theirimage, to garner brand
recognition and just to hijackoff everything that makes sport
great.
So this inquiry led me toAndrew Sims and the wonderful
(03:26):
people at the BavaritisingCampaign, and that's where I've
been working for the last year,specifically within the remit of
sport and also as a bit of afacilitator, through the cool
down network, which is anorganisation and a network of
individuals, campaigners,sporting bodies that are all
(03:47):
concerned, either in a personalcapacity or a professional
capacity, about climate changewithin sport and all feel that
sport is a very untapped butvital vehicle through which we
can accelerate climate actionthrough wider society.
Ben (04:02):
And would you say you were a sports fan before, or is it
more that your research has justled you inevitably to the
relevance of sport?
Freddie (04:10):
I've always been a sports fan, and the key in that
sentence is fan.
I'm not much of an athletemyself, but sport has always
been something that I've had oneeye on, in the sense of not
only enjoying sports and being aspectator, but on the power of
sport to, not only in terms ofclimate change, but also
organisationally how fansinteract as individuals and as
(04:34):
collectives, the demands theymake upon clubs and the
governing bodies.
I think it's a reallyinteresting institutional
structure that is quite unique.
Ben (04:46):
I think it's fairly obvious that for a long time, companies
have realised that sport hasthis power and that's why
they've been trying to sellthings via sport for that long.
But now they're going that onestep beyond it.
I like the term you usedearlier in terms of social
licence.
Can you unpack the term sociallicence just a bit more and
explain why that's quiterelevant.
Freddie (05:05):
For sure.
So social licence ispredominantly an academic term
and it is usually applied tolarge corporations and it is
quite literally the licence thatthey get from society to
continue operating.
So an example would be a bigcoal mining company that's
operating, let's say, in theglobal south.
(05:27):
Their operations continue topollute waterways, the natural
environment around, and thisstarts to affect the lives and
livelihoods of the surroundingcommunities.
The communities organise, theydemand for this facility to
close.
They thereby are challengingthat social licence for that
company to operate.
We see companies like BigPolluters using sport to improve
(05:52):
their social licence to operate, because we do know quite
empirically the damage that theycause on the environment and on
our climate and they need tofind avenues that they can use
and leverage to improve theirstanding, both in terms of
social circles, in terms ofwider society, the great general
(06:12):
public, but also in politicalcircles as well right
policymakers, decision makers,regulators, the people that have
some power over how thesecompanies are either reigned in
or allowed to continue.
So social licence is a termwhich is meant quite literally.
(06:32):
It sounds a bit more technical,I know, but it is literally the
licence to operate socially.
Ben (06:39):
It's such a useful term because I think and without
getting too deep into likepolitical and economic
philosophy we need, when we havea society at the scale we need,
certain mechanisms of agreementon what is acceptable and what
is not, and I think too often werely on money and money being
this vessel not just ofexchanging value, but as an
acknowledgement that somethingis legitimate, and obviously in
(07:02):
the case of something likefossil fuels, but it applies to
many other things If the moneyis going in, that is one
indicator that it is legitimatebecause it's making profit, but
of course there's more than that.
You've rightly mentionedregulations and political
processes, but now we see thisshift where these organisations
that have leveraged a hugedegree of money are putting
money back the other way to saywell, hang on, we haven't maybe
(07:23):
got the political legitimacy or,as you say, social licence that
we were like, and we definitelyare having this issue with a
social legitimacy across varioussectors, whether it be on the
ground, on those sides that youmentioned, or in broader society
, and so they're trying to useone to facilitate the other.
And then, once again, we cometo sport.
Talk to me about examples ofthis that you've seen.
(07:46):
I mean obviously the mostfamous one, I would say, would
be the use of World Cups andmaybe Olympic Games to
legitimise regimes, legitimisecertain operations, with the
spectacle of football.
Have you done any work on thatkind of thing?
Freddie (08:01):
Not personally.
I mean, it's a reallyestablished area of literature.
I think a lot of people pointto Olympics and World Cups
because of they are real moments, both politically and in terms
of the media, in terms ofinternational stage.
They are pinnacle moments andwith that they hold a lot of
(08:23):
soft power and they can be a wayof creating and generating a
lot of diplomatic relations thatmaybe weren't there.
So, of course, the one thateverybody points to is obviously
the Hitler Olympics, theOlympics that took place in Nazi
Germany, which is obviously anover show of what fascism would
be and what it could be.
And then, of course, we saw itwith Argentina as well, with the
(08:45):
World Cup.
The data escaped to be in themind there, but an autocratic
regime using sport as a vehicleto show the world that maybe
their ideas aren't so radical ormaybe their ideas aren't so bad
.
And obviously we saw a lot ofbacklash around that at the time
.
Some teams tried to boycott it.
A lot of fans boycotted it.
There's some wonderful postersthat you can look on up online,
(09:09):
the fan designed posters thataround boycotting the Argentina
World Cup really, really coolgraphic design, but also a real
sense of what fan mobilisationlooked like at that time and how
people were very much havingthe same conversation there
around states with veryquestionable politics and quite
disturbing track records inareas like human rights.
They were having thoseconversations then and we're
(09:32):
still having those conversationsnow, really in terms of the
states and they're gettinginvolved in sport and hosting of
these tournaments and howthey're going about that in
terms of the soft power thatthis gives them.
Ben (09:46):
I always get a bit almost frustrated with myself when I
inevitably ask about things likefootball or the Olympics, not
because I don't think they'regood examples.
I think they're just such goodexamples that the listener if
they're regular listeners thispodcast inadvertently has to
hear similar themes being raised.
You know I've already donemultiple episodes on this show
about this either, referencingmy interview with Jules Boykoff
last week, with Michael Hardyand the Game Changer pledge.
(10:07):
Even some of my earliestepisodes that were doing like my
solo episodes wereinvestigating directly into the
Olympics.
But yeah, the point is thatthey are the best illustrations
of what's going on.
But this is happening at aregional level, international
level, but even at the locallevel similar things happening.
But I like the term you usedearlier about saying, look, the
thing we have is actually good,it's actually okay.
(10:27):
Let's pivot that towardsadvertising, because this is
kind of what's happening at aproduct level.
Right, sometimes they're takingproducts that are necessarily
good for the consumer they'renot necessarily good for, maybe,
the environment or somewhere onthe supply chain and they're
saying, look, this thing isassociated with sport, therefore
it's good.
Can you unpack a little bit ofthe work you've done, maybe with
(10:48):
advertising and that kind ofthing?
Freddie (10:50):
Yeah, for sure.
I mean the area with it.
I mean sport is obviously, interms of its reach, it's kind of
unrivaled, right Like thePremier League.
We use that as an example theamount of homes around the world
it's beamed into and the amountof football fans you know
around the world we're talkinglike nearly four billion,
supposedly.
Premier League is watched andfollowed all around the world.
(11:13):
So in terms of its reach and thelegitimacy it has in terms of
the companies that are going topartner with it, it's almost
like a marketeer's dream, reallyan advertiser's dream.
So, first and foremost, thesecompanies want to partner with
sport because sport has got whatthey want.
They've got a captive audience,they've got a great brand,
(11:34):
they've got all of the sort ofcharacteristics that these
companies love to piggyback on,you know the high performance,
the teamwork, the collective joy, the competitiveness.
These are highly aspirationalcharacteristics that products
and companies want to leverage,and sport is an understandable
(11:58):
choice for which they would dothat.
The reason they do it also isbecause it works Like there's a
you know, quite a lot ofemerging research that shows
that companies that have maybequestionable track records on
environmental standards or onhuman rights standards, by
partnering with sporting bodiesthat have dedicated fan bases or
clubs, football teams.
Over time fans begin toassociate all of that collective
(12:21):
joy and those really intenseemotions that come with sport
with that particular company,all that particular product.
And you know, over time thatgradually means that they begin
to discount or ignore the morequestionable side of that
business's practices because ofthe association that that
specific company or product haswith their club.
So it works and you know that'sempirical evidence of points
(12:42):
towards that being an effectivemeans of marketing and
advertising.
And I mean you only need totake a look at how big the
industry is.
Right, the sports marketingindustry is absolutely gigantic
and it's growing at somethinglike seven, nearly 8% a year.
So there's money flowing intothis space because it works.
And you know, and I think we'llprobably continue to see this,
this sort of aggregate growth,unless you know clubs or leagues
(13:06):
or tournaments take a stand onit.
And you know you mentionedMichael Hardy and the work that
he's been doing with GameChanger.
These are the sort ofinitiatives that could
potentially provide a platformand a foundation for moving the
dial on that sort of issue forclubs and leagues to say,
actually we're not going topartner with you guys because of
this reason, or we're not goingto take money from you because
of this reason and you know thismight sound quite radical, but
(13:29):
it's not that radical.
You know, we see clubs,sporting bodies, even whole
tournaments, turned downspecific companies on because of
concerns over that company'soperations or where that
company's operations are located.
Obviously, the one that willprobably come to the top of your
listeners' minds is UEFAditching Gazprom in the wake of
the invasion of Ukraine.
You know, of course, thegrounds of doing that were very
(13:52):
different in terms of theclimate change, but in 2022, we
saw tennis Australia ditchSantos, the oil and gas giant,
after a really hard foughtcampaign.
And just recently, bayernMunich are not going to continue
their sponsorship deal withQatar Airways, citing human
rights concerns, again after areally hard fought fan campaign.
(14:12):
And then, obviously outside ofsport, lots of organizations,
particularly in the arts andculture sector, saying no to oil
and gas money to fossil fuelcompanies, because they see it
as a reputational hazard.
They see it as a risk.
And I think it's interestingbecause, especially as a concept
of risk right, because I thinkwhen you're looking at
commercial strategies andcommercial partnerships, risk
(14:33):
can be cut a few ways.
There's reputational risk forpartnering with these
organizations and let's you know, let's remember that some of
these companies like fossil fuelfirms.
They don't really sell productsthat are ready to consumers.
They don't have that much of abrand identity.
Of course, some of them haveoffshoots where they're
providing charging points andpetrol stations and stuff like
(14:54):
that, but the core of theiroperations is not going straight
to consumers, so they haven'treally got a brand.
So they're using sport tohijack that and sport takes the
money benefits from that so theycan do their operations, etc.
Etc.
But the risk doesn't go away bypartnering with these
organizations.
You're at risk, you will getcalled out.
I mean, we've seen, you know,real uptaken in campaign efforts
(15:17):
targeting sporting events thisyear and I don't think we're
going to see that slow downbecause there is a definitely a
big flow of money from fossilfuel firms into sport for the
reasons that you cited, andthere's real risk for these
sporting bodies andorganizations and clubs
associating with them andpartnering with them.
They both look bad.
And also, you know, when we'retalking about reputational risk,
(15:39):
if these sporting bodies haveto end those deals shortly,
there's financial risk as well.
They're going to have a,they're going to have to feel
short, for if they cut five yeardeal short by three years,
where are they going to findthat money from?
So this is something thatsports organizations should be
starting to acknowledge and, I'dhope, actually embed in the way
that they are vetting potentialcommercial partners or
(16:01):
sponsorship partners and, youknow, it should be something
that they're definitely buildinginto their sustainability
strategies as well.
Ben (16:08):
Yeah, I think the best example of that right now is
Wimbledon, where they've I meanWimbledon had two problems going
in.
They had their sustainabilityon the ground in the tournament
that day, and then they had theflights element of it all that
you have to fly to Wimbledon toget to Wimbledon, kind of thing
you know if you're a fan fromoverseas and that was already
quite a tension thing.
But I must say they were doinga pretty good job.
(16:28):
They were like listen, it's thebiggest tennis tournament in
the world, but it's a once in alifetime trip for many people.
You can kind of make thatjustification.
We've got vegan food across thetennis club, refillable water
bottles, etc.
Etc.
And then they took on Barclaysas their main sponsor for the
season and obviously theBarclays has, you know, a
massive amount of investmentinto fossil fuels and is
(16:50):
profiting hugely from emissions,and it's funny that everything
else seems to have gone away.
No one's talking about thereusable water bottles at
Wimbledon right now, becausethey're like what does it matter
if, as you say, you're offeringBarclays funding of fossil
fuels a social license?
Essentially?
Freddie (17:06):
For sure.
Yeah, I think that's a reallygood example, ben, and I think
not only because it's soprescient and immediate, but
Barclays is I think the campaignis that works on this like hats
off to them, because I thinkit's really difficult sometimes
to make the case for banks thatare bankrolling fossil fuels
right, I think in terms of thepublic mind.
We can clearly see that oil andgas companies, they are bad.
(17:26):
Airlines they have a hugeenvironmental impact, suvs,
equally huge environmentalimpact, but banks they're little
, they're sort of one stepremoved there.
So I think a lot of peoplemaybe fail to make that
connection.
But the campaign is aroundWimbledon a fantastic job of
pushing this is up the agendaand, from what I've heard,
wimbledon have listened and Ifeel quite sorry for a few of
(17:50):
the you know the members ofstaff internally because, as you
said, they laid out a reallycomprehensive sustainability
strategy.
Of course it could be moreambitious.
It always can be really whatwe're talking about, sort of
establishment sport events likethis, you know, really really
cemented in the sportingcalendar.
But Barclays is the biggestfunder of fossil fuels in Europe
(18:11):
.
I think it's something like 160billion or 100.
It's like just under 200billion since, you know, they
signed the site, since, all youknow, most countries in the
world signed the Paris Agreement.
So it's a huge amount ofinvestment and those investments
have a lifespan, you knowthey're locked in.
They're continuing to pumpmoney into oil and gas and coal
(18:32):
and those infrastructures willbe operating for 15, 20 years,
you know.
And then we get into a pointwhere climate scientists have
told us we need to be nearing,you know, net zero.
You know emissions need to comedown radically and these guys
are still pumping obsceneamounts of cash into the, into
the infrastructures that aregoing to push us further and
further away from that target.
Ben (18:52):
Yeah, I think the other slight difference with that is
exactly what you said earlier.
The oil companies don'tnecessarily have a consumer
facing brand, but Barclays does.
Barclays is a bank that you cango down the road and bank with,
so it's funny that if theyweren't investing in fossil
fuels it would seem like afairly standard sport
advertising model.
Local bank sponsors Britishtennis tournament and therefore
(19:15):
increases its number ofcustomers.
Fine, I guess.
But then, yeah, there's thisinvestment of it all.
What do you think about theadvertising of products that
aren't necessarily just a fineproduct, like the normal
services of a bank, for example?
You mentioned some good onesSUVs, airlines, but even other
products.
I think the elephant in theroom with sport is maybe like
(19:36):
sports gear, like do we needanother jersey, shoes, all this
kind of stuff.
What do you make with thatrelationship between you?
Know they don't want you tojust buy one pair of shoes, they
want you to buy lots of pairsof shoes.
Freddie (19:47):
For sure.
I mean, I think you can.
If you were to go through everysort of industry that is using
sport to advertise its productsand to build a brand, you would
be able to find flaws in all ofthem.
I think the reason that my workparticularly focuses on high
carbon, like you know, fossilfuels, airlines and SUVs these
(20:07):
are obviously emission sectorsthat are growing, despite what
we need to do In particular.
Air travel and SUVs, you knowthese things are going in the
they're really going in thewrong direction and more so, the
way that these products areadvertised.
It normalizes their use andalso encourages their uptake.
So I think there's key areas ofconsumption that you have to
(20:28):
look at when you're talkingabout this issue, but they're
obviously the broader economicand cultural arguments around
consumption, which obviouslyyou're alluding to.
Like you know, fast fashion, alot of sportswear probably does
have, like synthetic polymers,in which is obviously are made
by fossil fuels as well.
So you know you can.
You can sit here all day then,and we could go through and list
(20:49):
all the companies which andwe'll be able to find problems
with all of them.
But I think you need to bepragmatic in your approach with
this sort of work, especiallyfrom a campaign perspective.
So you go like go for the bighitters first, the fossil fuel
firms, the airlines, the SUVs, Imean the fossil fuel firms are
the most obvious one, right,because we know, like we know
how, how they use sport to buytheir social license and we know
(21:10):
how they've deceived the publicaround climate change and how
they have failed to adjust theirbusiness models and their
operations after decades ofknowing the damage that will be
done.
And they're still, you know,they're still digging their
heels in now.
So I think going for thosemakes perfect sense.
But, of course, the other sideof that is, you know, the
(21:32):
potential shortfall incommercial income for sporting
bodies, and you know there are.
When we talk about commercialpartnerships and sponsorship and
advertising in sport, we'retalking about sports
organizations as a homogeneousthing, right, like they're not.
Some clubs, some governingbodies are far richer than
(21:52):
others and there are, you know,requirements that they need to
meet.
There are services they providefor their members that they
need income to be able toexecute.
So it is a really difficultarea and it's a really difficult
conversation to have, becausethere is always that financial
imperative to take the big dealsand not ask too many questions
(22:14):
because you are, institutionallyand organizationally, you're
thinking about your own survival, you're thinking about being
continued to put on your eventsand provide for your members,
but it's I mean.
This is why I think you knowthe work that Michael is doing
with Game Changer and the workthat we're doing at advertising
is important work because wedon't want to just shift the
norms around advertising and howthose high carbon companies are
(22:34):
perceived, but we also want toengage people inside of these
sports organizations, you know,help them navigate it internally
, give them the best guidanceand advice that we can do to
push this up the agendainternally and help them build
capacity to incorporate mattersof commercial partnerships and
sustainability into theirbroader remit of climate action.
(22:55):
And I think that's reallyimportant.
But I'm not saying it's easy.
You know there are bigquestions, there are big
shortfalls and we saw that, youknow, in real time with the
British Cycling Shell deal.
Right, like British Cyclingmassive membership organization,
the backlash was huge andBritish Cycling they said, yeah,
we okay, we understand, likethis debt shell, they're
(23:16):
problematic, they're a possiblecompany, they're going to
continue to be a possiblecompany for the next 20 years,
but we haven't got any money andwe need to continue, you know,
serving our members and puttingon our training and stuff like
that.
So they were very honest andbrazen almost about the almost
the flaws in this and how sportsis funded, and you know that
opens up more questions ofinquiry.
(23:37):
You know what is the role ofcentral government, what is the
role of local government?
What is the value of sport?
Why should it be funded bypublic bodies and should it be
funded in different ways?
It's a really interesting areaand I'm sure you've had speakers
on this podcast that could talkto it in more elegant ways than
I can.
But you know, talking aboutcommercial partnerships and
sponsorship is just the firststep.
(23:59):
I think you know, because thenI'm sure we'll talk about it a
bit more.
But you have to talk aboutownership as well, and I think
in some areas of sport PremierLeague is a good example the
line between ownership andsponsorship becomes blurred,
really, when you're talkingabout big petro states.
But yeah, it's a fascinatingarea and I mean it's only going
to grow in importance, I thinktoo.
Ben (24:21):
I think you've inadvertently basically
referenced application of gametheory to how these leagues,
clubs, institutions operate,because, as you said, the sports
as a whole are thinking aboutit from a individual perspective
, so they're always going totake whatever deal that they can
that maximizes their benefit,and obviously with the minimum
amount of shortfalling.
This is why, probably, britishcycling originally signed with
(24:42):
Shell.
It's why, I think, like Africa,a couple of nations have such a
close deal with Total, becausethat's the biggest amount of
money they could get from anyone.
It's very similar to UEFA andGasprom.
It's a total, obviously French,but benefiting hugely from
fossil fuels in Africa.
The problem I think we have,though, is that and I think
Bayern Munich will kind ofperfectly resolve with being
stuck in the middle with thisGerman football obviously has
(25:04):
the 50 plus one rule Fansblocked a certain degree of
quote unquote bad money comingin the Premier League.
Did not the Premier League letas much money come in from as
many places?
And it's not just.
Obviously, the Gulf States weretalking, you know, american
hedge funds, who made theirmoney from various sources, were
talking from East Asia, fromall over.
Money is just coming in fromall these places, and, of course
(25:24):
, there is a bit of.
I don't necessarily believe intrickle down economics as a
broader concept, but there issome element in that with the
league itself that every timeLester buys a player from
Watford for however much moneyvia, you know, the king power
and all that, that's money goinginto the league, which then
they can spend on maybe aforeign player, and the talent
comes in and the attention comesin, and then they can reinvest
that money into marketing.
(25:46):
What happens, though and we'reseeing this now what happens
when the money, the sourceoverseas says hang on, I'm not
going to put money into theleague, I'm just going to put
money into my own league andattract players there?
And I think we are about to seea very funny trend from Premier
League spokespeople who, for solong, have been like money is
good, we need to compete.
If we don't take money, thensomeone else will do it.
(26:08):
That decision has been takenaway from them, and what I'm
referencing is Saudi Arabiabasically saying we're going to
build our own league and we havethe money to do it.
What do you think about that,where the game theories so
always suits the winner untilthey're not the winner anymore?
Freddie (26:20):
Yeah, I think I would agree that it is a good example
of game theory.
I also think that PremierLeague clubs in particular is an
arms race, right, like the wagebills are ever increasing, the
price of talent is everincreasing and how competitive
the actual league is is everincreasing.
So I think clubs are alwaysplaying catch up and that means
(26:40):
that, you know, especially,clubs aren't backed by Gulf
States or by billionaires.
They are constantly searchingfor highly lucrative and long
term commercial partnerships.
And I do think, fromconversations I've had with some
people inside Premier Leagueclubs and the commercial
departments, there are somescreening tests.
(27:01):
You know they wouldn't doanything that would be perceived
as is too unsavory or wouldattract too much reputational
damage.
But I think that is, you know,in terms of their lists of
imperatives is quite far down.
And Saudi example I agree withyou.
I think it's going to befascinating to see how it
develops and I think you'reprobably right that we are going
to see a lot of pundits.
(27:22):
You know swivel and start, youknow maybe saying things that
they work they wouldn't havesaid maybe a year or two, and
you know, and a few critics aregoing to come out of the
woodwork.
But I mean we don't know howthe Saudi League is going to
develop either.
It's quite interesting to see,obviously, the sheer quantity of
money they're spending but alsothe amount of talent that's
going over there from from theUK, obviously.
(27:43):
I think they've obviously got astrategy of bringing in older
talent.
You know that they have topeople that are at the end of
their careers in Europe butstill have huge recognition
amongst football fans and will,you know, obviously be able to
help, you know, with trainingand bringing it through their
younger players.
But it's, it's, the game's onand the race is on, and these
(28:03):
states have ungodly amounts ofcash, right?
I mean, we don't actuallythere's no empirics on how much
they have in unsecured oursovereign wealth.
It's obscene, and they want tospend it and they want to spend
it in ways that gives themlongevity as a regime, I think,
and as a state, improves theirimage overseas and shows them
that they are part of theinternational sporting community
(28:25):
and therefore a big player ininternational politics as well
and geopolitics.
Ben (28:32):
I think it's tough when, obviously, we can raise
questions of what?
Was it always fair that thePremier League became the
biggest league in the world?
There's definitely legacies ofthe British Empire.
There's legacies of the globalNorth.
There's legacies of why therewas wealth and community enough
to build these institutions inthe first place.
One of the areas I like I'mtrying to do a bit of research
in myself is the legacy of theBBC and Africa and how people
(28:55):
all over Africa, particularlycountries that were occupied by
the British, have this tendencyto support English teams because
they were available on radiosoriginally and then when BBC
television came out.
So, yeah, I mean you can makesome arguments of why what the
Saudis are doing.
Of course, the source of themoney is awful, but in terms of,
as we talked about earlier,creating a social license
(29:17):
through sport, it's not thatdissimilar.
And I think, as perhaps theGerman League are also gonna
find out, that they've made thisgreat moral line saying we're
not gonna take money from Qatar,et cetera.
But they've already been pricedout to some degree.
If you're a good German player,you move quite quickly.
And what's also interesting isthe difference between sports.
I think this podcast always endsup talking about football,
(29:38):
because it's the one where thebig moves are happening, but
it's not just football.
We've talked about tennis, andobviously there's interest from
the Saudis of basically startingabout their own tennis league,
or turning their turning themain ATP event into one of the
grand slams.
Essentially, we could talkabout live golf.
Which perfect example.
The PJ were like no, no, no,we're not gonna do this on moral
grounds, until the number wentup enough.
(29:58):
Pivoting all the way back toadvertising, though, what do you
make of the actual adverts thatthey're being created?
So I think maybe the QatarWorld Cup would be a good
example.
They created the one with DavidBeckham, they created the one
with Gary Neville.
These were adverts direct toconsumers, saying this is a
legitimate operation, world Cup.
What do you make of those kindof outreaches?
Freddie (30:19):
Well, I think I mean it's interesting.
I think it was interesting tosee who they lined up.
I thought it was quite telling.
I mean they obviously spent ahuge amount of money with, in
terms of their ambassadors, someof them former football stars
the very strong politicalconnections as well, so that you
can see the thought processthere.
The adverts that were marketedto English speaking consumers
(30:40):
around the carbon neutralityclaims at the World Cup, I
thought were obviously deeplymisleading and you know, we, we
advertising and a few otherorganizations from around Europe
did submit complaints toadvertising regulators to say
that they were deeply misleadingto consumers and got passed
around various jurisdictions.
We ended up in Switzerland,where FIFA is obviously based,
(31:02):
and they ruled in our favor.
So FIFA were, you know it was,it was, it was acknowledged and
the the sort of consumerprotection court there ruled
that FIFA had greenwashed, theyhad misled consumers over the
carbon, carbon neutrality claims.
But yeah, I think, I thinkthese forms of advertising and
the sometimes the content thatthey contain is worrying and it
(31:24):
also points to a lack ofprotections for consumers over
this sort of stuff.
Advertising regulation in the UKis quite light touch and it's
also quite light touch in otherEuropean countries too.
And, most importantly it's it'sreactive rather than proactive.
So you know, when those FIFAand Qatar adverts went out
saying that it's going to be thefirst ever carbon neutral World
(31:45):
Cup, you don't have to worryabout your flights over here,
football fans, we've got thatcovered, we'll.
You know, we're offset for you,et cetera, et cetera, et cetera
.
The damage has already beendone.
Now you know people.
I'm sure some people boughtthose tickets and bought those
flights without even thinkingabout the environmental
consequence, but some may havebeen, may have made their
(32:06):
decision based on that.
You know, maybe it did play apart in the decision to go over
to Qatar.
And I think that's where yousee how misleading those adverts
can be and also how we needbetter state legislation to
prevent that sort of damagebeing done Next time round.
Ben (32:23):
Yes, and obviously that achievement you guys got in
Switzerland going through thatlegal system was obviously
fantastic because it added someand I acknowledge the irony of
this word, it added somelegitimacy to that claim because
for a long time any pundit inthe space was like that's
obviously not true, you can't dothat with offsetting.
But there was no sort of proofin the pudding and finally, when
that came through, we were sucha relief to be like, okay, I'm
(32:45):
not going insane.
Someone actually knows thatthat's not how, yeah, emissions
and offsetting can work.
What do you think aboutadvertising through vehicles
beyond just like consumer facing?
What do you think about thingslike what Etihad, for example,
are doing with man City, whereit's not necessarily that every
man City shirt just telling youto get on an airline, but the
two become quite synonymous?
(33:06):
You know it's called the EtihadStadium.
You know the Etihad is not thestate, but it's very related to
Abu Dhabi et cetera.
What do you make of that levelof?
Is it advertising?
Is it culture creation?
I don't know what it is.
Freddie (33:19):
I mean, yeah, I think we could argue maybe above what
the definition of it is.
I mean, I think Etihad's areally good example because
you're right that that is anairline that is state backed.
It is basically a brand for AbuDhabi to the international
community and to consumers allaround the world, like pretty
(33:40):
old school mentality of havingan airline associated with your
country.
You know, it's classic sort ofconsumer diplomacy really.
I think city, obviously, youknow there's been a shirt
sponsor for so many years nowthat they've become inseparable.
I think it's concerning and Ithink it's a good example of
(34:01):
where ownership and sponsorshipkind of blur.
Right, because I think airlinesin particular, they're not
particularly endowed with loadsof cash.
Right, they're, margins areslim, they're obviously a very
polluting industry and they geta lot of government support
through VAT exemptions on flighttickets.
There's no taxation on jet fuel, kerosene, so they get all this
(34:25):
help and you know there's noway that British Airways or
something like that will be onthe front of a Premier League
club because they couldn'tafford to do that.
So those are interestingquestions about you know why is
Etihad at the front of the shirt?
It's because they can afford toand I mean I don't know how
much that deals worth.
I'm sure it's probably not evenpublic record because of the
relationship between owners andstate and club.
(34:48):
But yeah, it's a really goodexample of the lines being
blurred between sponsorship andownership.
And you know Etihad, I've trieda few initiatives around
sustainability.
I mean I know that you say thatthey're not like saying jump on
a flight, but there was somehoardings around a city game
last season that someone broughtto my attention that said blind
at zero.
So there are.
(35:09):
Obviously they are makingenvironmental claims which are
baseless, potentially misleadingto consumers but also damaging
to just general.
You know idea that aviation inits current form can be
sustainable.
And they also did this bizarresustainability push within city
where if you recycled a plasticbottle you'd get like air miles.
(35:29):
I mean, come on, like, how dothese decisions get signed off
really at the top level?
Ben (35:34):
That was the, I think, from a bad advertising perspective
and for context, bad advertisingand correct me if I'm wrong
here, verdi, but like it's badadvertising is what the name is,
and you're not gonna find abetter example of bad
advertising than encouragingpeople to recycle their plastic
bottle on the grounds ofsustainability and getting
flyers in the war.
That blew my mind.
(35:55):
Yeah, I know.
Freddie (35:57):
And it was also, you know, not even that long ago.
I mean, I remember when I did aproject with Professor Peter
Newell at the University ofSussex a few years ago on
sustainable behavior change.
And you know, when you'retalking about that sort of stuff
, you're talking about like somescholars talk about things like
nudging and, you know, likelittle consumer tricks you can
do to get people to make theright, more sustainable
decisions.
(36:17):
And someone brought attentionto something that Tesco did like
15 years ago, which was theexact same thing, and it was
like you bring your halogenlight bulbs in you know this is
before LED, so it gives you asense of how long ago this was
Halogen light bulbs in andthey'll give you AMRs as well.
So it's like and they gothammered for doing that at the
time.
You know people were like thatdoesn't make any sense.
And then you know you haveManchester City and Etihad doing
(36:39):
it.
You know the last sort of three, four years.
It's wild.
Ben (36:43):
That's frustrating.
But now we look to the future.
How would you best and I mean,obviously you're doing this work
now, so please give us moreabout the work you're doing and
how you want it to grow how doyou go about fixing this?
Because I see two scenarios.
I see regulation on one side,stopping this kind of just
overinvestment in marketing andcreating the social license, but
(37:04):
then, as I say, that raisesissue of game theory.
Or I could see almost some kindof like counter marketing, but
then you get into a we can'tafford to outmarket them because
they just have bigger marketingbudgets.
How do we go about this?
Freddie (37:18):
Well, I mean, that's the ultimate question.
Really, I think there'sdifferent ways of going about it
in different sports.
I think Premier League is anexceptional example.
I think I don't have the answerto that, because you have to
look at government regulation,you have to look at independent
regulation, you have to look atthe Premier League itself how it
regulates the clubs, how itscreens potential owners, and
also you have to go down to theclub level too, and how they
(37:41):
screen potential commercialpartners.
I think you're probably rightin the directions you see it
going.
I think there's a room for allof those, though I think there's
a need for more regulation, andI think we are going to see, in
the years to come, governmentstepping in and regulating
advertising that isenvironmentally damaging,
especially in those areas ofhigh emissions behaviors so
(38:05):
airlines, suvs, fossil fuels and, if government moves on that,
and all governments that havelegislated for net zero will
acknowledge that behavior changeand demand side reduction the
academic term is essential forgetting to those targets.
So then you're in a situationwhere government's moving and
sport will be either forced tomove or we're not going to be
(38:29):
seen to be doing nothing on thisissue.
I think another avenue isobviously fan protest and that
upward pressure.
We've seen them mobilize aroundother issues, of course, around
climate issues.
We're yet to see a huge uptakeof this amongst fan groups, but
I'm confident that fans willbegin to eternalize this as a
concern as the impacts and thepressures of climate change
(38:54):
unfold.
This might not necessarily be ashort term thing in the global
north and in the UK, but I thinkin places like Africa and stuff
like that, where the game isfootball and other sports are
developed India, cricket I thinkyou will start to see some
pressures coming from fan groupsand from spectators for the
more ambitious action.
And I think through thosedemands, high carbon companies
(39:17):
and big polluting industrieswill be kind of low hanging
fruit.
They'll be the ones that gofirst, really, and then there'll
be a sense of operationalizingmore sort of sustainability
measures and e-carbonization,all of that sort of stuff.
But the first thing that willgo because it's so public facing
, I can imagine are therelationships with the big
polluters.
Yeah, and then I think you'reprobably right in your
(39:38):
assumption about thecounter-advertising.
I think that we're seeing somemoves away from certain products
.
Of course we're seeing gamblingand other leagues and Scottish
League.
There was very hard foughtcampaign against alcohol
advertising.
We saw it historically withtobacco as well.
So I think there will beconcerted efforts to move away
(39:58):
from certain industries andproducts when the harms of those
products become unignorable.
And of course, climate change ishere and now for many billions
of people in the world.
But for the insulated andwealthiest global few that are
in the north and in Europe andin the UK, where we are, those
impacts aren't being as hardfelt now, but they will be and
(40:23):
they will affect many aspects ofour lives.
So I think when those impactsand those concerns and those
fears trickle through intoeveryday life, I think we will
see sports clubs having to shiftand, of course, elephant in the
room as well.
There are obviously hugeamounts of sports that are being
already affected by climatechange.
I mean the obvious one isobviously winter sports.
(40:44):
That was that report a few yearsago.
That was said that somethinglike I can't even remember it
was a marginal amount ofprevious Winter Olympic host
nations would be able to hostthe Winter Olympic Games again
in just 30 years, in less than30 years.
That seismic, those are big,big shifts in how sport is
(41:04):
hosted, where it's hosted andwho gets to compete, and in
Beijing, and everyone willremember those images of those
sort of like snowless beasts andall those artificial machines
churning out snow.
But the Beijing Olympics arestill sponsored by some of the
biggest polluters available inthe world, so there's a long way
to go, ben.
Ben (41:24):
Yes, what a perfect example of a retraction of social
license that people don't smokeinside anymore.
People used to smoke on planes.
I mean it's weird to even thinkabout, but now you wouldn't
dream of it.
So it shows it works.
The other, I mean the otherpoint and I don't like to phrase
this podcast as education,because that implies that
everything that I've ever saidhas been verified.
(41:45):
It is not.
It is let's call it, countermarketing that we're coming here
.
We've got an opinion, I think,based on some reasonable
arguments, and we're puttingforward those arguments.
The problem, of course, isbecomes we can even talk about
the marketing of this podcast.
You know, I've looked atmarketing this podcast.
It's very expensive.
I haven't done it.
Cool, you hope that peoplelisten to it anyway.
But then the other day I get a.
I get a beaming in my earlistening to a different podcast
(42:07):
.
By the way, if you like thispodcast, why don't you listen to
the podcast by BP?
And I'm like what?
And I go listen and BP have apodcast that's about all the
things that BP are doing, whichis ridiculous to me because it's
one of the biggest countries inthe world and they have their
own podcast.
But again, how much money havethey given to Spotify or to
Apple or to whichever podcast Iwas listening to?
(42:27):
That it comes through thatyou're way more people are going
to hear that marketing thanthis side of marketing, at least
at the start, so that it doesseem like quite an uphill battle
to flip that, so sorry.
Last point before we end whatdo you make of maybe trying to
incorporate some of theselessons into not necessarily the
marketing side but theeducation side, like surely we
(42:49):
could start incorporating thiskind of lesson that the average
consumer would know before theyeven were legally allowed to buy
something, that recycling awater bottle and getting
frequent fire miles as a resultof that is just not tenable.
What do you make of that sideto it?
Freddie (43:04):
Yeah, I mean there's definitely an education piece
and I think that like comesaround to the broader arguments
for carbon literacy and the Ithink you know honestly from
government, political partiesand whatnot around that, the
changes that have to be made ifwe're going to meet our binding
climate targets.
I do think consumers are wiserto it than they get credit for.
(43:25):
There's a wonderful pollingdone, I think, by YouGov around
Greenwash and who consumerstrusted making environmental
statements and like at the topwas David Attenborough you know
that these were suspects ChrisPackham, but right down at the
bottom was big business energycompanies.
So consumers realise that theyare.
(43:47):
They are selling falsities.
You know, through theseadvertisements and through these
promises and these pledges,consumers know that it's not
legit and they don't I don'tthink they consciously take it
on board when they're makingthese decisions.
But there's obviously thesubconscious side right and
there's the symbolic side wherethese companies are continued to
(44:07):
be pasted all around us.
And they are.
You know they're on the front.
They're on the front of ourfootball teams, you know our
favourite players are wearingthem as part of their uniforms,
almost, and that obviously haspower, right, because I think
subconsciously all of us thinkthat, oh, those products can't
be that bad, right, becausethey're continuing.
We see them every day.
(44:28):
You know we can't leave thehouse without seeing an advert
for an energy company or an SUVor an airline or a fossil fuel
funding bank, and there'ssymbolic power in that and I
think that's something that youknow it needs to be addressed.
I also think that theeducational piece isn't just for
consumers.
I think it's also for fororganisations and the bodies
that carry advertisers and thatgenerate other rely on
(44:49):
commercial revenues.
I think high carbon advertisingand could even be extended to
more problematic sponsors aswell alcohol gambling that needs
to be internalised into theirframeworks and how they think
about sustainability and howthey think about, you know, esg
or or social purpose.
These aren't.
They need to understand andacknowledge that these, these
industries, do cause harm andthat harm can be traced back to
(45:12):
them by going into thesepartnerships and these
sponsorship deals.
So I think it's an educationalpiece that is for all of us,
really for people that will workin the space, for, you know,
concerned individuals that areworking in the sports industry,
and also for consumers as well,and I think it's like you said,
it's an uphill battle, but youjust got to look at the, the
(45:33):
wins that have been made, youknow, in the past with tobacco,
even some of the wins that havebeen made in sport around
climate and against fossil fuelfirms, and I think that should
be fuel to fire this, this push,because I think there's also a
question of using this as avehicle to sponsorship and
commercial partnerships, usingthat as a as a wedge issue
(45:53):
almost, to talk about questionsof ownership, to talk about
questions of funding, to talkabout, like I said at the
beginning, the real value ofsport, who is sport for and what
is sport for?
And I think these arefundamental questions that we
neglect on a daily basis becausethere's this hundred billion
dollar business that's beingbuilt up around it, and those
questions become unimportantwhen you're, when you're looking
(46:16):
at your bottom line and whenyou're looking at commercial
revenues and when you're lookingat ensuring you've got enough
money.
Can you continue to compete soyou can stay in the top flight?
These questions get way lateand I think the campaigns around
sponsorship and the campaignsaround commercial partnerships
it's a really good opportunityfor all of us to, you know, ask
ourselves those questions, thosevery fundamental questions, and
(46:36):
from that you know there arebroader campaigns and demands
and asks to be made, but there'sa huge opportunity here to
build a, a sporting world thatserves local communities, that
serves people and makes us allhappier, healthier, and it makes
the planet happier andhealthier, and I think that's
something that we need to focuson and that's something that we
need to have almost blinkersright, because there's a lot of
(46:59):
noise out there.
There's a lot of falsesolutions being peddled.
There's a lot of people youknow within the industry which
are they've got pathdependencies.
They say this is the solution,this is the way we should go and
it's wrong.
So I think it's about beingopen, collaborative and fiercely
stubborn in our pursuit of whatwe're going for really, what a
(47:20):
pragmatic response.
Ben (47:21):
That was my goodness.
Yeah, so much to unpack there.
On an ending note, I agree withyou that we're not all perfect
certainly not.
I mean, look at me, I waswatching the, the Barclays
English Premier League, for mostof my life.
Now here I am ranting everyother week about the Barclays
fossil fuel bank.
So progress is possible.
And yeah, I really like thatpoint you made that when you're
(47:42):
in a path dependent society, itseems very path dependent, but
there's always room for change.
Freddie (47:46):
So definitely, and I think it comes down I'd just
like to say that and I think itcomes down to control right, and
this is, you know, a very vitalthing for not only sustainable
choices and sustainableconsumption choices, but also
our you know, our sense of selfand our own well-being.
There are things that you and Ido not have control over.
We do not have control over thesport we love being sponsored
(48:08):
by a fossil fuel company or afossil fuel funding bank.
Just in the same way, we don'treally have control about where
our energy comes from, where ourelectricity is generated or,
you know, when we go to thesupermarket, we don't have
control whether the vegetablesand fruit are covered in plastic
.
These are things we don't havecontrol over.
But what we do have control overis the work that we do, the
questions that we ask, therelationships we do build and
(48:28):
the way in which we push thesecampaigns forward to build a
foundation for tangible change.
And I always like have toremind myself about that as well
, because you can get boggeddown and you can get depressed
by how much that needs to changeand how far we need to go to
get where we supposedly need tobe, which also might be a
massive underestimation of whatthe climate is going to do and
(48:50):
what the science is telling us.
So it's about focusing on whatyou can do where you can do it,
and doing it to the best of yourability, and I think that you
know your work continues toinspire me in that regard as
well, so I'm grateful for youhaving me on.
Ben (49:05):
No, you're so welcome and I really resonate with that point
.
The other day I asked one of mymother's friends what the
carbon impact of her redoing herkitchen was, and I promise you
I'm not going to be invited backanytime soon, so I wouldn't
recommend that.
But yeah, freddie, thank you somuch for your work, thank you
for Badvertising's work and,yeah, thank you for coming on
the show and sharing all thatwith us.
Freddie (49:25):
Thanks, family Ben.
Ben (49:32):
That was our conversation with Freddie Daly, someone who's
doing such important work, andI encourage you to reach out to
Badvertising or the partnerorganization, the Rapid
Transition Alliance, if you'reinterested in these themes.
Links is always in the episodebio.
That does it for this episode.
Next time we are speaking to ajournalist who is reporting on
(49:52):
sport and sustainability inUganda, not to be missed.
Thank you so much for listeningand bye for now.
Welcome back to the sustaining sport podcast.
Advertising is supposed to be away for businesses and
entrepreneurs to show you howgood their products are.
But what if many of theproducts in ads are actually bad
?
Maybe bad for you orpotentially bad for this planet
and its delicately balancedbiosphere?
Today's topic is badadvertising.
(00:33):
We are talking to researcherFreddie Daley, who works as a
coordinator for an organizationcalled Advertising.
As sport holds a powerful placein the hearts and minds of fans
and athletes around the world,it is a potent tool for
advertisers.
According to Statista, in 2022,the global sports sponsorship
market was worth an estimated$66 billion and is expected to
(00:57):
grow to $107 billion by 2030.
It is one of sport's biggestrevenue streams, dwarfing that
of merchandise and tickets.
Freddie and his colleagues knowthis and therefore must
dedicate a lot of time callingout and campaigning against
adverts that contain falseinformation or normalize
businesses whose operations areharmful to people and the
(01:18):
environment.
Freddie joins us today todiscuss this sport's
sustainability and advertisingintersection.
It is a complex and, at times,arduous topic, but his
pragmatism and belief in thepossibility of a better system
makes it well worth a listen, soplease enjoy our conversation.
Welcome, freddie, to theSustaining Sport podcast.
Freddie (01:48):
Hey Ben, thanks for having me on.
You're so welcome.
Ben (01:51):
As I like to do with everyone now, let us begin at
the beginning.
How did you enter this space?
Freddie (01:59):
Well, I guess my journey into the world of
climate and sport is quite aninteresting one.
About five years ago, I startedworking as a researcher at the
University of Sussex, andthrough that work I was
exploring topics such assustainable behaviour change and
trying to answer questions suchas how we scale certain
(02:19):
behaviours up, what are thebarriers to that, and what role
does culture and otherinstitutions governing
institutions, what role do theyplay in sustainable behaviour
change?
And then another project that Iwas working on was looking at
the fossil fuel supply aroundthe world basically oil, coal
(02:39):
and gas infrastructures and thepolicies required to regulate
them, to curtail them and tohopefully phase them out in line
with emissions reductionsrequired under the Paris
Agreement.
And through this work I startedlooking at fossil fuels and
fossil fuel interests, how theybuy social licence, how they
(03:01):
sustain their social licence,and inevitably this led to sport
, which is arguably the biggestarea in which fossil fuel
interests try to improve theirimage, to garner brand
recognition and just to hijackoff everything that makes sport
great.
So this inquiry led me toAndrew Sims and the wonderful
(03:26):
people at the BavaritisingCampaign, and that's where I've
been working for the last year,specifically within the remit of
sport and also as a bit of afacilitator, through the cool
down network, which is anorganisation and a network of
individuals, campaigners,sporting bodies that are all
(03:47):
concerned, either in a personalcapacity or a professional
capacity, about climate changewithin sport and all feel that
sport is a very untapped butvital vehicle through which we
can accelerate climate actionthrough wider society.
Ben (04:02):
And would you say you were a sports fan before, or is it
more that your research has justled you inevitably to the
relevance of sport?
Freddie (04:10):
I've always been a sports fan, and the key in that
sentence is fan.
I'm not much of an athletemyself, but sport has always
been something that I've had oneeye on, in the sense of not
only enjoying sports and being aspectator, but on the power of
sport to, not only in terms ofclimate change, but also
organisationally how fansinteract as individuals and as
(04:34):
collectives, the demands theymake upon clubs and the
governing bodies.
I think it's a reallyinteresting institutional
structure that is quite unique.
Ben (04:46):
I think it's fairly obvious that for a long time, companies
have realised that sport hasthis power and that's why
they've been trying to sellthings via sport for that long.
But now they're going that onestep beyond it.
I like the term you usedearlier in terms of social
licence.
Can you unpack the term sociallicence just a bit more and
explain why that's quiterelevant.
Freddie (05:05):
For sure.
So social licence ispredominantly an academic term
and it is usually applied tolarge corporations and it is
quite literally the licence thatthey get from society to
continue operating.
So an example would be a bigcoal mining company that's
operating, let's say, in theglobal south.
(05:27):
Their operations continue topollute waterways, the natural
environment around, and thisstarts to affect the lives and
livelihoods of the surroundingcommunities.
The communities organise, theydemand for this facility to
close.
They thereby are challengingthat social licence for that
company to operate.
We see companies like BigPolluters using sport to improve
(05:52):
their social licence to operate, because we do know quite
empirically the damage that theycause on the environment and on
our climate and they need tofind avenues that they can use
and leverage to improve theirstanding, both in terms of
social circles, in terms ofwider society, the great general
(06:12):
public, but also in politicalcircles as well right
policymakers, decision makers,regulators, the people that have
some power over how thesecompanies are either reigned in
or allowed to continue.
So social licence is a termwhich is meant quite literally.
(06:32):
It sounds a bit more technical,I know, but it is literally the
licence to operate socially.
Ben (06:39):
It's such a useful term because I think and without
getting too deep into likepolitical and economic
philosophy we need, when we havea society at the scale we need,
certain mechanisms of agreementon what is acceptable and what
is not, and I think too often werely on money and money being
this vessel not just ofexchanging value, but as an
acknowledgement that somethingis legitimate, and obviously in
(07:02):
the case of something likefossil fuels, but it applies to
many other things If the moneyis going in, that is one
indicator that it is legitimatebecause it's making profit, but
of course there's more than that.
You've rightly mentionedregulations and political
processes, but now we see thisshift where these organisations
that have leveraged a hugedegree of money are putting
money back the other way to saywell, hang on, we haven't maybe
(07:23):
got the political legitimacy or,as you say, social licence that
we were like, and we definitelyare having this issue with a
social legitimacy across varioussectors, whether it be on the
ground, on those sides that youmentioned, or in broader society
, and so they're trying to useone to facilitate the other.
And then, once again, we cometo sport.
Talk to me about examples ofthis that you've seen.
(07:46):
I mean obviously the mostfamous one, I would say, would
be the use of World Cups andmaybe Olympic Games to
legitimise regimes, legitimisecertain operations, with the
spectacle of football.
Have you done any work on thatkind of thing?
Freddie (08:01):
Not personally.
I mean, it's a reallyestablished area of literature.
I think a lot of people pointto Olympics and World Cups
because of they are real moments, both politically and in terms
of the media, in terms ofinternational stage.
They are pinnacle moments andwith that they hold a lot of
(08:23):
soft power and they can be a wayof creating and generating a
lot of diplomatic relations thatmaybe weren't there.
So, of course, the one thateverybody points to is obviously
the Hitler Olympics, theOlympics that took place in Nazi
Germany, which is obviously anover show of what fascism would
be and what it could be.
And then, of course, we saw itwith Argentina as well, with the
(08:45):
World Cup.
The data escaped to be in themind there, but an autocratic
regime using sport as a vehicleto show the world that maybe
their ideas aren't so radical ormaybe their ideas aren't so bad
.
And obviously we saw a lot ofbacklash around that at the time
.
Some teams tried to boycott it.
A lot of fans boycotted it.
There's some wonderful postersthat you can look on up online,
(09:09):
the fan designed posters thataround boycotting the Argentina
World Cup really, really coolgraphic design, but also a real
sense of what fan mobilisationlooked like at that time and how
people were very much havingthe same conversation there
around states with veryquestionable politics and quite
disturbing track records inareas like human rights.
They were having thoseconversations then and we're
(09:32):
still having those conversationsnow, really in terms of the
states and they're gettinginvolved in sport and hosting of
these tournaments and howthey're going about that in
terms of the soft power thatthis gives them.
Ben (09:46):
I always get a bit almost frustrated with myself when I
inevitably ask about things likefootball or the Olympics, not
because I don't think they'regood examples.
I think they're just such goodexamples that the listener if
they're regular listeners thispodcast inadvertently has to
hear similar themes being raised.
You know I've already donemultiple episodes on this show
about this either, referencingmy interview with Jules Boykoff
last week, with Michael Hardyand the Game Changer pledge.
(10:07):
Even some of my earliestepisodes that were doing like my
solo episodes wereinvestigating directly into the
Olympics.
But yeah, the point is thatthey are the best illustrations
of what's going on.
But this is happening at aregional level, international
level, but even at the locallevel similar things happening.
But I like the term you usedearlier about saying, look, the
thing we have is actually good,it's actually okay.
(10:27):
Let's pivot that towardsadvertising, because this is
kind of what's happening at aproduct level.
Right, sometimes they're takingproducts that are necessarily
good for the consumer they'renot necessarily good for, maybe,
the environment or somewhere onthe supply chain and they're
saying, look, this thing isassociated with sport, therefore
it's good.
Can you unpack a little bit ofthe work you've done, maybe with
(10:48):
advertising and that kind ofthing?
Freddie (10:50):
Yeah, for sure.
I mean the area with it.
I mean sport is obviously, interms of its reach, it's kind of
unrivaled, right Like thePremier League.
We use that as an example theamount of homes around the world
it's beamed into and the amountof football fans you know
around the world we're talkinglike nearly four billion,
supposedly.
Premier League is watched andfollowed all around the world.
(11:13):
So in terms of its reach and thelegitimacy it has in terms of
the companies that are going topartner with it, it's almost
like a marketeer's dream, reallyan advertiser's dream.
So, first and foremost, thesecompanies want to partner with
sport because sport has got whatthey want.
They've got a captive audience,they've got a great brand,
(11:34):
they've got all of the sort ofcharacteristics that these
companies love to piggyback on,you know the high performance,
the teamwork, the collective joy, the competitiveness.
These are highly aspirationalcharacteristics that products
and companies want to leverage,and sport is an understandable
(11:58):
choice for which they would dothat.
The reason they do it also isbecause it works Like there's a
you know, quite a lot ofemerging research that shows
that companies that have maybequestionable track records on
environmental standards or onhuman rights standards, by
partnering with sporting bodiesthat have dedicated fan bases or
clubs, football teams.
Over time fans begin toassociate all of that collective
(12:21):
joy and those really intenseemotions that come with sport
with that particular company,all that particular product.
And you know, over time thatgradually means that they begin
to discount or ignore the morequestionable side of that
business's practices because ofthe association that that
specific company or product haswith their club.
So it works and you know that'sempirical evidence of points
(12:42):
towards that being an effectivemeans of marketing and
advertising.
And I mean you only need totake a look at how big the
industry is.
Right, the sports marketingindustry is absolutely gigantic
and it's growing at somethinglike seven, nearly 8% a year.
So there's money flowing intothis space because it works.
And you know, and I think we'llprobably continue to see this,
this sort of aggregate growth,unless you know clubs or leagues
(13:06):
or tournaments take a stand onit.
And you know you mentionedMichael Hardy and the work that
he's been doing with GameChanger.
These are the sort ofinitiatives that could
potentially provide a platformand a foundation for moving the
dial on that sort of issue forclubs and leagues to say,
actually we're not going topartner with you guys because of
this reason, or we're not goingto take money from you because
of this reason and you know thismight sound quite radical, but
(13:29):
it's not that radical.
You know, we see clubs,sporting bodies, even whole
tournaments, turned downspecific companies on because of
concerns over that company'soperations or where that
company's operations are located.
Obviously, the one that willprobably come to the top of your
listeners' minds is UEFAditching Gazprom in the wake of
the invasion of Ukraine.
You know, of course, thegrounds of doing that were very
(13:52):
different in terms of theclimate change, but in 2022, we
saw tennis Australia ditchSantos, the oil and gas giant,
after a really hard foughtcampaign.
And just recently, bayernMunich are not going to continue
their sponsorship deal withQatar Airways, citing human
rights concerns, again after areally hard fought fan campaign.
(14:12):
And then, obviously outside ofsport, lots of organizations,
particularly in the arts andculture sector, saying no to oil
and gas money to fossil fuelcompanies, because they see it
as a reputational hazard.
They see it as a risk.
And I think it's interestingbecause, especially as a concept
of risk right, because I thinkwhen you're looking at
commercial strategies andcommercial partnerships, risk
(14:33):
can be cut a few ways.
There's reputational risk forpartnering with these
organizations and let's you know, let's remember that some of
these companies like fossil fuelfirms.
They don't really sell productsthat are ready to consumers.
They don't have that much of abrand identity.
Of course, some of them haveoffshoots where they're
providing charging points andpetrol stations and stuff like
(14:54):
that, but the core of theiroperations is not going straight
to consumers, so they haven'treally got a brand.
So they're using sport tohijack that and sport takes the
money benefits from that so theycan do their operations, etc.
Etc.
But the risk doesn't go away bypartnering with these
organizations.
You're at risk, you will getcalled out.
I mean, we've seen, you know,real uptaken in campaign efforts
(15:17):
targeting sporting events thisyear and I don't think we're
going to see that slow downbecause there is a definitely a
big flow of money from fossilfuel firms into sport for the
reasons that you cited, andthere's real risk for these
sporting bodies andorganizations and clubs
associating with them andpartnering with them.
They both look bad.
And also, you know, when we'retalking about reputational risk,
(15:39):
if these sporting bodies haveto end those deals shortly,
there's financial risk as well.
They're going to have a,they're going to have to feel
short, for if they cut five yeardeal short by three years,
where are they going to findthat money from?
So this is something thatsports organizations should be
starting to acknowledge and, I'dhope, actually embed in the way
that they are vetting potentialcommercial partners or
(16:01):
sponsorship partners and, youknow, it should be something
that they're definitely buildinginto their sustainability
strategies as well.
Ben (16:08):
Yeah, I think the best example of that right now is
Wimbledon, where they've I meanWimbledon had two problems going
in.
They had their sustainabilityon the ground in the tournament
that day, and then they had theflights element of it all that
you have to fly to Wimbledon toget to Wimbledon, kind of thing
you know if you're a fan fromoverseas and that was already
quite a tension thing.
But I must say they were doinga pretty good job.
(16:28):
They were like listen, it's thebiggest tennis tournament in
the world, but it's a once in alifetime trip for many people.
You can kind of make thatjustification.
We've got vegan food across thetennis club, refillable water
bottles, etc.
Etc.
And then they took on Barclaysas their main sponsor for the
season and obviously theBarclays has, you know, a
massive amount of investmentinto fossil fuels and is
(16:50):
profiting hugely from emissions,and it's funny that everything
else seems to have gone away.
No one's talking about thereusable water bottles at
Wimbledon right now, becausethey're like what does it matter
if, as you say, you're offeringBarclays funding of fossil
fuels a social license?
Essentially?
Freddie (17:06):
For sure.
Yeah, I think that's a reallygood example, ben, and I think
not only because it's soprescient and immediate, but
Barclays is I think the campaignis that works on this like hats
off to them, because I thinkit's really difficult sometimes
to make the case for banks thatare bankrolling fossil fuels
right, I think in terms of thepublic mind.
We can clearly see that oil andgas companies, they are bad.
(17:26):
Airlines they have a hugeenvironmental impact, suvs,
equally huge environmentalimpact, but banks they're little
, they're sort of one stepremoved there.
So I think a lot of peoplemaybe fail to make that
connection.
But the campaign is aroundWimbledon a fantastic job of
pushing this is up the agendaand, from what I've heard,
wimbledon have listened and Ifeel quite sorry for a few of
(17:50):
the you know the members ofstaff internally because, as you
said, they laid out a reallycomprehensive sustainability
strategy.
Of course it could be moreambitious.
It always can be really whatwe're talking about, sort of
establishment sport events likethis, you know, really really
cemented in the sportingcalendar.
But Barclays is the biggestfunder of fossil fuels in Europe
(18:11):
.
I think it's something like 160billion or 100.
It's like just under 200billion since, you know, they
signed the site, since, all youknow, most countries in the
world signed the Paris Agreement.
So it's a huge amount ofinvestment and those investments
have a lifespan, you knowthey're locked in.
They're continuing to pumpmoney into oil and gas and coal
(18:32):
and those infrastructures willbe operating for 15, 20 years,
you know.
And then we get into a pointwhere climate scientists have
told us we need to be nearing,you know, net zero.
You know emissions need to comedown radically and these guys
are still pumping obsceneamounts of cash into the, into
the infrastructures that aregoing to push us further and
further away from that target.
Ben (18:52):
Yeah, I think the other slight difference with that is
exactly what you said earlier.
The oil companies don'tnecessarily have a consumer
facing brand, but Barclays does.
Barclays is a bank that you cango down the road and bank with,
so it's funny that if theyweren't investing in fossil
fuels it would seem like afairly standard sport
advertising model.
Local bank sponsors Britishtennis tournament and therefore
(19:15):
increases its number ofcustomers.
Fine, I guess.
But then, yeah, there's thisinvestment of it all.
What do you think about theadvertising of products that
aren't necessarily just a fineproduct, like the normal
services of a bank, for example?
You mentioned some good onesSUVs, airlines, but even other
products.
I think the elephant in theroom with sport is maybe like
(19:36):
sports gear, like do we needanother jersey, shoes, all this
kind of stuff.
What do you make with thatrelationship between you?
Know they don't want you tojust buy one pair of shoes, they
want you to buy lots of pairsof shoes.
Freddie (19:47):
For sure.
I mean, I think you can.
If you were to go through everysort of industry that is using
sport to advertise its productsand to build a brand, you would
be able to find flaws in all ofthem.
I think the reason that my workparticularly focuses on high
carbon, like you know, fossilfuels, airlines and SUVs these
(20:07):
are obviously emission sectorsthat are growing, despite what
we need to do In particular.
Air travel and SUVs, you knowthese things are going in the
they're really going in thewrong direction and more so, the
way that these products areadvertised.
It normalizes their use andalso encourages their uptake.
So I think there's key areas ofconsumption that you have to
(20:28):
look at when you're talkingabout this issue, but they're
obviously the broader economicand cultural arguments around
consumption, which obviouslyyou're alluding to.
Like you know, fast fashion, alot of sportswear probably does
have, like synthetic polymers,in which is obviously are made
by fossil fuels as well.
So you know you can.
You can sit here all day then,and we could go through and list
(20:49):
all the companies which andwe'll be able to find problems
with all of them.
But I think you need to bepragmatic in your approach with
this sort of work, especiallyfrom a campaign perspective.
So you go like go for the bighitters first, the fossil fuel
firms, the airlines, the SUVs, Imean the fossil fuel firms are
the most obvious one, right,because we know, like we know
how, how they use sport to buytheir social license and we know
(21:10):
how they've deceived the publicaround climate change and how
they have failed to adjust theirbusiness models and their
operations after decades ofknowing the damage that will be
done.
And they're still, you know,they're still digging their
heels in now.
So I think going for thosemakes perfect sense.
But, of course, the other sideof that is, you know, the
(21:32):
potential shortfall incommercial income for sporting
bodies, and you know there are.
When we talk about commercialpartnerships and sponsorship and
advertising in sport, we'retalking about sports
organizations as a homogeneousthing, right, like they're not.
Some clubs, some governingbodies are far richer than
(21:52):
others and there are, you know,requirements that they need to
meet.
There are services they providefor their members that they
need income to be able toexecute.
So it is a really difficultarea and it's a really difficult
conversation to have, becausethere is always that financial
imperative to take the big dealsand not ask too many questions
(22:14):
because you are, institutionallyand organizationally, you're
thinking about your own survival, you're thinking about being
continued to put on your eventsand provide for your members,
but it's I mean.
This is why I think you knowthe work that Michael is doing
with Game Changer and the workthat we're doing at advertising
is important work because wedon't want to just shift the
norms around advertising and howthose high carbon companies are
(22:34):
perceived, but we also want toengage people inside of these
sports organizations, you know,help them navigate it internally
, give them the best guidanceand advice that we can do to
push this up the agendainternally and help them build
capacity to incorporate mattersof commercial partnerships and
sustainability into theirbroader remit of climate action.
(22:55):
And I think that's reallyimportant.
But I'm not saying it's easy.
You know there are bigquestions, there are big
shortfalls and we saw that, youknow, in real time with the
British Cycling Shell deal.
Right, like British Cyclingmassive membership organization,
the backlash was huge andBritish Cycling they said, yeah,
we okay, we understand, likethis debt shell, they're
(23:16):
problematic, they're a possiblecompany, they're going to
continue to be a possiblecompany for the next 20 years,
but we haven't got any money andwe need to continue, you know,
serving our members and puttingon our training and stuff like
that.
So they were very honest andbrazen almost about the almost
the flaws in this and how sportsis funded, and you know that
opens up more questions ofinquiry.
(23:37):
You know what is the role ofcentral government, what is the
role of local government?
What is the value of sport?
Why should it be funded bypublic bodies and should it be
funded in different ways?
It's a really interesting areaand I'm sure you've had speakers
on this podcast that could talkto it in more elegant ways than
I can.
But you know, talking aboutcommercial partnerships and
sponsorship is just the firststep.
(23:59):
I think you know, because thenI'm sure we'll talk about it a
bit more.
But you have to talk aboutownership as well, and I think
in some areas of sport PremierLeague is a good example the
line between ownership andsponsorship becomes blurred,
really, when you're talkingabout big petro states.
But yeah, it's a fascinatingarea and I mean it's only going
to grow in importance, I thinktoo.
Ben (24:21):
I think you've inadvertently basically
referenced application of gametheory to how these leagues,
clubs, institutions operate,because, as you said, the sports
as a whole are thinking aboutit from a individual perspective
, so they're always going totake whatever deal that they can
that maximizes their benefit,and obviously with the minimum
amount of shortfalling.
This is why, probably, britishcycling originally signed with
(24:42):
Shell.
It's why, I think, like Africa,a couple of nations have such a
close deal with Total, becausethat's the biggest amount of
money they could get from anyone.
It's very similar to UEFA andGasprom.
It's a total, obviously French,but benefiting hugely from
fossil fuels in Africa.
The problem I think we have,though, is that and I think
Bayern Munich will kind ofperfectly resolve with being
stuck in the middle with thisGerman football obviously has
(25:04):
the 50 plus one rule Fansblocked a certain degree of
quote unquote bad money comingin the Premier League.
Did not the Premier League letas much money come in from as
many places?
And it's not just.
Obviously, the Gulf States weretalking, you know, american
hedge funds, who made theirmoney from various sources, were
talking from East Asia, fromall over.
Money is just coming in fromall these places, and, of course
(25:24):
, there is a bit of.
I don't necessarily believe intrickle down economics as a
broader concept, but there issome element in that with the
league itself that every timeLester buys a player from
Watford for however much moneyvia, you know, the king power
and all that, that's money goinginto the league, which then
they can spend on maybe aforeign player, and the talent
comes in and the attention comesin, and then they can reinvest
that money into marketing.
(25:46):
What happens, though and we'reseeing this now what happens
when the money, the sourceoverseas says hang on, I'm not
going to put money into theleague, I'm just going to put
money into my own league andattract players there?
And I think we are about to seea very funny trend from Premier
League spokespeople who, for solong, have been like money is
good, we need to compete.
If we don't take money, thensomeone else will do it.
(26:08):
That decision has been takenaway from them, and what I'm
referencing is Saudi Arabiabasically saying we're going to
build our own league and we havethe money to do it.
What do you think about that,where the game theories so
always suits the winner untilthey're not the winner anymore?
Freddie (26:20):
Yeah, I think I would agree that it is a good example
of game theory.
I also think that PremierLeague clubs in particular is an
arms race, right, like the wagebills are ever increasing, the
price of talent is everincreasing and how competitive
the actual league is is everincreasing.
So I think clubs are alwaysplaying catch up and that means
(26:40):
that, you know, especially,clubs aren't backed by Gulf
States or by billionaires.
They are constantly searchingfor highly lucrative and long
term commercial partnerships.
And I do think, fromconversations I've had with some
people inside Premier Leagueclubs and the commercial
departments, there are somescreening tests.
(27:01):
You know they wouldn't doanything that would be perceived
as is too unsavory or wouldattract too much reputational
damage.
But I think that is, you know,in terms of their lists of
imperatives is quite far down.
And Saudi example I agree withyou.
I think it's going to befascinating to see how it
develops and I think you'reprobably right that we are going
to see a lot of pundits.
(27:22):
You know swivel and start, youknow maybe saying things that
they work they wouldn't havesaid maybe a year or two, and
you know, and a few critics aregoing to come out of the
woodwork.
But I mean we don't know howthe Saudi League is going to
develop either.
It's quite interesting to see,obviously, the sheer quantity of
money they're spending but alsothe amount of talent that's
going over there from from theUK, obviously.
(27:43):
I think they've obviously got astrategy of bringing in older
talent.
You know that they have topeople that are at the end of
their careers in Europe butstill have huge recognition
amongst football fans and will,you know, obviously be able to
help, you know, with trainingand bringing it through their
younger players.
But it's, it's, the game's onand the race is on, and these
(28:03):
states have ungodly amounts ofcash, right?
I mean, we don't actuallythere's no empirics on how much
they have in unsecured oursovereign wealth.
It's obscene, and they want tospend it and they want to spend
it in ways that gives themlongevity as a regime, I think,
and as a state, improves theirimage overseas and shows them
that they are part of theinternational sporting community
(28:25):
and therefore a big player ininternational politics as well
and geopolitics.
Ben (28:32):
I think it's tough when, obviously, we can raise
questions of what?
Was it always fair that thePremier League became the
biggest league in the world?
There's definitely legacies ofthe British Empire.
There's legacies of the globalNorth.
There's legacies of why therewas wealth and community enough
to build these institutions inthe first place.
One of the areas I like I'mtrying to do a bit of research
in myself is the legacy of theBBC and Africa and how people
(28:55):
all over Africa, particularlycountries that were occupied by
the British, have this tendencyto support English teams because
they were available on radiosoriginally and then when BBC
television came out.
So, yeah, I mean you can makesome arguments of why what the
Saudis are doing.
Of course, the source of themoney is awful, but in terms of,
as we talked about earlier,creating a social license
(29:17):
through sport, it's not thatdissimilar.
And I think, as perhaps theGerman League are also gonna
find out, that they've made thisgreat moral line saying we're
not gonna take money from Qatar,et cetera.
But they've already been pricedout to some degree.
If you're a good German player,you move quite quickly.
And what's also interesting isthe difference between sports.
I think this podcast always endsup talking about football,
(29:38):
because it's the one where thebig moves are happening, but
it's not just football.
We've talked about tennis, andobviously there's interest from
the Saudis of basically startingabout their own tennis league,
or turning their turning themain ATP event into one of the
grand slams.
Essentially, we could talkabout live golf.
Which perfect example.
The PJ were like no, no, no,we're not gonna do this on moral
grounds, until the number wentup enough.
(29:58):
Pivoting all the way back toadvertising, though, what do you
make of the actual adverts thatthey're being created?
So I think maybe the QatarWorld Cup would be a good
example.
They created the one with DavidBeckham, they created the one
with Gary Neville.
These were adverts direct toconsumers, saying this is a
legitimate operation, world Cup.
What do you make of those kindof outreaches?
Freddie (30:19):
Well, I think I mean it's interesting.
I think it was interesting tosee who they lined up.
I thought it was quite telling.
I mean they obviously spent ahuge amount of money with, in
terms of their ambassadors, someof them former football stars
the very strong politicalconnections as well, so that you
can see the thought processthere.
The adverts that were marketedto English speaking consumers
(30:40):
around the carbon neutralityclaims at the World Cup, I
thought were obviously deeplymisleading and you know, we, we
advertising and a few otherorganizations from around Europe
did submit complaints toadvertising regulators to say
that they were deeply misleadingto consumers and got passed
around various jurisdictions.
We ended up in Switzerland,where FIFA is obviously based,
(31:02):
and they ruled in our favor.
So FIFA were, you know it was,it was, it was acknowledged and
the the sort of consumerprotection court there ruled
that FIFA had greenwashed, theyhad misled consumers over the
carbon, carbon neutrality claims.
But yeah, I think, I thinkthese forms of advertising and
the sometimes the content thatthey contain is worrying and it
(31:24):
also points to a lack ofprotections for consumers over
this sort of stuff.
Advertising regulation in the UKis quite light touch and it's
also quite light touch in otherEuropean countries too.
And, most importantly it's it'sreactive rather than proactive.
So you know, when those FIFAand Qatar adverts went out
saying that it's going to be thefirst ever carbon neutral World
(31:45):
Cup, you don't have to worryabout your flights over here,
football fans, we've got thatcovered, we'll.
You know, we're offset for you,et cetera, et cetera, et cetera
.
The damage has already beendone.
Now you know people.
I'm sure some people boughtthose tickets and bought those
flights without even thinkingabout the environmental
consequence, but some may havebeen, may have made their
(32:06):
decision based on that.
You know, maybe it did play apart in the decision to go over
to Qatar.
And I think that's where yousee how misleading those adverts
can be and also how we needbetter state legislation to
prevent that sort of damagebeing done Next time round.
Ben (32:23):
Yes, and obviously that achievement you guys got in
Switzerland going through thatlegal system was obviously
fantastic because it added someand I acknowledge the irony of
this word, it added somelegitimacy to that claim because
for a long time any pundit inthe space was like that's
obviously not true, you can't dothat with offsetting.
But there was no sort of proofin the pudding and finally, when
that came through, we were sucha relief to be like, okay, I'm
(32:45):
not going insane.
Someone actually knows thatthat's not how, yeah, emissions
and offsetting can work.
What do you think aboutadvertising through vehicles
beyond just like consumer facing?
What do you think about thingslike what Etihad, for example,
are doing with man City, whereit's not necessarily that every
man City shirt just telling youto get on an airline, but the
two become quite synonymous?
(33:06):
You know it's called the EtihadStadium.
You know the Etihad is not thestate, but it's very related to
Abu Dhabi et cetera.
What do you make of that levelof?
Is it advertising?
Is it culture creation?
I don't know what it is.
Freddie (33:19):
I mean, yeah, I think we could argue maybe above what
the definition of it is.
I mean, I think Etihad's areally good example because
you're right that that is anairline that is state backed.
It is basically a brand for AbuDhabi to the international
community and to consumers allaround the world, like pretty
(33:40):
old school mentality of havingan airline associated with your
country.
You know, it's classic sort ofconsumer diplomacy really.
I think city, obviously, youknow there's been a shirt
sponsor for so many years nowthat they've become inseparable.
I think it's concerning and Ithink it's a good example of
(34:01):
where ownership and sponsorshipkind of blur.
Right, because I think airlinesin particular, they're not
particularly endowed with loadsof cash.
Right, they're, margins areslim, they're obviously a very
polluting industry and they geta lot of government support
through VAT exemptions on flighttickets.
There's no taxation on jet fuel, kerosene, so they get all this
(34:25):
help and you know there's noway that British Airways or
something like that will be onthe front of a Premier League
club because they couldn'tafford to do that.
So those are interestingquestions about you know why is
Etihad at the front of the shirt?
It's because they can afford toand I mean I don't know how
much that deals worth.
I'm sure it's probably not evenpublic record because of the
relationship between owners andstate and club.
(34:48):
But yeah, it's a really goodexample of the lines being
blurred between sponsorship andownership.
And you know Etihad, I've trieda few initiatives around
sustainability.
I mean I know that you say thatthey're not like saying jump on
a flight, but there was somehoardings around a city game
last season that someone broughtto my attention that said blind
at zero.
So there are.
(35:09):
Obviously they are makingenvironmental claims which are
baseless, potentially misleadingto consumers but also damaging
to just general.
You know idea that aviation inits current form can be
sustainable.
And they also did this bizarresustainability push within city
where if you recycled a plasticbottle you'd get like air miles.
(35:29):
I mean, come on, like, how dothese decisions get signed off
really at the top level?
Ben (35:34):
That was the, I think, from a bad advertising perspective
and for context, bad advertisingand correct me if I'm wrong
here, verdi, but like it's badadvertising is what the name is,
and you're not gonna find abetter example of bad
advertising than encouragingpeople to recycle their plastic
bottle on the grounds ofsustainability and getting
flyers in the war.
That blew my mind.
(35:55):
Yeah, I know.
Freddie (35:57):
And it was also, you know, not even that long ago.
I mean, I remember when I did aproject with Professor Peter
Newell at the University ofSussex a few years ago on
sustainable behavior change.
And you know, when you'retalking about that sort of stuff
, you're talking about like somescholars talk about things like
nudging and, you know, likelittle consumer tricks you can
do to get people to make theright, more sustainable
decisions.
(36:17):
And someone brought attentionto something that Tesco did like
15 years ago, which was theexact same thing, and it was
like you bring your halogenlight bulbs in you know this is
before LED, so it gives you asense of how long ago this was
Halogen light bulbs in andthey'll give you AMRs as well.
So it's like and they gothammered for doing that at the
time.
You know people were like thatdoesn't make any sense.
And then you know you haveManchester City and Etihad doing
(36:39):
it.
You know the last sort of three, four years.
It's wild.
Ben (36:43):
That's frustrating.
But now we look to the future.
How would you best and I mean,obviously you're doing this work
now, so please give us moreabout the work you're doing and
how you want it to grow how doyou go about fixing this?
Because I see two scenarios.
I see regulation on one side,stopping this kind of just
overinvestment in marketing andcreating the social license, but
(37:04):
then, as I say, that raisesissue of game theory.
Or I could see almost some kindof like counter marketing, but
then you get into a we can'tafford to outmarket them because
they just have bigger marketingbudgets.
How do we go about this?
Freddie (37:18):
Well, I mean, that's the ultimate question.
Really, I think there'sdifferent ways of going about it
in different sports.
I think Premier League is anexceptional example.
I think I don't have the answerto that, because you have to
look at government regulation,you have to look at independent
regulation, you have to look atthe Premier League itself how it
regulates the clubs, how itscreens potential owners, and
also you have to go down to theclub level too, and how they
(37:41):
screen potential commercialpartners.
I think you're probably rightin the directions you see it
going.
I think there's a room for allof those, though I think there's
a need for more regulation, andI think we are going to see, in
the years to come, governmentstepping in and regulating
advertising that isenvironmentally damaging,
especially in those areas ofhigh emissions behaviors so
(38:05):
airlines, suvs, fossil fuels and, if government moves on that,
and all governments that havelegislated for net zero will
acknowledge that behavior changeand demand side reduction the
academic term is essential forgetting to those targets.
So then you're in a situationwhere government's moving and
sport will be either forced tomove or we're not going to be
(38:29):
seen to be doing nothing on thisissue.
I think another avenue isobviously fan protest and that
upward pressure.
We've seen them mobilize aroundother issues, of course, around
climate issues.
We're yet to see a huge uptakeof this amongst fan groups, but
I'm confident that fans willbegin to eternalize this as a
concern as the impacts and thepressures of climate change
(38:54):
unfold.
This might not necessarily be ashort term thing in the global
north and in the UK, but I thinkin places like Africa and stuff
like that, where the game isfootball and other sports are
developed India, cricket I thinkyou will start to see some
pressures coming from fan groupsand from spectators for the
more ambitious action.
And I think through thosedemands, high carbon companies
(39:17):
and big polluting industrieswill be kind of low hanging
fruit.
They'll be the ones that gofirst, really, and then there'll
be a sense of operationalizingmore sort of sustainability
measures and e-carbonization,all of that sort of stuff.
But the first thing that willgo because it's so public facing
, I can imagine are therelationships with the big
polluters.
Yeah, and then I think you'reprobably right in your
(39:38):
assumption about thecounter-advertising.
I think that we're seeing somemoves away from certain products
.
Of course we're seeing gamblingand other leagues and Scottish
League.
There was very hard foughtcampaign against alcohol
advertising.
We saw it historically withtobacco as well.
So I think there will beconcerted efforts to move away
(39:58):
from certain industries andproducts when the harms of those
products become unignorable.
And of course, climate change ishere and now for many billions
of people in the world.
But for the insulated andwealthiest global few that are
in the north and in Europe andin the UK, where we are, those
impacts aren't being as hardfelt now, but they will be and
(40:23):
they will affect many aspects ofour lives.
So I think when those impactsand those concerns and those
fears trickle through intoeveryday life, I think we will
see sports clubs having to shiftand, of course, elephant in the
room as well.
There are obviously hugeamounts of sports that are being
already affected by climatechange.
I mean the obvious one isobviously winter sports.
(40:44):
That was that report a few yearsago.
That was said that somethinglike I can't even remember it
was a marginal amount ofprevious Winter Olympic host
nations would be able to hostthe Winter Olympic Games again
in just 30 years, in less than30 years.
That seismic, those are big,big shifts in how sport is
(41:04):
hosted, where it's hosted andwho gets to compete, and in
Beijing, and everyone willremember those images of those
sort of like snowless beasts andall those artificial machines
churning out snow.
But the Beijing Olympics arestill sponsored by some of the
biggest polluters available inthe world, so there's a long way
to go, ben.
Ben (41:24):
Yes, what a perfect example of a retraction of social
license that people don't smokeinside anymore.
People used to smoke on planes.
I mean it's weird to even thinkabout, but now you wouldn't
dream of it.
So it shows it works.
The other, I mean the otherpoint and I don't like to phrase
this podcast as education,because that implies that
everything that I've ever saidhas been verified.
(41:45):
It is not.
It is let's call it, countermarketing that we're coming here
.
We've got an opinion, I think,based on some reasonable
arguments, and we're puttingforward those arguments.
The problem, of course, isbecomes we can even talk about
the marketing of this podcast.
You know, I've looked atmarketing this podcast.
It's very expensive.
I haven't done it.
Cool, you hope that peoplelisten to it anyway.
But then the other day I get a.
I get a beaming in my earlistening to a different podcast
(42:07):
.
By the way, if you like thispodcast, why don't you listen to
the podcast by BP?
And I'm like what?
And I go listen and BP have apodcast that's about all the
things that BP are doing, whichis ridiculous to me because it's
one of the biggest countries inthe world and they have their
own podcast.
But again, how much money havethey given to Spotify or to
Apple or to whichever podcast Iwas listening to?
(42:27):
That it comes through thatyou're way more people are going
to hear that marketing thanthis side of marketing, at least
at the start, so that it doesseem like quite an uphill battle
to flip that, so sorry.
Last point before we end whatdo you make of maybe trying to
incorporate some of theselessons into not necessarily the
marketing side but theeducation side, like surely we
(42:49):
could start incorporating thiskind of lesson that the average
consumer would know before theyeven were legally allowed to buy
something, that recycling awater bottle and getting
frequent fire miles as a resultof that is just not tenable.
What do you make of that sideto it?
Freddie (43:04):
Yeah, I mean there's definitely an education piece
and I think that like comesaround to the broader arguments
for carbon literacy and the Ithink you know honestly from
government, political partiesand whatnot around that, the
changes that have to be made ifwe're going to meet our binding
climate targets.
I do think consumers are wiserto it than they get credit for.
(43:25):
There's a wonderful pollingdone, I think, by YouGov around
Greenwash and who consumerstrusted making environmental
statements and like at the topwas David Attenborough you know
that these were suspects ChrisPackham, but right down at the
bottom was big business energycompanies.
So consumers realise that theyare.
(43:47):
They are selling falsities.
You know, through theseadvertisements and through these
promises and these pledges,consumers know that it's not
legit and they don't I don'tthink they consciously take it
on board when they're makingthese decisions.
But there's obviously thesubconscious side right and
there's the symbolic side wherethese companies are continued to
(44:07):
be pasted all around us.
And they are.
You know they're on the front.
They're on the front of ourfootball teams, you know our
favourite players are wearingthem as part of their uniforms,
almost, and that obviously haspower, right, because I think
subconsciously all of us thinkthat, oh, those products can't
be that bad, right, becausethey're continuing.
We see them every day.
(44:28):
You know we can't leave thehouse without seeing an advert
for an energy company or an SUVor an airline or a fossil fuel
funding bank, and there'ssymbolic power in that and I
think that's something that youknow it needs to be addressed.
I also think that theeducational piece isn't just for
consumers.
I think it's also for fororganisations and the bodies
that carry advertisers and thatgenerate other rely on
(44:49):
commercial revenues.
I think high carbon advertisingand could even be extended to
more problematic sponsors aswell alcohol gambling that needs
to be internalised into theirframeworks and how they think
about sustainability and howthey think about, you know, esg
or or social purpose.
These aren't.
They need to understand andacknowledge that these, these
industries, do cause harm andthat harm can be traced back to
(45:12):
them by going into thesepartnerships and these
sponsorship deals.
So I think it's an educationalpiece that is for all of us,
really for people that will workin the space, for, you know,
concerned individuals that areworking in the sports industry,
and also for consumers as well,and I think it's like you said,
it's an uphill battle, but youjust got to look at the, the
(45:33):
wins that have been made, youknow, in the past with tobacco,
even some of the wins that havebeen made in sport around
climate and against fossil fuelfirms, and I think that should
be fuel to fire this, this push,because I think there's also a
question of using this as avehicle to sponsorship and
commercial partnerships, usingthat as a as a wedge issue
(45:53):
almost, to talk about questionsof ownership, to talk about
questions of funding, to talkabout, like I said at the
beginning, the real value ofsport, who is sport for and what
is sport for?
And I think these arefundamental questions that we
neglect on a daily basis becausethere's this hundred billion
dollar business that's beingbuilt up around it, and those
questions become unimportantwhen you're, when you're looking
(46:16):
at your bottom line and whenyou're looking at commercial
revenues and when you're lookingat ensuring you've got enough
money.
Can you continue to compete soyou can stay in the top flight?
These questions get way lateand I think the campaigns around
sponsorship and the campaignsaround commercial partnerships
it's a really good opportunityfor all of us to, you know, ask
ourselves those questions, thosevery fundamental questions, and
(46:36):
from that you know there arebroader campaigns and demands
and asks to be made, but there'sa huge opportunity here to
build a, a sporting world thatserves local communities, that
serves people and makes us allhappier, healthier, and it makes
the planet happier andhealthier, and I think that's
something that we need to focuson and that's something that we
need to have almost blinkersright, because there's a lot of
(46:59):
noise out there.
There's a lot of falsesolutions being peddled.
There's a lot of people youknow within the industry which
are they've got pathdependencies.
They say this is the solution,this is the way we should go and
it's wrong.
So I think it's about beingopen, collaborative and fiercely
stubborn in our pursuit of whatwe're going for really, what a
(47:20):
pragmatic response.
Ben (47:21):
That was my goodness.
Yeah, so much to unpack there.
On an ending note, I agree withyou that we're not all perfect
certainly not.
I mean, look at me, I waswatching the, the Barclays
English Premier League, for mostof my life.
Now here I am ranting everyother week about the Barclays
fossil fuel bank.
So progress is possible.
And yeah, I really like thatpoint you made that when you're
(47:42):
in a path dependent society, itseems very path dependent, but
there's always room for change.
Freddie (47:46):
So definitely, and I think it comes down I'd just
like to say that and I think itcomes down to control right, and
this is, you know, a very vitalthing for not only sustainable
choices and sustainableconsumption choices, but also
our you know, our sense of selfand our own well-being.
There are things that you and Ido not have control over.
We do not have control over thesport we love being sponsored
(48:08):
by a fossil fuel company or afossil fuel funding bank.
Just in the same way, we don'treally have control about where
our energy comes from, where ourelectricity is generated or,
you know, when we go to thesupermarket, we don't have
control whether the vegetablesand fruit are covered in plastic
.
These are things we don't havecontrol over.
But what we do have control overis the work that we do, the
questions that we ask, therelationships we do build and
(48:28):
the way in which we push thesecampaigns forward to build a
foundation for tangible change.
And I always like have toremind myself about that as well
, because you can get boggeddown and you can get depressed
by how much that needs to changeand how far we need to go to
get where we supposedly need tobe, which also might be a
massive underestimation of whatthe climate is going to do and
(48:50):
what the science is telling us.
So it's about focusing on whatyou can do where you can do it,
and doing it to the best of yourability, and I think that you
know your work continues toinspire me in that regard as
well, so I'm grateful for youhaving me on.
Ben (49:05):
No, you're so welcome and I really resonate with that point
.
The other day I asked one of mymother's friends what the
carbon impact of her redoing herkitchen was, and I promise you
I'm not going to be invited backanytime soon, so I wouldn't
recommend that.
But yeah, freddie, thank you somuch for your work, thank you
for Badvertising's work and,yeah, thank you for coming on
the show and sharing all thatwith us.
Freddie (49:25):
Thanks, family Ben.
Ben (49:32):
That was our conversation with Freddie Daly, someone who's
doing such important work, andI encourage you to reach out to
Badvertising or the partnerorganization, the Rapid
Transition Alliance, if you'reinterested in these themes.
Links is always in the episodebio.
That does it for this episode.
Next time we are speaking to ajournalist who is reporting on
(49:52):
sport and sustainability inUganda, not to be missed.
Thank you so much for listeningand bye for now.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.