By Tony Smith
The rugby test series between Australia and the Springboks might not have settled much about the relative skills of the two sides. One thing the television coverage did decide, however, was "Guess which beer I'll never buy? Never buy, never buy. Guess which beer I'll never buy? Never, never buy."
Or which chocolate. Or which car. Which? The ones that sponsored all the interruptions to the telecast of the game, of course. It was nothing short of an outrage.
Imagine if the chocolate ad were in progress and ... "We interrupt this advertisement to bring you an important announcement from our (other) sponsor". The chocolate corporation would not tolerate this for a minute.
Breaking into the spectator's absorption in the way it was done was nothing short of vandalism. Picture this: Nick: "Hey, Tim, did Marty convert the try?" Tim: "Nah. Missed by a mile. Weren't you watching?" Nick: "I was watching the ad on the big screen. Geez, I could go for one of those now." Phil: "Come on. Let's get focused!" Good luck, Phil.
Clearly the sponsors of the "Saturday night" game do not understand the viewer's need to become involved in the game. The game lasts from kick-off to the final whistle. It seems that for some business people, sports are nothing more than adjuncts to their products.
The argument that without sponsors there would be no telecast will simply not do. That is tantamount to blackmail. The public's love of sport is being held to ransom for commercial gain. The "user pays" principle applied here is appalling — the viewer pays by enduring coverage which renders the match next to meaningless.
Tasteful announcements at the beginning to the effect that the program was "brought to you" by certain organisations might create a positive atmosphere instead of the frustration engendered by the continual interruptions.
Coming in the midst of a cricket series from England which was also butchered by advertisements, the rugby coverage suggests that some sponsors, advertising agencies and television producers are prepared to destroy Australian sport in order to exploit it. Clearly the aim of sponsorship is to have a product name associated with a sport. Unfortunately, the commercialism is quickly becoming the icon and standing between the fans and their idols.
Kids no longer want to be like their heroes because of the way they play the game. Now they want to be like them because of the way they are promoted. What a glamorous life being a sportsperson! The commercial world paints a false picture of two-dimensional glamour.
They might argue that Australian teams would not be so strong without the sponsorship. Players can stay in the game longer without leaving their families impoverished. But this is a deceitful argument. The sponsors create the heroes. They have to have household names to endorse their products. They profit by manipulating team selections.
As to sport being stronger, that is contentious. We'll never know how many Warnes and Slaters might be out there while "established" stars are encouraged to bat on for their golden handshake. Meanwhile, to maintain a touring troupe of professional players, the fixtures come thick and fast — and the strains are showing. Injury also is sold as part of sportsperson's lot.
The other covert message in all this of course is winning at all costs. Winning for most corporations translates into dollar signs.
We have become accustomed to the idea that a corporation can own a team. That's fine for club cricket — teams are often named after generous pubs, clubs or firms. It is another story when a supposedly national team is beholden to one sponsor instead of to the Australian public. It might be interesting to see the minutes of some national sporting associations when they debated the moral dilemmas. It would be interesting to know the extent to which officials have been feted by companies seeking commercial rights. The entertainment would no doubt fall short of the magnitude of an Olympic bid, but who knows?
It might also be interesting to know which cabinet ministers shared the decision to cut ABC funding to the extent that the national broadcaster cannot compete for television rights for major sporting events, and why.
The rugby telecast debacle is further evidence of the disdain with which some companies treat us. It accords closely with an amoral attitude which allows corporate profits and executive salaries to rise while demands for "productivity" gains are enforced with retrenchments. After all, if business wants to be credited with creating jobs, it must bear the criticism when it fails to do so.
In the case of the sponsors of the rugby telecast, the PR money would be better spent in employing a few battlers on the shop floor.