How to legally ambush market

According to the Sydney Morning Herald adidas, “Stumped up an estimated $US351 million for the rights to the 2010 and 2014 World Cup tournaments”. However, based on several studies companies like adidas may want to reconsider paying to be a sponsor of the tournament in the future.

USA Today reported that Nike, not adidas, is the brand most associated to the World Cup. The catch is that Nike has no official affiliation with the FIFA World Cup. Nike opted to spend the money they would of spent (if they had reached a deal like adidas did with FIFA) on a well-timed global marketing campaign.

Write The Future
Nike started its Write The Future campaign a month before the tournament kicked off. Using the social networking site, YouTube, Nike released its Write The Future ad. According to the Sydney Morning Herald the ad has a cast of players such as England's Wayne Rooney and Portugal's Cristiano Ronaldo that has been viewed more than 16 million times on YouTube.

On top of that USA Today cited a report done by Social-media monitoring firm Meltwater Buzz that looked at online buzz for top sponsors, partners and other key marketers. The report found that “Outsider Nike had 26% vs. 20% for Adidas, a FIFA partner, and 11% for Sony, also a partner”. Thus making Nike the winner so far in terms of “buzz”.

So why is Nike not being accused of ambush marketing like Dutch beer company Bavaria is? According to the Sydney Morning Herald, as long as a brand does not attempt to pass itself off as a sponsor or use the FIFA or World Cup branding, it can essentially do what it wants.

Finding the loop hole
Nike is not the only company that has found ways to skirt the line between being  accused by FIFA of ambush marketing and attaching their name to the world’s largest sporting event at no charge (by FIFA).

USA Today described how Danish beer company Carlsberg can market in the United Kingdom by having a deal to be associated with the English national football team. This is all while Budweiser is the official beer of the World Cup. Deals like the one Carlsberg has with English national team can be potentially damaging to Budweiser.

Another example of this, according to USA Today, is that Pepsi has deals with a number of top football players who are participating in the World Cup. With popular players such as Lionel Messi and Didier Drogba sponsored by Pepsi, Coke who is an official sponsor of the World Cup could be effected.

Examples like Carlsberg, Pepsi and the scandal with Bavaria brings up the question; why would any company spend hundreds of millions of dollars to be an official sponsor when they can successfully market their brand the same, if not better unofficially connected to the tournament?