Observer EDITORIAL: A delicate balancing act?
Saturday, May 26, 2007
We note with interest the story headlined 'No deal, says ISSA' in the sports pages of yesterday's Daily Observer which tells of the Inter-Secondary Schools Sports Association's (ISSA's) rejection of a $30-million offer by Coca-Cola to sponsor the 2007-08 schoolboy football season.
We are told that the offer was rejected despite it "being between $6 million and $10 million more than what is said to have been put forward by longtime sponsors Pepsi".
Up to yesterday, ISSA, the governing body for high school sports - incorporating school principals - headed by Mr Clement Radcliffe, had remained silent. In the absence of ISSA's side of the story, this newspaper finds itself in no position to speak with authority on the issue.
However, from this distance, it would appear that the schools association may have found itself in the middle of the age-old marketing tussle between the universally famous brands, Coca-Cola and Pepsi.
We can only speculate, but would not be surprised, were we to discover that ISSA struggled with how to balance the advantages that would accrue from additional sponsorship money against perceived issues of ethics and loyalty.
In professional or semi-professional sport, the matter would have been fairly straightforward: To the highest and best bidder in monetary and material terms, would go the spoils. But of course we are not here dealing with clubs or adults. Schools sport, lest we forget, should not be about money, but should be an essential part of the drive to provide a rounded education for our young people.
Such is the huge mass appeal of schoolboy football - the basic fact that it should be all about students at school often gets lost.
High moral standards must be maintained. Honour and integrity must not only be paramount in any arrangement involving sponsorship and marketing; those features must also be manifestly evident to all others, not least students - for whom principals and teachers must be exemplary.
Hence, Pepsi's loyalty to ISSA over the last 20 years - presumably through thick and thin - may well have been a pivotal consideration as the high school elders pondered their options.
Then again, schools sports competitions are notoriously expensive and organisers such as ISSA need all the support they can get. We note that yesterday's news story speaks of an offer by Coca-Cola's local distributors, Wisynco, to underwrite a field development programme and a nutritional programme - presumably in alliance with the Coca-Cola sponsorship offer. This newspaper has, in the past, found reason to comment on the poor condition of most fields on which our teenage and younger footballers hone their craft. And we are also aware that under nutrition - fuelled by depressed economic circumstances - is a major problem for a great many of our young sportsmen.
ISSA may well feel it is under no obligation to go public on this issue. But we believe it would be better for all concerned should it seek to clear the air, if only in general, non-specific terms.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
We note with interest the story headlined 'No deal, says ISSA' in the sports pages of yesterday's Daily Observer which tells of the Inter-Secondary Schools Sports Association's (ISSA's) rejection of a $30-million offer by Coca-Cola to sponsor the 2007-08 schoolboy football season.
We are told that the offer was rejected despite it "being between $6 million and $10 million more than what is said to have been put forward by longtime sponsors Pepsi".
Up to yesterday, ISSA, the governing body for high school sports - incorporating school principals - headed by Mr Clement Radcliffe, had remained silent. In the absence of ISSA's side of the story, this newspaper finds itself in no position to speak with authority on the issue.
However, from this distance, it would appear that the schools association may have found itself in the middle of the age-old marketing tussle between the universally famous brands, Coca-Cola and Pepsi.
We can only speculate, but would not be surprised, were we to discover that ISSA struggled with how to balance the advantages that would accrue from additional sponsorship money against perceived issues of ethics and loyalty.
In professional or semi-professional sport, the matter would have been fairly straightforward: To the highest and best bidder in monetary and material terms, would go the spoils. But of course we are not here dealing with clubs or adults. Schools sport, lest we forget, should not be about money, but should be an essential part of the drive to provide a rounded education for our young people.
Such is the huge mass appeal of schoolboy football - the basic fact that it should be all about students at school often gets lost.
High moral standards must be maintained. Honour and integrity must not only be paramount in any arrangement involving sponsorship and marketing; those features must also be manifestly evident to all others, not least students - for whom principals and teachers must be exemplary.
Hence, Pepsi's loyalty to ISSA over the last 20 years - presumably through thick and thin - may well have been a pivotal consideration as the high school elders pondered their options.
Then again, schools sports competitions are notoriously expensive and organisers such as ISSA need all the support they can get. We note that yesterday's news story speaks of an offer by Coca-Cola's local distributors, Wisynco, to underwrite a field development programme and a nutritional programme - presumably in alliance with the Coca-Cola sponsorship offer. This newspaper has, in the past, found reason to comment on the poor condition of most fields on which our teenage and younger footballers hone their craft. And we are also aware that under nutrition - fuelled by depressed economic circumstances - is a major problem for a great many of our young sportsmen.
ISSA may well feel it is under no obligation to go public on this issue. But we believe it would be better for all concerned should it seek to clear the air, if only in general, non-specific terms.
Comment