Rule 40: It's Not Really That Complicated

Congratulations to all of the athletes that have qualified for the U.S. Olympic Team, especially Kate Grace.  I worked at Yale while Kate was a student there, and I knew she was an exceptional talent.  And now she's an Olympian.

Among the countless congratulations that Grace received was from her sponsor, Oiselle.  Oiselle is a women's apparel company that was founded about five years ago and sponsors a number of elite female distance runners.  Grace is Oiselle's first Olympian, and they're justifiably proud of her.  After the race on Monday night, the company posted its congratulations on Instagram.  However, what seemed like a harmless enough post was directly in violation of the controversial IOC Rule 40.

IOC Rule 40 states that: “Except as permitted by the IOC Executive Board, no competitor, coach, trainer or official who participates in the Olympic Games may allow his person, name, picture or sports performances to be used for advertising purposes during the Olympic Games.”  The rule applies for all athletes from July 27 (nine days before the Opening Ceremony) until August 24 (three days after the Games end), as well as other events as designated by National Olympic Committees.  In the U.S., the Olympic Trials are essentially the only events that qualify (for obvious reasons).

When the USOC informed Oiselle that they had to remove all references to "Rio" or "Olympics," it set off a firestorm.  Grace's boyfriend posted something about it on Facebook and the Oiselle website is currently plastered with passive-aggressive references to the "Big Event in the Southern Hemisphere."  By playing the victim, Oiselle has drawn a tremendous amount of support for its "cause," getting encouragement to stand up to the "bullies" from USA Track & Field and Nike (even though this has nothing to do with either one of them).

Problem is this isn't the first time Oiselle has run afoul of these rules.  Grace was a member of the U.S. team that won a silver medal in the 4x1500 relay at the 2014 World Relays.  Oiselle's founder, instead of being justifiably proud, instead said she was "pissed" because Grace was wearing the Nike Team USA jersey.  So, she proceeded to Photoshop the Oiselle logo over it and post that picture online.  Nike and USA Track & Field (for good reason!) immediately sent a cease and desist letter, forcing her to take the picture down...and promptly head to social media to express her outrage over this.

Well, Nike is the official sponsor of USA Track & Field.  Sure, the length and terms of that agreement are questionable and open to criticism, but that's a discussion for another day.  The bottom line remains that if an athlete makes Team USA, they're going to wear a Nike singlet!  That's not going to change, at least for the forseeable future.

Oiselle isn't alone in this predicament.  The incredibly outspoken Nick Symmonds (you know my feelings about him) made a whole big point last year about not wanting to be "forced" to wear Nike gear at the World Championships.  Nor is this problem limited to the sport of track & field.  (You think every swimmer is sponsored by Speedo, which makes the USA suits?)  Or the United States.  (There are plenty of Jamaicans sponsored by Nike, while the National team wears Puma.)  In Great Britain, in fact, the track & field federation has an apparel contract with Nike, but the British Olympic Committee has an exclusive deal with Adidas, so the British track team will be wearing Adidas uniforms in Rio.

Others have proposed a compromise where athletes could add a second logo (presumably of their individual sponsor) to their singlet.  But I'm not sure that's really the answer, especially since it's more likely than not that you'd have a Nike logo on one side AND an Adidas logo on the other.  Spelling it out that way makes it pretty obvious that such a scenario wouldn't work.  And what about the Nike-sponsored athletes?  Do they have two Nike logos?

For those who don't like that or think it's unfair, try putting the foot on the other shoe.  Imagine if you were the official sponsor and you saw somebody wearing a competitor's logo.  You'd be pretty upset.  If you're paying that much to a national team (especially one as high-profile as the U.S. team) for exclusivity, you'd want to make sure that exclusivity is protected.

In a nutshell, that's the whole purpose of Rule 40.  To prevent ambush marketing.  It's no different in the Olympics than it is in anything else.  Coke is an official sponsor of the NCAA.  If the NCAA Tournament is being played in an arena that serves Pepsi products, they have to use special NCAA cups for the games.  And how many commercials have you seen where the "pro baseball player" is advertising whatever wearing a blank, generic uniform with no logos on it?  That's also why you can only use a Visa to buy anything Olympic-related or why you have to pay an ATM fee anywhere except your own bank.

It also applies to arenas.  Venues often have to be temporarily renamed during an Olympics or other event if naming rights for that venue have been sold.  And that's not just for the Olympics.  It's for the World Cup and a lot of other major international events, most of which have rules against "corporate" titles (sometimes even if they are a sponsor).  Yet nobody questions any of that.

Now, I'm not here to say whether I think Rule 40 is right or wrong.  But, if you think about it, it's really not that complicated.  And the rationale for it does make sense.  It's a measure to protect the organizations that spend millions to call themselves "official" sponsors.  That's true of any major event with millions of sponsorship dollars involved.  Whether or not their competitors think that's "fair" is irrelevant.  That's business.

Olympic athletes were pretty vocal in their opposition to Rule 40 four years ago, and I'd imagine it'll be the same case this year.  But, like it or not, these are the rules that everybody has to play by right now.