Should advertisers be creating World Cup contingency plans?
“The way ICE is behaving, the politics of kidnapping, threatening Nato, going into Greenland, trade wars, tariffs. All these things would normally stimulate some sort of fierce economic, geopolitical backlash.”
And yet, as Tom Laranjo, CEO of Serviceplan Group UK, told The Media Leader last month amid a tumultuous American news cycle, with the exception of China and Canada, there is an unbroken status quo in doing business with the US. This currently extends to this summer’s FIFA World Cup.
“Everyone else seems to be just kicking in,” he said. “The UK most of all.”
Still, at a post-Davos event held under Chatham House Rule by World Media Group last week, editorial leaders who attended this year’s World Economic Forum noted that European business executives and political leaders have begun contemplating whether and how to “rebalance [away] from America” and reconsider their investments in the world’s largest consumer market.
If the Trump administration continued its threats against Europe, the FIFA World Cup, it was floated, could emerge “as a piece of leverage”.
‘Question this World Cup’
For advertisers, the tournament will no doubt once again offer a substantial reward, albeit with increased risk.
The reward is obvious: the FIFA World Cup is the premier global sporting event this year and is likely to draw a massive audience. Media owners have been preparing coverage for months in hopes of selling against the matches.
“It is one of the biggest sporting events, and it only comes around every four years,” commented media industry analyst Ian Whittaker. “So you would be missing a huge opportunity.” This is particularly true, he noted, as sports offer an increasingly rare way to reach mass live audiences in an era of media fragmentation.
Laranjo indicated that clients have not yet raised concerns about advertising during the FIFA World Cup this year, despite geopolitical unease. Likewise, Whittaker told The Media Leader that he has not heard of any advertiser currently reconsidering their World Cup strategy and that he “would be surprised if any such restrictions did occur”.
But an unstable American political situation could leave advertisers juggling brand safety concerns.
ICE agents, who have been deployed in recent months to terrorise American cities (including through the killings of several US citizens and the detainment of children), are expected to be stationed in and around the Super Bowl this Sunday and are assisting with American security at the Milan Winter Olympic Games, drawing protests and backlash. What if the same occurred at the FIFA World Cup?
The early kick-off: Advertisers need a new game plan for this World Cup
Moreover, European leaders have begun floating the idea that their nations should boycott the tournament, particularly given the Trump administration’s stated desire to annex Greenland and FIFA’s appeasement of Trump’s whims (it awarded him the inaugural “Fifa Peace Prize” in December).
Trump ramped up threats of military intervention to seize the territory last month, but has since appeared to back down in favour of a potential alternative arrangement.
Oke Göttlich, president of Bundesliga club St. Pauli and one of the German federation’s 10 vice presidents, told a local newspaper last month that the “time has come” to “seriously consider and discuss” a German boycott of the tournament.
He later clarified to The Athletic: “We do not know yet how the coming months will unfold. Right now, Germany’s Foreign Office has issued travel advisories for parts of the United States. We are seeing people die on the streets as a result of actions by immigration enforcement — ICE. We do not know yet what will happen with Greenland.
“Against that backdrop, it is responsible and necessary to openly discuss which scenarios are on the table.”
Germany’s football association has subsequently stated that a boycott is “not currently under consideration”. France likewise has said a boycott is not on the table “as it stands”, though some politicians, including senior leftist Eric Coquerel, have called for the US to be stripped of co-hosting alongside Canada and Mexico. In the Netherlands, a petition asking for the Dutch team to boycott has reached 165,000 signatures.
Even Sepp Blatter, FIFA’s controversial president from 1998 to 2015, endorsed a call for fans to “stay away from the USA” and “question this World Cup”.
In-person attendance could indeed be limited. Apart from travel advisories over outbreaks of ICE-related violence, a proposed rule change to the US ESTA visa programme that would require travellers to submit access to their social media posting history is expected to deter travel to the States.
Business-as-usual — for now
It’s not the first time the tournament’s host country has faced protests. The last two FIFA World Cups were held in Russia just years after it had annexed Crimea, and in Qatar amid accusations of human rights abuses.
“Brands did not significantly divest away from the World Cups held in Russia and Qatar,” a senior leader at a UK-based digtial marketing agency noted to The Media Leader. “The audiences will still be watching the tournament regardless of the regime in the host nation.”
While the US political situation may concern individuals working within the ad industry, Whittaker argued that “enough people have enough incentive to make sure the event is a success” in the US market.
Furthermore, making a show of pulling advertising from the tournament could risk the ire of a litigious, retributive US president.
“Corporate profitability and the US economy is so strong, so to pull your advertising effectively means you are coming out with a strong anti-Trump Administration line,” Whittaker explained. “Which is probably not good for business for those companies with a strong US presence.”
However, both he and Laranjo suggested that advertisers with already limited exposure to the US, or otherwise “progressive” brand stances, could plausibly use the FIFA World Cup as a moment of disruption, announcing a boycott “as a brand building campaign in itself”. Any such effort would likely be limited to brands with little to lose from making an enemy of Trump and the US, they couched.
The digital marketing agency leader further divulged that “brands are currently planning for business-as-usual, but are considering creating contingency plans in case anything significant changes”, such as a US invasion of Greenland.
They added that while media strategy might remain unchanged, creative strategy could be adapted to soften any edges. Brands might, for example, consider slightly “dialled down” campaigns that “play more into the global nature of the tournament” rather than America’s co-host status.
“Brands wanting the halo effect might look towards having creative more aligned to football than an American angle.”