Sponsorship row could leave athletes barefoot on podium

[divingbrit]

World champion Mark Cavendish may be one of the many British athletes who would have to remove their shoes if they win a medal at the London Olympics.

Some of Britain's leading athletes, including Mark Cavendish and Mo Farah, may collect any London 2012 Olympic medals in bare feet to avoid contractual issues with personal sponsors following a row with the British Olympic Association (BOA) over marketing rights.

Leading agents of top-line competitors sponsored by footwear giant Nike have told the BOA that their athletes would be in breach of contracts if they are forced to wear Team GB's official "presentation outfit" which is sponsored by rival adidas.

The competitors' representatives have warned the BOA that athletes might take off their shoes before walking out to the presentation dais. "There will be chaos if this rule is enforced," said one agent. "They [the athletes] are quite happy to wear adidas tracksuits, but their footwear is almost part of them, it is wrong to tell them they have to change their shoes."

However the BOA said not only was adidas sponsoring the team, but the rule that athletes had to wear the company's footwear at all times during the Olympic Games, including on the podium, would be strictly enforced.

The only exception is that competitors can wear any brand of footwear during competition because it is classed as technical equipment.

The world's fastest man, Usain Bolt, famously highlighted his Puma shoes after breaking world records (100 metres, 200m and 4x100m relay) at the Beijing Olympics in 2008.

"We absolutely intend to uphold this provision [of wearing Adidas on the podium]. It's in the agreement for a reason," BOA spokesman Darryl Seibel said.

Cavendish, tipped to win Team GB's first medal of the Games on day one in the men's road cycling race, may find himself as the first high-profile Nike-sponsored athlete torn between loyalty to a long-time supporter and having to wear rival footwear.

Other Nike athletes include world champion Farah, Dai Greene, Kelly Sotherton, Paula Radcliffe and Perri Shakes-Drayton.

Another athletes' agent said the high profile nature of a home Games had meant enforcing the clause was becoming onerous and would distract athletes from their competitions.

"This is the wrong time to be coming up with all of these types of obligations," the agent said.

The BOA said it had the legal right, under the Olympic charter, to prescribe and determine the clothing and uniforms to be worn, and the equipment to be used, by the members of its delegation.

Seibel said the BOA and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games had entered into exclusive agreements for the provision of team clothing and athletes must therefore abide by the rules set out in those agreements.

Athletes have to sign a hefty BOA athlete team agreement which specifies "you agree to wear and use Team Kit as supplied by or agreed in writing by the BOA or the BOA's official suppliers: at all times during the Games period when you are in or at an Olympic Venue".

In the accompanying notes it details that 'team kit' includes footwear and 'in or at an Olympic Venue' means on the podium.

Seibel said: "It is a standard part of the team members agreement and has, in fact, been in place for at least the last two Olympic Games dating back to 2004. It's not new. Other National Olympic Committees have a similar requirement."

An agent insisted, however, that at previous Games there had been a "gentlemen's agreement" between the footwear companies not to make an issue of it. However adidas-sponsored athlete Tyson Gay wore the shoes of Nike, which was sponsoring the US Olympic team during the Beijing Olympics.

A spokesman for adidas said the issue was one for the BOA and its athletes and claimed to be unaware of the team agreement clauses.


Jacquelin Magnay
The Telegraph, London

[richard]

Ouch, that could be painful, and possibly in breach of health and safety regulations. But if LOCOG management insist that all none sponsored shoes or trainers are removed due to corporate deals, then I am afraid they may well suffer the wrath of these regulations, which, if I'm not mistaken, hold management 'solely' responsible and personally liable for any injuries caused - sorry couldn't resist

Have LOCOG carried out a full risk assessment for athletes walking around in bare feet in order to conform with lucrative sponsorship deals?

Will LOCOG risk damaging expensive athletic feet in their quest for loads of money, or will they get cold feet?