A take-off that was bumpy

The decision by Dynamos’ principal sponsors, BancABC, to enforce their right to have their logo displayed on the front of the Glamour Boys’ jerseys in all competitions, torched an ugly chain of events yesterday.
NetOne, the sponsors of the Charity Shield, had already ordered a branded kit for the two clubs that featured the company’s logo on the front of the players’ jerseys. For BancABC there were only two options — either Dynamos used a kit that featured their logo on the front of their jerseys or they were out of their deal with the Glamour Boys.
Chances, too, were high that BancABC were also going to cut all links with domestic football with their decision to pull out also affecting Highlanders and Black Mambas where the bank is the major sponsor.
The 2012 BancABC Sup8r Cup was also set to be affected. Dynamos were not ready to sacrifice a sponsor, BancABC, who pays all the salaries for their playing and technical staff, and will also foot their Champions League campaign with their travel arrangements to Mozambique this week already having been taken care of by the bank. For the Glamour Boys, there were only two options — either they played with a kit that did not violate their flagship sponsors’ interests or they would not feature in the NetOne Charity Shield final at all.
A flurry of meetings were then held to try and break the impasse yesterday and, at around midday, with no breakthrough in sight, all that remained was an announcement by the league’s chiefs that the game had been cancelled. Eventually, a deal was then struck for Dynamos to use their BancABC branded kit, which saved the day for the fans. Alternatively, Dynamos could have used their BancABC branded kit but with a NetOne logo stitched elsewhere on the shirt.
Admittedly, it’s a tradition that runs deep in Zimbabwe football where sponsors of knockout tournaments usually provide branded kits for the two finalists, featuring the company’s logo on the front of the jerseys.
BancABC, in the old days when they used to only sponsor the BancABC Sup8r Cup without any sponsorship links to any of the local clubs, also used to provide such branded kit for the final of their knockout tourney. And the finalists used to wear that kit irrespective of other kit sponsorship deals they had with other sponsors. But that tradition is wrong and, for all the negative headlines that will come out of yesterday’s events and the possible consequences, the refreshing thing is that the right thing was done in the end.
It had to start somewhere, this enforcement of sponsors’ rights, and what is regrettable is that someone, somewhere, waited for the eve of such a big game to raise his or her case. That Dynamos and Motor Action would be playing in the 2012 NetOne Charity Shield was known the day the Glamour Boys added the Mbada Diamonds Cup to their league title last year.
That was November 27 2010.
There was four months for parties to engage themselves about that match, the sponsors’ rights, the advertising around it, who would get what and who would not get what. If we can’t organise ourselves, for four months, to ensure that we get it right in a one-off match, then something is terribly wrong with us.
Analysts will inevitably question why BancABC did not raise the dust when Dynamos featured in the Mbada Diamonds Cup final wearing a kit that had the tournament’s sponsors’ name on the front of their jerseys. If BancABC were comfortable with Dynamos featuring in that match, which was a bigger event than yesterday’s tie and was broadcast live on SuperSport, why then have they suddenly gone militant for a season-opening game?
These are certainly tough questions and only BancABC officials can answer them. But two wrong things do not make a right and what is right is that BancABC, as the principal sponsors for Dynamos, have a right to have their name displayed on the front of the jerseys used by the Glamour Boys in any competitive match.
By holding the NetOne Charity Shield at ransom yesterday, with their last-minute demands, the BancABC officials might not have certainly done things the corporate way. But that doesn’t camouflage the fact that their enforcement of their rights, when it comes to the Dynamos shirt, was right. It’s the norm everywhere in the world. The flagship sponsors become a part of the identity of the club and that is their names or logos are displayed proudly at the front of the team’s jerseys.
That is also the reason why these sponsors pay the biggest sums of investment, into these clubs, when compared to any other sponsor. One Aon commits itself to becoming the Manchester United flagship sponsor, they become part of the identity of the club’s shirts. So, irrespective of what competition Manchester United is playing, they will always play it with a shirt that has the Aon name, on the front, at all times as long as their deal continues to run.
When United plays in the Carling Cup, the logo of the tournament’s sponsors will be stitched onto the sleeve of the jersey and NEVER on the front part of the shirt. When United plays in the Champions League, the logo of the tournament is stitched onto the sleeve of their shirt and NEVER on the front part of the jersey because that part belongs to Aon.
It’s the same with the FA Cup. A club like Barcelona can have two big sponsors but, as we have seen lately, the Qatar Foundation have taken over the front part of the club’s jersey with Unicef now relegated to the back of the jerseys. But once Barca commits themselves to a deal with Qatar Foundation, as their shirt sponsor, they become a part of the identity of the club and you will never see a Barcelona game with players using a jersey, no matter whatever competition, that does not have Qatar Foundation on its front part. Closer to home, it’s a FACT that Kaizer Chiefs and Orlando Pirates’ jerseys will always have Vodacom on the front part of the shirts, as long as the company remains the principal sponsor of the two giants, and irrespective of which competition they are playing in.
There are more knockout tournaments, with bigger financial rewards, in South Africa than here in Zimbabwe. But when Kaizer Chiefs starts their journey in the Nedbank Cup, with a chance to win R8 million, they will never compromise the rights of Vodacom, to have the front part of their jerseys, simply because they are playing in this rich tournament.
The Nedbank logo will be stitched somewhere on the Kaizer Chiefs or Pirates’ jersey but never on the front part of the jersey. BancABC certainly had a right to finally demand their cake and while it was a rough ride, something that normally happens in local football, they can’t be accused of sabotage. The timing might have been wrong and, here, probably, BancABC are culpable. But this is the same company that offered the league the opportunity to stage an indaba, where such issues related to sponsors’ rights would have been tackled, and that meeting, somehow, didn’t materialise.
BancABC were there for domestic football, when the severest winter struck, and they were the last sponsor standing when everyone else watched from the sidelines. The landscape has certainly changed and there are more sponsors in the league today.
But this issue about sponsors’ rights being respected had to start somewhere in local football and while the events yesterday were regrettable, it was a turning point. Eventually, what matters is that the right thing was done.