|The FIFA 2018 map. Hmm, wonders Merpel, just how did Kaliningrad manage to get into Russia ...?|
This Kat just wants to raise one small issue related to the exploitation of intellectual property rights.
The Russian Federation is hosting the FIFA-administered football World Cup in 2018. The World Cup is an event which is expensive to host, and it attracts a large volume of income in the form of, among other things, sponsorship by leading brands which seek, through the resultant ideally positive publicity, to recoup their expenditure and indeed make substantial profits through raising brand awareness, encouraging consumer loyalty and increasing the volume of sales of products manufactured or licensed by them.
Some sponsors have already committed themselves to sponsoring the World Cup in 2018, and in some cases beyond. A tie-in with sportswear and leisurewear brand adidas is set to run till 2030, while a deal with brewers InBev (encompassing some 200 beer brands including Stella Artois, Brahma, Beck's, Corona, Budweiser and Leffe) is set to run till 2022. Russian energy giant Gazprom is also signed up to sponsor the 2018 event.
It is this Kat's fervent wish that, by the time the 2018 World Cup comes around, the current crisis will have been resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned, and that Ukrainians and Russians of all types and in all localities will be able to sleep sweetly at night and enjoy the football by day. However, there is a substantial chance that this will not happen and this Kat wonders (i) whether long-term sponsors have protected themselves through a get-out clause if either the event or the location prove toxic for branding terms, and (ii) how popular non-Russian brands like adidas and the InBev beers will promote themselves and their image in a scenario in which, for example, some countries choose to boycott the event in its entirety or where public opinion against the host nation runs high.
Can any readers supply the missing information or offer some practical suggestions?