Nanny state misguided on alcohol sponsorship

Only the really naive would think that drinks companies sponsor sporting events or, indeed, anything else on the basis of the goodness of their hearts. Were they to do so on that basis they just might have some seriously aggrieved shareholders on their case.

Drinks companies, just like any other company, only spend money on promotional activity, including advertising, if there is clearly seen to be a return on that money that is far greater than the money expended.

It is simple and stands to reason. It is an investment with the hope of gaining something.

When we mere mortals “invest” money in anything, we do it with the objective of gaining something. By having the company sponsor a major event, they are associated with that event and hope to get some loyalty in return. On the big event days they also may insist that only their products are sold.

Over recent months the Government has been advocating an end to alcohol manufacturers and distributors from sponsoring sporting events. Unfortunately, they have not quite got around to a determination of where the replacement money will come from. The suggestions that have been made are non-runners.

The Government argument is that such sponsorship glorifies the products concerned, makes them appear sexy, and encourages young minds and mouths into imbibing them. There is no proof that this is the case. It is just conjecture but it fits in with the demands of our increasingly nanny state.

In fact, having been involved many times over the years in the organisation of events where drinks companies have been major sponsors — even to the extent of providing free drink — I sometimes wonder how these companies actually determine the return on their investment. The only reason I can see in most such smaller, local events is the maintenance of community relations and in the hope of getting some goodwill.

The events sponsored by drinks companies are in their legion, supporting virtually all sports and many community activities. Such events, and particularly large scale ones such as rugby’s Heineken Cup, don’t come cheap — and they would not happen without such sponsorship.

We have long been vociferous in encouraging young and not so young to take up sport and be involved. That requires money and the Government simply does not have it without taking it out of our pockets.

An argument has been made that a levy could be placed on drinks companies to go towards sponsoring sports. That has several problems. It would mean drinks companies are still sponsoring sports but just have no say in how the money was spent. It presupposes that the money would be ringfenced. Now when has the Government ever done that? It would just be another form of taxation.

The second problem is that drinks companies would simply up the price to compensate for the levy and the existing promotional budget would find other homes. The third problem is that companies would get none of the kudos. Politicians would claim that benefit as they now do with lottery funds.

The Vintners Federation has suggested that a levy be put on off-license sales and used for sponsorship. They have been looking for this for a long time to counter growing sales through off-licenses and the multiples. That would also be another increase in taxation.

Nibbling around the edges of what ails us is not going to solve our economic problems. The Government needs to get its proverbial finger out and deal with the real problems. It might well start on updating and backdating laws that can put the white collar crooked and corrupt away. Those are the folk, from the private, public, and political sectors, who have beggared us and made us beholden to all and sundry.