Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons^™

International Olympic Committee Rule 40: Reasonable Protection For The Ioc Or Unfair Restriction To The Athletes?, Jeri L. Jones

Atlantic Marketing Journal

This paper explores the history, legality and ethical perspectives of the International Olympic Committee Rule #40 that was put into effect starting with the 2016 Olympic Games. Rule 40 was established to protect official Olympic sponsors from marketing campaign dilution and ambush marketing attempts from non-official brand sponsors. It was designed to prevent over-commercialization of the Olympic brand and to protect official Olympic sponsors’ substantial investment for exclusive marketing rights during the Games. It also however effectively prevents athletes from recognizing their own individual company sponsors and goes so far as to limit an athlete’s apparel during the Games, their …

International Olympic Committee -- Rule 40: Who Does It Protect Versus Who Should It Protect?, Jeri L. Jones

Atlantic Marketing Association Proceedings

No abstract provided.

#Readyforrio: How A Revised Rule 40 Impacted Sponsorship At The 2016 Summer Olympics, Anthony Carson

Senior Theses

When planning and executing the Olympic Games, a premier event in modern sport, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) relies heavily on sponsorship revenue from their official sponsors. “Worldwide Olympic Partners,” the top 11 sponsors of the 2016 Olympics, had exclusive rights during the Olympic cycle from 2013-2016.

With the purchase of these expensive sponsorship deals, brands are looking to capitalize on the “glow” of the Olympics, and use excusive Olympic intellectual property to make ties from their brand to the Games. In order to make these sponsorship deals more valuable, the IOC has historically provided official partners with added exclusivity …