If adidas ends its funding of the athletics governing body, it "would not just be a reaction to doping but also a sign of a shift towards spending on individual sports stars and teams who can promote brands directly to fans via social media," according to Emma Thomasson of REUTERS. Such a move would "fit in with a trend" toward sponsors like adidas feeling "less bound" to sports governing bodies as the ultimate gatekeepers to fans. The rise of social media has meant marketing budgets have "moved away" from TV and toward online advertising, with top sports stars now able to "directly promote their chosen brands to millions of fans who follow their feeds." Sports agency Generate co-Founder Rupert Pratt said, "The advent of digital means there is less need for the event platforms. Fans don't interact with the governing bodies. They engage with the sport, the teams and the individuals." Under former CEO Horst Dassler, adidas "practically invented the idea of long-term deals with sporting federations like FIFA and the Olympics to get its logo onto the field." Although adidas has been the official kit provider to the last three Summer Olympics, it "decided against sponsoring the 2016 Rio Games, saying it had already done a lot to boost the brand in Brazil at the 2014 World Cup and will still use the Games as a platform to launch new products." As part of its targeted strategy, adidas is "fiercely defending its leading position" in football and focusing on the biggest teams. It agreed to pay $1.1B to replace Nike as sponsor of ManU for a decade. It has also taken over from its U.S. rival at Italian champions Juventus, while "extending its contract with Germany's No. 1 team Bayern Munich." And the company has "no intention" of ditching FIFA given the appeal of the World Cup. But it does plan to "lower the share of its marketing budget that goes on sports deals" to below 45% in '20 from about half now (REUTERS, 1/27).
