How a costly Olympics blackout for sponsors hamstrings Australian teams in their biggest moment

“For the first time in my 14 year career I was presented with my playing jersey lacking a major front-of-shirt sponsor.”

It’s an all-too familiar lament in sport’s crowded commercial market.

Hockey Australia CEO David Pryles confirmed to CODE Sports this week that the governing body is still seeking a long-term shirt sponsor for its men’s team after Fortescue’s 10-year association ended; though an existing sponsor has taken up a short-term shirt deal for the Indian leg of the FIH Pro League, played through February.

“It is a tough market and it’s getting tougher,” Pryles says.

“We’ve increased our commercial revenue by a considerable amount over the last two years but we need to replace the big one (Fortescue).”

In theory, 2024 being an Olympic year should make this type of sponsorship an easier sell. Yet in fact, an additional obstacle affects all Olympic sports during their peak interest period.

The suffocating set of commercial rules set by the International Olympic Committee makes it even harder to attract commercial dollars that are typically gobbled up by the AFL, NRL and Cricket.

“The pressure sports are under is that we can’t commercialise in and around the Olympics,” Pryles says.

“So our sponsors don’t get leverage and we understand that, because the Olympic bodies need to make their money as well. But it is very difficult for a sport like hockey.”

The main sticking point for sports is ‘Rule 40’ in the IOC charter. It’s best known for limiting an individual athlete’s ability to leverage their personal sponsorships, but it’s also having a major impact on the commercial ability of Australian national sporting organisations.

While the rule is awash with legalese, in layperson’s terms it dictates that any sport’s commercial partners are blacked out for a six-week window before, during and after the Games, to protect Olympic sponsors. A similar rule applies for the Commonwealth Games.

“We can share IOC content but we can’t reference Olympics, nor our partners reference the Olympics for those six weeks,” Pryles explains.

“We can’t be seen to be commercialising the fact that our teams are in the Olympics.”

A major sponsor may put its money into a sport for every year of the Olympic cycle, yet cannot post on social media any reference to the team or its success during the Games without backlash from the IOC. Not even a simple ‘Go Kookaburras’.

Similarly, the sport itself cannot even say a public thanks to a sponsor during the Olympic blackout period.

It’s a self-defeating cycle for the likes of Pryles and his peers across Olympic sports.

“We’re fortunate we’ve got two of the most iconic national teams in the country in the Kookaburras and the Hockeyroos.

“You’re trying to commercialise them but we know our ‘grand final’ - when everyone watches - is during the Olympics, and to a lesser extent the Commonwealth Games.”

A group of CEOs from other sports have previously floated the idea that a revenue share model of the AOC’s commercial deals among Olympic sports might achieve a happy medium; fitting within IOC rules while allowing sports to collectively work for greater sponsorship revenue. Sports would see a return for their work, similar to how some countries divide up media rights revenue.

However, agreement on the philosophy of the model has prevented it from progressing beyond a thought bubble.

For now, Olympic sports are still operating with a metaphorical hand tied behind their backs when trying to sign commercial deals. Cuts to government funding have exacerbated the issue.

In hockey’s case, Pryles says a seven-figure sum from sponsorship has to move directly into high performance to replace that funding.

“This is not to pay administration wages, it’s to invest directly in the performances of our mens and womens teams.”

More Coverage

Career Crossroads: How Wiz revived Kookaburras Paris dream

Michael Randall

The ability to perform at the Olympics relies on that commercial investment. And while sports like hockey are, in effect, in competition with the Australian Olympic Committee for sponsors, Pryles stresses that his issues are with the IOC rules and not the Australian body.

“There’s the AOC over one side, the CGA over another, and then there’s all us sports trying to fight for the same dollar. It’s a hard slog.”

“But we have a strong working relationship with the AOC and understand they too require funds to send our athletes to the Olympics.”