THE past few weeks have seen the rise of critical debate on the relationship between morality and corporate hegemony, mainly in sport. Part of this debate has questioned the power wielded by big companies through their corporate responsibility over morals and values of individual athletes.

The documented history of sports dates back to least 3 000 years.

It is believed that early sport activities were used to prepare soldiers for war, which is why most of the early games involved the throwing of spears, stakes and rocks and sparring one-on-one with opponents.

It later evolved to include other sports such as foot and chariot races, wrestling, swimming, jumping, discus and javelin throwing and several other disciplines that exist today. Games were free from corporate pressure.

The evolution and development of sport was largely aided by advertising and corporate sponsorship which has made some sport disciplines among the richest in the world with some of the athletes ranking among the wealthiest people today.

It was only in the mid-1800s that the first athletic event requiring paid admission was held, marking the beginning of sport-forprofit.

In 1928, a giant beverage company entered the fray to sponsor the Olympics, thus opening the way for major and mega sponsorship deals and the rest is history.

Corporate sponsorship has not only funded earnings for athletes, but, most importantly research, technology and development and knock-on effects on the media and other peripheral business interests.

By 2020, global sports sponsorship was estimated at US$50 billion.

That huge sponsorship bill comes with the colossal burden of ensuring a tight balance between meeting corporate interests and the power they wield against safeguarding morals and the rules of the games.

Over the decades, there has been some muttering over corporate hegemony in sports, but these are often suppressed by the sports bosses who view any form

of complaint or resistance as a threat to corporate sponsorship. That silence has gradually transformed athletes into corporate commodities with limited rights or whose rights have been traded for the high income they earn. They have been made more of objects of performance than human beings.

Recently the Japanese Naomi Osaka, the world’s number two tennis player, reopened this can of worms by expressing her discomfort over addressing postmatch Press conferences due to what she described as mental health issues.

In a normal situation this would be an appropriate request as individual safety comes first before anything else.

But the organisers of the French Open could not have any of that citing player obligation to address the media. Osaka chose to withdraw from the tournament.

The question now is whether this was a genuine obligation or corporate pressure.

Pre and post-match Press conferences are part of major corporate visibility events, so refusing to address journalists is denying corporates a branded opportunity.

This put the organisers in an awkward situation where they may be asked to return part of the sponsorship money. While there are other options such as asking the coaches or trainers to address the media in place of players as in other sport disciplines, the organisers chose the hardline of reprimanding the player. Osaka withdrew from both the French Open and Wimbledon tournaments.

With the Uefa Football Championship underway, we are seeing similar scenes unfolding with big players reminding corporates the importance of respecting morals and values.

Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal and Paul Pogba of France were seen on global television removing Coca-Cola and Heineken bottles, respectively during separate Euro 2020 Press conferences.

More events of this nature are likely to occur, but these two were at some point most expensive football players in the world and their voices matter.

Ronaldo raised an obvious health concern that water is healthier than Coca-Cola. While for Pogba, he reminded the sponsors of the importance of respecting his religion over profit. They removed bottles and not the branding, which is fair, in my view.

Just like at the French Open tennis tournament, the football players’ gestures were met with the same level of arrogance.

The Euro 2020 tournament director Martin Kallen told the world that Uefa had communicated with the teams regarding the removal of bottles at Press conferences.

“It is important because the revenues of the sponsors are important for the tournament and for European football,” Kallen said in a media briefing.

It is clear that the tournament organisers’ priority is money which is why they find it easy to sacrifice players instead of listening to their voices and create dialogue with the sponsors.

What if players refuse to attend Press conferences if bottles that do not comply to their values are not removed? Are we going to witness another Osaka situation?

The debate should not be limited to and by money, but informed by concerns raised by athletes. Focusing on money alone will kill the sport and suppress talent and will infringe on athletes’ rights to express themselves and to be treated like human beings first.

There is a well-documented symbiotic relationship between corporate sponsors and sports. They need each other for survival. Instead of oppressing the voice of the athlete, it is healthy and critical for dialogue to take place between sport organisations, the sponsors and the athletes.