this^
i couldn't give a fuck which corporation is allowed or not allowed. the idea that pepsico (annual net revenues of $43.3 billion.) is some kind of plucky underdog is risible.
(
tickle I was away, Tue 24 Jul 2012, 16:59,
Reply)
Completely agree
But it's not the sponsors' rivals that I care about...it's the fact that the Games, which are supposed to be about the noblest of human endeavours* have been subsumed under a weight of corporatism and money where the performances are almost incidental. Of course, the Games need sponsors - nowt wrong with that.
But the humourless and heavy-handed approach to enforcing exclusivity, where LOCOG's Branding Gestapo sits ready to pounce on any small London business that so much as acknowledges / celebrates / references the Games...I find that offensive and crass TBH.
Even the person who brought sponsorship to the Games in the first place (surprisingly recently - 1980s) says that LOCOG has gone too far: www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/father-of-olympic-branding-my-rules-are-being-abused-7962593.html
* does this make me sound like a cunt?
(
Mr Mann I love pigs, best of all the animals, Tue 24 Jul 2012, 17:21,
Reply)
