Getty Images
Meister Eckhart once said that “the price of inaction is far greater than the cost of making a mistake.”
The commercial case for sport has never been stronger, and yet legacy brands are increasingly choosing not to act on it. The data is unambiguous: sport outperforms traditional advertising in reach, emotional resonance and fan receptiveness to aligned sponsors. The conversation has shifted from should we be in sport to how do we show up better and more effectively than our competitors.
Indecision is the thief of opportunity
First-hand experience illustrates what transpires when fruitful partnership opportunities go unseized. The larger issue, catalysed by the globalisation of sport, is that large incumbent brands historically synonymous with sport are becoming complacent when it comes to taking decisive action.
The reasons are familiar: price sensitivity, timing, opportunity cost, too many decision-makers in the room, corporate and geographical politics. In isolation, each sounds legitimate, but look closely and you will find that these are not genuine constraints but symptoms of brands that have lost internal conviction about sport as a platform. The decision-making friction exists, in most cases, because no one inside the building believes enough to fight for it. The process is not broken, rather the belief is.
And that distinction matters, because a wrong choice provides feedback and allows for course correction, whilst inaction provides nothing.
While incumbents wait, disruptors strike
Large incumbents reducing spend or pulling back from active partnership ecosystems are slowly ceding category exclusivity in sport. Challenger brands meanwhile, digitally minded, commercially aggressive, unburdened by internal consensus cycles, are moving in, generating share of voice and capturing an audience’s already finite attention.
Disruptor brands are not waiting for the perfect moment but they are creating it. Moreover, their actions are not mysterious. They enter with a clear narrative, activate with urgency, and treat the rights relationship as a live commercial asset rather than a line item to be reviewed annually. They understand what the incumbents have forgotten: that presence in sport is not a media buy, it is a position. And positions, once vacated, do not stay empty for long.
The quiet erosion of relevance
When a brand reduces its presence in the sporting ecosystem, the damage is not immediate. It is insidious.
Salience and mindshare erode and share of voice contracts. The addressable audience, particularly the younger, digitally engaged fan cohort that rights holders are increasingly skewing towards, begins to associate categories with the brands that show up, not the ones that used to. The compounding miscalculation is reducing partnership investment while maintaining activation spend. Activation without the platform is amplification without an audience. The rights fee buys the relationship – the cake. The activation builds the meaning on top of it – the frosting. Strip the former and the latter becomes redundant. Legacy brands find themselves loud in rooms they no longer have a seat in.
What makes this especially corrosive is its invisibility in the short term. No single quarter looks catastrophic. The sponsorship line comes out, the budget gets reallocated, and someone in finance marks it as a saving. The damage only becomes legible eighteen months later when a challenger brand is embedded in the culture of a fanbase your brand used to own.
Related Posts
The rights holder’s complicity
Rights holders have not been entirely innocent bystanders in the creation of this problem. For years, revenues from incumbent partners were reliable and renewals largely automatic, many properties had little incentive to prove return. The hard work of building data storytelling, demonstrable ROI frameworks and commercial architectures designed to reduce partner friction simply did not happen. The relationship was deemed enough.
Now that incumbents are stalling or simply unconvinced, those same rights holders are scrambling to build the commercial infrastructure they should have developed years ago. Progressive properties are already doing exactly this: investing in the data storytelling that proves return, creating flexible commercial structures that de-risk entry, and building genuine white space for each category to own. The results, where that investment has been made, are measurable, however for too many properties the urgency is reactive rather than strategic, a response to commercial pressure rather than a long-held commitment to partner accountability.
For rights holders, the obligation now is clear: build propositions that reduce the friction of decision-making, provide clear category ownership and invest in the kind of commercial storytelling that makes the case internally for a brand partner as much as it does externally. The brands that are being lost to hesitation are not always being lost because the opportunity is not compelling. Sometimes they are being lost because the rights holder has not made it easy enough to say yes.
The path forward: Sport is not a waiting room
The brands that define commercial partnerships over the next decade will not necessarily be those with the deepest pockets. They will be those with the clearest strategic intent, the shortest decision-making chains and the willingness to back their conviction with action.
Belief alone is not sufficient. The deeper question, and one the industry sidesteps with surprising regularity, is whether the people tasked with managing a partnership actually know what to do with it once it has been signed. A rights package is not a trophy, it is a toolkit. Too many brand-side teams treat the awarded rights as an exhaustive menu to be filed rather than a live commercial framework to be activated with precision and intent.
This matters beyond the brand’s own ROI. Rights holders are under increasing pressure to demonstrate partnership effectiveness. The days of a logo on a jersey constituting evidence of value are over. What is increasingly required contractually, is proof that partners are activating meaningfully.
For brands, the calculus is stark. The market share conceded to a disruptor during an internal alignment process does not return cheaply. The fans whose emotional allegiance has shifted to a challenger brand do not simply return when the incumbent eventually shows up. Audiences move on, the cultural associations form, and the window, once closed, requires significantly more capital to reopen than it would have cost to keep it open in the first place.
Sport remains one of the last truly mass-reach, emotionally resonant environments in an increasingly fragmented media landscape. The commercial architecture exists to make meaningful, measurable partnerships work. The data, the audience and the opportunity are all there.
What is not guaranteed is that it will still be available in the same form, at the same price, with the same category access, by the time the committee reaches a decision.
Combining richer content, in-depth data and exclusive community benefits, SportsPro+ is your VIP pass into the global sports industry. Discover more here.