How far is too far when it comes to sponsorship obligations? If you ask Olympic Park workers at the London 2012 Olympic Games they will certainly tell you that for this year's Olympic Games some fast food sponsors have gone too far. Allow us to explain.
On July 11, prior to the Opening Ceremonies workers at Olympic Park decided to visit a local fish n' chip shop. Certain workers who ordered chips without fish were told they were unable to do so due to "corporate sponsorship obligations" with the double-decker, larger-than-life, neighboring McDonalds.
McDonalds had apparently purchased the rights to being the exclusive chip (french-fry) provider at the 2012 Olympic Games, thereby making the sale of any other chips by themselves...illegal? or in breach of..something?
We're not sure what would encourage the local fish n' chippies to agree to such ridiculous restraints, but I suppose in the fervent spirit of camaraderie they were obliged to do so.
The controversy surrounding "Chip-Gate," as it is affectionately being called, has caused the world to question the ethics of fast-food sponsorships at the Olympics to begin with. After all, Olympic athletes are not on a strict diet of grease, sugar, carbs and fat, therefore why should they be seen promoting such a diet?
Popular sponsors such as McDonalds and Coca-Cola who have been heavily involved in the Olympic games since 1976 have argued that they are increasing their healthy menu options as a way to combat the growing trend in obesity.
We ask you, fellow Yumologists, do you think it's ethical for our Olympians to promote foods they themselves have removed from their diets?