Professional sport and major international sports events generate a lot of interest from spectators. Business enterprises endeavour to use this interest for marketing. Some businesses spend hundreds of millions of rand to become involved with major sporting events as official sponsors. Other enterprises turn to alternative modes of marketing to benefit from sporting events without spending a fortune on sponsorship. This gives rise to ambush marketing, where a business which is not an official sponsor, aims to create the impression that it has a connection with the sports federation concerned. Not all marketing practices during a major sports event are unlawful. A distinction must be made between ambush marketing, which is unlawful, and parallel marketing, which is lawful. The distinction is vague and it is not always certain exactly where the line should be drawn. The result is that marketers often push the boundaries in this regard. Consequently there is tension between sports federations who, together with their sponsors, demand strict regulation of ambush marketing and marketers who insist on free competition. While more and more countries are passing legislation to combat ambush marketing, the question is whether regulation can indeed be justified and, if so, to what extent regulation is required. Some may argue that special legislative measures to deal with ambush marketing are unnecessary and that such measures do not hold any major benefits for sport. They question whether there is any legitimate interest worthy of protection. It is also argued that regulation of ambush marketing holds no broader economic advantage and that it is anti-competitive to protect only major sports federations and multinational companies. Furthermore, it may be far too difficult to determine exactly where the line should be drawn. In any event, it is argued that current law provides adequate protection and in so far as current law does not provide protection, it may indicate that no protection is required.
Professionele sport en groot internasionale sportbyeenkomste wek baie belangstelling by toeskouers. Ondernemings poog om hierdie belangstelling te benut vir reklame-doeleindes. Sommige ondernemings bestee honderde miljoene rande om as amptelike borge by groot sportbyeenkomste betrokke te raak. Ander ondernemings wend hulle tot alternatiewe bemarkingsmetodes sodat hulle die voordeel uit die sportbyeenkoms kan put sonder om enorme bedrae geld aan borgskappe te bestee. Dit gee aanleiding tot sluikreklame, waar ’n onderneming wat nie ’n amptelike borg is nie, die indruk probeer wek dat daar wel ’n verbintenis met die betrokke sportfederasie bestaan. Nie alle reklame tydens ’n groot sportbyeenkoms is egter onregmatig nie en ’n onderskeid moet getref word tussen sluikreklame, wat onregmatig is, en samelopende reklame, wat regmatig is. Daar is gevolglik spanning tussen sportfederasies wat, tesame met hulle borge, streng regulering van sluikreklame vereis en bemarkers wat op vrye mededinging aanspraak maak. Terwyl al hoe meer lande wetgewing uitvaardig om sluikreklame te bekamp, is die vraag of regulering inderdaad regverdigbaar is en indien wel, in watter mate regulering vereis word. Sluikreklame skend die regte op werfkrag, reputasie en identiteit van ’n sportfederasie. Sluikreklame is oneties en hou nadele vir sportfederasies en amptelike borge in. Dit hou ook breër ekonomiese nadele in. Hierdie nadele moet opgeweeg word teen die reg om vrylik aan ekonomiese aktiviteite deel te neem. Daar bestaan dus ’n behoefte om sluikreklame te bekamp sonder om regmatige bemarking aan bande te lê.
