News

Mining billionaire Gina Rinehart’s dramatic decision on the weekend to pull out of her $15m sponsorship of netball – following public stands taken by the national netball team about her – has already led to some of the major sponsors of sport in Australia to re-evaluate their involvement, Diary has learnt.

Comments sections of newspapers around the country quickly lit up with overwhelming support among readers for the mining billionaire’s walkout, after the story was first broken online by Sky News host and Courier Mail columnist Peter Gleeson around midday on Saturday.

And it’s fair to say that key sponsors of sport were taking note of the deluge of comments strongly in favour of Rinehart, and scathing of the decision of the likes of the netballers and Australian cricket captain Pat Cummins in recent weeks to, in the readers’ own words, ‘bite the hand that feeds them’.

Rinehart herself took aim at netball’s ‘virtue signalling’ in a statement released on Saturday. Even betting agencies, long considered the go-to lifeline for sport sponsorship, were shaking their heads at the sudden outbreak of player power, and taking the opportunity to think long and hard about their involvement.

As one betting company executive told Diary on Sunday: “Where the players have to pull their heads in is the reality that there are only so many serious sponsorships available. Wagering companies have huge money. But if you have got players who say, ‘We don’t want wagering and gaming, we don’t want alcohol, and we don’t want energy companies’ … well, there’s not much left after that.”

One of the country’s top sponsorship experts, Paul Kind, the former commercial chief of the NRL – who works with several multimillion-dollar sporting partnerships – believes the outspoken views of the sports stars would make corporates think twice before committing in future, because of the assumption of positive publicity for their investment.

“The positive intent of Gina Rinehart’s decision to invest in a sport that was financially struggling was being undermined by the public discussion,” Kind has told Diary.

“It only takes a single player of influence to make a stand – and then, in conservative sports like cricket or netball, it becomes almost untenable. In investing in sports, companies are looking for community goodwill as a result of their investment in the sport. If they don’t get that, it’s not surprising they walk away.”

The betting company executive said that outside of gambling, alcohol and energy, sponsorship pickings were slim for sports.

“If they’re lucky, a bank or a telecommunications company could get involved. That’s basically it,” he says. “The car industry is pretty much dead. Toyota and Kia are pretty much the only ones that sponsor things these days. It’s a very shallow pool. Players have to accept that.”

A second wagering executive admitted the rise of player power had triggered nervousness about investing in sports like netball: “It’s clearly becoming hard to justify spending any money on sponsoring elite sports, because of the risk of player influence on social and political issues.”

“Athletes are becoming bolshie and empowered enough to put their stamp on things they feel strongly about,” Kind says. “It used to be ‘team first, athlete second’. But the athletes themselves now feel they are more influential with the fan.”

Kind understands better than most the rise of player power in sport from the other side, as he is also the co-owner of Australia’s current NBL basketball champion team, the Sydney Kings.

Kind notes that in the US, in particular, NBA basketball players like LeBron James are leading the revolution that has seen the rapid rise of ‘player power’.

But he notes that even the NRL’s ‘Pride Jersey’ crisis at the Manly Sea Eagles this year showed the impact that player power could have on the business side of sports clubs and codes.

“The rise of the individual player is a can of worms for sport,” Kind tells Diary.

“If you scratch the surface, lots of sponsors might have activities of some description that players and others object to.

“They might make products in factories in China, or have questionable environmental policies. Sponsorship is not like taking out an outdoor billboard, because humans are involved.”