Sports branding: adidas and the “legitimate ambush”

The following train of thought may expose me as a conspiracy theorist and a crackpot. Or, more likely, as a particularly boring individual who watches too much sport, as it's also on possibly the most ridiculously niche topic I've ever bothered to tackle. But still, I’m sure I’m onto something (as are all conspiracy theorists, of course).

Anyway, in the strictly controlled world of sports marketing, it’s natural that brands take ownership of any possible foothold. By looking at adidas, I think we can see a move towards colour-ownership branding that other manufacturers may try to emulate.

Though the most obvious examples of “alternative branding” in the sports arena are those of ambush marketing – the orange clad Bavaria ladies at the 2010 FIFA World Cup being the highest profile –more subtle and legitimate practises are coming to the fore.

The green and pleasant land, evoked via the England team's armpits.

At the 2010 T20 World Cup in the Caribbean, which England eventually won, the rules on kit and sponsorship for the tournament were very tight, and adidas were robbed of the chance to use their iconic three stripes on the sleeve. Instead, they introduced a lime green panel under the arms. Needless to say, this had absolutely no relevance to England whatsoever. Adidas were trying branding by colour – just as Bavaria had tried to do with its sea of orange at the football World Cup. Only adidas had done this legitimately.

Even the bracelet is suspiciously green

This green panel has been kept for England’s training shirts, caps, and the like, so is now seemingly an ongoing brand equity in cricket. Kevin Pietersen’s bat and gloves feature a similar colour, introducing a lime green / fluorescent yellow colour into the whiter-than-white arena of test cricket. Just a hint, but (to me, and those like me who gather late at night on sports kit chatrooms, at least) clearly there.

Is the away shirt, always seemingly chosen by the manufacturers (witness England rugby’s flirting with anthracite thanks to Nike during the 2010-2011 season), set to become a branding battle ground?

But it’s also been seen elsewhere, in other sports, suggesting that it is a concerted effort rather than me simply seeing things. The adidas-sponsored Golden League athletes are all wearing lime green this season. Chelsea, of course, have  a truly eyewatering adidas-designed lime green away shirt, too.

Oh, so you support the rainforest now, do you Brad?
Name me one indigenous Amazonian tree. GO ON.

And beyond this, call me a grumpy old cynic, but I wonder how pleased adidas were when Team Sky decided to change their adidas kit colours from blue to green for the recent Tour de France, in support of Sky’s own rainforest-saving partnership with the WWF.

Kit manufacturers will always have to contend with the pre-existing colours of the team whose kit they’re making. There have always been certain styles used by manufacturers that identify the kit as being theirs, whatever its colour (Puma during the African Cup of Nations being a great example, Umbro’s recent efforts in the Premier League less so). But will we now see manufacturers trying harder to send their own brand messages through colour, rather than iconography (three stripe sleeve) or style (common neck shape and patterns for all teams in one season)?

It might help manufacturers restore some parity between themselves and the shirt sponsors whose logo gets emblazoned in as big a typeface as possible across the players’ chests.And it'll continue to give me and fellow kit geeks something to talk about. But what kind of longevity does one colour have? It'll be interesting to see whether adidas keep the colour but change the styles each season, or whether they eventually find they are obliged to start again with a new brand colour?