According to the Wiki link, the Summer Organising Committee (OCOG) receives 30% of the TOP income, so in London's case $300m. The Winter OCOG receives around 20%. The IOC trousers the remaining 50%, or $500m. LOCOG itself raised $1.1bn from sponsorship.
So at best LOCOG received a total of $1.1bn of self-raised sponsorship, plus $300m of IOC TOP revenue. Remove ALL sponsorship and London has to find another $1.4bn, plus (let's say) another $300m to compensate the IOC for the loss of the 'Summer-weighted' portion of its retained 50% of TOP revenue. It's hard to justify an additional 'unnecessary' spend of $1.7bn given current economic woes.
The Third Way is to do away with TOP but retain OCOG sponsorship. You can see the LOCOG sponsors in the third link. I don't recall any of them being particularly intrusive or offensive. The sponsors that seemed intrusive, or was were reported as being intrusive, were the IOC TOP sponsors: the MCDonald's Chips Controversy, the Proud To Accept Only Visa Outrage, etc. It generated a lot of negative feeling and cynicism towards the entire Olympic movement, for the sake of a poxy $300m to towards the cost of staging London 2012.
So... keep the OCOG sponsorship deals and ditch the IOC TOP programme. If that had happened in 2012 then LOCOG would have lost the $300m from the IOC and would have to pay the IOC $300m in lost revenue. Given the cost of staging the Games, $600m seems like small change. If the IOC weaned themselves off their desire to see shiny new facilities for every sport then the money could be recouped very quickly.
And of course it's not as if the sponsors' money is free money. A can of Coke's cost breaks down as 2% product, 10% packaging, and 88% marketing (entirely made up numbers).
How would they buy the coats and uniforms and the equipment? Every event needs sponsors cause they pay an amount of money for items.
No, they would not be possible. No city would be willing to fund the full cost of hosting the Games so corporate sponsors are essential.
*I can remember when there weren't any sponsors. There was a lot less fluff.
yes, but the fat cats from the IOC would have to cut back on their limos and hotel rooms and fine dining.
could you please answer in detail, like what the sponsors do for the Olympics and whether they are really needed: like someone else could do all the things that the sponsors do? thank you
