This proposal is still a work in progress. Help is needed to improve it. Join our working group!

What is the problem / the issue?

The economic model of sports relies mainly on advertising and sponsoring by commercial companies. Sports are thus dominated by the narrow oligarchy of multinational sponsors and advertisers, whose purpose is to leverage the positive image of sport in our societies to sell their products or services. Sport is now a global business - whereas it could be a healthy leisure activity open to all.

This domination of sports by the economic interests of advertisers and sponsors is detrimental to society:

• it contributes to the current over-consumption of resources
• it creates massive inequalities between sports (those being shown on television vs. the others), and between people working in the sports sector (the few outrageously well-paid stars vs. the many anonymous sportspeople barely making a living)
• it deprives the sportspeople themselves, local authorities and the public supporting sporting events from any say in the governance of sports associations.

Advertising based upon sports leads to a particularly wasteful consumption model

All forms of commercial advertising (i.e. for for-profit organisations) aim at increasing consumption. Sports-based advertising tends to support consumption models that are even more wasteful than average, for the following reasons:

• sports is based upon the ideology of going beyond one's limits - and even that there should be no limits to what human will should do. Thereby, it encourages a form of hybris which is particularly harmful when applied to consumption;
• sports promotes values of strength, hardness, virility and, more often than not, brutality to one's body or to that of the opponent.Transposed to humanity's relationship to our natural environment, this aggressive behaviour is another source of harm;
• sports is based upon competition, not cooperation. It supports a "us vs. them" behaviour that nationalists love - but that is exactly the opposite of the cooperation and agreements that humanity dearly needs to address its future challenges;
• sport champions set performance targets that are inaccessible to any normal or even reasonably gifted person. By making them into role models, advertisers create a permanent sense of frustration and of self-depreciation in the population. This general sense of self-depreciation in the public is good for business, because the implicit message of many adverts is that by buying product X, the customer will become the equal of whatever sports star. It is however bad for society.

Industrial broadcasting of sports events creates huge inequalities between sports and among sportspeople

Sports as a show meant for the entertainment of the population draws its appeal from competition. It is because the outcome of a game / of a race are unknown, and because the stakes of this game / race are high, that the spectators are thrilled and willing to attend it.

It is usual for a competition to be rewarded by a symbolic prize (a cup / a medal). For reasons probably related to its origins in the Anglo-Saxon elitist schools for boys of the late 19^th century, the dominant model is that of "winner takes all": glory and fame are attached to the winner only - despite lip-service given to "taking part".

The fact that a sports event is a show attended by an audience of thousands or even billions of people makes it a means to generate economic income, either directly (by selling entry tickets to those who are entitled to attend live or remotely via broadcasting) or through advertising. The broader the audience, specifically when using broadcasting technologies (radio, TV, Internet), the larger the income. Broadcasting is currently the main source of income for the sports sector [#Reference needed].

The fact that sports is a competition glorifying the winner only, and that the ensuing show can generate massive income (specifically when broadcast) leads to an immense concentration of income towards this winner within a given sport, and towards those sports that are well-suited for broadcasting. This leads to massive inequalities of income between "star" sportspeople and the rest, and between those sports broadcast on television or the Internet and the others.

These inequalities of income are harmful in themselves. They are also harmful to sporting practices, because they are a huge incentive to cheating and doping, as exemplified in the "Football Leaks".

The influence on inequalities of (1) sports as an entertainment show, (2) the thrill brought in this show by competition, and (3) the massification of income with the broadcasting of sports events is thus rather clear. However, the specific influence of advertising and sponsoring on these inequalities (in addition to it being the main business model of broadcasting media) deserves being investigated further [#More reflection + work needed]

Advertisers and sponsors de facto control sports associations - against the interests of sportspeople, of local authorities and of the supporting public

In the current model, the main source of income of a sports association stems from advertisers and sponsors, who transform players into sandwich-people displaying trademarks on their polos, shoes, technical gear, sails... They even lead sports association to become for-profit companies, who are listed on the Stock Exchange.

Many more stakeholders should however have a say in the governance of sports associations or firms, such as: (1) the sportspeople themselves, who are often tied in unfair contracts restricting their freedom of movement; (2) the local authorities that often pay the training infrastructure for young people out of which champions emerge, and the stadiums where the events take place; and (3) the supporting public, which provides a stable and committed source of income. These stakeholders can see their interests mis-represented in the decisions taken to suit the interests of advertisers or sponsors. [#More reflection + work needed]

Why is the problem / the issue important?

Sports is a massive economic activity in itself, representing a large fraction of GDP and of the workforce in the European Union [#Reference needed]. Improving the situation of those working in the sports sector or that depend from it would thus make sense in itself.

It is also possible have a broader look, and to consider sports as a metaphor of our society, concentrating many of its current flaws: inequalities, machism, nationalism, waste of resources. Improving how sports operate can thus showcase what the transformation of our societies towards democracy, social justice and sustainability could look like.

Contrary to many policies transforming society at large, which require massive investment and systemic, coherent change, and thus require time, this policy proposal can be implemented very fast. The only requirement is to provide sufficient lead time for the players in the sector to adapt to this deep change in their business model and to a limitation of their income. The existence of these players is not however threatened, because the alternative sources of income proposed should still be sufficient to ensure a decent living to all.

What are the existing Public Policies on the issue?

Restrictions on advertising exists already for tobacco or alcohol in some jurisdictions, specifically in the European Union. These restrictions apply even when receiving broadcast live views from sports events based elsewhere, where these restrictions don't apply. Technical means have been implemented to cover adverts that are forbidden in the recipient country, directly in the live video stream [#Reference needed].

It is therefore technically and legally possible to restrict advertisements from live broadcast events. If it is done for tobacco or alcohol, it should easily be extended to all forms of advertising.

The Public Policy = what should the public body do?

We propose to make sports free from advertising and sponsoring, i.e.:

• no advertising or sponsoring of any sort is allowed in the 60 minutes before, during and in the 60 minutes after the broadcasting of any sports event
• no trademark, logo or advertising message is allowed on the clothes or equipment of sportspeople, nor in the name of teams, clubs, boats or stadiums, nor in or around stadiums during a sports event, from 24h before the event to 24h after it
• no sportsperson is allowed to engage in a sponsoring contract with, or to lend his/her name to, any commercial organisation or with a non-profit organisation representing economic interests.

The future economic model of sports would thus be based upon distributed (and thus democratic) sources of income:

• paying entry tickets in stadiums,
• membership fees in associations, and
• subscriptions to paying broadcasting services.

Why is the Public Policy in line with the "raison d'être" of the CosmoPolitical Cooperative?

This Public Policy Proposal aims:

• in the direction of environmental sustainability: at less influence of advertising in society, and thus a less wasteful economic model;
• in the direction of democracy: at more democracy and a broader representation of the interests of all stakeholders in the governance of sports organisations;
• in the direction of social justice: at less economic inequalities in the sports sector, between sportspeople and between sports, if indeed advertising has an influence on these inequalities [#More reflection + work needed].

The proposal explicitly reduces an important flow of economic income in the sports sector. It could have a negative impact on employment in the sector, because employment in a sector is related to its volume of economic activity. In the case of sports, where incomes are enormously concentrated in a limited number of hands, a massive reduction of these extreme incomes would have almost no impact on the rest of the sector.

The proposal would definitely negatively impact the adverstising sector, by reducing one of its areas of activity. This is accepted as a negative side effect. We also consider that the advertising sector probably needs anyway a massive downscaling on the path towards a liveable and desirable society. This proposal, if adopted early, could thus help the sector to adapt to downsizing, and to engage early the processes that would be needed later, when a full-scale dismantlement would take place. As such, it would be a pilot of the adaptation needed in the future.

Why will the Public Policy work?

Please explain why the Public Policy Proposal will be effective in addressing the issue / solving the problem / reaching the desirable state. Please explain also why the effect of the Public Policy is superior to potential unwanted phenomena in the opposite direction.

What are the other positive effects of the Public Policy? What other opportunities does it open?

Please explain other positive effects (= in direction of the common good or of specific interests) of the Public Policy Proposal that you anticipate, in addition of addressing the issue / solving the problem, / helping to reach the desirable state. Please explain if the Public Policy opens new, unexpected opportunities for the common good, beyond its immediate purpose. Please justify.

What are the negative effects of the Public Policy?

Please explain the negative effects that you anticipate, but that you accept, of the Public Policy, for the common good or for specific social groups. Please explain if you will compensate for these negative effects, and if so, how.

What are the risks and uncertainties attached to the Public Policy?

Please estimate the nature and the size of uncertainties regarding the consequences of the Public Policy Proposal.

How are the benefits, costs and risks of the Public Policy shared between groups in society?

Please describe the "distributional effects" of the Public Policy Proposal, i.e. how its benefits, costs and risks, will be shared in the population. What social groups will benefit from it or see their risk level decrease? What social groups will incur costs or additional risks?

Quantitatively, what consequences will the Public Policy have?

Please estimate quantitatively the concrete effects of the Public Policy (using an appropriate metric, e.g. educational achievements on the PISA scoreboard). You can use a collaborative spreadsheet such as the one freely provided by the Framacalc service.

Why did you make these choices?

Please explain why you propose this Public Policy rather than other options, why you consider the budget incomes and anticipated positive effects (problem solving + others) as superior to negative effects and budget costs, why the public body should act now rather than wait to collect more information or than let the situation follow its spontaneous course