Fast food and the Olympic dream

The relationship between sport and food is at its most controversial when it comes to sponsorship. The debate focuses on just how much the nation’s obesity crisis is exacerbated by having fast food adverts plastered all over our major sporting events and our sporting heroes advertising crisps and fizzy drinks.

A topical example is can be seen in the plans for the 2012 Olympics. Coca Cola, McDonalds and Cadburys have been named as the major sponsors, seamlessly linking fast food with the biggest sporting event to be hosted by the UK.

But, without these big hitters, the recession-weary UK would struggle to put on any Games at all.

Many believe the ethos of 2012 should echo that of the post-war Games held in the UK in 1948. Known as the ‘Austerity Olympics’ due to rationing, the Games were run on a shoestring budget with athletes having to supply their own towels and make their own kit. Although a long way from the spectacle of the recent Beijing Olympics, the 1948 games are till heralded as encapsulating the Olympic ideal.

British Olympic Games hopes at Butlins, D.O Finlay, 19 April 1948

The reality is that 2012 is expected to cost over £9 billion (three times the original budget), a large percentage of which will be paid for by our ‘unhealthy’ private sponsors. Minister for the Olympics, Tessa Jowell, was loudly criticised for voicing her concerns that the sponsors won’t be required to even try to promote healthy eating. Colleagues were concerned that she might give the sponsors an excuse to pull out of an expensive deal. Cadbury alone has stumped up £20 million.

So, if we can’t afford to turn our back on the money all we can hope is that the sponsors use their power responsibly... Cadbury and Coke are involved in the Department of Health's Change4Life movement which sees industry provide £200 million funding to encourage people to be more active and eat more healthily. McDonald's has funded nearly 12,000 coaches to improve children's access to quality exercise.

However, the sponsors know they will reap the benefits. Compared to advertising, sponsorship is seen as inexpensive, and is often more accepted by the public because it is less direct. It builds public goodwill towards the company and associates their products with healthy positive images, rather brilliantly obscuring the health risk issue while at the same time promoting consumption.

It’s not just the Olympics that can be accused of sending mixed messages. Most major sporting events are sponsored by fast food, alcoholic or sugary drinks, or gambling companies. While it might be hard to reconcile these type of products with the healthy living promoted by the sport, there is no getting away from it for now.

However, the restrictions placed on tobacco sponsorship and advertising should give us hope for the future although i’ll be interesting to see where they draw the line. Will mobile phone companies be the next to be criticised for damaging our health while we watch sport from the sidelines?

For anecdotes about the Austerity Olympics, including the POW who won a bronze medal,  click here