Louisa Wall: Healthy sign that sponsor row settled

It seems that the realisation of a shared vision has prevailed. And I think it was a healthy sign when issues such as defining the rights of sponsors, related to events and teams as opposed to individuals, were debated, given the impending Commonwealth Games.

The issue of two of New Zealand's sporting icons, Sarah Ulmer and Hamish Carter, not signing the terms and conditions of selection for New Zealand's Games team, specifically the clause that prevents personal sponsors from promoting athletes for two weeks before, two weeks during and two weeks after the Games, was essentially a conflict between collective and individual rights.

We all know that Ulmer and Carter have a greater identity and influence and New Zealanders see these athletes as role models given their respective Olympic and World Cup successes.

Sponsorship by definition is a long-term advertising relationship that typically involves the payment of a fixed fee to display a banner or other graphic communication.

Specifically, sports sponsorship is an exchange between two parties whereby the person being sponsored receives cash and/or benefits in kind while the sponsor secures a right of association with an activity or event or athlete or team.

It is fantastic that these two internationally acclaimed athletes have personal sponsors who enable them to do what they do with some personal security and financial safety.

Their sponsorship arrangements are one of the factors that enable them to be as successful as they are.

It is a good sign when any athlete is recognised as a sporting star, through years of hard work and dedication that enables them to be self-sufficient and to put bread on the table for their families.

So we should celebrate sponsorship conflict scenarios such as this as it signals another facet of advanced professionalism.

It is interesting that New Zealand Olympic Committee boss Barry Maister hit out against sponsors planning "ambush" marketing for their athletes. If such sponsors have an enduring relationship with these athletes then where is the ambush?

If the sponsor were a new kid on these athletes' block trying to get maximum coverage out of the Games context, and they are a conflicting sponsor then maybe there was an issue that needed to be mediated but that was not the case.

So, well done Maister, the NZOC and all the sponsors concerned for employing some common sense given the shared vision of ensuring our athletes have all the requisites for success - a supportive and a positive environment so they can prepare and be on top of their game for the challenge of Commonwealth Games competition.

And it was Maister's comments about protecting the NZOC sponsors during this four-yearly window of opportunity that provided the greatest insight into why the athletes too had to fight for the rights of their sponsors. Their sponsorship arrangements aim to peak at such prestigious international events which in turn reinforces their value to such sponsors given the expected outcome of success.

Both sides essentially were fighting the same fight but with different interests - sponsors. It was the sponsors that managed to differentiate their respective rights and come to an agreement that ensured all interests were met.

And this was because all the sponsors were after the same result - a successful campaign by the team and the athletes.

It is excellent to see that Ulmer and Carter can involve themselves in pre-arranged marketing campaigns with their existing sponsors, to promote themselves and their sponsors' products as a complement to other advertisements promoting the entire Commonwealth Games team.