This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Sponsorship discussion - will Energy drink sponsors be reduced?

Gaz

Joined Jul 2007
6K Posts | 3K+
Maitland way
Found this editorial online that outlines the possibililty that in years ahead we will see the imposition of restrictions on the sponsoring of the sport by Energy Drink Companies.

The points raised in it are quite valid and just an Oz perspective, there are already bans on some of the 'soft drinks' in school canteens as well as energy drinks being removed from some shelves due to pressure/health concerns.

Whilst probably a bit early to be hitting panic stations yet, it is an interesting insight into future challenges to bring 'acceptable' sponsorship dollars to the sport.

Source - Energy Drinks in motorsport sponsorship - Australian Motorcycle News

I don’t wish to alarm anybody, but I’m concerned about the future of motorcycle racing. Not because of climate change and the quest for cleaner engines. Not because of burgeoning technology and the advent of riderless bikes. Not even because of the eventual retirement of Valentino Rossi. But because there’s one big scary elephant in the room: energy drinks are bad for your health.

In an alarming resemblance to the early 1960s, when science started discovering the adverse effects cigarette smoking was having on people’s health, energy drinks are coming under more and more pressure surrounding ingredients, marketing and the transparency of such.

During the past 12 years, the American-based Centre for Science in the Public Interest has linked the consumption of energy drinks to 34 individual deaths.

Caffeine is highly addictive and awareness of the adverse effects of sugar is rapidly increasing. And surely nothing good can come from mixing them together in a brightly coloured can marketed directly at our kids.

In 2015, the food and drink sector provided the third-highest value of sponsorship dollars to MotoGP. And, aside from potato chip brand San Carlo’s sponsorship of the Team Italia Moto3 team, nearly all of the estimated $54,350,000 came from energy drink sponsorship. Whether it be personal sponsorship deals with individual riders, various levels of team sponsorship ranging from a small sticker the size of, er, a cigarette packet, to naming rights or title sponsorship of entire race weekends, global motorsport fans cannot escape the names or logos of energy drinks being beamed into their highly alert, caffeine-affected faces via TV, podcasts, smartphones, websites and magazines.

Thing is, 2006 wasn’t that long ago, so the memory of financial suffering at that time would be very vivid for many. Yes, it’s only been 11 years since the exemption that allowed tobacco sponsorship to remain visible in motorsport finally ended – when MotoGP and WSBK and their teams and competitors were left floundering in a new territory of having to attract new sponsorship dollars. They not only needed to find the funds to run the expensive day-to-day operations of high-level racing, but also had to look after their own marketing, PR and logistics, which was previously handled by the tobacco companies.

When the rivers of tobacco and alcohol sponsorship began to run dry, it was led by social consciousness and a responsibility to improve the health of adults over the age of 18 who might have smoked or drunk too much as a result of highly visible logos appearing in motorsport. True, it was well over 40 years between the health concerns of cigarette smoking becoming known and the eventual banning of tobacco logos in sport, but the fact that energy drinks are marketed towards children and young people – note the brightly coloured logos – will surely bring this to a quicker end.

The legislation has already started. Latvia, Lithuania and Colombia are three countries that have either banned or taken steps towards banning the sale of energy drinks to minors. Right now, the lucrative and growing energy drink industry is largely unregulated. But there are many medical and science-based groups and movements working very hard to force regulations on the makers of energy drinks, and these regulations will one day trickle down to sport sponsorship.

It’s completely understandable that Carmelo Ezpeleta has his fingers in his ears when it comes to the growing health concerns surrounding energy drinks. Because the simple fact of the whole highly caffeinated sticky sugary matter is the energy drink industry – much like the cigarette industry – is rolling in big and seemingly unlimited piles of cash.

And cash makes the world (and the motorcycles) go round.
 
Isn't this just dipshit Kellie doing a rehash of what Krop wrote a few years back?
Anyhoooo, who the .... cares? All this ........ pearl-clutching concern was amusing coming from Kraps keyboard, now it's even more eye-rollingly .....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Isn't this just dipshit Kellie doing a rehash of what Krop wrote a few years back?
Anyhoooo, who the .... cares? All this ........ pearl-clutching concern was amusing coming from Kraps keyboard, now it's even more eye-rollingly .....

No idea actually as I haven't checked Krops site for a while but I will say that when Kelly raced she had some 'out there' thoughts she liked to discuss about banning of sponsors etc (I used to scrutineer/flag and recover at the meets when she was with GRO).

I will be honest though (and I do not fully understand it) but there is talk of banning softdrinks and the energy drinks that appears on the teev once every week or so.

Heck, just this last week there was a big discussion about loss of markets for the major players and what they could do to regain the market, with nutritionists interviewed saying they should leave the market, and sadly, we do live in a nanny state which is getting worse.

I can see the time but I cannot see it within 5 years or maybe 10 where we will have a complete new sponsorship brand (we went from tobacco to drinks so maybe fidget spinners or whatever the next fad will be).

IMO only, but all sponsorships are cyclical in sports so yes it will change (IMO) but whether it is a mandated change is another thing
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
If anyone is stupid enough to not understand that Redbull/Monster/InsertEnergyDrinkBrandHere is bad for you, why does anyone think they'll be less likely to drink 4 of them a day if Rossi/Marquez/Pedrosa no longer wear their logo on their leathers?

Perhaps I'm the oddball out here, but seeing Monster stickers on Lorenzo's bike/leathers never made me think "Oh hey, this can of orange cat piss containing 17 cups of sugar is great, I'm just like Lorenzo now that I drink 2 of them every morning."
 
If anyone is stupid enough to not understand that Redbull/Monster/InsertEnergyDrinkBrandHere is bad for you, why does anyone think they'll be less likely to drink 4 of them a day if Rossi/Marquez/Pedrosa no longer wear their logo on their leathers?

Perhaps I'm the oddball out here, but seeing Monster stickers on Lorenzo's bike/leathers never made me think "Oh hey, this can of orange cat piss containing 17 cups of sugar is great, I'm just like Lorenzo now that I drink 2 of them every morning."

Seeing Marlboro/Rothmans etc never made me want to smoke either so way see where you are coming from.

My honest opinion is that few people will be influenced to start an activity such as smoking or drinking the caffeine laden drinks because of a sport, but it may influence a person to move from brand A to brand B because their athlete does it.

FFS, people are concerned with drinks and yet seemingly comfortable with having social media identities plastered all over the place as someone to look up to for our kids

<not a kardashiltonwhatever fan at all>
 
Isn't this just dipshit Kellie doing a rehash of what Krop wrote a few years back?
Anyhoooo, who the .... cares? All this ........ pearl-clutching concern was amusing coming from Kraps keyboard, now it's even more eye-rollingly .....

This comment of yours Dr. No, makes me snicker.

Kraps keyboard...lmao.
 
I believe the tobacco sponsorship should still be allowed in GP/F1 and every other race series, so there's no way I think energy drinks should be banned. I've always been a large proponent of as long as the information is out there, people make their own choices. I used to drink energy drinks with regularity but have long since stopped. Once in awhile I will have a small can of Red Bull when I need something quick and I'm not in the mood for coffee. The European nanny state needs to .... off with their bans.
 
I believe the tobacco sponsorship should still be allowed in GP/F1 and every other race series, so there's no way I think energy drinks should be banned. I've always been a large proponent of as long as the information is out there, people make their own choices. I used to drink energy drinks with regularity but have long since stopped. Once in awhile I will have a small can of Red Bull when I need something quick and I'm not in the mood for coffee. The European nanny state needs to .... off with their bans.

I am adamantly opposed to tobacco advertising, nicotine is pretty much the most addictive substance known to human science, it actually is true that there is both fairly close to no safe level of tobacco consumption and that limitation of intake to a low level by regular tobacco consumers is unlikely/ uncommon, and the whole aim of tobacco advertising is to hook the unwary such as kids and people in the third world.

I don't put energy drinks in the same category, almost anything is damaging to human health in a sufficient quantity including plain H2O, and while caffeine is a drug from which withdrawal symptoms occur I don't believe it rates at all as either a drug of addiction or a health hazard with other drugs, licit such as tobacco and alcohol, or illicit. It is impossible to eliminate absolutely all hazards of human existence legislatively, and at some point it becomes excessive imo to attempt same. Where the totally unacceptable health risk came in with caffeine was with compound analgesics/APCs such as Bex and Vincent's (in Australia) where the caffeine component led to withdrawal headaches promoting further consumption of the headache powders, and the aspirin/phenacetin components caused kidney damage not all that uncommonly leading to eventual renal failure. Those headache powders were rightfully banned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
The problem with assuming that people will act responsibly when knowing the risk involved, is that few people really ever look at the contents label and fewer still ever research the potential side-effects. These drinks are not marketed at the average vegan health-food maven you see on line at Whole Foods. They are marketed at the young and uniformed, who believe they will live forever. Moreover, there is (to the best of my knowledge) no law limiting who can buy these energy drinks, meaning any 12 yr old can waltz into the local bodega and buy a six-pack of this crap. I don't have kids, but if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't want this crap to be freely available to them. I look back at myself even at the age of 25 and I know how ...... was my judgement when it came to "substances". I'd have loved energy drinks, the same way I loved smoking two packs a day of Players. People under the age of 30 are generally pretty stupid about self-preservation, and don't much think about whether anything is dangerous to consume, if it is smartly packaged and on the shelf at the 7-11.
 
The problem with assuming that people will act responsibly when knowing the risk involved, is that few people really ever look at the contents label and fewer still ever research the potential side-effects. These drinks are not marketed at the average vegan health-food maven you see on line at Whole Foods. They are marketed at the young and uniformed, who believe they will live forever. Moreover, there is (to the best of my knowledge) no law limiting who can buy these energy drinks, meaning any 12 yr old can waltz into the local bodega and buy a six-pack of this crap. I don't have kids, but if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't want this crap to be freely available to them. I look back at myself even at the age of 25 and I know how ...... was my judgement when it came to "substances". I'd have loved energy drinks, the same way I loved smoking two packs a day of Players. People under the age of 30 are generally pretty stupid about self-preservation, and don't much think about whether anything is dangerous to consume, if it is smartly packaged and on the shelf at the 7-11.

Keshav - you posted this at 2.24am East Coast Time. Have you been on the Red Bull?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
The problem with assuming that people will act responsibly when knowing the risk involved,........

People under the age of 30 are generally pretty stupid about self-preservation, and don't much think about whether anything is dangerous to consume, if it is smartly packaged and on the shelf at the 7-11.
I assume you supported that ......... Bloomberg's sugary drink ban?

I can definitely see energy drink sponsorship getting banned, just like smokes. Do not worry, though. Dope is becoming legal everywhere and Rizla and growers will be all over the vehicles for a couple of years, until someone figures out that maybe smoking dope and racing isn't really a good match.
 
I assume you supported that ......... Bloomberg's sugary drink ban?

I can definitely see energy drink sponsorship getting banned, just like smokes. Do not worry, though. Dope is becoming legal everywhere and Rizla and growers will be all over the vehicles for a couple of years, until someone figures out that maybe smoking dope and racing isn't really a good match.

Firstly - Bloomberg (who I did not vote for) is deeply conservative. Secondly - it was not a ban. It was a tax. Same as there is on alcohol, tobacco and many other less harmful substances. The money from the tax was for educating the public on the dangers of obesity and diabetes which are especially prominent in our black and Latino communities. Two Puerto Ricans who were my upstairs neighbors on E. 4th Street, two friends I totally adored, had their lives ruined by that crap. Mario's diabetes cost him his leg and a year later, he died. His wife Sandy was so obese, that eventually she only left the house about once a month, on a stretcher into an ambulance. I see little kids aged 12 years, who are already 35 lbs overweight and I cringe. Its ....... really sad ..... If a few pennies tax creates a program of awareness that prevents this, I'm all for it. This is not some "nanny state" Big Brother overreach. Bloomberg since leaving office has spent 18 Million dollars of his own money to promote healthy eating habits.

Raising money to promote health awareness is neither a dictatorial, or "........." trait. Trying to promote awareness of healthier food alternatives can only be a good thing. Removing artery clogging trans-fats from restaurants is not a bad thing. NY still has some of the best restaurants in the world.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...irst-soda-tax-is-working-can-its-success-last

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rs-say-tax-has-reduced-sales-by-as-much-as-50
 
Last edited:
Firstly - Bloomberg (who I did not vote for) is deeply conservative. Secondly - it was not a ban. It was a tax. ....
First: He is not conservative or he wouldn't propose the government controlling how much people drank or ate. He would be a TRUE LIBERAL and allow people to make their own choices. This is how we have swapped politics in the United States. "Conservatives" want more liberties, "........" want fewer liberties. It is bizarre. But there ya' go.

Second: It was a BAN on large sugar drinks, as far as I know. Not a tax. And it was not the only ......... crap Bloomberg proposed as Mayor. Whack-job or big phony. Your choice.

Wiki NY Sugar Cap
 
First: He is not conservative or he wouldn't propose the government controlling how much people drank or ate. He would be a TRUE LIBERAL and allow people to make their own choices. This is how we have swapped politics in the United States. "Conservatives" want more liberties, "........" want fewer liberties. It is bizarre. But there ya' go.

Second: It was a BAN on large sugar drinks, as far as I know. Not a tax. And it was not the only ......... crap Bloomberg proposed as Mayor. Whack-job or big phony. Your choice.

Wiki NY Sugar Cap

I lived in NYC for 50 years and was a resident at the time of the controversy. They were trying originally to ban 32 oz soft drinks which nobody ....... needs - that were adversely affecting people's health. It worked out in the end as a tax. I'm as liberal as they get. But I understand that some things do need to be legislated for the well being of people who don't always act in their own best interests. If you ever stood next to a 12 yr old boy who weighs in at 150 Lbs at 4 foot 10 with one of those 32 oz Cokes in his hand and pondered what his future would be like with that kind of health issue at the get go, you'd understand that there's more at stake than some adult's "liberty" to drink a big soda. People made the same arguments about the ban on smoking in public spaces, but the rate of asthma deaths in big cities have dropped dramatically across the country. A small sacrifice for the greater good.


I support the freedom to ride a motorcycle with no helmet, as long as the rider is willing to sign a agreement that in the event he falls and ends up brain dead, that tax payers won't have to foot his hospital bill.
 
Last edited:
In these discussions I am always reminded of Alain Prost's quip when asked to respond to the issue of tobacco advertising in motorsport:

"I don't think my sponsorship deals cause people to start smoking, but maybe switch."

Something like that.

All drugs should be legal. Period.

It's up to every individual to decide, whether they have good judgement or not is irrelevant.

It's a dangerous world to live in, always has been.
 

Recent Discussions