Athletes have always had the ability to inspire. These people, made of the same flesh and bone as the rest of us, are able to achieve feats of athletic strength and skill that we can only admire.
But beyond our awe in their sporting achievements, we also want to know more about their backgrounds, what has driven their success and what makes them tick. Moreover, we are inclined to trust their judgement in non-sporting fields, even electing them to significant positions of political power as attested by athletes as diverse as Vitali Klitchko, Tanni Grey-Thompson, Sebastian Coe, Imran Khan, Manny Pacquiao and George Weah.
These stories occur across history. Yet, the last five years have evidently seen an increased prominence given to athletes’ stories and their thoughts away from the sporting field. Their voices are heard on a myriad of social and environmental issues whether it be fighting discrimination, promoting basic human rights, campaigning for better social provision for the poor or whether or not to get vaccinated.
What is influencing athletes’ propensity to speak out?
Established athletes increasingly have a level of financial security that allows them to take more risk in speaking out. They no longer simply need to kowtow to their sporting employers in fear of their long-term financial security.
Although their elevated position / interest may at first be down to athletic ability, the global culture of “celebrity” also means they can evolve into other careers that do not rely on them being an exceptional athlete.
These figures have direct access to a public audience, especially through social media, that allows their opinions and influence to reach millions – and many are already sharing an ongoing view into their non-sporting lives to their audiences, and their following expects to see more.
Of course, not everything an athlete says in public is met with universal approval. How often are their statements met by the criticism that they should “stick to their day jobs” and leave commentary on non-sporting issues to others?
How does the UK perceive athlete activism?
We recently conducted some research into athlete activism and the first conclusion from our study was that the appetite for athlete activism is split. When asked whether they agreed that “Athletes have a platform that they should use more to promote social or environmental causes they believe in” only just over half the UK public (57 per cent) agreed, with a similar number (56 per cent) agreeing that “athletes that speak out do a valuable job to raise awareness about social and environmental issues.”
And yet, a significant minority (36 per cent) was more ardently opposed to athlete activism, stating they would “rather athletes just played their sport and didn’t speak about wider causes or social issues”.
Digging deeper into the data, there was a significant difference across age categories with the youngest being the most supportive of athletes using their platforms to promote causes (69 per cent of 18–24-year-olds) and the oldest the least (52 per cent of 45+).
This headline result highlights the difficulty in choices facing athletes in the modern era. Some athletes have taken up very public positions on certain issues and there is broad acceptance, although far from universal, that they have a role to play in speaking out about these causes. This remains a very personal choice and athletes would be mindful to ready themselves for criticism, justified or not, that may come their way off the back of taking a public stand.
A further result that will be of interest to athletes and their managers is whether interest in them is actually enhanced if they have spoken out about social or environmental causes. It was in this question where we saw the starkest difference across the age categories, our data showing that 55 per cent in the 18-24 age category were more interested in outspoken athletes, decreasing to 31 per cent for those aged over 45.
The more cynically minded may see this as a justification for publicly promoting a cause in order to develop interest in younger audiences and potentially increase earnings potential. However, such an approach risks embarrassing failure. The bar for sporting success is already set high and is challenging enough for athletes to focus on. When athletes have their attention shared with promoting a cause, it can be a significant additional emotional drain, especially when their well-meaning work is met with criticism, or when their sporting performance is seen to dip. Gambling their professional performance for a cause that may not be an authentic passion is a risk simply not worth the taking.
Speaking out does make a difference though. And those athletes that have used their public platforms to speak out can justifiably be reassured that their positions have made a difference to some. Certainly, awareness of social and environmental causes is enhanced, with 44 per cent of UK adults agreeing that they had been made more aware of issues because of athletes speaking out about them. Even beyond awareness, a quarter of respondents (24 per cent) further admitted to having changed their opinion on certain social or environmental issues because of athletes speaking out about them.
Yet again, there was a wide difference in the effect on younger demographics compared to the older cohort, with 44 per cent of respondents aged 18-24 having changed opinions versus just 17 per cent in the over 45s.
What does this mean for brands?
As many sponsor brands have aligned themselves more closely to “purpose” over recent years, we have seen them take a much greater interest in what athletes stand for, beyond their efforts on the field. Use of athletes in marketing has evolved considerably, with athletes featuring increasingly in brand messaging, providing a known face to speak about issues that perhaps the brands would lack the credibility to do on their own.
The survey results bring into focus some of the considerations a brand must give time to when looking to use athletes in its marketing. Firstly, understanding the level of overlap between the causes the athlete is interested in and those the brand is sensitive to, or wants to elevate, is paramount.
A brand’s association to a cause through an athlete relationship is much better planned than stumbled into. But even when well planned, there can still be some negativity. This ranges from fundamental disagreement to the stance taken by the athlete, to the consumer simply not seeing the athlete, or indeed the brand, as a worthy or appropriate mouthpiece for that particular issue. Brands must be prepared in their own point of views before relying on an athlete to speak for them.
Next, is to recognise that controlling what athletes say and do is harder than ever. This is far more nuanced than simply protecting against the reputational damage of a sponsored athlete saying or doing something stupid or illegal. But if a brand cares what position its athlete might have on certain social, moral, or personal choices; it is far better to understand these sentiments before embarking on a deep commercial relationship.
The counterpoint to this is that, whilst an athlete may have a certain point of view on a particular subject that they might want to champion, they may not yet have found an appropriate outlet for that support. Smart brands will already know and be able to articulate their own point of view. Through this they will create and provide a platform that the athlete is comfortable in supporting and in doing so will have an engaged and authentic ambassador that will be able to provide a known mouthpiece for their message.
The referenced research was conducted in Q4 of 2021 as a collaboration between sports specialist Publicis Sport & Entertainment and communications consultancy KekstCNC.