Conclusions

Chapter

Abstract

This, the final chapter, will contain some conclusions regarding the legitimacy of anti-ambushing laws and of the mega-event commercial monopoly. It will briefly summarise the objections raised in the preceding chapters and will include some suggestions for addressing the problems that currently exist. This chapter will also briefly examine expectations for the future regarding ambush marketing and sports mega-events. It will examine a seemingly unrelated (although, arguably, very relevant) development in one specific jurisdiction, which, it will be submitted, may hold significant implications for this ongoing process of ever-increasing monopolisation of events. The discussion will speculate as to what extent such development might serve to create a precedent or a model for international sports organisations to claim a ‘proprietary right to a spectacle’ in the future, and how this might contribute to the further monopolisation of events and of ring-fencing of the commercial and other value of such events. On the other side of the event organiser/ambush marketer divide it will also briefly consider future prospects for mega-event ambushing primarily with reference to the use of the Internet and, more specifically, social media, as well as examining the changing nature of the ‘modern ambush’. The latter sections of the chapter will include some suggestions to address the problems identified in the book, with the hope of inviting debate and to serve as a basis for development of further and more meaningful ideas on how to address the problems that currently exist in the sports mega-event milieu. This chapter will conclude with some observations regarding possibly problematic aspects of the fundamental premise of the current ambush marketing legal discourse.

References

All internet-based sources referred to, were last visited in or before December 2011.

  1. Barros CP, Ibrahimo M, Szymansky S (2002) Transatlantic sport: the comparative economics of North American and European sports. Edward Elgar Publishing, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker D (2006) The essential legal guide to events. Dynamic Publishing Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Burrell R, Gangjee D (2010) Trade marks and freedom of expression: a call for caution. The University of Queensland, TC Beirne School of Law, Legal studies research paper series No. 10-05Google Scholar
  4. Corbett S, Van Roy Y (2010) Events management in New Zealand: One law to rule them all? J Bus Law 4:338–362Google Scholar
  5. Ellis D, Scassa T, Seguin B (2011) Framing ambush marketing as a legal issue: an Olympic perspective. Sport Manag Rev 14(3):297–308Google Scholar
  6. Fortunato JA, Richards J (2007) Reconciling sports sponsorship exclusivity with antitrust law. Texas Rev Entertain Sports Law 8:33Google Scholar
  7. Hoek J, Gendall P (2002) Ambush marketing: More than just a commercial irritant? Entertain Law 1(2):72–91Google Scholar
  8. Johnson P (2007) Ambush marketing: a practical guide to protecting the brand of a sporting event. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson P (2008) Look out! It’s an ambush. Int Sports Law Rev 2/3:24–29Google Scholar
  10. Kobel P (2007) International report on question B: ambush marketing too smart to be good? Should certain ambush marketing practices be declared illegal and if yes, which ones and under what conditions? International report to the international league of competition law, Catania Congress 2007Google Scholar
  11. Lewis A, Taylor J (2003) Sport: law and practice. Cavendish Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Longdin L (2009) Public law solutions to private law problems: major event regulation subverts IP’s internal balance. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 4(10):726–742Google Scholar
  13. Marcus JT (2010) Ambush marketing: an analysis of its threat to sports rights holders and the efficacy of past, present and proposed anti-infringement programmes. Sport Law J 18(1):25Google Scholar
  14. McKelvey S, Grady J (2008) Sponsorship program protection strategies for special sport events: are event organizers outmaneuvring ambush marketers? J Sport Manag 22:550–586Google Scholar
  15. Ries A, Ries L (1998) The 22 immutable laws of branding. HarperCollins Publishers, Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Rohsler C, Baudriller M (2009) Creation of a “right to offer bets”: analysis. World Sports Law Rep 7:10–11Google Scholar
  17. Scaria AG (2008) Ambush marketing: game within a game. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Scassa T (2011) Ambush marketing and the right of association: clamping down on references to that big event with the all the athletes in a couple of years. J Sport Manag 25:354–370Google Scholar
  19. Schwab F (2006) FIFA’s trademark tactics. World Trademark Rev 6. http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/Issues/Articles.aspx?g=faf17b21-f89a-473e-949c-bc1b25b93bad
  20. Skildum-Reid K (2007) The ambush marketing toolkit. McGraw-Hill, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  21. Smith A (2011) Ramping up trademark protection at the Olympics. World Trademark Rev 33:42–46Google Scholar
  22. Storey S (2010) Pilfering, piracy and prevention: developments in combating ambush marketing. Sport Law J 18(1):40–52Google Scholar
  23. Sutherden A (2011) Laying the law down on ambush marketing. J Spons 4(4):311–313Google Scholar
  24. Wise A (1996) A‘property right’ in a sports event: views of different jurisdictions. Sport Law J 4(3):63Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law, Howard College CampusUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal KingDurbanSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations