The increasingly used technique of ambushing is a relatively new phenomenon in the sportsevents industry but is being used to great effect. It is the exploitation of an association with anevent via by an organization that has not purchased any rights from that event.

Nike has built itself a reputation in using this type of communication and in reading sportsmarketing texts it is difficult not to find examples of their exploits. Shank (1999) maintains thatthe organization actually has its own ambush marketing director. One of its largest Nikesponsorships is of the Brazil National Football Team and it exploited this at the time of the 1998FIFA World Cup in France. Adidas were the official sponsors of the sports manufacturer category ofthat event and yet the awareness figures showed that Nike had a great deal of success. According toa sport and market study, Adidas achieved a sponsor recognition rate of 35 per cent and yet Nikemanaged a rate of 32 per cent without the purchase of event rights (Hancock, 2003).

The policing of ambush marketing have taken on new proportions more recently. The SydneyOlympic Games Organizing Committee launched an AUS $2 million advertising campaign against theambushing of the 2000 Olympic Games. In a rather more direct approach the 2003 Cricket World Cup inSouth Africa protected its sponsors by not allowing rival brands into its event grounds. In acontroversially stringent control of potential ambushing, the event placed lawyers at each groundand warned that any spectator wearing a Coca-Cola T-shirt may be ejected...