[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 18173]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       OLYMPIC AMBUSH ADVERTISING

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JOEL HEFLEY

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 14, 2000

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a problem that impacts not 
only the United States Olympic Committee, which is located in my 
district of Colorado Springs, but also millions of Americans who are 
involved in the Olympic movement.
  The problem is known as ``ambush marketing,'' a deceptive practice in 
which companies deliberately and falsely suggest that they support or 
are affiliated with an event or organization. This enables companies to 
steal the benefits of sponsorship of events such as the Olympics 
without paying the associated sponsorship fee.
  Numerous American companies such as Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Visa 
have spent millions of dollars for the privilege of being official 
sponsors of the Olympic Games. Competing companies, through deceptive 
advertising, have attempted to capitalize on the goodwill and favorable 
publicity of an Olympic sponsorship without paying the appropriate 
licensing fee. You may ask, ``So what?''. The ``so what'' is that 
official sponsors have invested time, creativity and money into helping 
our nation's Olympic effort, while the ambush advertisers have invested 
nothing in the Olympic movement, yet hope to profit from an 
association.
  Ambush marketing has the direct and immediate result of depriving 
officially licensed sponsors of the Olympic Games of the exclusive 
rights in their product category to advertise their financial support 
for the Olympic Movement and associate with the Olympic Games. What 
will happen in the future if Congress does not put an end to ambush 
marketing in the context of the Olympic Movement? Advertisers and 
marketers will, quite likely, be less inclined to buy the requisite 
sponsorship packages for the privilege of being an ``official Olympic 
sponsor.'' Indeed, some may think about becoming ambush marketers 
themselves and enjoy the fruits of an Olympic sponsorship without any 
of the corresponding obligations.
  Such a result will most certainly have a devastating effect on the 
United States Olympic Committee which receives no federal funding. The 
current system of private funding has worked marvelously in providing 
the money and support that pays for the training, transportation and 
facilities of our great Olympic athletes. However, the system is being 
threatened. Ambush marketers are diluting the value and prestige an 
Olympic sponsorship. The more they erode the value of sponsorship, the 
less incentive others will have to contribute the millions of dollars 
required to enjoy the distinction of being an official Olympic sponsor 
and support our Olympic athletes.
  I first addressed this issue in a floor statement in 1993, but in the 
ensuing years the practice has become more widespread. While the USOC 
has worked tirelessly to combat ambush marketing, it apparently needs 
better tools to put an end to the practice. Only Congress can provide 
these tools, and it is becoming apparent that it is time for us to step 
in. I look forward to working with my colleagues next year to craft 
targeted legislation to give the USOC the proper tools necessary to 
combat ambush marketing.

                          ____________________