American monolith sexually assaults peaceful nation

Nishlord · Post by **Nishlord** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:55 pm

http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup ... 85,00.html

The new World Cup rule: take off your trousers, they're offending our sponsor

· Fifa bans shorts bearing logo of Budweiser's rival
· Dutch supporters forced to watch game in pants

For Dutch football fans it has become the summer's cult outfit. Over the past few months, a quarter of a million Holland supporters have bought themselves a pair of patriotic orange lederhosen - wearing them whenever Holland take to the pitch in the World Cup.
But when Holland fans turned up on Friday to watch their team play the Ivory Coast, wearing the garish trousers, officials from Fifa were not amused.

The lederhosen carry the name of a Dutch beer, Bavaria.

The only problem is that the Dutch brewery which makes Bavaria is not an official World Cup sponsor. And so, in one of the most surreal incidents of the World Cup so far, stadium officials in Stuttgart made the supporters take their trousers off - leaving many of them to watch Holland's 2-1 victory in their underpants.
"They put our trousers in the bin," said an aggrieved Peer Swinkels, the chairman of Bavaria, Holland's second biggest brewery. "Fans going into the stadium had to dump them in a big container. Fifa said that the supporters could get them back afterwards. But the container was full of rubbish so most people didn't bother. I understand that Fifa wants to protect its sponsors. But this is very strange."

Critics say the decision to make more than 1,000 Dutch fans strip off last Friday is evidence of the extraordinary lengths to which Fifa has gone to protect the interests of World Cup sponsors - at the expense of ordinary fans. Fifa, however, says it has done nothing wrong and is entitled to defend itself against what it calls "ambush marketing".

Either way, there is little doubt of the seemingly unlimited power that sponsors now wield over global sporting events - with British politicians controversially voting to give sponsors a major role in the 2012 London Olympics.

Fifa said its six suppliers and 15 official partners - among them Yahoo, McDonald's and the American brewery that makes Budweiser - had spent €700m (£480m) on the tournament. Without their money, it would be impossible to stage the competition, it said.

But the zeal with which Fifa guards its commercial interests has gone down badly with fans - as has its decision to offer 14% of all match tickets to sponsors. Only 8% have gone to national football associations.

"It's ridiculous," said Sjoerd Schreurs, a Dutch supporter who had to take his trousers off. "I queued for 25 minutes to get in. When I reached the front, an official told me: 'You're not getting in like that'. I took my trousers off. I managed to chuck them over the fence to some friends. But another official spotted them and took them away.'

"I watched the game in my pants," Mr Schreurs, 33, added. "Fortunately I had quite a long T-shirt."

Mr Swinkels dreamed up the idea of orange Leeuwenhose, or lion trousers, last year. Dutch fans who purchased 12 cans of Bavaria beer could buy the trousers for just €7.95 (they come with the tail of a lion, Holland's national symbol, and two extra large pockets for storing beer cans).

Holland's biggest brewery, Heineken, the official sponsor of the Dutch football association, didn't like the trousers either. It took legal action against Bavaria but lost - after a Dutch judge ruled that fans could wear whatever they wanted.

Mr Swinkels has written to Fifa's president, Sepp Blatter, asking whether Dutch fans would have to remove their trousers again when Holland take on Argentina on Wednesday in Frankfurt. "Since when can a sponsor determine what supporters wear?" he wrote, pointing out: "Orange clothing and symbols are part of the national heritage of the Netherlands."

But some industry experts say Fifa's intervention was no surprise. Nigel Currie, chairman of the European Sponsorship Association, said: "My view is that if there is a deliberate attempt to ambush an event, it should be stamped on."

Mr Currie, who is also director of the sports marketing agency brand Rapport, said: "Sponsors pay huge amounts of money and it is all about TV exposure. If people are caught on screen drinking the wrong kind of drink, it is unhelpful to sponsors. But it should come down to commonsense and a sense of proportion."

There were also allegations yesterday that England supporters at last Thursday's Trinidad and Tobago match were forced to hand over Nike clothing at the entrance of the stadium in Nuremberg, because Adidas - the German sportswear giant and Nike's deadly rival - is the official World Cup sponsor. Last night, however, Fifa denied that any Nike clothing had been confiscated.

"There are no special rules regarding clothing at the World Cup. Visitors can wear their normal clothing or replica shirts with or without advertising, irrespective of the manufacturer or sponsor's logo," a Fifa spokesman said. This was true of "individuals" but not of groups, the spokesman continued.

Some of the most contentious debate during the passage of the London Olympics bill through the Commons surrounded clauses designed to prohibit illicit use of the words "Olympic Games", "London 2012" and the ringed symbol.

Lobbyists for the advertising industry believed the measures - insisted upon by the International Olympic Committee - were draconian. The bill prevents non-sponsoring businesses trying to cash in on the games by suggesting a link with the Olympics in their advertising.

Locog, the London organising committee, supports the clampdown as necessary for it to raise the £2bn to stage the games. It is searching for four sponsors, each to contribute at least £50m.

Last night Mr Schreurs, was searching for a new pair of trousers. "When I tried to get them back they had gone. Holland and Germany haven't always had the easiest of relationships. It's funny to wear them in Germany if you're Dutch."

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:05 pm

Why does this not surprise me? A) soccer fan has no problem not wearing pants. B) soccer official has no problem with soccer fan not wearing pants. C) soccer official steps way over the bounds of their rights.

Nishlord · Post by **Nishlord** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:43 pm

It's the first time that pissy drink ever made anyone take their clothes off.

JCT · Post by **JCT** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:37 am

Did the ref from Uruguay give the fans a red card?

Tell me this name

Mr Swinkels

didn't get the piss beat out of that guy a few hundred times.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:18 am

wtf is wrong with anheiser busch (sp) ? this bit of attention is the kind of thing that will get bud nothing but bad publicity. it might even get a few of my fellow taste bud deprived colonists to actually try something other than budwater.

I'm wondering how UF will turn this into a pro Hamm's anti sahkah/smelly pantless euro take.

btw, I had a few bottles of smithwick's ale at my brother in law's wedding this past weekend. I am just about ready to swim to ireland to get another taste of that stuff.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:19 am

smackaholic wrote:wtf is wrong with anheiser busch (sp) ?

Pretty much the same as this fag, in commercials, talking about his generations of family members who "worked" so hard to make Bud the best beer ever.

Yeah, like August Bushe IV really had to "work" for anything.

this bit of attention is the kind of thing that will get bud nothing but bad publicity. it might even get a few of my fellow taste bud deprived colonists to actually try something other than budwater.

Nish can correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact the Budweiser is a major sponsor is an absolute joke among everyone in Europe, except for FIFA officials, who will talk only on the record, of course.

Nishlord · Post by **Nishlord** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:38 am

...along with McDonalds being the official 'restaurant' of the World Cup.

The really ludicrous thing is that unless Dutch fans actually watch games standing on their head, no-one would have even heard about said shorts. The Dutch company must be fisting themselves with glee at the publicity.

And yeah, Budweiser has a horrible reputation in the UK, even though they jacked up the volume. I was at a party last weekend and someone organised a whip-round for the beer run. The howls of anguish were heard across town.

(and yeah, I know American micro-breweries have a solid rep across the world)

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:14 pm

Nishlord wrote:It's the first time that pissy drink ever made anyone take their clothes off.

You obviously have not been to any American colleges.

Not that Bud is good beer or anything.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:52 pm

BSmack wrote:
Nishlord wrote:It's the first time that pissy drink ever made anyone take their clothes off.
You obviously have not been to any American colleges.

Not that Bud is good beer or anything.

What ^^^^ said. Our monster breweries may pump out swill, but, I can attest to the fact that it gets more women drunk, on their backs, feet facing skywards, than any decent beer has drinkers period.

BTW, nish, surely there must exist a cut rate cheap swill produced in the UK. Something thirsty down on their luck blokes have to settle for. Here we have many. PBR, schlitz, milwaukee's beast to name a few. And let's not forget your favorite poster's choice, Hamm's. What would be the english Hamm's? What's it cost?

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:08 pm

Let me understand this.

Soccer fans, who are famous for their riots, bludgeonings, hooliganism, and overall mayhem, will meekly hand over their pants to some $6 an hour security guard because it offends a greedy, corporate conglomerate?

Fess, Sitting Stunned in my Hamm's Three-Piece Suit

(sans underwear, just in case)

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:14 pm

RadioFan wrote:the fact the Budweiser is a major sponsor is an absolute joke among everyone in Europe

Dude, there's a reason they're The One, The Only, The KING of BEERS.

-Whitey

Nishlord · Post by **Nishlord** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:52 pm

smackaholic wrote: BTW, nish, surely there must exist a cut rate cheap swill produced in the UK. Something thirsty down on their luck blokes have to settle for. Here we have many. PBR, schlitz, milwaukee's beast to name a few. And let's not forget your favorite poster's choice, Hamm's. What would be the english Hamm's? What's it cost?

It's usually called Norseman, or some generic name like that. Kestrel or Tennant's Extra is your standard hobo's brew of choice, as it's 8% or something stupid.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:09 am

8%, huh? Sounds more like our version of malt liquor favored here by our more highly pigmented types. Olde English 800, for example. Can you get olde english in england? Gawd, I hope not. england would probably sue the brewer for slander.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:46 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
RadioFan wrote:the fact the Budweiser is a major sponsor is an absolute joke among everyone in Europe
Dude, there's a reason they're The One, The Only, The KING of BEERS.

Damn straight...Radidio took a poll.

Rack BUD once again for getting over.

Welcome my son, welcome, to the Machine.