How Nike bought Brazil
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0%2C4273%2C4218119%2C00.html>
Alex Bellos on the £100m football scandal that shows just how powerful a brand can be
by Alex Bellos Guardian Monday July 9, 2001
Brazil's Congress is often entertaining. But no moment has quite reached the level of farce that occurred when the footballer Ronaldo was hauled up in front of parliamentary investigators. In January, the striker travelled to Brasilia to be cross-examined on the role that Nike has in the national team. He was asked by congressmen why Brazil lost the 1998 World Cup final 3-0 to France. "We lost," he said philosophically, "because we didn't win." Ronaldo was pushed further. "Which player was told to mark Zidane?" Zinedine Zidane had scored France's first two goals. "I don't remember - but whoever it was didn't do it very well," replied the footballer. The committee roared with laughter. Despite degenerating into a surreal mixture of post-match press conference (two and a half years after the event) and witchhunt, Ronaldo's appearance was part of a serious attempt to analyse the tensions between brand-led sponsorship and national interest. In 1996 Nike signed a £100m contract with the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) making it both the supplier of sports kit and co-sponsor of the Brazilian team - the largest deal ever involving a national side. Brazil is the world's most successful footballing country and the team's golden yellow shirts are an embodiment of sporting excellence. While the CBF popped champagne corks, sceptics in Brazil wondered how much control it had ceded to the swoosh. These doubts grew and reached their apex during the 1998 World Cup final. It was not that Brazil, who were favourites, were beaten. It was the unexplained events surrounding their star player. Ronaldo had a mysterious fit hours before the game. Rumours emerged that Nike - which also has a personal sponsorship deal with the striker - insisted he play against medical advice. He was the poster-boy of their marketing campaign, after all. In Brazil, Nike became a scapegoat for the defeat. When the team arrived back at Rio de Janeiro airport, they were met by a banner that summed up national feeling. A Brazilian flag had been modified so that in place of the slogan "Order and Progress" was the word "Nike". In early 1999 details of the contract were leaked to the press. They seemed to vindicate previous fears. A clause stipulated Nike's right to organise five international games a year with at least eight first team regulars. Juca Kfouri, Brazil's leading sports columnist, said: "It is obvious to me that the CBF gave away sovereignty. The CBF is more interested in remuneration than the interests of the Brazilian national team." Football is perhaps the greatest symbol of Brazilian identity. For Aldo Rebelo, a communist congressman, the issue of the contract was a matter for parliament. He began to mobilise the creation of a congressional commission into the Nike deal. He believes that Ronaldo's fit was caused by excessive pressure - which would have been exacerbated by feelings of financial responsibility to his sponsor. "It is possible that without the contract Ronaldo would not have had the convulsion," he says. Rebelo's commission - which had stronger powers of investigation than the police - lasted from October last year until last month. It called 125 witnesses. As well as Ronaldo, evidence was given by teammates Roberto Carlos and Edmundo, national coach Mario Zagallo, the team doctors and former Fifa president Joao Havelange. The day of the final was analysed from every angle. But the testimonies did not incriminate Nike. It came out scot-free. In fact, the multinational was seen as having done particularly well out of its Brazil contract. The investigation moved to focus on the CBF, which was attacked for having sold the family silver. "Disney didn't sell Mickey Mouse, but the CBF sold the national team to Nike. It should have sold the spectacle, not the product," says Rebelo. Using the Nike contract as a starting point, the commission debated the opening up of Brazilian football to the international market. Its sub-commissions investigated the trafficking of underage players to Europe, false passports and disorganisation in the state football federations. When the commission's 686-page final report was published last month, it presented evidence to prosecute 33 people for corruption - including CBF president Ricardo Teixeira on 13 counts of fraud. Nike was accused of nothing. Aldo Rebelo says: "The Nike contract was just a sign. It was the most visible way of showing what was going on in Brazilian football." The communist congressman says that the CBF could have chosen to administer the millions flowing into Brazilian football for the good of the game but instead went for the quick buck. "Corruption is like a skin rash. It is the visible, but it is not the fundamental problem. Corruption is a consequence of the shock of capitalism."