Who should really be our most marketable sports stars?

Editor

28th May, 2009

1657 Reads

Anyone can contribute to The Roar and have their work featured alongside some of Australia’s most prominent sports journalists.

Benjamin Conkey

Editor

28th May, 2009

1657 Reads

Australia's Andrew Symonds reacts after scoring a century. AP Photo/Gautam Singh

Apparently Ricky Ponting is our most marketable sports star, Grant Hackett second, Glenn McGrath third and Adam Gilchrist fourth. Three cricketers and a swimmer.

While Hackett was in the Olympics, most countries will have forgotten him, and apart from the cricketing nations, no one would know our Aussie cricketers.

But they’re on our list. They’re our stars. And that’s why we love them.

This has been said before on this website, but why don’t we love Mark Webber, Cadel Evans and Casey Stoner as much? Why are our most recognised sports stars around the world not marketable in Australia?

I hear people yelling out: “It’s the sports they play.”

Well, yes motor sport, and cycling are not as popular in Australia as Europe. But when has that stopped us enjoying our own success, no matter what sport is on?

For example, Stephen Bradbury.

Not too many people would have watched speed skating before that final. And I dare say few Australians have watched it since.

But he became an overnight celebrity for a one-off incident that became a part of the Australian lexicon: “Doing a Stephen Bradbury”.

I’m sure Cadel Evans, Mark Webber and Casey Stoner are not losing too much sleep over it. They are making enough money as it is.

But it is interesting.

I guess it takes time, as football worked out. You didn’t see too many Socceroos in advertising prior to the 2006 World Cup. Then, all of a sudden, they were doing ads left, right and centre.

My point is that, just because Ford no longer wants Andrew Symonds to take off his shirt, brush his teeth and walk through a car wash, he is not any less of a cricketer. He will still be paid for being a contracted player.

Sporting success should be rewarded with marketing opportunities. But sadly it’s not always the case.

The sport athletes most affected by sponsorship and being marketable are women.

I always feel for our female stars who are not blessed with supermodel good looks. While Susie O’Neil – aka “Maddam Butterfly” – was getting sponsors everywhere, Petria Thomas, who was arguably just as good, if not better, struggled to make ends meet.

Now it’s the same with Stephanie Rice and Jessica Schipper.

I’m sure our own Natalie Medhurst has stories about how difficult it is, and was, for netballers without sponsors.

And I dare say a lot of professional women tennis players, and men, are shaking their heads by the amount of money Maria Sharapova is earning each year.

But my final question is this: how do companies know if athletes and people in general are marketable in the first place? If the “chk chk boom girl” is marketable, surely anyone is.

Join the conversation

What’s your best bet? For great odds on all your favourite sports check out PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.