As the clock ticks ever closer to the summer’s World Cup in South Africa, the battle between football’s world governing body, FIFA and the potential threat from ambush marketing campaigns promises to provide an entertaining sideshow to the quadrennial showpiece event.

Earlier this month, FIFA did not take too kindly to a cheeky nudge and wink from low cost South African airline Kulula, whose latest campaigning strategy has made more than a few passing references to the stringent restrictions placed on non-affiliated advertisers ahead of the World Cup.

Kulula’s first advert described the company as the ‘Unofficial National Carrier of the You-Know-What’ and contained pictures of football stadiums, national flags and vuvuzelas (a plastic trumpet used by South African football fans).

A select group of companies (including Continental, McDonalds and Budweiser) have paid millions of pounds to hold exclusive sponsorship agreements at the World Cup, entitling them to advertise at the football stadiums used during the tournament, through merchandising, marketing campaigns and such forth.

Mof Gimmers, a writer at bitterwallet.com, presents an extreme reminder of the lengths that major sports governing bodies are prepared to go to protect their brand from ambush marketing. At the recent Winter Olympic Games, a 20-year-old restaurant called ‘The Olympia’ was asked to stop using its name by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Vancouver Organising Committee (VANOC) SIX YEARS ahead of the actual competition. Once a large sporting governing body cracks its whip, expect a long bloody one-sided legal battle to the death. 

Like the IOC, FIFA also has a duty to protect their sponsor’s rights and, predictably, they responded quickly to Kulula’s playground banter by sending their legal team to politely remind them of the risks of flagrant association with their brand (the World Cup). 

Then the fun began.

Kulula provided global response on March 11, initially via twitter:

“oh dear letter from FIFA’s lawyers says we broke their trademark of the use of “South Africa” and think our non-WC ad was about soccer…”

Poor souls. Kulula’s campaign as the unofficial sponsors of  ’the You-Know-What’ had a bad start, as they probably hadn’t banked on an officious law abiding school hall-monitor type to be on the lookout for all forms of petty rule-breaking.

Kulula followed up their butter-wouldn’t-melt announcement with a further statement that claimed FIFA had informed them that they could not use symbols or the word ‘South Africa’ in any of their advertising. Not to be outdone, FIFA continued the war of words by denying Kulula’s version of events through a spokesperson, who said:

“For the record, FIFA did not tell Kulula that they could not use soccer balls, or the word ‘South Africa’, or the Cape Town stadium, or the national flag or vuvuzelas.”

Kulula’s response? Well, if there is an advertising version of a two-fingered salute, the airline’s retaliatory follow-up on Monday probably edges close to the boundary.

Subtle? Anything but. Funny? Extremely. See how many of the annotations you can link to things that are absolutely nothing to do with this summer’s international tournament involving a round ball and 32 nations, and not at all to do with the country which is the opposite of north and not located in Europe. Picture via Marklives!.com  (increase the size of your web browser page to around 150%+ for a better view) :

Over to you FIFA. Let battle commence.