Surely brands don’t want to be associated with repression?

Money really does override all other concerns. What other conclusion is there to reach after the announcement today that the FIA is to proceed with the Bahrain Grand Prix on 30 October? A grand prix that will bring shame and negative publicity to all those who participate.

The FIA decision was made despite opposition from the majority of F1 teams, an online petition calling for the event to be abandoned, and Human Rights First’s assertion that “continued human rights violations indicate that the Bahraini government is unable to respect and protect basic rights of freedoms of assembly and expression, and further suggest the nation is incapable of hosting a major international sporting event”.

What does this have to do with Campaign? Not much. But it does have a lot to do with brands. Since protests and a sustained campaign of civil resistance began in February, 31 people have been killed and more than 1,000 detained, according to the Bahrain Center for Human Rights. The organisation also states that more than 60 journalists have been targeted and that 22 activists are at risk. What’s more, the arrest and disappearance of Bahraini medics in April and May was viewed as a policy of retribution against those who had helped protesters during unrest that led to the initial postponement of the grand prix.

Is this really the kind of environment that the likes of Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes, Virgin and Renault want to be associated with? I’d hazard a guess that the answer is no. The FIA’s brand, just like that of Fifa, is arguably too far gone already to care.

The  teams that will have to do the racing amid a security clampdown are contractually obliged to go, but if they truly believe in corporate social responsibility, human rights and the rule of law, then they should pull out immediately, irrespective of monetary repercussions, or face an irreversible tainting of their reputation.

Comments