Róisín Shortall: Why the Government should stand firm on sports alcohol sponsorship clampdown

No one in Ireland needs to be convinced of the dreadful problem Irish society faces with the misuse of alcohol. Without alcohol at the centre of Irish life we would have fewer premature deaths, road fatalities, injuries, assaults, rapes and suicides; and less vandalism, domestic violence and child abuse. We would also see fewer babies born with a dependence on alcohol, less cancer, less absenteeism, while seeing higher productivity, better health outcomes, and lower expenditure commitments.

Each of us can see first-hand the awful consequences of the misuse of alcohol in the lives of someone close to us and we all know it is vital that we as a people respond to the challenges presented by alcohol misuse with an appropriate, credible and holistic strategy.

However, no strategy can be successful unless it tackles every aspect of the problem and ensures every department and every sector plays its part. In terms of a strategy on alcohol, this includes measures in relation to pricing, licensing, enforcement and availability. But it also needs to include measures that deal with the promotion of alcohol.

The promotion of alcohol takes many forms, and sports sponsorship is a significant component of this. It has been reported that the Government is to drop the proposal to phase out alcohol sponsorship of sport from its alcohol strategy. Somewhere between €10 and €20 million in funding each year is provided to sports bodies by alcohol drinks companies. Of the three main sports in Ireland, dependence on alcohol sponsorship is heavier for soccer and rugby, but particularly rugby, than it is for the GAA, where alcohol funding is now relatively minor – and declining. Such sponsorship is not engaged in for philanthropic reasons. Clearly, there is substantial commercial gain for the drinks industry if it is willing to spend these amounts on promotion.

But sure what harm is it doing? Well, a lot actually. Drinks companies are seeking to glamorise their product by associating it with our sporting heroes. The promotion of alcohol in this fashion has a particular impact on the early initiation of young people into drinking.

I would encourage readers to look at Prof Gerard Hastings’s analysis into sponsorship of sports and music events by the alcohol industry in the UK. In this study, internal industry documentation was sourced as part of an investigation into the conduct of the industry. The report, titled “They’ll drink bucket loads of the stuff”, which is on www.alcoholresearchuk.org, highlighted a deliberate use of sports and music sponsorship to recruit young male drinkers.

Young males

Internal documents from Carling concluded the point of Carling sponsorship was to “Build the image of the brand and recruit young male drinkers”.

The document pointed to the attractiveness of being able to “piggy back” on the heroes of young people and concluded: “They (young men) think about 4 things, we brew 1 and sponsor 2 of them.”

Having read this evidence, it would be impossible to conclude anything other than the promotion of alcohol, including sports sponsorship, leads to earlier initiation of drinking, higher levels of consumption and greater health risks, than without such promotion.

But won’t sports lose out? Concern has rightly been expressed about the need to support and sustain sport in Ireland given its hugely important contribution to our identity, our health and our communities. Sponsorship is a key part of the business plan of each of our main sporting bodies.

That’s why the original plan was to allow reasonable time to phase out alcohol sponsorship and to afford sporting organisations an opportunity to identify alternative sources of funding.

Some of the commentary on a sponsorship ban makes the assumption that all sponsorship is lost once a ban is imposed. This is not the case. Other sponsors, albeit at perhaps lower sponsorship levels, can and often do replace alcohol sponsorship.

However, the overall value of sponsorship available to sport may shrink, resulting in a proportion of current funding being lost. But, the replacement funding required, at least for the three main participation sports, is certainly less than €10 million and probably closer to €5 million.

There is a way this gap can be bridged. For several years now, the Government has been sitting on a large number of other recommendations on how to tackle alcohol misuse, some of which are revenue-raising. These are contained in the National Substance Misuse Strategy.

Solidarity levy

For instance, the social solidarity levy has the potential to raise some funding that could be diverted to sports. Also, an indirect consequence of the introduction of minimum pricing could be an increase in VAT receipts from certain products.

One measure not included in the recommendations of the Steering Group on a National Substance Misuse Strategy but still open to government would be to reintroduce a ban on all below-cost selling of alcohol. Minimum pricing will deal with some of the below-cost selling in supermarkets but not with it all, particularly in respect of the premium brands. If a supermarket sells alcohol at below cost, it can apply for a refund of VAT from the Revenue Commissioners. In effect, the State subsidises the below-cost selling of alcohol and this needs to end. Such a ban could yield a significant increase in VAT (some industry sources put this in the region of €20million) that again could be diverted to sport.

There is strong leadership on this issue across the medical world. Curbing the promotion of alcohol is supported by the chief medical officer, the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, the British Medical Association and the World Health Organisation. What we need from the Government is political leadership that puts the interests of public health ahead of the alcohol industry. Instead, we have what seems like more pandering. Róisín Shortall is Independent TD for Dublin North West and former minister of state for primary care and substance misuse