Atlético Madrid’s Expired Stadium Sponsor Wanda Is Among Controversial FIFA World Cup’s Partners

Traditionally, sticking your name to a World Cup has seemed like a great idea. In business terms, it still could be. But with this year’s edition in Qatar perhaps the most contentious ever, the success formula is not quite so simple for sponsors.

The tournament may be spectacular. Yet it will showcase against the backdrop of hundreds, maybe even thousands of migrant worker deaths—the exact number is disputed by Qatar, FIFA and human rights organizations—before the competition. That’s not even mentioning tournament employees’ lack of working rights, nor the strict laws against homosexual relationships, for example, in the Gulf state, another issue leading many to question its suitability to host the show.

It has also put many soccer associations, sponsors and people connected to the World Cup in an awkward position. One organization in line to project its brand at the event this November and December is Wanda, which will partner with FIFA for a second time after Russia’s showing four years ago. Joining it will be Adidas, Coca-Cola, Hyundai/Kia, QatarEnergy, Qatar Airways and Visa, with FIFA’s greater reliance on Asian and local sponsors now a developing trend.

Incidentally, the name in question—conglomerate Wanda—is still fresh from cutting its stadium rights relationship with modern-day La Liga giant Atlético Madrid.

To give it its full name, Dalian Wanda Group—a Chinese real estate developer—attached itself to the Madrid club’s ground for five years to coin the Estadio Wanda Metropolitano. Some reports suggest Atlético has already prepared a replacement in another real estate developer (Spanish), this time closer to home in Spanish company Civitas Pacensis. If finalized, the venue would presumably become the Civitas Metropolitano.

Being a stadium rights-holder is a big deal, and Wanda’s name has never been far from commentators’ and fans’ lips since the team began life in its new, multipurpose arena in 2017. But as the group’s stronghold on the stadium weakened, the agreement became more unsustainable. Having ended its relationship with Atlético, the World Cup is Wanda’s next big sporting gig.

What is better, though? Advertising at a World Cup finals is massive, but so are exclusive naming rights. And FIFA and Qatar’s often poor publicity has left brands toeing a tricky line between driving more eyeballs towards themselves and maintaining a reputable image later this year. There is also the possibility that many people won’t care about the issues engulfing the tournament, and that being there is an obvious win for willing companies.

Some soccer federations’ responses suggest otherwise. There has been no World Cup boycott, although some national bodies from northern Europe—such as those from Belgium and Denmark—have criticized the hosting process. And as the weeks tick down towards kick-off at the Al Thumana Stadium on November 21, when Senegal and the Netherlands contest the opening game, there could be further movement.

In response to the tournament’s controversies, some squads may collaborate to project a clear social message in Qatar. That would not be good reading for those advertising and endorsing the event. FIFA has, however, previously governed against some forms of political messaging in games, meaning any action could be punishable.

Over in Spain, Atlético’s immediate worry won’t concern the World Cup. Its considerable stadium cost, alongside lofty expenditure on players and salaries, means the club has some financial restraints—so much so that it may have to tighten its budget over the coming seasons regarding club personnel. Aiming to close the gap on Real Madrid and Barcelona, it has made some calculated transfer decisions this window, securing moves for box-to-box midfielder Axel Witsel and Brazilian youngster Samuel Lino for less than €7 million ($7 million) combined.

In the background, having its stadium situation sewn up is a must, as it adjusts to a norm without Qatar-bound Wanda.