Sporting Glory Cannot Create a Nation Brand

I thank The New Vision sports reporter, Fred Kaweesi, for his article about the popularity of footballer, Ibrahim Sekagya, in Austria because of his talent and important role in one that country’s most successful football clubs (http://www.newvision.co.ug/PA/8/30/635038). While I am pleased that Kaweesi has taken time off from his covering of the Euro 2008 tournament to report on a countryman representing Uganda over there, I do not quite agree with his opinion, and those who share it, that we should invest in sports and sports personalities as an alternative to nation branding.

I wish to put it to him that Australia is a country that has invested millions, if not billions, of any currency in branding and aggressively advertising itself internationally, yet it is a massive international sports and cultural powerhouse. Australia and Australians are multiple world champions in several sports and the country has impressive footballing talent in the likes of Mark Viduka, Harry Kewell and Lucas Neill among tens of others. On the cultural scene, the same country has given the world Hollywood greats like Mel Gibson and Russell Crowe, international television stars like Steve ‘The Crocodile Hunter’ Irwin (RIP) and pop stars like sisters Kylie and Dannii Minogue. Furthermore, Australia has given the world blockbuster television productions like Neighbours. Even with that impressive portfolio of national marketing opportunities, Australia has gone on to spend money directly advertising itself in Asia, Europe and North America all year round, every year.

I believe that the logic behind Australia’s move is simple – do not put all your eggs in one basket. Like Australia, Uganda must diversify its marketing opportunities so as to leave nothing to chance, so as not to gamble. Winning medals and sporting accolades alone do not create a brand. A national brand, any brand at all, is created by appealing to as many of an audience’s senses as possible. It calls for a diversified approach to reach as many segments of a market as possible. A diversified approach to nation branding also insures a country against risks she may not have any control over. For instance, if Uganda had put all of her resources in her team to the Sydney 2000 Olympics, imagine what the effect of Joe Atuhaire’s arrest on charges of alleged sexual assault would have had on the country’s marketability. Had their countries only chosen to invest in sport for advertising and promotional purposes, Ben Johnson, Marion Jones and Dwain Chambers would have undone all of that effort.

Sports personalities, talented as they may be, are only human and if Uganda bases her marketability only on them, it would be a gamble that can blow up any minute because of scandal, overestimated talent, loss of form, injury or incapacitation. Nation branding is a worldwide trend and, yes, it costs resources that are competed for by many demanding needs, of which sporting glory is just a fraction. Our debate should not be whether or not we should advertise Uganda because we almost have no choice but to advertise. The debate should be how we do it rationally and how we can get value for money out it. Uganda, for instance, could choose to make Sekagya a part of a wider paid-for marketing drive for the nation rather than us depending almost solely on him or waiting several years for more Sekagyas, who we may or may not get.