Is the luxurification of sport a threat to its power as a social equaliser?
TechnoGym at Borgo Egnazia, Puglia
It is obvious that sport has been one of the prime areas of interest for luxury brands. Luxury brands, such as Rolex or Hermes, have long-standing partnerships with select tournaments. For example, Rolex has been the official sponsor of Wimbledon for over 40 years, and this relationship was deemed so deep and meaningful that the brand developed a Wimbledon dial. A step further in this direction is the emergence of new sports leagues primarily driven by a luxury business model. The latest example is the Premier Jumping League (PJL), which is intent on serving the otherwise underserved equestrian market segment.
It is not difficult to see why luxury brands gravitate towards sport. Sporting events offer a unique blend of culture, hospitality hubs, and unprecedented loyalty. They are also among the few remaining forms of entertainment that offer unscripted drama, which comes with heightened emotional involvement. Unlike in other areas of human activity, it is very common for people to favour a certain team or athlete in childhood and remain faithful fans for the rest of their lives. This is why the first touchpoint does not change and why targeting young people holds long-term value and comes with a privilege that brands in other industries lack. The combination of these affordances that come with involvement in sport is why luxury brands see it as a revenue diversification, brand innovation, and internationalisation strategy. However, there is a foundational clash because luxury is rooted in exclusivity, while sport, on the other hand, is rooted in unity. Additionally, with the emergence of professional sports, this has become one of the most potent and efficient social equalisers in the world, which is a part of its appeal. Hence, the question in the title of this article is more than appropriate.
In short, the answer is yes. Not only can luxury threaten it, but a significant backlash can be expected from sports fans both against teams (or individual athletes) and luxury brands. Still, this negative outcome is not unavoidable. There are already examples of luxury brands that have managed to insert themselves in sporting narratives without causing unwanted disruptions. Como 1904, a small football club from Como, Italy, caused an uproar when they brought in Rhuigi Villaseñor, a luxury streetwear designer and brand owner, to endorse the club’s lifestyle positioning. The collaboration has been largely successful as the club’s merchandise has gained global traction, surpassing the club’s popularity in the world of football. The club held its pop-up in Harrods, a renowned luxury department store in London. However, there was no backlash. These strategies were welcomed as the club remained dedicated to maintaining its link to the local community, and core activities are still very much accessible to the mass market. Rhuigi noted that the success of the strategy can be attributed to the conscious decision to rely on audience layering rather than typical audience segmentation. More exclusive services are offered to a smaller audience segment and contained so that the democratic spirit of football is not tainted. Other experts also note that luxury brands need to reconsider their pricing strategy and consider introducing speciality products more akin to entry-level offerings to avoid alienating sports fans.
Successful examples signal that luxury brands need to make certain concessions to successfully enter sports and capitalise on the unique benefits it provides. Aspirational luxury seems to be a better fit than absolute luxury, and the right balance is the one where luxury does not overpower the centrality of the sporting sentiment. Luxury brands need to act as respectful guests in these spaces, offering an elevated experience while honouring the values and integrity of sport culture.