Along with FIFA, the Olympics operate a closed shop when it comes to advertising and merchandising. The latest case to hit the headlines is Visa.
Sports fans who want to buy tickets by card for the London 2012 Olympics will only be able to use the Visa payments system.
The restrictions are part of the sponsorship deal struck between Visa and the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Visa credit and debit cards will be the only ones accepted at shops or cash machines at Olympic venues.
There are two takes on this; their gaff, their rules being the obvious one from a libertarian point of view. However, there is another – who the fuck are they to dictate which payments merchants may or may not accept when dealing with their clients? This is an example of monopolistic behaviour and it stinks, frankly. It’s a bit like the comment made recently in the wake of the FIFA episode – someone (can’t find the exact link, sorry) stated that only Coco Cola will be allowed within 100m of the Olympic stadium, so tough if you prefer Pepsi. However, again, while there is the “their gaff, their rules” point, there is also the little matter of these people deciding what people may be allowed to drink – and in that instance, I tend to take a “my body, my choice” approach, just as I take a “my bank account, my choice of card” approach.
Any transaction between a merchant and the client is between them, not the Olympic committee – and that they are using statue law to impose their restrictive practices is deeply, deeply abhorrent. Not only is this a monopoly in all its vileness, it is a monopoly imposed with the willing violence of the state. They have crossed the line between legitimate sponsorship and advertising, and monopolistic behaviour.
There is a solution, of course, but people are too weak to do it. Stay away. Stay away in your masses and turn the whole horrible junket into an embarrassing loss for the IOC and their bullying sponsors.
Won’t happen, though, and these nasty turds will get away with it again.
————————————————-
Further thoughts… Following the exchange with Kyle below, another thought occurs to me. “Their gaff, their rules” would apply if, indeed, it was their gaff. Given that the IOC is not paying for this and the infrastructure has been funded at least in part from public money – i.e. yours and mine – it’s as much our gaff as it is theirs. Just a thought…
The ‘their gaff their rules’ is exactly where I stand on the credit/debit card situation – having previously held both an American Express and a Solo card I know that it is always wise to have a variety of cards for different situations; many places wouldn’t accept those two. Why should the decision be OK when it is a shop doing it, but not the Olympic Committee? Or do you think that shops should be forced to accept all types of card (irrelevant of the transaction charges they incur)? How about cheques?
What about online payments – should all online merchants have to offer Paypal, Google Checkout and Nochex?
So I really disagree with the my money my payment method argument. It is in their interest to allow you to pay with any card you like, but ultimately they are the only ones who lose out if they don’t.
I think there is another problem with the Coke example – they are talking about restricting what you can do outside their property – so it’s not even ‘my gaff my rules’. But ‘anywhere near my gaff my rules’. It would be the same as Canada passing legislation that affected the Northern USA.
There’s nothing wrong with an individual retailer deciding that, for example, they cannot afford to take cards, or a particular card is not used enough to make it viable for them and if we cannot agree a payment method, I’ll take my business elsewhere. There is a big difference between that and an outside party using the might of the state to enforce a particular type of transaction between two third parties. If I and the retailer wish to use Mastercard, for example, we should be free to do so. Exclusive advertising is one thing – a perfectly legitimate business transaction – forcing the use of a product by visitors when they are spending their own money is way off limits.
Okay, you won’t find me going within a hundred miles of this corrupt, sleazy junket anyway, but this would be a deal killer for me. While we agree on your last paragraph, the whole thing is an example of what happens when we allow monopolies to get out of hand. It’s also a classic example of what is so deeply repugnant about these international sporting bodies.