A billion people watched the opening match of the FIFA World Cup in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and hundreds of millions more will tune in at some point during the month-long tournament. For FIFA’s six major partners and the event’s eight official sponsors, this audience is nothing short of a gold mine. These enterprises pay tens of millions in the hope that some of the magic of the “beautiful game” will rub off on their brands — and it very well may. However, for viewers, that is probably not a good thing.
The run-up to the tournament’s kickoff was not without drama for at least one of FIFA’s partners, Budweiser, which was accused of compelling the Brazilian government to overturn a national law banning the sale of alcohol inside soccer stadiums.
Despite widespread opposition to repeal of the law, soccer’s world governing body was resolute: “Alcoholic drinks are part of the FIFA World Cup, so we’re going to have them.”
Sponsorship by companies like Budweiser, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola and convenience food giant Moy Park brings millions in revenue to the game, but what message does it send to the global audience?
Promoting alcohol, sugary drinks and fast food may mean massive profits for corporations, but it also means worse health for individuals and a costly burden on countries’ healthcare systems.
Instead of focusing exclusively on alcohol’s potential to fuel violence inside stadiums, the media should be emphasizing the damage that alcohol and processed foods are causing to the world’s population every day.
Consumption of such products continues to rise — not least because of multibillion-dollar global advertising campaigns.
Over the past decade, global soft drink sales have doubled, per capita alcohol consumption has risen and tobacco use has increased. Making matters worse, most of this growth is occurring in low and middle-income countries, which are the least equipped to handle the coming health crisis.
One factor underlying such threats to public health is classification.
Health experts have traditionally lumped diseases into two categories: communicable diseases, which are caused predominantly by infection, and non-communicable diseases, that is, everything else.
Among non-communicable diseases, there are four conditions that contribute the most to early death or disability: cardiovascular disease, chronic lung conditions, cancer and diabetes.
In 2010, these four conditions caused 47 percent of all deaths, including 9 million deaths of people under 60.
The main risk factors for developing these conditions — smoking tobacco, excessive alcohol consumption, being overweight and insufficient physical exercise — reflect deeply ingrained unhealthy behaviors.
Given that these are precisely the kind of behaviors that companies like the World Cup sponsors are encouraging, a better disease classification would be pestilentia lucro causa (PLC), or “profit-driven disease.”
The overconsumption of alcohol, tobacco and energy-rich processed foods are often framed as lifestyle “choices,” but the determinants of such choices are often removed from people’s immediate control.
The strong associations between profit-driven disease and factors such as poverty or gender suggest that wider social forces exert considerable pressure on individual behaviors that affect health.
Addressing profit-driven diseases calls for a new approach to health and to the organizations charged with protecting it. The current system does not empower the UN and other technical agencies concerned with health governance to confront the determinants of poor health effectively.
Large corporations have resources, lobbying power, advertising budgets, networks and supply chains that the UN can only dream of commanding. And while the WHO skimps by on US$2 billion a year, the tobacco industry rakes in US$35 billion in annual profits.
What steps can be taken to level the playing field?
As any soccer pundit will tell you, success depends on teamwork. First and foremost, consumers must be better informed about the long-term impact of sponsors’ products.
After all, the most effective way to compel companies to change is to stop purchasing what they sell.
When people raise their voices — say, to ban advertising for breast-milk substitutes or to demand access to life-saving drugs — big corporations often listen.
Second, policymakers must be realistic. While there is certainly room for optimism about technological advances that will help to control treatment costs, treating a growing share of the world’s population simply is not feasible.
The World Economic Forum estimates that the four major profit-driven diseases cost the global economy US$3.75 trillion in 2010, more than half of which was spent on medical care. In this context, prevention strategies are crucial.
Third, businesses have a critical role to play. Beyond being a key aspect of corporate social responsibility, curbing profit-driven diseases — and thereby ensuring the health and productivity of current and future generations — is in firms’ interest.
Voluntary codes to limit sugar in soft drinks and reduce salt levels in processed foods are a positive step, but they are far from adequate.
Finally, every successful team needs a strong manager.
In the battle against profit-driven diseases, international and national regulatory authorities must fill this role, setting and enforcing the rules of the game to protect the health of people worldwide.
The World Cup has a profound social impact, including on global health.
FIFA has a responsibility to ensure that the tournament’s viewers are not receiving a message that could make them sick.
Kent Buse is head of political affairs and strategy at UNAIDS. Sarah Hawkes is reader in global health and Wellcome Trust senior fellow in international public engagement at the Institute for Global Health, University College London.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past