As stated by Skogen, Ogle and Avitabile, (2014), some government actions that provide infrastructure and access to capital are some of the actions that are undertaken by government to build a relationship with other businesses. When a number of laws are passed and policies are set regarding a particular industry or company, it is obvious to impact the business of the particular organization. As commented by Athanasiadou et al., (2016), the impact happens to be negative in most cases for the particular business. In this respect, Athanasiadou et al., (2016) has further commented that it falls under the responsibilities of the particular company to proactively and regularly engage with the activities of government even if it is observed that engaging with government is uninformed and frustrating. However, building a strong relationship with the government key stakeholders, majority of companies’ business operation becomes effective.
Reading Ruiz and Schwirtz, (2016), it has been observed that major sports person have become major faces in the promotion of many brands. It is evident that companies think twice before getting associated with an individual or sports where there might be a doping culture. There are many instances when such issues have been evident. The Lance Armstrong is one of the greatest scandals that shocked the World and the Government-business relationship is affected in any way. It has been observed that in the Armstrong case, Nike, Budweiser brewer Anheuser-Bush and the bike manufacturer Trek has cut their ties with the athletes who have been found to integrate in cases related to doping (Mangan & Dyreson, 2013). There are numerous such examples that can easily relate to the government-business relationship that influences the business as a whole.
There is no doubt that businesses have become much savvy with the sports sponsorship dealing with the various companies in the market. Consumers can be easily being attracted when a product is endorsed by a celebrity sports person. There has been much debate regarding the legality of using performance enhancing drugs in drugs (Popovski, 2015). It has been found that leading to the ban of the drugs like steroids, there has been increasing use of other drugs that indirectly increase the testosterone level of the person in taking the drugs by stimulating the cells to produce more of it and thus, enhancing the performance of the particular sports person.
Performance-enhancing drugs have long history. There have been many instances in major international sports when news related to doping has been evident. Research had showed that use of drugs has its own potential of misuse (Sobolevsky et al., 2014). If the situation of the Rio Olympics is considered, it has been found that more than 100 athletes were banned from the Game when it was found that that the sports persons were doping. Each member was tested and then they were allowed to participate in the Game. Many journalists and sports writers have proposed that doping has to made legal and ban should be lifted from the use of the drugs and the constant abuse of breaking the rules have to be stopped (Mangan & Dyreson, 2013). Some of the doping effects did not have longer effects as a scandal and were nullified after some little impact on the societal condition as a whole.
If the economic impact of a country is seen due to the doping effect in major sports, it can be said that doping became a controversial topic since the time when sports became competitive. Drugs ban has grabbed the attention of the media since a long time (Mangan & Dyreson, 2013). Fans of the major sports make sufficient investment in the sports to support their team. In the same instances, it has been known that major fans care about the quality of the future events and there are instances that might result in negative externalities in case they value the sport less even when the athletes do not comply with the doping rules. It is obvious that when athletes are benefitted by any kind of doping, there is a greater scope of the particular person to win in the game (Malagoni et al., 2015). In such situation, major companies also invest in the particular game or the athlete and the value of the particular game increases. In such situation, it is sure that the economy of the particular game increases and thus a business relationship is created.
In case, if doping is made legal from the government side, then sponsorship can be made from the part of the company and the business can grow. Reports showed that public feels drug use is a threat to the sports and it damages the reputation of the particular sport (Malagoni et al., 2015). In such situation, any kind of effort made to portray the face of a particular person to symbolize their product, there is a great chance that the particular product will not be accepted among the major consumers (Danylchuk, Stegink & Lebel, 2016). Therefore, the company has to suffer and there might be instances when the particular person has to suffer economically. These things automatically impact the business of a country and the government is directly or indirectly related to the same situation.
When the news of the drugs intake by the famous athletes are spread in the society then there arises a hype that the particular sports person or the athlete is not a good person for the society and anything related to the person is not genuine enough to be accepted (Mangan & Dyreson, 2013). When a company comes to another country for the sake of doing business and if the same company selects a person who has been accused for doping then there is a great chance of the failure of the business of the particular company. It has been found that on an average 57% of people have the opinions that doping has a negative impact on the Sports and on the society as well (Malagoni et al., 2015). In this respect, it can be said that the countries that participated in the Rio Olympics shall feel proud about their country when any of their players are not involved in the cases related to doping.
Relationship with the economic impact of a Game and the government is complex. It has both positive and negative impact and has some public good as well. Whatever, might be the situation, the main aim of the government happens to make the best of the business to ensure a stability of the economic growth of the country (Malagoni et al., 2015). Government or business always makes a balanced situation to maintain the welfare of the economy of the nation. At times, many powerful organizations in fact force the Government to act on a way that they feel beneficial for their company. In all those situations, companies also make some kind of pressure on the government of the country to focus on the business influences because there is always another aim behind the business to attract foreign investment for the country (Mangan & Dyreson, 2013). All these things directly or indirectly influence the government-business relationship.
The Rio Olympic held in August 2016 showed the expectation of the people towards the performance of the athletes during the Games. Any kind of news that is spread to portray that any of the players is related to any case of doping; it becomes a crisis situation for the Sports fan as well to deal with the situation. Brazil is one of the middle-income countries and feeding the national pride is one of the important aspects to be taken into consideration (Danylchuk, Stegink & Lebel, 2016). In such countries, the economic impact is limited. If the situation of doping on the engagement of the people is considered, a dominant mood of the people acts as a catalyst to the performance of the Game. In the view point of, sports is a game full of values, respect and partnership. With the evolution of the society, the same has been converted into a kind of competition and it was then became evident to grab the opportunity of winning, There comes the importance of doping, an unethical approach towards the serious competition.
It can be said that there are obvious issues concerned to social and health issues related to doping, there are major effects in the business and commerce of major brands in the world of business. There has to be negative impact on several aspects like sponsorship, TV rights and employment as well. There are many companies that put mandatory clauses in their sponsorship. In fact, it has been evident that in the contracts of the sponsorship, the sports persons are tested and if they are found positive in their test, their sponsorship contracts became null and void and the person has to return the money as well. This is another implication of the business that affects the business-government relationship.
Athanasiadou, I., Voss, S., Lyris, E., Aljaber, A., Alsayrafi, M., & Georgakopoulos, C. (2016). Analytical progresses of the World Anti-Doping Agency Olympic laboratories: a 2016 update from London to Rio. Bioanalysis, 8(21), 2265-2279.
Danylchuk, K., Stegink, J., & Lebel, K. (2016). Doping scandals in professional cycling: impact on primary team sponsor’s stock return. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 17(1), 37-55.
Malagoni, A. M., Lamberti, N., Carrabre, J. E., Litmanen, H., Jeannier, P., Zhukovskaja, L., ... & Manfredini, F. (2015). Planning the International Competition Schedules for the Health of Elite Athletes: A 21-Year Retrospective Study Evaluating the Effectiveness and Economic Impact in an Olympic Sport. PloS one, 10(6), e0130338.
Mangan, J. A., & Dyreson, M. (2013). Olympic legacies: intended and unintended: political, cultural, economic and educational. Routledge.
Popovski, S. (2015). Fighting doping during Olympic Games: The experience gained and a glance in the future. Toxicology Letters, 2(238), S45.
Ruiz, R. R., & Schwirtz, M. (2016). Russian Insider Says State-Run Doping Fueled Olympic Gold. The New York Times.
Skogen, K., Ogle, E., & Avitabile, A. (2014). Every High Has Its Low: The Effects of Doping on Olympic Athletes' Public Image.
Sobolevsky, T., Krotov, G., Dikunets, M., Nikitina, M., Mochalova, E., & Rodchenkov, G. (2014). Anti?doping analyses at the Sochi Olympic and Paralympic Games 2014. Drug testing and analysis, 6(11-12), 1087-1101.