Ambush marketing

The earliest example of general anti-ambush advertising legislation were passed in South Africa in 2001 in preparation for the 2003 Cricket World Cup. The law gave the Minister of Trade and Industry the ability to designate specific events as "protected," making it illegal to use the event's trademarks visually, audibly, and "in promotional activities, which in any way, directly or indirectly, is intended to be brought into association with or to allude to an event," to "derive special promotional benefit from the event," without the consent of the organizer.[13] Prior to the 2011 Rugby World Cup, New Zealand passed the similar "Major Events Management Act," which prohibits any promotional use of words, emblems, and concepts implying association with events specifically designated as "major" by the national government, without permission from the event's organizers. The law also provides the ability for clean zones to be established around event sites for the purposes of enforcing advertising rules and providing crowd control.[16][17][18]

Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter forbids all Olympic athletes from participating in marketing activities for companies that are not official sponsors of the Olympics, even if they have official relationships with the advertiser, during a timeframe that begins 9 days before the opening ceremony, and ends 3 days after the Games' conclusion.[19]

The United Kingdom passed the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 prior to the 2012 Summer Olympics: on top of existing laws providing special protection for Olympic symbols, the act banned the use of the words "2012" and "Games" by non-sponsors, either together, or with words or concepts relating to the event, such as "Gold," "Silver," "Bronze," "Medals," "Summer," "Sponsors," or "London," to imply an association with the Games. LOCOG also announced plans to enforce these rules in the internet keyword advertising market.[20][21]

The first notable instances of ambush marketing occurred between the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, and the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul.[6] Earlier Games allowed any number of companies to be official sponsors, and there were a record 628 sponsors for the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal. Despite the revenue it provided for the Games, the ability for sponsors to promote awareness of themselves within the context of the Games was diluted by the sheer number.[6][22] In order to improve the value of these sponsorships, the International Olympic Committee implemented a system of exclusive sponsorship rights within specific market categories for the 1984 Summer Olympics.[6]

In 1986, credit card company American Express (Amex)—rival to official sponsor Visa Inc., began a marketing campaign in Asia promoting merchandise from a fictitious "Olympic Heritage Committee," supposedly based in Switzerland. American Express halted the campaign following complaints by the IOC, who threatened to denounce the company's actions with ads and media events in which sports ministers and Olympic athletes from the countries involved in the campaign would cut American Express credit cards into pieces, if they did not withdraw the ads.[6] In a follow-up, American Express released ads featuring a photo from the opening ceremony of the 1986 Asian Games held in the same city, captioned "Amex welcomes you to Seoul." The ad was intended to mislead readers into thinking that it was a photo of the Olympics' opening ceremony.[6][23] Jerry Welsh, who was the manager of global marketing efforts for American Express in the 1980s, defended Amex's practices as a corporation's duty to its shareholders after they lost out on the official Olympic sponsorship rights to Visa, as well as coining the term "ambush marketing" to refer to these activities.[6]

Amex's campaigns resulted in retaliatory advertising from Visa; in a continuation of an ongoing campaign promoting its exclusivity at certain venues and events, Visa ran advertising promoting that it was the only credit card accepted at Olympic venues and for purchasing tickets.[6][24][25][23] Amex in turn felt that Visa's advertisements were misleading, citing viewers who interpreted the ads as to believe that no other credit cards were accepted anywhere in the host city during the Olympics (such as at shops and restaurants), rather than applying only for Olympic ticket sales and at venues.[24] Prior to the 1992 Winter Olympics and Summer Olympics, American Express aired advertisements acknowledging these facts, explained with the slogan "You'll need a passport, but you don't need a Visa."[23][25] Prior to the 1992 Summer Olympics, the company also promoted a partnership with Iberia and Turespaña that made American Express "the official credit card of tourism in Spain"—a campaign which factored the Olympics, as well as Seville Expo '92.[24] The IOC negotiated a truce between Amex and Visa to tone down their advertisements, but encouraged Visa once Amex returned to its ambush marketing in 1994, and Amex finally conceded defeat by 1996.[6]

Since the mid 1990s, Nike became known for several major ambush marketing schemes at the Olympics and association football tournaments.[6][26]

In the 1992 Summer Olympics, while the United States Olympic team was sponsored by Reebok, most of the prominent players on the United States men's Olympic basketball team had been signed up by Nike as professionals. At the podium ceremony Michael Jordan famously covered up the Reebok logo with the American flag.[6]

At the 1996 Summer Olympics, Nike engaged in a marketing campaign including magazine ads and billboards, to compete with Reebok who had paid $50 million to become the event's official sponsor. Nike gave a $30,000 pair of gold-colored racing shoes to Michael Johnson, which he used during competition and later displayed on the cover of Time magazine. Consistent with its aggressively-toned marketing of the time, Nike's campaign featured slogans parodying those of the Olympics and attacking its values, including "Faster, Higher, Stronger, Badder", "You don't win Silver, you lose Gold", and "If you're not here to win, you're a tourist." Nike set up a prominent pop-up store near the athletes' village, and was also attempting to have fans to display signs with the aforementioned slogans inside venues. IOC marketing director Michael Payne noted that the campaign was being widely criticized, as athletes were "likely to be uncomfortable when their shoe sponsor says they have failed unless they win a gold medal", and that Nike was "crossing the very fine line between having an impact and biting the hand that creates tomorrow's heroes." Jim Andrews, a marketing executive, said "Nike took a lot of flack for that campaign. It wasn't in the spirit of the games. There's a lot of consumer love for the Olympics and the athletes, and that [marketing] just crossed the line for a lot of people." Payne and the United States Olympic Committee's marketing director John Krimsky held a meeting over the campaign with Howard Slusher, a subordinate of Nike co-founder Phil Knight. The meeting quickly turned aggressive; Payne threatened IOC counter-measures, including pulling accreditation for Nike employees, banning the display of its logos on equipment, and organizing a press conference where silver medallists from the Games, as well as prominent Nike-sponsored athlete Michael Johnson, would denounce the company. Faced with these threats, Nike agreed to retract most of its negative advertising and PR stunts.[6]

After Reebok unexpectedly pulled out on short notice, and likely attributed to new rules by the IOC and USOC that effectively banned Nike's aggressive ambush marketing antics used in 1996, Nike stepped in as the official sportswear supplier of the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia—using them to launch the company's first-ever global marketing campaign. To rebuke Nike's negative rhetoric, the IOC also engaged in a global marketing campaign of its own called "Celebrate Humanity", with one ad proclaiming 'Someone once said “If you don’t win the silver, you lose the gold.” Obviously they never won the silver.’[6]

For the 2012 Summer Olympics, Nike was not an official sponsor but ran an ad campaign titled ‘Find Your Greatness’ featuring “everyday athletes” from cities named London in Ohio, Canada, Nigeria and Jamaica, which also tactfully avoided infringing on sponsorship rules.[27]

At the 2020 Summer Olympics, during the medal ceremony the Brazil men's Olympic football team players did not fully wear the Brazil's official Olympic uniform provided by Chinese manufacturer Peak Sport, sporting only the pants while the jackets were tied around their waists. The players wore their Nike jerseys on the podium, apparently under orders from the Brazilian Football Confederation, as Nike sponsors their football teams. Other Brazilian athletes complained that the football players were not part of the Olympic team.[28][29] Peak Sport voiced concern that Nike could be confused as one of its subsidiary brands.[30]

Nike also performed saturation ambushes at UEFA Euro 1996 and the 1998 FIFA World Cup, by buying advertising space in the vicinity of the host venues in order to prevent the official sponsors (Umbro and Adidas respectively) from being able to promote themselves. Nike's actions influenced the eventual adoption of "safe zone" rules, requiring official sponsors to have exclusive use of all advertising locations within a certain radius of an event's venue.[6]

For the 2010 FIFA World Cup, Nike conducted the “Write the Future” ad campaign, avoiding uses of FIFA or World Cup in its branding, but gaining awareness thanks to a YouTube video that featured star footballers, star athletes from other sports, and celebrities.[31]

During the 2006 FIFA World Cup, Bavaria Brewery distributed "Leeuwenhosen"—branded overalls with lion tails, colored in the orange of the Netherlands national football team. Officials at games directed fans to take off the Leeuwenhosen and put on orange-colored shorts instead, as the clothing infringed on the exclusive beer sponsorship rights owned by Anheuser-Busch.[4] Bavaria Brewery was again accused of ambush marketing at the 2010 FIFA World Cup, when 36 female fans were ejected from a game (along with the arrest of two, later released, accused of violating the Contravention of Merchandise Marks Act) for wearing unbranded orange miniskirts that were provided by Bavaria; Sylvie van der Vaart, wife of Dutch player Rafael van der Vaart, had modeled one of the miniskirts in an advertising campaign for the brewery.[3][5] Robbie Earle was also fired from his roles as ITV Sport pundit and ambassador for England's bid for the 2018 World Cup, when it was claimed by FIFA that he had sold tickets meant for family and friends on to Bavaria.[32]

Prior to the 2010 FIFA World Cup, South African budget airline Kulula.com ran an advertisement that played upon the fact that they were not an official sponsor of the tournament: it described themselves as "Unofficial National Carrier of the You-Know-What," and contained images of stadiums, balls, vuvuzelas and national flags. The ad was pulled following a complaint by FIFA, who claimed that the ads contained symbols that constituted an unauthorized association with the event when used together.[33] Kulula.com mocked FIFA's objections in subsequent advertising: a follow-up ad deliberately replaced the items from the first ad with similarly-shaped items (such as disco balls and golf tees), and explained that there were other reasons to travel South Africa "than just for that thing we wouldn't dare mention."[34] The airline also announced that it would give away free flights to anyone named "Sepp Blatter"; the offer was redeemed for a dog named after the then-FIFA president.[35]

Li Ning carrying the torch at the opening ceremony of the 2008 Summer Olympics.

The International Olympic Committee has required host cities to enact measures to restrict commerce around venues, ensure official sponsors have access to public advertising space, "reduce and sanction" ambush marketing, and keep venues "clean" of any references to non-sponsors.[13]

At the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, the IOC worked with the local organizing committee to develop a "robust brand-protection program"; logos of non-sponsors were covered with tape on equipment at Games facilities—a restriction that applied even to appliances, bathroom fixtures, elevators, and fire extinguishers.[15] However, there was a high-profile ambush during the opening ceremony; former Olympic gymnast Li Ning, who founded an eponymous Chinese shoe company, lit the Olympic cauldron. The Li-Ning company was not an official sponsor of the Games (but did act as an equipment supplier for some of China's teams), and Li wore Adidas apparel for the sequence per its official sponsorship.[36][2] On the first trading day following the ceremony, Li-Ning's share price increased by 3.52%.[37]

Prior to the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, England, bookmaker Paddy Power placed ads promoting itself as the "official sponsor" of "the largest athletics event in London this year"—an egg-and-spoon race in the French village of London, Burgundy, with a prize of €100 in Paddy Power credit. [38] LOCOG threatened Paddy Power over the campaign, but backtracked after the bookmaker threatened to take them to court.[38][39] When announcing the planned lawsuit, a Paddy Power spokesmen quipped that "It's a pity they didn't put the same energy in to the ticketing and security arrangements for the Games that they put into protecting their sponsorship revenue streams."[38] Nike released a television advert tying into the Games with a similar concept, featuring footage of athletes training in other places named "London", and the tagline "Greatness doesn't only exist in SW19".[40] Following the Games, a study by the Global Language Monitor found that several non-sponsors, including Centrica, Ericsson, Philips, and Subway, were among the brands with the highest perceived relationship between themselves and the Games.[41]

In January 2014, prior to the 2014 Winter Olympics, clothing company The North Face was sued by the Canadian Olympic Committee (COC) for marketing a line of "villagewear" apparel that it felt implied an unauthorized association with the Games. The apparel had designs featuring the colors and symbols of countries (such as red and white with a maple leaf for Canada) and patches reading "RU 14," were described in a catalog as "[capturing] the international spirit of the Olympic Games," and several items in the catalog contained references to Sochi in their names. The COC also felt that the name "villagewear" implied a reference to Olympic Villages, accused a retailer of the line of using the Olympic rings on a store sign, and accused the company of running a contest that purported to offer tickets to the Games as prizes (in violation of terms and conditions restricting redistribution of tickets without permission).[42][43] The North Face disputed the COC's claims, arguing that it did not imply it was an official supporter of the COC, did not use any of the official branding elements of the Games, that the COC had no right to restrict usage of national symbols that are in the public domain, and that the COC did not hold rights to the "alleged Olympic trademarks" at all since they were owned by the IOC. The suit went to trial in December 2014,[43][42] and was settled in October 2016, after The North Face parent company VF Corporation agreed to make a donation to the Canadian Olympic Foundation.[44]

Prior to the 2016 Summer Olympics, Rule 40 was loosened by the IOC to allow some campaigns by non-sponsors involving athletes to occur during the Games, as long as the campaign had begun within a certain timeframe prior to the Games, and do not imply an association with the Olympics; this includes advertising material containing "Olympic-related terms" such as the current year, the host city's name, "Games," "Olympians," "Sponsors," "Medal," "Gold," "Silver," "Bronze," "Challenge," "Effort," "Performance," and "Victory", any references to Olympic results, all pictures taken at the Olympics, and even retweeting official Olympic accounts.[19] It also requires the submission of waivers to the IOC and the country's National Olympic Committee that describe the extent of the marketing involving athletes.[45][46] The ruling was criticized for muting the discussion of the Olympics on the part of those sponsors that fund individual athletes. The IOC defended it as a necessary tool against ambush marketing that had plagued the committee in the past.[47][48][49]

In July 2016, the Australian Olympic Committee sued mobile provider Telstra over adverts promoting its partnership with the Seven Network to offer subscribers free premium access to its digital coverage of the 2016 Summer Olympics, as the broadcaster's "official technology partner". The ad was set to a version of Peter Allen's song "I Go to Rio"—a phrase which was also used as the tagline of the campaign. The AOC argued that the promotion was deceiving and could imply that Telstra was an official sponsor of the Australian Olympic team (Telstra was previously an official sponsor, but ended its relationship in 2015). Telstra defended the ads, stating that they were intended to promote its relationship with the official broadcaster, and that it would amend the ads to disclaim that the company is not an official sponsor of the AOC or any related entities.[50][51] On 29 July 2016, a federal court ruled in favor of Telstra, stating that there was "no doubt" the campaign was relating to the Games without using its trademarks, but that it was "not enough for the AOC to prove that the advertisements were Olympic-themed."[52]

The IOC's restrictive ambush marketing rules were one factor in the National Hockey League's decision to ban its players from the 2018 Olympics; for the previous five Olympics, the NHL scheduled an extended break in the regular season to allow players to participate, and placed its All-Star Game on hiatus. The NHL noted that the rules disallowed teams from promoting their players' participation in the tournament.[53]

The National Football League has historically been protective over unauthorized uses of its intellectual property, such as the game telecasts themselves, and most notably, its trademark for the Super Bowl—the league's championship game. To protect these properties and its official sponsors, the league has historically sent reminders and cease and desist notices to advertisers and businesses—including establishments that may be showing the game—that use references to "Super Bowl," "Super Sunday," or team names in promotional activities related to the Super Bowl. Although using part of a trademark for descriptive purposes, without implying official association, can be considered a nominative use under United States trademark law, non-sponsors typically use euphemisms such as "the Big Game" to refer to the Super Bowl in advertising to protect themselves from liability.[7][54][55] In 2006, the NFL submitted an application to register "The Big Game" as a trademark as well, but withdrew following opposition by students of Stanford University and UC Berkeley, who play in a long-running college football rivalry game also known as "the Big Game"—an event which pre-dates the Super Bowl by several decades.[56] The NFL has also partaken in clean zone policies around Super Bowl sites to protect against saturation ambush marketing.[11]

The XFL, a forthcoming rival league, floated a large blimp designed to resemble the XFL's signature red and black Spalding football over the Oakland Coliseum during an Oakland Raiders playoff game on January 6, 2001. The league intended to do so again on January 14 for the AFC championship game, but on the 9th, the blimp was let loose unmanned after a failed attempt to land it at Oakland International Airport, and it crashed over a waterfront restaurant on the Oakland Estuary after getting caught on a sailboat mast. The blimp sustained US$2.5 million worth of damage,[57][58][59][60][61] and the incident was later considered to be an omen for the XFL's eventual failure.[62][63]

In 2009 and 2010, Avid Life Media produced advertisements for its extramarital and homosexual online dating services Ashley Madison and ManCrunch, that it aimed to have aired during the Super Bowl. The Ashley Madison ad featured the tagline "Who Are You Doing After the Game?," while the ManCrunch ad culminated with two male football fans kissing and dry humping each other. Both ads were rejected by the game's respective broadcasters; the Ashley Madison ad for objectionable content, and the ManCrunch ad for its unauthorized use of NFL trademarks. An Avid Life Media spokesperson, as well as the media, initially reported that the ManCrunch ad had actually been rejected because of its homosexual themes.[64] Critics felt that the company was engaging in ambush marketing by intentionally submitting ads that would be rejected by broadcasters, and thus earn free publicity from the resulting "controversy" without having to pay for the ad time itself. The company denied this was the case, and stated that it had serious intentions to purchase the ad time if the commercials were approved.[65][66][67]

In October 2014, the NFL fined player Colin Kaepernick for wearing pink-colored Beats headphones (in observance of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month) during a post-game press conference, violating rules that prohibit players from displaying the logos of non-sponsors during games, practices, and pre/post-game media appearances. His actions infringed the exclusive sponsorship rights of Bose Corporation, who had become an official sponsor of the NFL as of the 2014 season.[68][69][70] In response to the fine, Kaepernick covered the Beats logo on the headphones with athletic tape during a subsequent press conference.[68]

Prior to Super Bowl XLIX in Glendale, Arizona, the NFL filed an opposition to a trademark application for "Superb Owl", filed by the organizers of a local running event known as The Night Run. They had planned to hold a "Superb Owl Shuffle 5K" event on the morning of the game, in reference to the "Superb Owl" awards given out during The Night Run. The NFL felt that the trademark was likely to cause confusion with its Super Bowl trademarks, also noting that the event's website, superbowlshuffle.org, was confusingly similar to "Super Bowl Shuffle".[71] The euphemism "Superb Owl" had also appeared as the result of user typos on search queries for the game, on the television series The Colbert Report as a satire of the NFL's trademark rules, and during the vandalism of commemorative statues that were put up in San Francisco during the lead-up to Super Bowl 50.[71][72][73]

Individual teams may have their own ambush marketing restrictions. A clause in the lease agreement on the Buffalo Bills' Orchard Park stadium, which is owned by Erie County, New York, gives the Governor of New York (Andrew Cuomo throughout the entire term of the agreement) veto power over any naming rights agreement in addition to the county's right to approve or reject any renaming, so that no company with an embarrassing name would buy the rights. A bidet company attempted an ambush marketing stunt on the stadium in 2020 after New Era Cap Company announced its intent to withdraw from the agreement it had held since 2016; the Erie County executive rejected the proposal out of hand.[74]

In September 2010, the Minnesota Timberwolves basketball team announced that they would install a large billboard sign for Sanford Health on the exterior of Target Center. The sign was placed so that it would be visible from within Target Field, home stadium of the Minnesota Twins baseball team. The Twins have a competing healthcare sponsorship with the Mayo Clinic. Although it is a city-owned venue, the Timberwolves had the right to sell advertising on the exterior of the arena. Twins president Dave St. Peter stated that the size of the sign was "shocking", while the timing of the change was criticized for occurring right before the start of the 2010 Major League Baseball postseason, which would bring national exposure to the venue and the sign.[75] In October 2011, per an extension of Target Corporation's naming rights for the arena, the company was given control over its exterior. The Sanford Health sign was replaced by a new display featuring Target's dog mascot Bullseye, which animates after Twins home runs.[76][77]

The Minnesota Vikings' U.S. Bank Stadium faced a similar controversy. As the Minneapolis offices of Wells Fargo, a rival to the new stadium's naming rights sponsor U.S. Bank, are located within the vicinity of the stadium, Wells Fargo agreed to only install "non-mounted," non-illuminated signage on its building, such as letters painted directly onto the roof. After the original agreement was reached, Wells Fargo had asked the team to allow the installation of "raised, illuminated lettering. mounted on beams more than a foot above the roof rather than painted on the roof as agreed upon". Such signage would be visible in overhead views of U.S. Bank Stadium (such as camera shots during event telecasts). Wells Fargo threatened to light the entire rooftops of its offices if the Vikings chose to deny the requested change. In December 2015, the Vikings sued Wells Fargo for violating the agreement, after they began to construct an illuminated sign on their rooftop.[78][79] On June 23, 2016, Judge Donovan W. Frank ruled in favor of the Vikings, and ordered Wells Fargo to remove the raised, illuminated signage.[80]

In October 2011, Samsung ambushed the Australian launch of Apple's iPhone 4S smartphone by setting up a pop-up store near Sydney's Apple Store. At the store, the company sold its competing Galaxy S II to the first 10 people in line daily at a discount price of $2 AUD.[81] Samsung similarly piggybacked the launch of its successor, the iPhone 5, to promote the Galaxy S III and Galaxy Note II; the company purchased keyword advertisements for the devices on major search engines, as well as Twitter and YouTube, thus causing ads for them to appear on searches relating to iPhone 5.[82][83]

The Quebec-based home improvement chain Rona ambushed a billboard sign advertising another Apple product, the iPod Nano, by placing a banner for its paint recycling services that showed the paint from the devices in the Apple billboard above it falling into cans.[35]

Although the International Cricket Council does enforce trademark and ambush marketing rules surrounding events such as the Cricket World Cup, Quartz observed that the policies themselves were not as strict as those associated with other major sports bodies. The ICC does not ban the use of cricket-related imagery or the phrase "World Cup" to create associations with the event, although it still restricts the use of official ICC logos and trademarks.[84]

During the 1996 Cricket World Cup, Pepsi aired a promotional campaign in India with the slogan "Nothing official about it", alluding to its long-time rival Coca-Cola being the official beverage sponsor. A writer for India's Economic Times considered the ads "perhaps one of the greatest examples of ambush marketing".[85][86]

Prior to the 2019 Cricket World Cup, a hashtag campaign emerged on Twitter, "#GermanyCheersForIndia", which purported to feature German athletes and celebrities pledging support for the India national cricket team by wearing blue jerseys. However, it was later revealed that these posts were actually orchestrated by Volkswagen India—a competitor to the ICC's automotive sponsor Nissan—to promote "Cup Edition" models for several of its vehicles.[84] Prior to the tournament's semi-final, Pepsi (who, as before, is not an ICC sponsor) signed Charulata Patel—an 87-year-old Londoner of Indian descent who had achieved viral notoriety earlier in the tournament for her presence at the India-Bangladesh match—to appear in an extension of its Har Ghoont Mein Swag (Swag in Every Sip) campaign. She was featured in marketing (including television and digital platforms, also including the service TikTok) promoting her as Pepsi's new "swag star", and its "fan anthem".[87][88][89][90]

In September 2018, the South African Premier Soccer League issued a complaint against the South African Football Association (SAFA) over a sponsorship it had reached with OUTsurance Holdings, under which it serves as a kit sponsor for all referees overseen by the association. The advertising deal is with SAFA itself, and was deemed conflicting with the PSL's sponsorships with ABSA Group and Nedbank. SAFA defended the practice, stating that under FIFA statutes as the governing body of football in South Africa, it had the right to appoint the officials used for any match, and that the sponsorship deal would "serve the best interests of our referees in our country so that the game of football is not only protected and developed but that it also grows from strength to strength."[91][92][93]

The PSL withdrew a planned court action against SAFA the following month after a meeting with the governing body. A point of contention was a PSL referee's refusal to wear the sponsored kit during a Bloemfontein Celtic match, as he felt their green and purple colour scheme was too similar to the club's kit.[94][95]

Peacock, the streaming service of US television network NBC, engaged in this after Saint Peter's University, nicknamed Peacocks, scored a major upset of Kentucky in the 2022 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament—an event televised in the US by a joint venture between two of the network's competitors, CBS and Turner. When NBC learned that Saint Peter's could not afford to send its cheerleading and dance teams to the Peacocks' second-round game in Indianapolis, it helped pay to transport the squads to that game, promoting this via Peacock's official Twitter account. After the Peacocks defeated Murray State in the second round, NBC and Peacock expanded their marketing efforts, arranging to provide an extra outlet for fans to purchase Saint Peter's merchandise, transporting more fans to their Sweet Sixteen game against Purdue in Philadelphia, flying a Peacock banner over the game venue, and providing free one-month Peacock subscriptions to Saint Peter's students. While a CBS spokesperson had no comment regarding its rival's support of Saint Peter's, CBS announcers did acknowledge this during a game broadcast.[96]