The football World Cup in the USA, Canada and Mexico is now in full swing, and the football drama in the biggest sporting event in the world has not disappointed. Some of the big teams have really hit the ground running by winning their opening games, while others have been slow off the mark, failing to measure up to their usual high standards. 

But behind all the drama, the highs and lows of what is happening on the pitch, there is another drama taking place in the stadium. 

Around each stadium, there is a physical barrier, and when you step inside you enter what really appears to be a completely new world run by FIFA, the organisers of the tournament. It is a world full of confusing names and sticky tape. 

Football in 2026 is a hugely lucrative business, and the World Cup alone this year is set to generate around $9 billion, and around 6 billion “engagements” (times when people consume World Cup content) are expected for the tournament. 

It means that sponsorship is big business, and the official sponsors who have contracts with FIFA are taking the event very seriously. 

As soon as you enter any stadium, all commercial material not from official sponsors is strictly forbidden, and organisers have gone to great (and highly amusing) lengths to get rid of any trace of any unofficial branding on any scoreboards, seats, uniforms and clocks. In San Francisco, you may have to guess what sauce you are putting on your hotdog, as all sauce bottles have hidden brand names! 

All US stadiums have had to change their names for the tournament, and even Google Maps has had to toe the line so that fans don’t end up in the wrong place. 

Some unfortunate FIFA employees have had to tape over the name “Gillette” on 65 878 seats at the stadium normally known as the Gillette stadium in Boston, and the huge Gillette sign has been unceremoniously covered with a big white sheet. Refusing to take it on the chin, Gillette launched a highly successful Instagram post, editing a photo of the covered signage to make the white sheet look like shaving cream — a joke so obvious, and so perfectly on-brand, that it needed no caption. 

Levi's went one step further, covering up its own logo on Instagram. The caption? "Welcoming the world to the beautiful [redacted] stadium!" The brand pointed out what everyone could already see: a white sheet cut in the exact shape of the Levi's batwing is, technically, still a Levi's batwing. Levi's even drove a mobile billboard reading "NOTHING TO SEE HERE" around the stadium, with the hashtag #DefinitelyNotLevis.

Not every brand had to put up with the ugly white sheet. Despite not paying for sponsorship, Mercedes-Benz was able to get away with keeping its giant symbol on the roof of the stadium named after the company in Atlanta, because it was simply too huge to cover. 

It isn’t just the unofficial partners having fun. Australian deodorant brand Rexona have positioned their logo directly under the armpits of all referees and referee assistants. Despite remaining hidden throughout most of the action, the logo appears every time the referee raises his arm. The company clearly has faith that after the referee has chased Kylian Mbappé around the pitch for 90 minutes, he will still have dry armpits.

Match each word to its definition and complete the example sentences. Full Business English lesson with the exercise can be found in the downloadable PDF.

What is FIFA’s de-branding policy, and why does it exist?

True or False: Mercedes-Benz paid FIFA for the right to keep its logo on the stadium roof in Atlanta. Explain your answer.

How did Gillette and Levi’s each turn FIFA’s de-branding requirements to their advantage?

The article implies that Rexona’s marketing at the tournament is particularly brave. Why?

FIFA earns an estimated $1.8 billion in marketing revenue from the 2026 World Cup. Do you think its de-branding policy is justified, or does it go too far?

Levi's and Gillette both turned a negative situation into a successful marketing opportunity. Can you think of other examples where a brand has benefited from a restriction or setback?

From a sports club's perspective, what types of sponsors would be considered appropriate, and what criteria would you use to evaluate a potential partnership?

What are the risks of choosing the wrong sponsor, and how difficult do you think it is for a club to walk away from a lucrative deal that conflicts with its values?

I am a passionate linguist with over 14 years' experience with high level professionals.  In this lesson you will learn:

Want to work through this lesson with me?