Effect or morality?

 
Column Are we ready to sacrifice our enthusiasm for sport on the altar of moral indignation? Now should be the time for the last remaining therapeutic proposal. 
Morally, we are becoming more and more indignant about exposed doping offenders. Recently, the "end of a princess" in tennis (NZZ am Sonntag) spoiled at least our weekend. In cycling, we suffer months of endless horror and fear the boredom of next summer without the Tour de France in the mass media. And what happens when, in the battle between China and the rest of the world, clean sport will predictably only ever run behind? Why are the athletes doing this to us? Why doesn't sport do anything about it? Why do companies still sponsor sport despite all this? Let's start with the answer to the last question: because sport sponsorship works. It is an effective communication tool for brands in competition. There is hardly a cheaper way to achieve high reach. And in no other environment is brand communication so well received by the target groups. They place more trust in brands that successfully engage in sports sponsorship, turn into more satisfied customers and even buy more. A recent scientific study by the University of Basel confirmed this beneficial relationship for brands.
Of course, there are conditions for such success that can be summarized under the title "professional strategic sports sponsorship": A positive relationship between the brand and the sponsored party as well as comprehensive and broad utilization of the commitment. And then there is the positive assessment of the sponsorship by the target groups addressed. If we start here, our moral indignation could of course curb the enthusiasm of the sponsors. There are also isolated cases of individual sponsors pulling out in a hurry. In general, however, a well thought-out and differentiated reaction over a longer period of time prevails. Why is that? Because sports sponsorship has equally attractive effects that cannot and should not be relinquished lightly. Essentially, because moral consternation has by no means had any effect on the behavior of all of us.
We prefer to make do by looking at others. The term "doping offender" is the most digestible way out. The individual offender frees us from any compulsion to act. Once the individual sinner has been caught, we can turn our attention back to collective pleasure. We devote our attention and enthusiasm to the good athletes. And we are still doing this in growing numbers with increasing economic effects. At the regulars' table, everything is back to normal.
However, if the individual cases of sin accumulate to such an extent that even a massive turning of the blind eye does not help, then we continue the discussion in the talk shows. The athlete mutates sympathetically from perpetrator to victim. We then pillory the sports organizations. They simply do too little to keep the evil at least far enough away from us so that we can pursue our pleasure largely undisturbed. Sports bureaucrats with their inability or unwillingness are the problem. This is certainly a rewarding perspective, because there is hardly any evidence to prove the opposite of their inability or unwillingness. But little helps little.
Then all that remains is for the state to enable us to continue enjoying clean sport in the future. We are probably in this therapeutic phase right now. The optimism with which this solution is viewed is astonishing. Astonishing, because at least one or two states have long since been convicted of systematic collective doping. All history? Everything only possible in the former Eastern Bloc? Shouldn't one or the other state really also be of the opinion that the end (winning the national competition) justifies the means, and therefore benevolently tolerate performance-enhancing means as a contribution to ensuring fairness in international competition? In any case, this therapeutic approach will have to undergo a dramatic endurance test at the latest with the opening of the Olympic Games in China.
So there is a danger that we will end up back with ourselves. Are we even prepared to sacrifice our enthusiasm for sport on the altar of moral indignation? Our seemingly escalating indignation over the supposedly excessive payment of athletes is obviously fueling our consumption of sport. We don't let the outrage about violence in sports arenas stop us either; we simply ask for police protection on a scale that is obviously reaching its limits. So now should be the time for the last remaining therapeutic proposal on the subject of doping, which is also put forward from time to time by individual outsiders, albeit usually behind closed doors: "Legalize it!" Effect instead of morality.
Jürgen Häusler is CEO of the Interbrand, Zintzmeyer and Lux Group and an honorary professor at the University of Leipzig.