Positive Comments: Sports Brands Sponsoring University Events, Initiating a New Ecosystem of Two – way Empowerment between Enterprises and Universities
In recent years, the phenomenon of sports brands flocking to sponsor university events is essentially a profound collision between “future investment” and “value co – creation”. From the layout of international brands like Adidas and Asics mentioned in the news to domestic brands such as Anta, Xtep, and Li – Ning, this trend not only injects youthful vitality into the brands themselves but also promotes the upgrading of the university sports ecosystem, forming a positive cycle of win – win for the “brand – university – student” tripartite.
Firstly, the “conceptual resonance” between brands and universities lays a solid foundation for cooperation and realizes two – way value enhancement. In the news, the cooperation between ASICS and Peking University stems from the alignment of the concepts of “a sound mind in a sound body” and “a complete personality starts with sports”. Choosing the relay race, a form that emphasizes teamwork, not only conveys the brand’s core but also echoes the core of university sports culture. This kind of in – depth binding based on concepts is more penetrating than simple advertising placement. Adidas’ cooperation with Tsinghua University is more comprehensive. From sponsoring sports teams, launching co – branded clothing to supporting event operations, it integrates the brand’s proposition of “changing lives through sports” into campus daily life. For universities, the professional resources of brands (such as event operation experience and equipment support) make up for the shortcomings of campus sports in commercial operation, promoting events to upgrade from “campus activities” to “public topics”. For example, the sports meet of the Beijing Sport University became well – known through social media dissemination, and the “Ma John Cup” of Tsinghua University has become a symbol of sports culture. Behind these are the contributions of brand resources – the expansion of event scale, the diversification of communication channels, and the improvement of students’ participation experience. The influence and professionalism of university sports have been significantly enhanced.
Secondly, accurately reaching the young group lays an “emotional foreshadowing” for the brand’s core consumer market in the next 10 – 20 years. Currently, the number of college students in China has exceeded 20.8 million. This group is not only the backbone of future society but also a “potential stock” in sports consumption. Their consumption concepts are still in the forming stage, and once their brand awareness and favorability are established, they will transform into long – term loyalty. In the news, Adidas attracted 41,000 students and a cumulative 420,000 person – times to participate in its road running league, and the scale of Asics’ relay race doubled in two years to nearly 1,000 people. Behind these figures is the high – frequency interaction between the brand and the young group. More importantly, this interaction is not just a “product display” but an emotional connection established through “passionate narratives” – students participate in competitions wearing brand – labeled equipment, share event clips on social media, and participate in the rush to buy co – branded products. The brand is thus integrated into their campus memories and lifestyles. As Gao Kai, the President of Asics China, said, “University events are an important scenario to directly reach the core audience.” This in – depth penetration is more effective than traditional advertising in building the brand’s “youthful genes”.
Finally, it promotes the “long – tail effect” of the sports industry ecosystem and injects vitality into the long – term development of the industry. The cooperation between brands and universities is not limited to the event level but extends to fields such as R & D and talent cultivation. For example, Anta established a sports technology R & D center with the Beijing Sport University, Xtep cooperated with Beijing University of Chemical Technology on new material R & D, and Li – Ning participated in customized talent cultivation projects. These measures combine the academic resources of universities with the market demands of brands, which can not only accelerate product innovation (such as optimizing equipment performance through student feedback) but also cultivate professional talents in sports management, equipment R & D, etc. When students develop sports habits and improve their competitive levels due to brand sponsorship, they will become the main force of sports consumption in the future; when university events are upgraded to high – quality IPs (such as the mature model of CUBAL) with the help of brand resources, they will attract more social capital to focus on the sports industry; when the cooperation between enterprises and universities shifts from “single – point sponsorship” to “ecosystem co – construction”, the underlying logic of the entire sports industry will be healthier and more sustainable.
Negative Comments: Hidden Concerns beneath the Craze, Resource Imbalance and Commercialization Boundaries Need to Be Watched Out
Although the craze of sports brands flocking to university events has brought many positive changes, the potential problems behind it also deserve attention. If not handled properly, it may lead to imbalances such as “emphasizing the top at the expense of the general” and “emphasizing commerce over public welfare”, and may even affect the purity of university sports.
Firstly, the “Matthew effect” of resource allocation may intensify, and ordinary universities and niche sports projects face the risk of being marginalized. As mentioned in the news, current brand collaborations are concentrated in top universities like Tsinghua, Peking, Shanghai Jiao Tong, and Fudan, as well as popular sports such as road running and basketball. For example, Adidas’ road running league covers 40 universities, but most of them are top – tier institutions; Asics’ relay race attracted 22 top university teams, but there is no mention of the participation of ordinary universities. This “top – focused” strategy, although in line with the brand’s “mirror effect” needs (enhancing brand tonality through top universities), may lead to an over – concentration of resources on a few universities and projects. For ordinary universities, their sports events already lack attention and resource support. If brands further “choose the best for cooperation”, it may exacerbate the differentiation of “the strong getting stronger and the weak getting weaker”. Niche sports projects such as chess, martial arts, and rock climbing are even more difficult to obtain brand sponsorship due to their small audience size and weak dissemination ability. In the long run, this may affect the diversity of campus sports.
Secondly, excessive commercialization may erode the “purity” of university sports, and events may become mere tools for brand exposure. The core demand of sports brands is to reach the young group, so it is inevitable to emphasize brand exposure in cooperation (such as advertising boards, equipment logos, and co – branded products). If brands overly pursue short – term communication effects, the event design may deviate from the original intention of “student – centered”. For example, some events may add commercial links to meet brand requirements (such as forcing participating students to wear specified equipment, shortening the competition time to insert advertisements), or overly rely on the “traffic logic” of social media dissemination (such as requiring students to shoot specific content), which actually reduces students’ participation experience. As mentioned in the news, universities have established special departments to “plan cooperation and design rights and interests”. However, in actual operation, if the brand has too much control, universities may compromise due to resource dependence, resulting in the dilution of the educational attributes of sports events (such as cultivating teamwork spirit and physical fitness) by commercial attributes.
Thirdly, the depth and sustainability of cooperation are questionable, and some projects may end up as “formalistic sponsorship”. Currently, most brand – university collaborations still focus on event sponsorship and equipment support. Although a few brands have tried R & D cooperation and talent cultivation (such as Anta’s R & D center), overall, there are still few long – term and systematic ecosystem co – construction cases. For example, some brands may only regard university events as “annual marketing activities”, lacking long – term tracking of students’ sports needs (such as continuously collecting feedback to optimize products), or lacking follow – up interaction after the event (such as community operation and sports habit cultivation). This “one – time cooperation” is difficult to truly establish a deep connection between the brand and the young group, and cannot provide continuous resource support for university sports. As mentioned in the news, brands hope to “cultivate college students’ awareness of lifelong sports”, but if the cooperation only stays at the event level and lacks subsequent sports scenarios (such as campus training camps and online interactive communities), this goal may be difficult to achieve.
Suggestions for Entrepreneurs: Grasp the “Long – termism” of the University Ecosystem and Achieve Win – win through Value Co – creation
For sports brands and related entrepreneurs, sponsoring university events is an important strategy for future layout. However, they need to avoid being “short – sighted” and “homogeneous”, and should optimize their strategies in the following directions:
- Precisely Match Concepts, Avoid “Cooperating for the Sake of Cooperation”: Before cooperation, it is necessary to conduct in – depth research on the sports culture and student needs of universities, and choose universities and projects that are highly consistent with the brand’s concepts. For example, brands emphasizing “professional sports” can focus on sponsoring highly competitive events (such as CUBAL), while brands targeting “mass sports” can pay attention to activities with high participation rates such as road running and frisbee. At the same time, the cooperation form needs to be customized to avoid the same old “equipment sponsorship + advertising exposure”. Exclusive IPs can be designed in combination with university characteristics (such as Asics’ relay race with Peking University) to enhance the “bond” between the brand and the university.
- Pay Attention to Resource Inclusiveness, Balance the “Top” and the “Long – tail”: While focusing on top universities, part of the resources can be allocated to support ordinary universities and niche sports projects. For example, a “campus sports support fund” can be established to provide basic equipment or operation support for small – scale events in ordinary universities; special sponsorship programs can be launched for niche sports (such as martial arts and fencing), and joint with universities to develop characteristic courses or training camps. This can not only enhance the brand’s social responsibility but also expand the coverage of the young group and avoid public opinion risks caused by resource imbalance.
- Establish a Long – term Cooperation Mechanism, Shift from “Sponsorship” to “Co – construction”: Avoid short – term “one – time sponsorship” and establish a long – term ecological cooperation with universities. For example, jointly establish a “sports research laboratory” (such as Anta’s R & D center with the Beijing Sport University), and directly input students’ usage feedback into the product R & D process; offer “brand – university” co – branded courses (such as sports marketing and event operation) to cultivate professional talents and enhance students’ recognition of the brand; operate “campus sports communities” to continuously reach students through online and offline activities and help them develop sports habits.
- Uphold the Essence of Sports, Balance Commerce and Public Welfare: In cooperation, it is necessary to clarify that “student experience” is the core and avoid excessive commercialization. For example, event design should prioritize student participation (such as setting up interesting groups and simplifying commercial links), and equipment sponsorship should respect students’ choices (such as providing multiple styles instead of forcing usage); part of the profits from co – branded products can be reserved to support campus sports public welfare (such as sponsoring poor students to participate in competitions and improving sports facilities). Through the model of “commerce feeding back public welfare”, the brand’s reputation can be enhanced, and the purity of university sports can be maintained.
Conclusion
The craze of sports brands sponsoring university events is essentially a strategic layout “oriented towards the future”. Brands reach the young group through universities, and universities upgrade their sports ecosystem with the help of brand resources. The two sides could have achieved a “two – way pursuit”. However, to truly promote the long – term development of the sports industry with this trend, brands need to abandon the short – sighted “traffic thinking”, and universities need to uphold the educational essence of sports. They should jointly explore a more sustainable cooperation model in “value co – creation”. Only in this way can the university sports field truly become the “future battlefield for brands” and the “fertile ground of hope for sports”.
