Industry insiders told Reuters on Thursday that Hummel’s decision to compromise on the finer points of Denmark’s World Cup uniform in opposition to Qatar’s human rights record was motivated by the company’s ambition to be seen as a purpose-driven brand.
The third kit for Denmark was unveiled by the Danish sportswear business on Wednesday. It is all-black and conceals the brand’s insignia, and it is described as the “color of grief.”
A mixed response to the introduction was received, with some applauding the corporation for their position and others criticizing it as a sales-boosting marketing gimmick.
Professor Simon Chadwick of sport and geopolitical economics at SKEMA Business School said that Hummel has established itself as a company that personifies a set of ideals.
The company felt it had to take action that went above and beyond what the others were doing in Qatar, according to Chadwick, who spoke to Reuters. “The ideals that Hummel aims to express are north European liberal values,” he said.
“Importantly, however, it’s not a blank shirt. The Hummel brand is still there, so it’s a compromise that targets important consumers while also increasing awareness.”
The statement, according to Chadwick, would be appealing to millennials who would see the action as courageous on the part of a company prepared to speak out on important topics.
However, Hummel has come under fire for producing in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and China, which together account for over 30% of its garments and where labor and human rights issues have been raised.
It also supported the Qatari soccer team Al Kharaitiyat.
Despite the fact that many people would lose their employment, a Hummel representative stated, “We don’t feel that stopping our company is the correct option. We are aware that some of these (countries) are also struggling with challenges.”
“Teams from all over the world have been sponsored by us. But it doesn’t change the fact that our mission is to use sport to make the world a better place.”
process of production
Kieran Maguire, a specialist in soccer finance and professor at the University of Liverpool, has the opinion that brands cannot be wholly moral in a contemporary manufacturing process.
Meanwhile, he said, “if you choose the path of inaction, then you’re in a race to the bottom.”
“Hummel’s choice is hardly the exclusive one here. The Danish Football Federation’s (DBU) insignia has also been removed from the uniform, thereby turning it monochromatic, which reflects their position.”
The Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy, which organized the World Cup in Qatar, refuted Hummel’s claim that “thousands of lives had been lost” as a result of the competition.
The Hummel spokeswoman said, “There have been many various interpretations on the real number of victims,” and added that the business has been in constant contact with Amnesty International, a rights organization.
The fact that fundamental human rights have been violated violently is the most significant factor, however.
Other World Cup shirt sponsors may have difficulties as a result of Hummel’s location, but given their widespread presence, Maguire suggested they are unlikely to do so.
While companies like Nike and Adidas have deals with other teams, only Denmark’s squad uses Hummel as its uniform supplier.
In terms of Qatar, Maguire noted, “Nike and Adidas have sizable businesses.” A last-minute choice is feasible, but it would need to be in accordance with the football organizations since these uniforms are created months in advance.