One rule for surrogate advertising: IPL must apply it uniformly across TV and team jerseys

The Indian Premier League has built its reputation not just on cricketing excellence, but on the credibility of its ecosystem. It is a tournament where sport, business, and mass influence intersect in powerful ways. That is precisely why the current ambiguity around surrogate advertising is difficult to ignore. When a policy exists, it must be seen to work consistently—whether on television screens or on the jerseys worn by players.

A Clear Policy, But Uneven Practice

There is no confusion about the stated rule. Surrogate advertising—especially for alcohol and tobacco—is not permitted. This position is supported by the Advertising Standards Council of India, which has long maintained that indirect promotion of restricted products should not be allowed.

Yet, the way this rule plays out in reality tells a different story. While television advertising faces scrutiny and restrictions, branding on team jerseys appears to operate in a more flexible space. This creates an uneven playing field—one where the same principle is applied strictly in one format and loosely in another.

A rule cannot change depending on where it appears. If surrogate advertising is not acceptable, it should not be acceptable anywhere.

The Jersey Loophole

The partnership between Rajasthan Royals and Oaksmith Packaged Drinking Water highlights this gap. The brand, placed prominently on the jersey, gains continuous visibility—during live matches, highlights, and across digital media.

Technically, the defence is straightforward. The product being promoted is packaged water, which falls within permissible categories. But branding does not function in isolation. The name “Oaksmith” already carries a strong association with a spirit brand. The extension into water does not create a new identity; it sustains the existing one.

This is where the issue lies. What cannot be said directly is being communicated indirectly. The jersey becomes a workaround—subtle, but effective.

When Young Cricketers Become the Face of It

The concern becomes sharper when one considers the players wearing these jerseys. Cricket in India is followed by a large number of young viewers who look up to players as role models.

When a teenager like Vaibhav Sooryavanshi steps onto the field wearing such branding, it raises a valid concern. He is not endorsing the brand in any personal capacity. He is simply representing his team. Yet, the visibility creates an association that reaches audiences his own age and younger.

This is not about individual players or franchises. It is about the larger message being sent. If surrogate advertising is considered inappropriate, then its indirect presence—especially through young athletes—deserves closer scrutiny.

The Limits of Oversight

The Advertising Standards Council of India plays an important role in monitoring advertising practices. However, it is a self-regulatory body. It can review complaints, issue guidelines, and recommend changes, but enforcement depends largely on voluntary compliance.

This creates a situation where brands do not necessarily break rules—they work around them. By promoting legally acceptable products under familiar brand names, they remain within the framework while achieving the same recall.

The system, in effect, allows interpretation to replace clarity.

A Pattern Seen Elsewhere

This is not unique to one brand or one team. The same approach has been visible in pan masala advertising, where mouth fresheners and elaichi products are promoted using identical branding. These campaigns run widely, often during cricket broadcasts, and rely on the same principle—legal separation, shared identity.

For viewers, the distinction is minimal. The brand recall remains strong, and the intended restriction becomes less meaningful. The IPL, given its scale, only amplifies this effect.

One Policy, One Standard

The core issue is consistency. A policy cannot be strict in one space and flexible in another. If surrogate advertising is restricted on television, it should also be restricted on jerseys, in stadium branding, and across digital platforms linked to the league.

Allowing exceptions—whether technical or interpretative—weakens the purpose of the rule itself. It also raises questions about fairness, especially when different franchises may interpret the boundaries differently.

A uniform standard is not just desirable; it is necessary.

Time for Clarity

The Indian Premier League has the influence and the authority to address this issue decisively. A clearer policy—one that goes beyond product categories and considers brand identity—would remove ambiguity. It would ensure that what is not allowed in principle is also not allowed in practice.

More importantly, it would reinforce trust. For a tournament followed so closely by young audiences, that trust matters.

 
The Question Before the IPL

This is not about questioning intent. It is about recognising a gap between policy and execution.

Will the IPL continue to rely on technical distinctions, or will it adopt a uniform approach that applies across all forms of visibility—broadcast, digital, and on-field?

Because in a league of this scale, consistency is not a detail. It is the foundation of credibility.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not in any way represent the views of exchange4media.com.