Sponsorship exclusivity: Nice to have or a must have?

When Carlos Alcaraz was asked at the Cincinnati Open to cover the logo on his Evian water bottle, he refused. The umpire insisted because Aquafina is the tournament’s official water partner. On the surface, it was a throwaway exchange, but beneath it lies one of sponsorship’s biggest questions. How much does sponsorship exclusivity really matter?

Is exclusivity the foundation of any credible sponsorship, without which a brand is simply paying for exposure in a cluttered environment? Or is it an added layer of protection, valuable but not essential, that should be priced and sold separately? In other words, is it a minimum guarantee or a premium product?

The value of sponsorship exclusivity

The value seems obvious. If a brand invests millions to own a category, it doesn’t want a competitor creeping into the same frame, even if it’s just a player’s water bottle. Every rival mark risks diluting the message, weakening recall, even handing a competitor a free ride on the back of someone else’s investment. But is that risk always significant enough to justify the price tag? Should brands pay more for wider protections, or should a clean slate be part of the basic deal?

FIFA's recent partnership with American Airlines for the World Cup, despite having a global airline partner in Qatar Airways, showed the definitions and limitations of sponsorship exclusivity.

And how much is sponsorship exclusivity really worth? Does removing a rival logo from shot genuinely lift recall enough to shift the commercial dial? Does keeping your product as the only one poured in hospitality tangibly increase trial and sales? Or are we sometimes guilty of overstating its impact, treating it as a golden rule when in reality, fans are more focused on the game than the label?

Sponsorship exclusivity enforcement

Rights holders certainly think it matters. The fact that an umpire in Cincinnati was willing to halt play to protect a sponsor shows just how seriously events treat exclusivity. But is that level of intervention always the right look? Does strict enforcement signal professionalism and value, or does it risk making sponsorship feel overbearing and heavy-handed?

For sponsors, the question becomes whether exclusivity is a must-have in every deal, or whether the real premium lies in those occasions where broader protections deliver clear, measurable returns. For rights holders, the challenge is proving they can enforce what they promise, because without visible enforcement, the value of exclusivity is only ever theoretical.

So does exclusivity justify the millions invested in it, or should it be treated with more caution? Is it the mechanism that turns access into impact, or just another box ticked on a contract? Perhaps the answer lies in the way it is enforced and the clarity with which its benefits are defined. Either way, the Alcaraz exchange reminded us of one thing: exclusivity might be invisible when it works, but its absence is noticed immediately.