The risks and rewards of a diversified sponsorship portfolio

When Evian first entered tennis in 1989, the French mineral water brand was not a household name in sport. Over the following decades, through long-term partnerships with Wimbledon, the US Open, and ambassadors such as Maria Sharapova, Evian didn’t just sponsor tennis, it became synonymous with it. Today, their brand equity in the sport is so strong that Evian and tennis are almost inseparable in the minds of many fans.

But is this level of single-category focus always the smartest route? Or is a diversified sponsorship portfolio, one that spreads investments across multiple sports, a stronger strategy for brands seeking growth?

The case for going deep: mastering a single category

The benefits of a concentrated sponsorship strategy are clear.

• Audience expertise: By focusing on one sport, brands gain an intimate understanding of its fans and what drives them, where they engage, and how best to activate campaigns.
• Activation mastery: Repetition across similar rights teaches brands how to get the most from their spend. Mistakes are fewer, campaigns more refined, and activations sharper with each cycle.
• Comprehensive reach: Rather than scattering impressions, a concentrated strategy ensures your brand is visible at every major touchpoint within that sport’s ecosystem.

Evian’s dominance in tennis is the archetype of this approach: their longevity has made them not just present in the sport, but part of its culture.

Chief Strategy Officer at M&C Saatchi Sport & Entertainment, Neil Hopkins commented, "If you can reach a high percentage of your target consumers through a single property or sector, then the benefits of focusing investment to gain a level of ownership can be significant in terms of generating brand consideration and salience, especially when a sponsorship commitment in that sector is long-term and well-activated".

However, Hopkins also noted, "If you are a brand with multiple and clearly differentiated target audience segments, then you probably require presence in a range of sectors. The extent to which you can take ownership of those is, of course, primarily budget dependent, but it is also down to your ability to activate effectively. Sponsorship is a platform rather than a distinct channel in its own right, and those that successfully activate across a sponsorship portfolio of multiple passion spaces are those that enjoy better commercial returns."

The case for going broad: a diversified sponsorship portfolio

Diversification brings one benefit, but it’s a big one: the ability to reach across multiple audiences.

Sponsoring across different sports opens doors to new demographics, geographies, business objectives and consumer mindsets, giving brands reach and visibility they could never achieve by staying within a single category.

Steve Martin, Founding Partner at MSQ Sport + Entertainment, explains, "Once brands see the value in sponsorship and how that connects with audiences, then it becomes a question of more audiences and more diverse audiences.

It also depends on different objectives; there might be a B2B play, a brand play or a direct-to-consumer play. Most brands have now adopted a sponsorship portfolio approach that gels partnerships together but also connects with slightly different audiences".

Yet diversification comes with real demands. To succeed, brands must research and understand each audience, learn the competitive landscape, and work harder to build awareness in unfamiliar environments. More complexity, more moving parts, more chance of getting it wrong.

The single most important safeguard in a diversified portfolio is having a unifying brand theme. Without it, campaigns risk becoming fragmented, disconnected, and confusing.

How many categories are too many?

This is the critical question. Diversification sounds attractive, but the challenge lies in knowing your limits. Few brands have the resources to be truly prominent across multiple categories, with perhaps Heineken and Emirates being the standout examples, understanding each fan base inside out and activating with equal sophistication.

On the other hand, the cautionary tale here is Cazoo. At one point, the brand’s name was stamped across football, rugby, darts, cricket, and snooker. Yet the partnerships were surface level only and lacking in depth. Consequently, audience engagement remained minimal. The result: overstretch, wasted spend, and eventual withdrawal. Read more on Cazoo’s lessons here.

So how many categories can you really handle before the quality of engagement starts to slip?

Finding the balance

The only true answer lies in data. Brands must measure sponsorship performance against a comprehensive dashboard that evaluates not only awareness and reach but also deeper business objectives: sales uplift, loyalty, advocacy, employee engagement.

If the numbers start to slide in new categories, it’s a signal: resources are overstretched, and spend would deliver better returns by reinforcing existing strengths rather than chasing fresh audiences.

Knowing your limits

There is no universal right or wrong between single-category depth and diversified breadth. The real risk comes from drifting too far, too fast, without the resources or clarity to make each investment meaningful. Evian shows the rewards of singular focus. Cazoo shows the dangers of unchecked expansion.

As sponsorship marketing expert Ricardo Fort notes, “In sponsorships, less is more. Depth builds a deeper association between the brand and the sport and, over time, differentiates it from every other sponsor.” Whether pursuing a concentrated strategy or a diversified portfolio, that principle still applies: the brands that succeed are those that build genuine depth in each partnership, not just surface-level presence.

The challenge for brands is not whether to diversify, but how far they can diversify before impact gives way to dilution. The only way to know is by measuring results with rigour and acting decisively when the data suggests you’ve overstepped.