The case against the logo.
Watch the session
The setup
Every brand is in sport now. Beverage, banking, skincare, telecom, insurance. The money moved there because attention moved there, and the tactic most agencies still sell into that money is the oldest one on the shelf: put the mark somewhere a camera will find it.
The moderator opened by asking each panelist for one sentence on the single most overvalued tactic in sports marketing. Four people answered. Three of them said the same thing without conferring, and the fourth said a version of it with an asterisk attached.
That unanimity is the session. When the brand side, the league side, the talent side and the creative side all name the same waste on the same stage, the question stops being whether logo-first sponsorship works and becomes what you sell a client instead, and how you defend the price of it.
Who was on stage, and why they're worth listening to
Part One — Four people, one answer
Diogo went first, and gave the brand-side version. Oakley gets offered visibility for nothing and turns it down.
"Sometimes we will get offers like, 'Hey, I can put your logo for free.' I don't care about putting my logo everywhere. That's not something that moves us."
His test for what does move Oakley is a swap test: "We always look to something that can be ownable, that you cannot just swap the logo and it's going to make sense." If another brand could buy the same asset and the activation would read identically, it was never an activation.
Connor gave the league-side version, and his phrasing became the session's most-repeated line.
"We try to meet the player where they're at and be able to talk to them in an authentic way, rather than trying to just throw out there a statement or a logo."
Coming from the person who owns the inventory, that is worth sitting with. He sells sponsorship for a living and opened by devaluing the easiest thing he has to sell.
Chris gave the talent-side version, and his is the one most independent shops are quietly guilty of.
"You see it all the time where a brand will approach an athlete and they'll be like, 'Hey, we want to partner with you. Can you post one Instagram post?' and they pay you, and that's it, and it kind of dies there."
The one-off is attractive because it is procurable. It has a start date, an end date, a rate card and a screenshot for the wrap deck. Everything Chris argued for afterward is harder to buy and harder to bill.
BK named title sponsorship, which is the most expensive thing on the list, and then immediately qualified it in Diogo's direction.
"If you're a brand that has on-field access, or you kind of earned your way on field, it's an incredible investment. If you're using the sponsorship, or the badge, as your only avenue for authenticity, it's a complete waste of money."
Then the test, which is the cleanest disqualifier anyone offered:
"You've seen the ad before, where the bumper at the end just says official partner, blank, blank. If that's what you're using, stop."
Four answers, one position. The badge is not the work. The badge is proof that you paid.
Part Two — What you sell instead
The rest of the session was the harder half: what replaces the logo line item, and how each of them argues for it internally.
Diogo's answer is arithmetic. Oakley has a formula for athlete partnerships, and the weighting is the argument.
"The first thing, performance times one. We are talking to high performance athletes, so performance is a given. If you're not performing, you probably won't be in the conversation. Then we take authenticity times two. So an authentic athlete that speaks the brand values is worth two times more than the other athlete that is also a good performer. And the third, which is impact on community, it's times three."
Performance is the entry fee and the least valuable input. Community impact is worth triple. That inverts how almost every athlete roster gets built, because performance is the variable a media plan can model and community is the one it cannot.
The proof point he offered is duration rather than reach.
"We have, for example, Mark Cavendish, the best biker in the planet. We are with him, or he is with us, for 20 years now. The authenticity is on the real building that you do in a relationship after 20 years. You don't buy that. You cannot throw money at people and make it authentic."
20 years is not a campaign; it is a fixed cost carried across five agency rosters and probably four CMOs. Which is the point, and also the part a client will resist.
He also refused the boundary most brand plans are built on: "We say internally that sport is culture, culture is sport. You cannot separate one from the other."
BK's answer is a reframe of the KPI. Asked how you sell subtlety to a risk-averse client, he moved the target.
"It's about really reframing what a win looks like. Do you want to be seen, or do you want to be remembered?"
His evidence is negative evidence, and it is hard to argue with because everyone in the room can run the test on themselves.
"How many of us really remember? It's almost like we can't even remember where the logos were, because we're sort of very good at ignoring things now."
He is not absolutist about it. Where a logo is used as a mechanic rather than a stamp, he is a fan: Allstate's field goal net, which he has watched work for 15 or 20 years, and YouTube TV's MLB work where the ball reads as a press-play button. The distinction is whether the mark is doing a job or occupying a space.
Then the line the rest of the panel kept circling back to:
"In this day and age, you cannot be a spectator. You have to be a participant. You have to participate in the culture of the sport."
His worked example was Starbucks around a Super Bowl, and the structure matters more than the tactics. Three moves, none of them a campaign on its own. The Pike Place sign changed from Starbucks to Seahawks, with a short film about it and photographs taken by the public. A coffee-run race between Marshawn Lynch and Julian Edelman, which the agency set up and then declined to post on brand channels, letting sports media carry it. And free coffee on the Monday after, on the theory that the day after a Super Bowl is the roughest Monday of the year.
The middle move is the one to steal. They made the asset and gave up the distribution, because a brand channel would have marked it as advertising and killed it.
Connor's answer is architecture. Pickleball Inc. aggregated the sport's biggest companies into one ecosystem: the largest consumer goods retailer in the category, the technology players use to organize games at clubs and tournaments, the professional leagues in PPA Tour and Major League Pickleball, and media through Pickleball TV, a joint venture with Sinclair Broadcast Group.
The strategic logic is a funnel with an unusual shape.
"We have our own funnel, and we make a lot more off the people in our funnel that are all the way at the bottom that are pro pickleball connoisseurs."
BK pushed on that, which produced the best exchange of the session. He works on Nike running, where the everyday athlete drives the culture rather than the professional league, and he wanted to know how Connor segments fans across those tiers. Connor's answer was that pickleball's advantage over other startup leagues is that the base already exists: the people watching are the people playing, the way they are in golf and running rather than the way they are in the major leagues.
"How do we capture the people that are playing every single day, and then how do we create them into avid fans of what we're trying to do?"
The sponsorship consequence is the useful part for anyone selling into a participation sport. A brand does not buy an audience; it buys a position somewhere along a player's progression, and the player at the park, the player entering a tournament, and the player watching a pro final are three different briefs.
Chris and Diogo's answer is to give up control. Chris named the failure mode precisely.
"They'll reach out to a talent, they think they're a great fit, and then they'll send them a script of word by word of what they need to say."
The cost is not aesthetic.
"Their audience can see this is inauthentic. This doesn't make sense. So it ends up being a bad look for everyone."
Diogo volunteered that Oakley runs brand collaborations the same way, around 10 a year, and hands over the content because the partner is the one who knows the audience being borrowed.
"To partner up with a brand that I want to talk to their audience, and try to force an agenda or a tone of voice that doesn't belong to them, is just stupid."
Oakley's approval process is a liability check and nothing more: nothing that lands anyone in jail, nothing that triggers a PR crisis. Past that, the partner decides how Oakley shows up in front of their people. His justification is the sharpest sentence in the transcript on brand control.
"The brand actually belongs to the people."
He has the evidence for that, too. Oakley engineers performance eyewear and then watches people wear it to parties, which he describes without complaint.
Kai closed the thread by putting a plainer word on the one everybody had been using:
"You guys are talking a lot about co-creation, and I think the big thing here when we talk about authenticity, like that just feels like such a vague word. But it's really just natural integration."
The uncomfortable truth
Read the session straight through and a tension surfaces that nobody named on stage.
Oakley can afford to be indifferent to logo placement because Oakley's product sits on the athlete's face. Diogo said so himself, describing how the Olympics work for a brand that is not an official IOC partner.
"They try to cut the logos. We have a benefit on our side; they cannot cut the athlete's face from the videos, so that helps us a lot."
More than 3,000 athletes compete in Oakley at a Games, and Oakley does not sponsor most of them. Unsponsored athletes without an eyewear deal reach for the category leader, and the brand collects the visibility for free. Which is why he can say this with a shrug:
"We don't care about sales on the Olympics."
That is not a rejection of logo-first marketing. That is a brand with a structural, un-croppable logo position telling everyone else that logo positions are overrated. BK's asterisk said the quiet part out loud in the first five minutes: title sponsorship is an incredible investment if you have earned your way onto the field, and a waste if the badge is all you have.
The same asymmetry runs through Connor's best story. Carvana put $5 million into a documentary about pickleball with no direct read-ins, because if the sport grew, Carvana grew.
"They funded a $5 million documentary because they knew if pickleball grew, they would grow. People would naturally see the correlation and the support that they put towards the tour."
That correlation only pays because Carvana is already title sponsor of the tour. The restrained, no-read-in film works precisely because the loud, unrestrained thing is already in place underneath it.
So the honest version of this panel's advice is narrower than the headline. Subtlety is a strategy available to brands that have already bought presence, or that make the product the athlete competes in. For everyone else, the answer is not to spend less conspicuously. It is to earn a structural position in the sport first, which takes years and a budget line nobody wants to defend in a 12-month plan. Diogo's Cavendish partnership is 20 years old. That is the actual price of the advice on this stage, and it went unstated.
Take it to a client anyway. It reframes the conversation from what we can be seen on to what we can be part of, and that is a better conversation to be in even when the answer takes three years.
What you can use
Every session from Indies @ Cannes 2026 — plus every other Blueprint, the tools, and the surveys — opens up with one sign-in.
