The International Olympic Committee's (IOC) computing equipment sponsorship for 2013-16 is going down to the wire.

With less than seven months to go until the end of 2012 – and, perhaps more pertinently – a mere 20 months until the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics – we still don't know who is going to follow Taiwan's Acer in this important role as one of the Movement's main kit suppliers.

It may even be Acer itself.

When I caught up with Gerhard Heiberg, influential chairman of the IOC's Marketing Commission this week, he told me there had been no "definitive conclusion".

The situation remained "open".

Heiberg went to Taiwan a couple of months ago and spoke to JT Wang (pictured below), Acer's chairman.


It seems that all options remain possible – from an Acer extension, to a broader partnership with one of the IOC's other technology sponsors, an agreement with a new sponsor, or even, Heiberg indicated, allowing Sochi to decide.

That last option would no doubt boost the stellar domestic sponsorship earnings that the Russian city has generated still further.

However, it might leave the IOC struggling to match the $957 million (£615 million/€760 million) in cash and value-in-kind goods and services that its so-called TOP worldwide sponsorship programme has brought in over the current Olympic quadrennium, culminating with London 2012.

I wanted to make sure I wasn't making too much of the apparent lateness in striking a deal, so I looked up when Acer, and, before it, China's Lenovo, were unveiled as TOP sponsors.

In Acer's case, this happened in December 2007, so around six months earlier in the cycle, even if the new deal were announced today.

Lenovo's status was confirmed in late-March 2004, so – to date – only two-and-a-half months earlier.

In practice, I imagine that the new deal may well now be struck, or at least agreed in outline, during London 2012, when key decision-makers will be in the same place.

There is a looming problem with Olympic technology sponsorships and I can't help wondering if the lingering uncertainty over the new computing equipment deal isn't bringing the day closer when it will need to be addressed.

This is that the pace of technological innovation has moved on so rapidly in recent years that individual machines can perform functions that fall into more than one sponsorship category.

How many of us don't now use our mobile phones as computers when on the move, or our computers as televisions?


The arrival of tablets and now smart TVs is blurring the lines still further.

The corollary of all of this is that companies can shell out millions on an Olympic sponsorship, while only being able to use it to promote a portion of their product range.

Indeed, they might have no way of telling when they sign the deal what the items that turn out to be their hottest product-lines over the latter part of the sponsorship term will actually do.

At any given Olympics, there are also loads of technology sponsors jostling for attention.

At London 2012, the IOC's TOP sponsors will include Acer, Samsung (wireless communication equipment), Panasonic (audio, TV and video equipment, including car navigation) and Atos, which manages and integrates the technology supplied by the others.

But then you will also have Cisco, London 2012's official network infrastructure supporter, and BT, communications services partner.

At Sochi 2014, domestic sponsors include MegaFon, the mobile phone operator, and Avaya, official supplier of network equipment.

I can't help wondering if sponsors wouldn't get more bang for their buck – and the IOC more bucks for their, well, bang – if some of this clutter weren't stripped away.

Timo Lumme, director of IOC television and marketing, has conceded to me in the past that there could be change in the categorisation of technology products.


"With technology changing every day, it is quite clear there will be some challenges with traditional categorisation by product category," he told me.

"I do foresee having to have a pretty good review of how we keep clear daylight between the partners in this area."

I had previously thought that this might be part of the wide-ranging review that the IOC appears to be making space to conduct before embarking on deals covering the 2021-24 Olympic quadrennium.

Now I incline towards the view that it would ideally happen sooner.

Indeed, perhaps this is the plan: while seven TOP sponsors have committed right through to 2020, when the Summer Games will be staged in Istanbul, Madrid or Tokyo, the deals covering technology sponsors, except for Acer, are booked until 2016.

I wonder if changes could be in store ahead of the 2018 Winter Olympics, to be held in Pyeongchang, South Korea?

We'll endeavour to keep you posted.

David Owen worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing, including covering the 2008 Beijing Olympics and 2010 World Cup. Owen's Twitter feed can be accessed here.