And with sport being the lucrative business that it is, that's hardly surprising, particularly in an age when the pure amateur has become all but obsolete.

There remains, however, confusion over what exactly a company is buying when it lends its name to either an event, a team or an individual sportsman.

And the issues are pertinent in regards as to what a sponsor should expect from the media.

In truth, they should expect nothing whatsoever, regardless how much money they have invested or how noble their intentions.

That may raise a few eyebrows, but at the end of the day, newspapers, magazines, radio or TV stations have no obligation to the sponsor.

Our role is clearly defined -- to provide a free flow of factual information.

The Gazette's obligation is to its readers, and its readers only, and certainly not to those who choose to bank roll the events and individual exploits we may cover.

Thus when companies and their beneficiaries come knocking on our door demanding recognition of their brand name or logo, we have every right to tell them to get lost.

And when we hear complaints that negative stories are driving away potential sponsors or that insufficient exposure of an athlete or event isn't doing the sponsor justice, we couldn't -- nor shouldn't -- care less.

Again, that may pinch a few nerves.

Without financial backing, we understand, many athletes may never reach their potential and events that provide an enormous amount of enjoyment for an enormous amount of participants may never take place.

But if sport is to be reported without fear or favour, then there can be no room for outside influence.

Sponsorship is a two-way street. Athletes want the cash, and companies the exposure. Yet both have to be resourceful in ensuring that the investment pays off.

And by and large, they get a big helping hand from the media.

Football jerseys emblazoned with company names, golf hats, tennis shirts, running vests, boats' sails, all peppered with logos, continually find their way into the pictorial columns of newspapers and magazines. As they should.

And that's not a problem.

The problem arises when corporate involvement begins to overshadow the event itself ... when the company name becomes bigger than the competition or competitor it's attempting to promote.

Few will forget the crass commercialism of the Atlanta (Coca Cola) Olympics where rivalry among sponsors was more intense than that among athletes and where billboards, such as those proclaiming `silver's for losers', came close to sounding the Olympic death knell.

Thankfully, by Sydney 2000 the lesson had been learned.

Events such as Wimbledon, the Masters, the English FA Cup Final, the Grand National, the Super Bowl or even locally, Cup Match, the Marathon Derby, the World Rugby Classic, will always be known as such, regardless of who chooses to be their title sponsor.

And athletes should always be recognised first and foremost for their accomplishments and not for the product they endorse.

Sports and sponsorship are now inextricably entwined. Each leans heavily on the other.

But let's not lose sight of which came first.

-- ADRIAN ROBSON