Opinion – Rodrigo Tavares: Who should we boycott, Neymar or Puma?

Neymar can express any opinion. Even the most execrable. The Constitution (Article 5) allows you to publicly support a presidential candidate, even if he is someone who promotes constant attacks on that same constitution. The bipolarization that shakes Brazil will only be overcome if we allow ourselves to listen before judging.

But Neymar expressed his support for a presidential candidate known for his sadism and praise of torture dressed in Puma clothes. It wasn’t a fluke. In 2020, the sports brand signed with the footballer the biggest sponsorship contract of a football athlete, worth approximately 25 million euros annually, according to the media at the time.

The moment he left his signature on paper, Neymar was forced to wear the brand’s clothes, creating an immediate visual identification between the footballer and Puma. When the contract was signed, the German company’s chief executive, Bjørn Gulden, welcomed the player’s entry “into our Puma family.” The bond became irrefutable.

It is up to the company to justify why it decided to associate itself with a player with a controversial path like Neymar’s. Other brands have followed different paths.

Nike has ended its support of world boxing champion Manny Pacquiao after he made derogatory comments about the LGBTQIA+ community. This year it suspended sponsorship of Manchester United footballer Mason Greenwood after allegations of rape and assault.

Generally, sports brands require their sponsors to follow principles of decency and decorum. Adidas recently cut sponsorship of West Ham footballer Kurt Zouma after a video in which he mistreated a domestic animal.

Of course, Neymar can simply argue that he positioned himself similarly to the more than 50 million Brazilians who voted for Bolsonaro in the first round. Yes, you’re right.

But Puma doesn’t. The German company has approved a Code of Ethics, a Human Rights Policy, an Ethical Marketing Policy and an Environmental Policy that oblige it to follow specific ethical principles and values. At least at the documentary level, Puma is a company with a strong ESG caliber because it is committed to neutralizing its negative impacts and maximizing the positive ones. These materials, all publicly available, are a repast of human rights commitments. In the Textiles and Apparel sector, Puma is the 2nd most sustainable company in the world (Refinitiv data).

All sustainability strategies must be holistic and not sliced. And, therefore, these commitments should be manifested in several arenas: in products, in the value chain, in the way they treat employees. And also in their political positions. More and more companies are coming under scrutiny for their involvement in the political sphere — whether that’s lobbying, donating to electoral candidates, or supporting celebrities with a political opinion. Consumers and ESG rating agencies want to know if companies’ political stances contradict their sustainability policies. It’s a new field called CPR (Corporate Political Responsibility).

Neymar’s case is particularly relevant because the player supported Bolsonaro in 2018, and the German brand cannot claim that he was unaware of his political preference, when he signed a contract in 2020. Puma’s involuntary support for Bolsonaro in 2022, with Neymar as a medium, is a violation of its corporate sustainability principles.

The column contacted Stefan Seidel, head of corporate sustainability at Puma, but received no response. In the company’s Code of Ethics, one of the basic principles is: “we take responsibility for our actions and take responsibility for our mistakes”. In silence you will not be able to do it.