By Patrice Pandeleos, Managing Director at Seven Communications

For decades, Melbourne Cup sponsorship was an easy sell for brands. It offered access to a huge national audience, corporate hospitality and a place in one of Australia’s biggest cultural events.

But the value of that exposure is increasingly in question. As scrutiny of animal welfare grows, brands risk finding that a sponsorship intended to build their reputation does quite the opposite.

The Melbourne Cup remains a fixture on Australia’s sporting and social calendar, but growing concerns about racehorse welfare and safety mean businesses associated with the event are facing increasing scrutiny. A sponsorship intended to build brand awareness can quickly become an association a business is expected to justify.

When a racing issue becomes a brand issue

Animal welfare has long been contentious within the racing industry, but the Melbourne Cup brings those concerns into the national spotlight.

For supporters, it represents tradition, competition and Australian sporting culture. For critics, it raises serious questions about the treatment of racehorses and whether the industry should continue operating as it does.

The numbers make these concerns harder to ignore. The Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses’ 2025 Deathwatch report recorded 175 racehorse deaths on Australian tracks between August 2024 and July 2025, averaging one every two days. Its investigation also found that NSW government figures for horses killed or euthanised as a result of racing in 2023–24 were 2.8 times higher than the deaths it had identified through public reports and other sources.

And the questions don’t stop when horses leave the track, as the RSPCA says there is no reliable public data showing how many horses leave the racing industry or where they end up. Some are sold or transferred multiple times, while others may be sent to slaughter, with little tracking of their welfare.

These are not simply industry management issues. They raise questions about accountability, transparency and the industry’s responsibility for the animals it breeds.

Businesses associated with the Cup are caught between competing views. An organisation might see its involvement as an opportunity to entertain clients, reward staff or reach customers, while audiences may interpret that association as an endorsement of the racing industry.

A brand doesn’t need to be involved in racing operations to face questions about its relationship with the industry. Its logo on an event, corporate hospitality offering or public celebration of race day can be enough to draw it into the animal welfare debate.

Tradition is not a defence

The Melbourne Cup is deeply embedded in Australia’s corporate calendar. Race-day events, client functions and workplace celebrations have become familiar traditions for organisations, some of which have participated for generations.

But tradition doesn’t guarantee an association will continue to sit comfortably with audiences.

Businesses need to consider whether their involvement reflects the values they communicate elsewhere. This is particularly relevant for brands that promote compassion, responsible business practices or community values. If their sponsorships appear at odds with those commitments, audiences may question the gap.

A longstanding relationship might explain why a business is involved but certainly doesn’t necessarily justify why it should stay.

When sponsorship becomes a liability

Corporate sponsorship has traditionally been assessed through reach, customer engagement and return on investment, and while these measures still matter, they don’t capture the full cost of an association.

When an event attracts sustained criticism over animal welfare, sponsors can find themselves answering questions that have little to do with their own products or services.

The same applies to partnerships involving environmental concerns, animal-related industries and other contested issues. Reputational consequences can extend beyond the organisation directly responsible to the brands providing financial support, visibility or endorsement.

The issue is no longer just what the racing industry does. It’s what the brands associated with it are prepared to support and publicly defend.

Don’t wait for a crisis to review the relationship

One of the biggest mistakes businesses can make is waiting until public criticism reaches their doorstep before reconsidering a partnership. By then, the conversation may already be happening without them.

Organisations should be asking whether a sponsorship still reflects their values, how employees, customers and other stakeholders might view it, and whether they can confidently explain why they remain involved.

They also need to look beyond the immediate news cycle. Public opinion is not uniform, and criticism doesn’t automatically mean a partnership should end. Equally, a lack of visible backlash shouldn’t be mistaken for public acceptance.

Walking away from a longstanding sponsorship can carry commercial and relationship costs. Staying can carry its own.

For brands, involvement in the Melbourne Cup doesn’t end with putting a logo on race day. They also need to consider whether they want that logo associated with the conversations that follow.

The question for brands is no longer simply whether the Melbourne Cup offers enough exposure to justify the investment. It’s whether the association is worth defending. Businesses should be asking that question before the next sponsorship cheque is signed, not after the headlines start.

INDEPENDENT NEWS IS IMPORTANT.

Enjoy reading Eco Voice? Please help us by purchasing a GIFT Voucher or send one to a friend and encourage people to purchase trees or seeds via The Native Shop – www.nativeshop.com.au

Plants, seeds & more delivered to your door!