The Breitling Watch Scandal - Is She *REALLY* Guilty?? I Don't Think So..

[@tarreemhacaruso2687]

Maybe there are financial issues in the background that people are unaware of. If Rolex sponsored a portion and a Brietling sponsorship pops up. What if there is a clause in Rolex’s contract for no other Watch sponsorships and they sue the BBC. There are rules for a reason.

[@Ridiculeisnothate]

That’s exactly right. I used to work in ad contracts and it’s definitely an issue.

[@Ridiculeisnothate]

This is a ridiculous subject. Contracts and exclusivities are serious issues involving millions of dollars.. This entire commentary is childish and completely misses the point.

[@danishpastry6137]

I'm pretty certain that the BBC doesn't support advertisment in any form. So, anything they're producing and controlling themselves is highly unlikely to be sponsored. Anybody who grew up in the UK and watched Blue Peter will remember that whenever they made anything from cereal boxes and sticky back plastic (iykyk), would remember that the brand names were always blacked out. Somethings they can't "de-brand", but in other cases, something generic can be used. The BBC is supposed to be neutral, and funded by the license payers, not by advertisements.

[@LotsofWhatever]

She didn't get called out for having a brand deal. She got called out for wearing something on air that was part of that when her BBC contract said not to. On air she was working with the BBC not the watchmaker and even if she didn't do it on purpose and she was just wearing it because it was a watch, BBC likely felt they had to say something or some could point to it later and their position would be undermined.

[@Katt858]

Absolutely. The BBC are regulated by ofcom and they are held to account by the rules in the Ofcom broadcasting code.

[@Ridiculeisnothate]

People commenting like children obviously have zero clue what business is about. Hopefully nobody here is a decision maker in advertising contracts. Exclusivities are serious matters. A high profile representative cannot promote an item that competes with an advertising contract with exclusivities like a sponsorship.

[@StylingPrincessM]

haven't heard of this scandal until now, but from the context, the BBC is absolutely right. they have rules (stupid or not, it's their right to make their own rules), and they have communicated them clearly from the beginning. therefore, she had 2 options: follow the rules and not wear the watches during filming (she could still be an ambassador and wear them outside filming), or not do the interviews at all. seriously, if she really didn't want to adhere to the rules, she could have just refused BBC's proposal. but instead, she chose to be paid by BOTH breitling and the BBC, and that just gives off greedy, and she should totally be held accountable for that

[@StylingPrincessM]

last but not least, brietling is gaining free press from this 'scandal', which i think was their goal from the start. whether people agree or not is completely irrelevant as long as they talk about them

[@Katt858]

@@StylingPrincessMshe can do both but not together. I completely agree with you. I use to work in broadcasting so I have a deep knowledge about this and what people don’t appreciate is that Ofcom hold the bbc accountable to uphold this rules.

[@StylingPrincessM]

@@Katt858 ah, yes, i forgot to mention that broadcasting stations also get fined if rules are broken 😅 thanks for adding that commercial broadcasting stations don't really care about rules that much because they have more than enough revenue to pay for fines, but public broadcasting stations are not as loaded so they're more strict with enforcing the rules

[@lunar686]

@@Katt858 I don’t know much about the legality regarding the broadcasting, but does it only pertain to the display of items on-screen, or are any employees of the BBC also not allowed to have any vested financial interest in any of the stories they cover? Lol I would find it rather amusing if someone in charge of reporting the story had stocks in a competitors product lmao

[@yeseniah7373]

I think the issue was connecting her BBC role as a pundit with her role as a brand ambassador by posting in real time from the studio on the socials, thereby directly using one job, who specifically prohibits this, to promote the other. Not just simply wearing stuff.

[@indoora]

Her lawyer went over all her contracts with brands and the BBC so if she violated the terms her lawyer should have let her know. The BBC is funded and there are laws for sponsored items on funded platforms.

[@sherwood9917]

This video provides more context than the initial post. The original post gave the impression that we were talking about an athlete competing at the Games, while wearing items from a brand that is not an official sponsor of the Games.

[@brocadeandsequins]

And the comments in this video clearly refer to Simone. I don't get it. Seems like KZbin has its own rules, too...

[@springgreenzone]

The broadcaster and these events sell 'space' for advertisement, which they use to cover their expenses. What the olympian did was advertise without paying the broadcaster or those events, which may be a problem if the contract says so. For example, Tissot has their brand on Wimbledon's timers, because they paid (and not another brand) Wimbledon for it. If done correctly, Tissot would have a blanket ban on anyone working in that event from wearing a rival brand. Another example, football players are only seen in the sports brand that their club has a sponsorship with (except trainers), while in training or on the pitch (but on their free days, they might even have the rival brand). For some reason, the BBC doesn't allow that kind of advertisement. Maybe they have a paternership with a watchmaking brand, which would explain why they picked the fight with this particular case and not one with the jewelry you recognised.

[@juliewilson5997]

The BBC doesn’t do advertising. She knows this and is advertising the brand during work time. It shouldn't be allowed. She can wear what she likes aby other time. Celebrities and sports people being paid to promote brands turns me off the brand.

[@fbartolo]

I imagine the reason for the rule is that bbc is publicly funded. They don’t want their on air talent getting paid to shill brands that might be objectionable for a significant portion of society. It’s different when the org is funded by the taxpayer. They don’t want an on air personality advertising lets say balenciaga for example and then have to field a bunch of angry complaints from the people from whom their funding comes.

[@mypinklife3415]

I think she should be allowed to wear whatever she wants to.

[@lilylillux]

So, I didn't really understand what it was exactly about from your first post about this issue. But then I looked into it a bit after your video. From what I understand now, the problem is that she is in conflict of interest. "No on-air talent should promote products, goods, services or clothing they use on air.' This includes anything they have 'agreed, or been contracted, to promote or in which they have financial interest" - that's the BBC rule she violated. So it's what it is. She agreed to those rules but broke them. She then tagged the brand on her social media. So I now see it as intentional advertising. Contracts must be respected if signed. Rules are there to avoid lawsuits. She wore a Reiss dress too. But it's not an issue because she has no commercial ties with that company, but she has with Breitling.

[@danielintheantipodes6741]

On reflection I feel that it all comes down to intention. If she was giving an interview and happened to be wearing the watch, then that is a non-issue. However, if she consciously wore the watch to show it off and enhance her sponsorships, that was out of line. She is not necessarily wealthy because she is a sportswoman! Emphasis on ‘woman’. My understanding is that men get far more from their sponsors! On the other hand, if all she was doing was wearing it, that was not really pushing others to buy it! Thank you for the video.

[@christina8063]

Perhaps the BBC should "issue" a uniform of plain clothes and accessories so everyone looks alike. When I see a TV host/news person wearing a VCA Alhambra necklace or Cartier bracelets I do not think they are sponsored, I just assume that is how they choose to spend their money.

[@Mallard4484]

This! The fact the BBC made such a big deal out of it, has brought it into the limelight. If they just kept quiet majority of people would assume it was her own watch.

[@juliewilson5997]

@@Mallard4484 or presenters could always stick to the BBC rules or work for another network.

[@Katt858]

Actually, you’re wrong. The bbc don’t discourage it, the rules are you can’t if it related to what you do for the bbc. Gary Lineker advertises crisps but it has no bearing on what he does as a sport presenter. When Fearne Cotton was a radio 2 presenter, she had a fashion brand but that didn’t conflict with her role as a presenter. If Gary chose to be involved in a brand of football for example then it would be against the rules. It’s untrue they are told to do things for less money so not sure where you got that info from. Also if Laura Kenny is working with a brand, she should be working for them alone and not involve other brands in it.. like the BBC. Imagine if she was repping her watch on Instagram inside a Tag Heuer shop for example! There’s also a difference between wearing something recognisable that’s yours that you have bought versus something you are endorsed by and paid by that actual brand. Sport events are different, broadcasters have no control about what products/brands use on their events and crucially broadcasters are not profiting from sport sponsors of events.

[@erikaskoch9806]

I’m truly honored that you included my comment in the video! I was a little unclear about the original context of the situation you were talking about, but I stand by my original comment. I think it’s great that she has been able to secure a second stream of income in the current global economy.

[@BC-tl3hw]

Thanks for reading out my comment Sophie! Hopefully the newsreader doesn't get in too much trouble. Unfortunately money runs the rules. We should just appreciate the talents of the athletes who worked so hard to get there.

[@fishandfloral]

The posts were on her personal IG account, so I see no problem with it. Female cyclists are paid a pittance in comparison to the men. Many of them hold jobs, just to be able to pay their bills and continue to train. Edited: I posted this before you just made the same point. 😆

[@ubiquitousflow]

I understand dressing discretely so that brands aren't instantly recognized by the average viewer, but beyond that, I don't care if a newscaster received an item for free. Where I draw the line is that sponsored posts/images should not be produced on BBC sets. If she wore the watch to work that day but went out to a restaurant to take photos and provide a caption, I don't think there'd be an issue. I don't think BBC should demand that their "talent" be underpaid by billion dollar corporations, though

[@sapphirecamui6447]

8 minutes into the video. Thanks for talking about this topic. BBC would know about those deals with the brands, those who go on air should/would know the rules as well. The thing is, as long as the brand ambassador doesn't point to the item saying "look at what I'm wearing" and shoves it into the camera, most viewers won't recognize the item/brand, won't care about it, and even more, if it's a watch or some other jewelry, it will be a few pixels big, no matter how large the screen is. It will be hard to recognize the item/brand. With clothing things can get a bit more complicated, if there's a logo or an image on the front. HOWEVER, BBC can blurr the brand deal item, logos, or images: problem solved. The person can't/shouldn't be sanctioned by the brand if BBC does that, because it is out of the person's control. Clearly there's some sort of loophole in those rules BBC put up in this regard. The person with the brand deal shouldn't take advantage of it, but folks take advantage of loopholes in many other life-intances. It's law and rule makers who should be sanctioned for these loopholes, not those seeing the loopholes. This is how i see things, and I'm no lawyer or stuff.

[@hhueter]

the rules may be annoying. but they are the rules and seems like a fuck up on her part. She probably should have not worn the watch while on air for the BBC. I think the BBC should not be dictating that they work with off air for a discounted rate.

[@WyeChengChong-ql7lr]

I was working for a government department and took annual leave to help out a relative in private sector doing the same field of work. I was told by a client who was receiving 50-75% government subsidy that I wasn't supposed to do that. That there was an actual rule because I was supposed to use my annual leave to relax so that I would be back to work relaxed and working at full capacity (ie. Serving him). At first I was shocked as I didn't know such a rule existed then was angry as I don't see why I should be told how to spend my annual leave. We all know that most Olympians don't make much money so if she needed to do the sponsorships then I feel she had the right to do so.

[@decemberclouds]

I agree, no matter what you wear, someone's going to be able to ID it, even from the plainest shirt or most boring shoes. There are entire communities dedicated to doing this. How could it be stopped?

[@lunar686]

I believe my only issue with this would be in the consistency by which these ‘rules’ are applied. Personally, I would love to see a requirement for any broadcasted information, that is sponsored in any way (including being used solely as a means to gain a future endorsement), to be labelled with the word ‘advertisement’. I think this would not only bring to light the sheer volume of advertisements that we are inundated with, but I believe it would also reduce the stigma around advertising. I would hazard a guess that many people don’t mind being advertised to, either through an Olympian’s social media post or a commercial on the television - after all, there are so many products and experiences that have bought me joy that I would never had known about otherwise - but I don’t know that many people who enjoy being lied to, gaslit or deceived. I don’t think there should be a rule banning advertisements, but there should be a rule around transparency.

[@yingli8864]

For athletes, their lives’ peak moments are short-lived and yet there is so much sacrifice (trainings and injuries) behind the scenes. I totally understand if they do sponsorship. They need to look after themselves as well.

[@juliewilson5997]

@yingli8864 that's fine, but not working with the BBC.

[@sarcasmallover8999]

1-if she was wearing something recognizable on air, then, sure she should get spoken to about it. But you'd think they have producers doing a check before that so they need to have better controls. But I feel that unless she actually said something about Breitling or any other sponsors then I think this is a non issue, otherwise they'd stop other talent from wearing designer pieces. 2-the audacity to ask for sponsorships to be reduced when BBC is asking for the same prestige of having her as a pundit. if they demand that discount then they should be paying for potential lost wages, remember BBC wants her not the other way around, and that should go for any accomplished talent. 3-if her social media posts did not tie-in BBC during her broadcast/studio time, then they are irrelevant, the two can exist at the same time. If they still feel that is a conflict they need to explicitly come into an agreement with talent about when their sponsorship posts are uploaded in relation to working hours/broadcast hours.

[@lindamurphy3969]

The challenge with women’s professional sports is they don’t draw the same attention and revenue as men’s sports. This is reflected in their salaries, unfortunately. The question is do we give them the time to build a fan base or ask men’s professional leagues to subsidize them? I don’t know the answer but since salaries are roughly based on revenue, it doesn’t seem designed to be unfair to women. This is a big controversy in the US as well, with no simple solution. If they’re not obviously advertising, let them wear what they want if it is subtle and helps them financially.

[@monikakowalska3919]

The solution to unpopularity of women sports is actually very simple .. women have to buy tickets and attend women sports events

[@emajjabowen6748]

They don’t draw the same crowd because of sexism. Men don’t view women’s sports as real sports. And, it doesn’t get the same coverage .

[@monikakowalska3919]

@@emajjabowen6748 omg ..because of what??? Are women sexist because they don't want to watch women sports? Why are you bringing men in this ?

[@crelgen1588]

​@emajjabowen6748 People watch what they're interested in. Women don't watch women sports either. Should people be forced to watch things to achieve this arbitrary "equality" (of outcomes), or shall we just let them be "sexist"

[@monikakowalska3919]

@crelgen1588 That is why the idea of forcing male athletes to share their earnings with women just because no one even the most psychotic and man-hating feminists don't want to watch women sports, is simply next level idiotic

[@jonathanmorgan2453]

Sophie Sophie Sophie it’s so unimportant. Let people wear want they want, sponsored or not. Majority if not all do not want the b b c . Just a tax and propaganda. Your looking good tho and great choice of top. Shows off your figure ❤ could listen to you all day 👌

[@jackiemulhern6473]

This is probably not the comment you were looking for but the minute you mentioned the BBC I was instantly annoyed. The BBC cover up undesirable people who do despicable things & they have the cheek to complain when someone posts on their private social media about a brand that sponsors them, she may have been paid alot of money from them to promote the watch & probably thought it was on her own social media it wouldn't be a problem, its not like she did it on an interview, she may have had a bit of time in the dressing room to make a post & was nothing to with the BBC, people need to look at the BBC and their ethics.

[@alisonwalton322]

She should wear what she wants it’s upto her, she wasn’t a partner for Reiss either. Good luck to her she has 2 babies to support, she has done her bit for the Country.

[@flohough1870]

If the BBC has this as part of their contract then she was in the wrong. However, if they are so worried about potential conflicts of interest, they should be providing her with the clothing/accessories while she is on air. Many US news outlets have agreements with specific stores/companies to provide clothing for their on air staff. Even our little local TV station does that!

[@fionacrispin-jennings4919]

Hi Sophie - love your top - may I ask where it is from? ❤

[@user-mp5ww2bt7q]

A lot of Olympians were seen on onlyfans during the 2024 olympics in Paris, as they apparently struggle to pay their bills unless they win a medal.

[@KA-jo8vn]

What???😳

[@user-mp5ww2bt7q]

@@KA-jo8vn yes. Then again. It’s not like anybody is forced into being an Olympian and sports people have since the time of gladiators, been earning themselves a little extra, by let’s say “charging people men and woman, to get up close”, so yeah.

[@KA-jo8vn]

@@user-mp5ww2bt7q gosh I didn’t know abt this

[@tiktokreacts33]

Yes no salary for being an Olympian

[@sarahwarren348]

The problem isn’t her wearing a brand so much as it being a paid advertisement without being displayed as an ad. Even if she would likely wear it on her own if she is being paid to wear it as an advertisement and it’s not disclosed. The bbc are known for not running ads and on their news broadcast especially that they own the programming this is not something that they want to be legally responsible for. It’s the same as influencer marketing but unlike that it’s not as clear to the general public that it is advertisement which is unethical.

[@muminab9701]

I wish you showed us the clip, I’m from the US and have never heard of it.

[@VegaChastain]

at least in the US, the viewership and sponsorships are astronomically higher for the men, aaaand the games are exciting for everyone, cant say that for most of the ladies games, sadly. the popularity of a sport is directly responsible for payrates in that sport 😼

[@bonniemcdonald2835]

The reason is irrelevant. If the BBC is a private company they should not be able to prohibit anyone from making a living. There should be laws against this.

[@neffyg35]

No she would have been an employee of their so they can dictate to her what she can and cannot wear while working for them. if they have an contract with a watch brand she can't be wearing the competing watch brand, especially on TV. It can get the BBC in legal trouble

[@bonniemcdonald2835]

@@neffyg35 Well with those details, it makes perfect sense why they had an issue with it. Thank you

[@sagewise1823]

There are rules that were carefully formulated to suppress the suppressed. Therefore I don not believe in " rules are rules". Some rules are simply there not to protect anyone except of the benefits of the ultra rich.

[@indoora]

The people you named were not pair to wear the jewelry items. When you wear an item just because a brand askes you to it is a commercial for the brand to generate sales.

[@gihanzohdy3284]

I believe the BBC should tell the truth about geopolitics to its people, and not be hooked to what celebrities are wearing. This is not what it is being paid for. So Laura Kenny should wear whatever she likes.

[@katcankan7129]

Well from what you said the BBC's rules are not followed by everyone. I don't watch (no pun intended😂) much TV these days but when l do I will be on the lookout for branded goods 💜

[@jennn9637]

Besides if she is a brand ambassor of Breitling, i dont think she can wear other watches while doing appearances.

[@gillsargisson8863]

Honestly think that whilst she was doing a BBC programme she shouldn’t have worn it. However, on her own social media she should be able to wear whatever she wishes ❤.

[@Robbie_LeMeow]

Being from the US, and knowing nothing about the special TV license. I don't get why the BBC considers this such a conflict of interest.

[@lon2336]

I think because it would be like free advertising for the brand, whereas if the brand wanted to advertise on the BBC, they would need to pay considerably.

[@mspro9032]

No she should be able to get whatever sponsorship she can. Is the uk socialist/ communists ?

[@munaali840]

the BBC is funded by tax payers, they cant be seen to be promoting brands

[@heidiheidi0]

Unless it is an unethical brand, I don’t mind if Olympians promote brands. I think good on them if they get brand deals.

[@Mallard4484]

Olympians have their time in the spotlight once every 4 years. If this Olympian is lucky enough to get a sponsorship, then congratulations! There are so many olympians that struggle without sponsorships, we shouldn’t deny the ones that opportunity. Regardless, if someone is silly enough to think “I’m going to cycle faster if I spend money I don’t have on an expensive watch” well they have other issues.

[@sams3015]

This is very interesting, great video Sophie

[@queenelina5296]

I think the BBC should only apply to their regular anchors and not just someone who they hired as a one off, in this istance for 18 days just to cover the Olympics, but if you're a regular o the payroll I see the issue, though it doesn't really bother me, because everything someone wers whether an article of clothing, a piece of jewelry etc. can be recognized. It's 2024 you can take a picture of it, put in on google and buy it less than 5 minutes. we're all super influenced on social media, who cares what an olympian wore and if she's a brand ambassador.

[@jellybeanparis584]

I do understand she shouldn’t be double dipping when on-Air. However she should be permitted to advertise & post to Social Media when she’s off the Air for BBC. She has the right to have multiple jobs, but you can’t get paid by 2 employers during the same time period.

[@HopefulFox-ms5pq]

Interesting topic.

[@DebShops-e3v]

So it’s sounds like the BBC is sort of like our PBS public television. If so I actually understand their stance on freebies and the like. I would just not wear any of my sponsorship items on the air during broadcast but I would say that when the person is not on camera for the BBC they should be able to wear what they like sponsored or not on their Insta and other personal social media plateforms. So if it is a BBC Insta account then no…do not wear but if it is your own…that is your business. Those are my 2 cents on the matter.

[@kaylheecarroll3186]

She's not physically hurting anyone, she should be able to whatever she wants!

[@binusida]

I disagree with you in this one Sophie, she is completely in breach of contract and using the reputation of an institution like the BBC to promote stuff. I wouldn't mind if she did it in her platforms but not the BBC. Her attitude seems unfair to BBC watchers that pay a TV license and don't expect to be influenced

[@lvettesonai]

No one is going to tell me what watch, earrings, bag to wear on-air wherever...unless THEY are paying me great sum 💰💰 Otherwise, I'm doing ME. ✅

[@anttoronto3202]

Great video!!!

[@janejdough2230]

So what make are the men wearing, Suits? Ties? Rings? Watches? I can understand no logos but other then that , fine.

[@glockenrein]

I don’t mind brand deals but if you’re at work (which she was) you follow the rules of your employer.

[@brysoga]

Personally i dont agree with this brand embargo on the bbc. They take it too far, you cant even mention a brand wothout them insisting "other brands are available". I'm team Laura on this matter.

[@nicoledebace]

I just don't get it. She didn't talk about them on air and I'm sure she got asked about what she was wearing from followers. It just seems controlling and unfair.

[@sleepysartorialist]

Haven't heard about this as I'm American but this seems like not that big a deal? Sport is heavily sponsored here so I just don't get the controversy, frankly.

[@zd1306]

Here we go

[@heavymetalbanshee]

So breitling were getting free advertising from the BBC because she was wearing it... There are no ifs or buts about it. She ducket about and found out.

[@IvetHere]

Either pay her so she can cover the expenses of her lifestyle, or just be quiet, because she will have to go and do whatever she needs to do. It's 2024 and rules are changing, noone cares about your rules BBC.

[@neffyg35]

Contracts don't care about you. They set the rules that she violated

[@edwardmiller2735]

so she is a former olympian that works for bbc ... if that is the case and she has a side job with brietling ... and there are rules in place against it. I think someone said if rolex is a sponcer and they have a contract bbc could be in trouble I don't really care but you break the rules . she could probably use this to her advantage... complicated ... sorry about all my misspellings

[@sk1984]

Nobody should be bitter; even if someone is making millions of dollars through multiple streams of income. Its giving jealousy, not very demure.

[@Terriwith2arfs]

It was frustrating, but I grudgingly agreed: women's sports don't bring in the amount of money that men's sports do. That's why women don't get paid the same. This was told in the USA by several women athletes. Unfortunate, but seems true. So she wore her beautiful watch - it shouldn't have mattered!

[@mariateresafigueras]

Unrelated but do you still have those Farfetch codes?

[@SophieShohetOfficial]

@@mariateresafigueras hello my friend! Ahh no, I’m sorry but I don’t. I miss those, they were great!!xx

[@mariateresafigueras]

@@SophieShohetOfficial thank you for replying x

[@jennn9637]

Wait… how did beckham get so rich then? Didnt he get alot of brand deals??? Dont tell me he had no brand deals during his soccer days.

[@eleanorwalmsley635]

That's different because he was in the commercial sector, not ever employed by the BBC, which is a publicly funded organisation. Therefore employees of the BBC, cannot enter into advertisements or endorsements.

[@pepperpaige203]

For some reason I thought this was about Simone Biles😮

[@rmdebora]

I am surprised that is that is even allowed as a company to ask such things….if i was her i would search a lawyer

[@bnb0510]

Don’t really care but just came to say Breitling’s are the best!

[@debracannonrndsn2564]

She should wear whatever she wants.

[@kimaholland3423]

Oh come on it's not like she is 'Charlotte Dujardin 'now is it 😉

[@kokabr]

I agree that, if it's the BBC's rule that on-air staff don't flash products from brands they are sponsored by, then staff should respect that rule. After all, showing something on TV promotes it and if the BBC doesn't get paid for promoting something, i can understand their concerns that a brand is getting free air time. However, if someone is wearing something inconspicuously, then it shouldn't be a problem since branding symbols appear on just about everything, and people will always be wearing something with a logo on it. On the other hand, the BBC should not have a problem with products Laura showed on her personal social media.

[@bahrichehat9443]

first

[@SophieShohetOfficial]

Hello friends!xx

[@deannab8890]

First what?

[@lilylillux]

😂😂​@@deannab8890 she has the first comment.

[@deannab8890]

@@lilylilluxnot adding much to conversation. I don’t get it

[@lilylillux]

@@deannab8890 it's for fun

[@tarreemhacaruso2687]

Rules are rules. Return part of the salary.

[@blake1001x]

Audio is bad. Could hardly hear you.

[@OriginalRedHead78]

Until women are paid as much as men, why not?