Coca-Cola tried to destroy CrossFit, what does Monster look like?
At the last CrossFit Games, we were surprised to see how Monster had snuck in among the sponsors.
Athletes drank from a can of Monster light (its sugar-free version) at the end of the events.
CrossFit had always maintained a very clear position against Pepsi and Cocacola (also owners of Monster), which revolutionized the community.
It was then that they explained that even though they were Monster the contents were water. This calmed things down, but there was still a question: what is the point of promoting a brand, but not using its product if there is no water?
It looked like a patch... And it was just a patch. Monster's first step into CrossFitafter years of legal battles between the brands.
Monster sponsors several Games athletes
In early 2022, the list of athletes who have agreed to a sponsorship with the multinational is announced:
- Tia-Clair Toomey
- Justin Medeiros
- Noah Ohlsen
- Brooke Wells
- Danielle Brandon
- Chandler Smith
- Mal O'Brien
The brand claimed to be interested in listening to athletes to create products that really help them. Molemkamp, Monster's director, says not all drinks are sugar bombs as most people believe.
It is also known that although the detail of the contract with each athlete is different, unlike typical collaboration agreements, athletes are not obliged to comply with "x publications".
The brand plans to sponsor gyms to launch the CrossFit community to the next level. As Molemkamp explains to Morning Chalk Up, They don't want to change anything, they just want to provide the resources to support the sport.
There is no doubt that the brand has money And that always helps to professionalize the sport. But the question is, is anything for money?It makes sense for a brand that sells sugary drinks to promote health and sports. with another product line?
Pepsi & Coca-Cola's history with CrossFit
Greg Glassman from his Instagram account (@thecrossfitbook) shares the following:
"There seems to be a big misunderstanding about why Monster is problematic. CrossFit is against sugar, sure, but Glassman's battle with Pepsi and Coke (which owns Monster) had to do with his well-orchestrated effort to making CrossFit training ILLEGAL. Through funding of the NSCA and ACSM by the American Beverage Association, they targeted dozens of municipalities and spent millions of dollars to pressure local government members to change their laws and require NSCA or ACSM certifications to be a trainer. This would have resulted in disqualifying CrossFit coaches from their ability to do their jobs. It would have made CrossFit certification meaningless and would have required all coaches to pay ACSM or NSCA. If Coke and Pepsi had gotten it right, CrossFit trainers who didn't have NSCA or ACSM certification would have broken the law by training a client. That's fucking serious. Coke and Pepsi paid for that effort... That's relevant history. None of the Games sponsors under Glassman did anything like that. It's not about sugar.
Greg said to me: I don't think sugar is good for you, but that's not the problem we have with Coke and Pepsi, it's that tried to make CrossFit training illegal. and they almost succeeded.
Under new anonymous ownership (we don't yet know who bought CrossFit), the NSCA case is resolved under terms of strict confidentiality and Coca-Cola is now welcome. You need to know the history to understand the issue."
Bottom line, Pepsi/Coca-cola have been at direct war with CrossFit for years, now that Glassman is no longer at the helm they are even sponsors of the Games does that make sense?
Does it make sense that the company that has tried to disqualify CrossFit coaches is a sponsor of the sport's top competition?
Does it make sense for athletes to accept money from brands that once tried to destroy the sport they are known for today?