Happy Wednesday, and welcome back to the 37th weekly edition of Broken Marketing by Anvara, where we discuss marketing that breaks.

For those of you who are new here, we’re Nick and Andrei, the co-founders of Anvara. We’ve included you here because one way or another, we’re connected. We’re happy to have you as a part of the Anvara family.

Yes, this is real. The UFC is planning a fight on the White House lawn.

No ticket sales. Fighters TBD. And the whole thing will stream primarily on Paramount+.

From a traditional event-revenue perspective, this makes no sense.

But, from a marketing perspective? It’s genius.

The UFC doesn’t need gate revenue here. What it needs is relevance, reach, and cultural dominance, and this checks all three boxes instantly. The White House is one of the most recognizable locations on the planet. Anything that happens there becomes global news by default.

That’s earned media at a scale no sponsorship budget can buy.

Every major outlet will cover it. Social media will argue about it for days. And brands with even a loose connection to sports, entertainment, or politics will immediately start asking how close they can get without crossing a line.

Paramount+ also wins in a big way. This isn’t about how many people tune in live - it’s about association. Moments like this make people notice where something is streaming, even if they don’t click play. For the UFC, it reinforces a bigger narrative: this isn’t just a pay-per-view fight promotion anymore. It’s a mainstream cultural force.

And this fits perfectly into the UFC’s broader strategy.

The league has been slowly moving away from total dependence on pay-per-view, expanding distribution through Paramount+ and CBS to widen the funnel. This event does exactly that: pull in new audiences, generate headlines, and let attention do the heavy lifting.

For sponsors, this is a golden moment too.

Not because of logo placement (there probably won’t be much) but because being tied to a moment like this carries real weight. Brands don’t just want impressions anymore. They want relevance. They want stories they can tell internally and externally.

The UFC isn’t selling inventory here, but it’s actually creating something so big that sponsors line up on their own.

College athletics finally said this loud: “We need money. And not donor money.”

The University of Utah just partnered with private equity firm Otro Capital to help run the business side of its athletic department - sponsorships, ticketing, fan experience, licensing, all of it - under a new entity called Utah Brands & Entertainment.

Yes, that’s a very startup-sounding name for a college sports operation. That’s the point.

And college sports are insanely expensive now. NIL collectives, conference realignment, facility upgrades, athlete services, legal compliance - all of it costs real money now. Donations and TV deals alone aren’t enough to keep up. Athletic departments are expected to act like billion-dollar businesses while still running on systems designed for bake sales and alumni luncheons.

So Utah did what modern organizations do when the math stops mathing: they brought in professionals whose entire job is figuring out how to grow revenue without lighting the brand on fire.

The structure here matters. Utah keeps control. The school remains a nonprofit. And instead of traditional profit-sharing, the deal is structured around revenue-sharing, which keeps things cleaner from a governance and tax perspective. What private equity brings isn’t ownership - it’s operational discipline.

Think smarter sponsorship packaging. Better pricing. Cleaner inventory. Fewer random logo placements and more intentional partnerships that actually make sense for fans and brands.

This is also a huge signal to the rest of college sports.

If Utah can professionalize its sponsorships, fan experience, and licensing without sacrificing institutional control, this model will spread fast. Athletic directors everywhere are watching this closely - because everyone is feeling the same pressure.

College sports actually went pro in the spreadsheet, not on the field this time.

The 2031 Women’s World Cup is shaping up to be massive. FIFA is projecting more than $4 billion in revenue, driven by global media rights, sponsorship growth, and rising interest in women’s soccer worldwide.

So on paper, hosting sounds like a no-brainer.

But, in reality? U.S. cities are starting to hesitate - and for very understandable reasons.

Many of the same cities being asked to host in 2031 are already deep into preparations for the 2026 Men’s World Cup, where the financial reality has been… sobering. Host cities are spending anywhere from $100 to $200 million each on stadium upgrades, security, transportation, and infrastructure. The promise was that local sponsorships and economic impact would help offset those costs.

So far, that hasn’t quite happened.

Across all 2026 U.S. host cities, there have been just 35 local sponsors announced in total. That’s shockingly low for an event of this size - and a red flag for cities expected to foot massive bills again in 2031.

The problem isn’t interest. Brands want in. The problem is how sponsorships are structured.

FIFA controls most of the inventory. Local governments get limited rights. Packages are rigid, pricing lacks flexibility, and cities have very little room to tailor partnerships to local businesses or regional brands. In other words, cities are being asked to take on huge financial risk without having the tools to monetize the event effectively.

So this time around, cities are pushing back. They want clearer guarantees. More control over local sponsorships. And the ability to actually sell partnerships that help cover costs instead of relying on vague promises of “exposure.”

So, this isn’t just a rejection of women’s sports; it’s actually a demand for smarter economics.

The Women’s World Cup has never had more momentum. But momentum alone doesn’t pay for transit upgrades or police overtime. Cities want systems that work - and right now, the sponsorship infrastructure isn’t doing its job.

If a multi-billion-dollar event still leaves host cities struggling to make money, something in the setup is clearly off.

And cities aren’t interested in repeating the same lesson twice.

⚽ Arsenal x Deel - Arsenal swapped sleeve sponsors, bringing in Deel to replace Visit Rwanda. Sports partnerships like this let startups buy something that money usually can’t accelerate: credibility, trust, and global relevance.

🏒 LA Kings x Twilio - The Kings signed Twilio as their away helmet sponsor, marking the company’s first major North American sports partnership following its earlier deal with Chelsea. Beyond logo placement, Twilio will provide fan engagement technology and support activations tied to away games, demonstrating how helmet sponsorships can deliver meaningful strategic impact despite their limited physical footprint.

🐝 Charlotte Hornets x Honeywell - The Hornets named Honeywell their official building automation partner, linking two Charlotte-based companies that operate about a mile apart. Honeywell’s technology will operate security, energy management, and AI systems across the arena and performance center, highlighting how infrastructure-based partnerships can create long-term value without relying on visible branding.

Quote of the Week

“My attitude is that if you push me towards something that you think is a weakness, then I will turn that perceived weakness into a strength.” - Michael Jordan