Real Madrid striker Kylian Mbappé's rapid decline in popularity in China following his comments about Mao Zedong has embodied a familiar pattern in the country of online outcry, withdrawal of sponsors and restrictions on digital platforms, often followed by official intervention.
Within just 24 hours of the circulation of a clip from a podcast in which the French national team captain referred to Mao Zedong as a “Chinese dictator,” several sponsors, including the dairy companies Mengniu and Shanghai Milk Ground Food Tech, and the energy drink company Estruck, quickly ended their partnerships with the player.
China Central Television also removed advertisements linked to Mbappe, while Chinese social media platforms imposed restrictions on access to his accounts. The player, for his part, was quick to apologize on Tuesday, describing his statements as “unsuccessful.” For companies, brands and celebrities operating in China, this path seems all too familiar. Analysts believe that the incident represents a new reminder of the commercial risks that still accompany operating in the Chinese market, despite years of similar incidents.
International companies and brands have repeatedly been subjected to storms of criticism in China, starting with the cancellation of the “Dolce & Gabbana” show in Shanghai in 2018, through the apologies of “Versace”, “Dior” and “Coach” the following year, all the way to the boycott campaigns that targeted “H&M”, “Nike” and “Adidas” due to the Xinjiang cotton issue, in addition to the dispute that broke out between two football leagues. NBA and China Central Television after a Houston Rockets official supported pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
Although the facts differ, the escalation mechanism is almost the same: a statement, image, or comment that spreads widely over the Internet, followed by increasing pressure on trading partners to take a stand, before the losses resulting from the crisis often exceed the size of the original incident itself.
Michael MacRitchie, founder of MGI Group, which specializes in connecting international celebrities with Chinese brands, said: “You do not have to think like the Chinese to succeed in China, but you have to understand how the Chinese audience might react, and what might result from ignoring cultural sensitivities or not having enough self-discipline.” The pivotal question remains in such crises: To what extent do the reactions reflect real popular anger, and to what extent are they being exaggerated through official media, digital platforms, and government agencies?
The Mbappe case highlights the difficulty of separating the two matters. As the controversy escalated, access to the original statements related to Mao became limited on the strictly censored Chinese Internet. As a result; Many consumers did not recognize what the player said as much as they followed the news about his abandonment by sponsors and criticism of him by the official media.
“What we saw in this case was, to some extent, a form of manufactured anger,” said Mark Dreyer, a sports analyst and author of “The Sports Superpower,” about China’s sporting ambitions. However, Dreyer cautioned against underestimating such interactions, noting that leagues, clubs and athletes cannot ignore the potential repercussions of such crises.
He added: “Clubs or federations cannot be seen as dictating to their players what to say or avoid about China. But I am sure that behind the scenes he is asking everyone to be careful and realize that such responses can happen.” For his part, Zach Dechtwald, founder of Bridgeworks Global Consulting, believes that such crises, despite their recurrence, remain avoidable.
“If you work in the Chinese market, you are expected to show respect for and have a basic understanding of the narrative that China presents about itself,” he said. Awareness of red lines should form an essential part of this understanding.” The challenge, however, is that China's political and cultural red lines, although generally known, are rarely clearly defined. This ambiguity often prompts companies and business partners to quickly distance themselves from controversial figures before the extent or dimensions of the violation become fully clear.
“There is no written rule that precisely defines what constitutes crossing the red line,” said Wei Kan, founder of the consulting firm Conduit Asia. He added that the boundaries of this line change depending on “the mood of consumers, the general atmosphere in society, and the extent to which platforms and media amplify the issue.” For foreign companies, Chinese sensitivities are no longer as surprising as they once were. However, analysts believe that political and cultural risks are still treated in many cases as a secondary issue, rather than as part of daily business risks that must be constantly managed.
MacRitchie pointed out that his company includes clauses related to behavior and reputation in promotional contracts, while others confirm that market briefings, media training and crisis management plans are no longer just precautionary measures, but rather have become a basic necessity. “When things go well, everyone celebrates,” Dychtwald sums it up. But when you make a mistake in dealing with China, the punishment may be swift, costly and very painful.”
[Note: The article also includes reports on Formula 1 and the history of Manchester United, which are separate topics that have been combined in the original text].
