With just five games remaining, Olympique de Marseille is poised for a top-10 finish in Ligue 1, a major drop-off following a runner-up performance in its 2012-2013 campaign. Despite the lackluster second act, Marseille sits within striking distance of a sweet consolation prize: one of two UEFAEuropa League spots. Three teams -- Marseille, Lyon and St Etienne -- are vying for this chance at a European title, an elusive accolade even for the top teams in the land, the two winners to distinguish themselves with a timely ravenous streak.
AndrACCNET-PierreGignac, Marseille's gargantuan forward, embodies this hunger -- literally, according to Burger King's latest ad. The fast food juggernaut, seeking to open a second branch in Marseille, capitalized on Gignac's renown to gain traction among locals. The result was the slogan -- translated from French -- "a Whopper for Gignac," which Burger King copied nearly verbatim from a chant invented by fans of Paris Saint-Germain.
Much ado has been made of his weight, a facile scapegoat for disgruntled fans and merciless critics alike. In 2011, shortly after arriving from Toulouse in 2010, former Marseille manager DidierDeschamps legitimated the jeers by sending Gignac off to lose weight -- in Italy of all places. Though omnipresent, the fat jokes aren't what have gotten him all riled up.
Ever the opportunist, as evinced by his .35 goals per game average at Marseille, Gignac has catharsis, and victory, in his sights
It surfaced several days ago that Gignac has threatened legal action on the grounds of unauthorized use of his name. He is not the first to do so, and he will not be the last -- not even close. Although this latest gambit reeks of pettiness and an inability to tune out detractors, he might have a real gripe here.
In the U.S., several lawsuits, most notably the class action spearheaded by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon, have been brought by players who have not been properly compensated for the use of their likenesses in video games. This instance differs, however, because it was only Gignac's name, not his person, which Burger King used.
Whether Gignac has sufficient grounds has yet to be determined. There has been no consensus among courts in the U.S.; each case, of which there have been many, is decided on its own merits, the law subject to interpretation. Civil law, rather than common law, underlies the French legal system, so there is little basis for comparison. Nonetheless, the suit raises an interesting question: What sort of ownership rights does one have over one's own name?
On some level, I find it problematic to limit free speech, but the specificity (i.e. the name "Gignac") unique to this situation trumps Burger King's prerogative. It did not select a generic last name, and its concession on Twitter after the fact precludes it from contending otherwise.
Next arises the issue of implicit sponsorship. The Whopper is for Gignac -- for him, and not with or next to or near him. For him. This implies, if not that he will eat it, that, at the very least, it is suitable for him. Gignac is the Whopper incarnate. Sponsorship notwithstanding, Burger King invokes Gignac for the express purpose of selling burgers; on the contrary, he alone should be the one to decide what to endorse.
Mocked repeatedly for his bulk and more recently lampooned in the media, Gignac may well get the last laugh. Companies, so as not to misrepresent the personal preferences of individuals, must be wary of whose names they employ to further their agendas. Gignac, a high-profile figure, underscores the importance of prudence in this regard. The absence of consent is key -- without it, appropriation would run rampant.
Sam is a junior who is majoring in religion. He can be reached at samuel_l.gold@tufts.edu
