And I’m Sam.

The Olympic Games happen every four years and the most recent games were held  

in Tokyo this summer. Did you watch them, Sam?

Yes, I saw British swimmer,  Adam Peaty, win a gold medal, 

and my personal favourite was 13-year-old, Sky Brown,  

competing in an exciting sport

which was added  to the Olympics this year: skateboarding.

Olympic athletes inspire people around the world to take on new challenges,

eat healthily and get fit. So it seems strange that some of the companies that

sponsor – or pay for - the Olympic Games also sell food and drink which is

linked to obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

Tobacco advertising was banned from international sport in 2005

because of the harmful effects of smoking. But other companies selling

less-than-healthy products still sponsor big sporting events.

These could be sugary drinks companies, or others who sell fast food

– hot food, like hamburgers, that is quick to cook and

serve but which is often unhealthy.

In this programme, we’ll be asking whether it’s right for companies selling unhealthy

products to sponsor sporting events.

But first it’s time for my quiz question, Sam.

McDonalds had a long history with the Olympic Games until the company

ended the partnership ahead of the 2024 games in Paris.

But why did McDonalds choose to quit? Was it because:

a) they wanted to change the name of French fries to McFries?

b) they didn’t want to call their hamburger ‘Le Big Mac’?

or c) they wanted to be the only company selling cheese for cheeseburgers?

Hmm, I think maybe it’s a) because they wanted to call French fries McFries.

OK, Sam, we’ll find out the answer later in the programme.

Someone who is worried about the relationship between fast food and sport is

Dr Sandro Demaio. He worked for the World Health Organisation

specialising in obesity before starting his own public health agency in Australia.

Here is Dr Demaio speaking with BBC World Service programme, The Food Chain,  

about the problem with unhealthy brands and food products:

By having their brand alongside a young person’s favourite sporting hero, on the

chest of their national team, it does two things. First of all, it

creates brand attachment, so if you’re a young child you built

the connection in your mind that basically fast food equals success.

At the same time it also gives a health halo to that brand.

Then you start to think in your mind, even subconsciously, that it can’t be that bad…

You’ve probably heard of ‘brand loyalty’,  

where people have a favourite brand  

they always buy, but Dr Demaio is concerned about brand attachment.

Brand attachment is the emotional connection between humans and brands.

It goes deeper than loyalty so that people mentally connect a  

particular company with feelings of winning, being healthy and success.

The problem comes when these feelings attach to companies that aren’t

healthy at all. Dr Demaio says this creates a health halo –

the belief that something is good, like an angel’s halo,  

even though there is little evidence to support this.

On the other hand, fast food and fizzy drink companies 

invest large amounts of money in sport, over 4.5 billion 

dollars since the 2016 Rio Olympics, much of it supporting athletes around the world.

Yes, with travel, training and equipment the cost of being 

an Olympic athlete can be huge.

And depending on your country and your sport, there may be little financial help.

Many athletes are desperate for any sponsorship they can 

get - but does that make it right to promote

unhealthy eating in return?

Not according to Dr Demaio, who thinks people should 

worry about the nutritional value of fast food,  

as he explained to BBC World Service’s, The Food Chain:

When we think about foods and beverages of public health concern,

we tend to start by talking about highly-processed foods, particularly

ultra-processed foods. These are foods that have been

really broken down to their kind of basic elements and then

built up - they’re more products really than foods – you know,

they’re made in a laboratory not a kitchen.

Dr Demaio mentions unhealthy foods and beverages – another word for drinks.

He’s concerned about the public health risk of ultra-processed food –

foods containing extra ingredients like chemicals, colourings and sweeteners 

that you wouldn’t add when cooking homemade food.

A potato, for example, is natural - minimally processed. 

Bake a potato and it becomes ‘processed’.

Make French fries and it’s ‘ultra-processed’.

And speaking of French fries, Neil, what was the answer to your quiz question?

Yes, I asked Sam the reason behind the  

decision McDonald’s made not to sponsor the 2024 Paris Olympics.

And I said it was a) because they wanted to call French fries McFries.

Which was… the wrong answer, I'm afraid. In fact, McDonald’s wanted to be only company  

allowed to advertise cheese so it could boost cheeseburger sales.

This didn’t go down well with officials in France, a country with over a thousand  

different types of cheese!

OK, let’s recap the vocabulary from this programme starting with fast food

– hot food that is quick to cook but may be unhealthy.

Companies that sponsor sports events, pay for them to happen.

Brand attachment is a psychological connection between someone and a brand.

A health halo is the perception that something is healthy for you, even if it’s not.

Ultra-processed foods are foods containing added 

artificial ingredients like colourings and preservatives.

And a beverage is another word for a drink.

That’s all from us, but if you’d like to find out more about the business,  

science and culture of food, why not download The Food Chain podcast!

– it’s updated weekly and available now.

Join us again soon for more topical discussion and vocabulary

here at 6 Minute English. Bye for now!

Goodbye!

Hello and welcome to 6 Minute English. I'm Dan.

And I'm Neil.

Now, Neil, do you like going to live football matches?

Oh yes, I love it.

Is it better than watching them on TV?

Well, you don’t really see as much as you do on TV, 

but then on TV you don’t really feel the atmosphere. 

You can’t sing along with the chants and songs at home.

Well, it’s good you mentioned the songs and chants 

because that is today’s topic. It seems that for some 

football clubs, the atmosphere in the stadiums is becoming a bit ‘quiet’.

Now, before we look at this topic in more detail,  

here is today’s quiz.

As we are talking about football, in which decade

was the first ever international football played?

Is it a) in the 1870s,

b) in the 1890s or

c) in the 1910s.

I could be wrong but I think it was before the turn of 

the century, so I’ll say the 1890s.

Well, we'll see if you're right or not later in the show.  

Now, songs and chants are part of the experience of football matches.  

But where do they come from? What are they about?

Here’s Joe Wilson from BBC Sport.

Which team name does he mention?

Some songs can be witty, honed specifically to celebrate 

a certain player or moment in a club’s history. Others rely 

more on a hypnotic repetition of syllables. U-NI-TED, for example.

So, which team does he mention?

Well, he used the syllables from United. This isn’t one team 

as there are quite a few professional teams in Britain 

that have United in their names. In fact, there are over a 

dozen. Perhaps the most well-known though would be Manchester United.

I think fans of Welling United might argue with you about 

that! Anyway, what did Wilson say about the nature of 

football songs?

He said they could be witty. Witty means funny but in a 

clever way. He also said that they could be honed.

Honed is an interesting word here. Something that is 

honed is carefully crafted, skilfully created and developed over a period of time.

When it comes to witty football songs Wilson describes 

them as being honed to be about a particular player,  

or a moment in a club’s history. But these aren’t the only kinds 

of songs. Another kind of song he describes is the hypnotic repetition of syllables.

Something that is hypnotic repeats again and again – 

like a magical spell or chant. What’s interesting is that in football songs  

words can have more syllables than you would expect.

Oh yes, for example, let’s take England. Two syllables, right?

Right!

Wrong! At least in a football stadium it becomes  

three syllables. Eng – ger – land, Eng – ger – land …

Alright! Thank you! Let’s listen to Mr Wilson again.

Some songs can be witty, honed specifically to celebrate 

a certain player or moment in a club’s history. Others 

rely more on a hypnotic repetition of syllables.  

U-NI-TED, for example.

Now, apparently, in many stadiums, the crowds aren’t 

singing as much as they used to. Some managers have complained that the fans  

are too quiet and that this has a negative effect on the players.  

So what are some of the reasons for this? Here’s BBC Sport’s Joe Wilson again. 

How many reasons does he mention?

The decline in singing may be explained by changing demographics in football  

attendance. Older supporters, more expensive tickets.  

Or by stadium design. All-seater arenas may

discourage the instinct to stand up and sing.

So, what reasons did he give for the decline in singing, 

for the fact that singing is getting less common.

He gave a number of reasons. He talked about the change 

in demographics. 'Demographics' refers to a section of the

population that do a particular thing. It can refer to age groups or wealth, for example.

What Wilson says is that the members that make up a