Many times, consumers of various goods and services have found themselves on the receiving end in terms of the service they get versus the price they pay for the same.

In simple terms, capitalists or major corporations, in a bid to maximise profits, employ every trick in the book to spend as little as possible but hoping to reap tenfold from the same little investment. This is called exploitation.

Unfortunately, in the absence of organised consumers, the capitalists have always found their way out, creating monopolies through mergers and fixing prices. The consumers have always been losers as they usually have nowhere to seek redress.

However, for many a Malawian consumer, the Competition and Fair Trading Commission (CFTC) has, in recent months, offered some ray of hope and redress in its rejuvenated exercise of its statutory mandate of regulating operation of markets and safeguarding consumer welfare in the country.

CFTC was established to regulate and monitor monopolies, concentration of economic power, protect consumer welfare and strengthen efficiency of production

Under Section 43 (1) (g) of the Competition and Fair Trading Act, it is an offence for businesses to engage in unfair trading practices.

Several enterprises have been censured based on this law. The organisations include the Blantyre Water Board (BWB) which “abused” its monopoly status to exploit consumers through a policy that water consumers whose supply was disconnected due to non-payment of outstanding bills could only be reconnected after three days upon payment of the bill and reconnection fee. CFTC warned BWB to stop the unfair trading practice or face criminal prosecution.

In 2013, the commission also stopped or banned the Minibus Owners Association of Malawi (Moam) to stop imposing uniform fares among its members. This was an anti-competition trade practice.

My heart bled the other day when I read stories in sport sections of newspapers such as one headline that proclaimed ‘TNM stands firm on contract’. Reading the story, I saw arrogance and abuse of the minority i.e. the teams taking part in the competition by the all-powerful Goliath in the name of the sponsor, TNM and its partner, the Super League of Malawi (Sulom).

The impression one gets from the sponsor and its partner is that the sponsorship contract is cast in iron such that it cannot be altered. One wonders what type of contract has no review or exit clauses. For example, I find it to be massive exploitation to give the teams, in 2014 and given the increased cost of living, the same K1 million subvention they used to get in 2006. From the same subvention, Sulom gets K600 000 as affiliation fees.

I find arguments raised by TNM and Sulom that “when TNM came in 2006 there was no sponsor” hence the apparent exploitation as holding no water. If anything, the argument only strengthens the exploitation case. Recently, the Football Association of Malawi (FAM) added its voice on the same, saying they would not entertain “ambush” marketing or sponsorship.

Where I see unfair trading and exploitation is when the sponsor, TNM, is allowed to prominently display its logo on the teams’ jerseys and that no competitor of TNM should sponsor a jersey or club. This only happens in Malawi and you wonder which strategy books some of our marketers read.

In the English Premier League sponsored by Barclays, one of the reputable banks in the world, I see Liverpool Football Club donning shirts prominently displaying the name and logo of Barclays’ competitor, Standard Chartered, with the sponsor’s logo and that of EPL, on the upper arm. This is the trend in most civilised societies, except in Malawi.

Competition does not mean stifling your rivals. I always give the Lions Clubs’ Code of Ethics as one best example of doing fair business. It urges: “To remember that in building up my business it is not necessary to tear down another’s; to be loyal to my clients or customers and true to myself.”

It is my plea to CFTC to intervene in the case raised by Super League clubs and find a better way forward that provides a win-win scenario. The sponsor and Sulom should not exploit the clubs simply because “there was no sponsor when we came in 2006” as it equally needs the clubs to run the competition. The TNM sponsorship deal should also be a lesson to sports administrators not to be “desperate” when striking deals. n