Leisure

The advertisement appeared on the exterior of a bus and stated:

‘LET’S GO JAPAN’.
Polite. Organised. Clean up after themselves. The exact opposite of England’

Featured alongside was the advertisers’ branding and responsible gambling messaging. The advertisement also depicted a fallen England flag beneath the text.

The complainant considered the advertisement to be racist and derogatory towards English people. They stated that they were offended by the portrayal of England and considered it particularly inappropriate as they saw the advertisement on the exterior of a bus while at the airport.

The advertisers stated that the advertisement formed part of a wider World Cup campaign and should be considered within that broader context.

The advertisers emphasised that the advertisement was seen at one of Europe’s busiest airports, where it would have been seen by a large and diverse audience, including many travellers from England.

They said that it was one in a series of adverts which featured as part of their World Cup campaign, which referenced different nations and football cultures, including several other adverts which were displayed in prominent positions throughout, and outside of, the airport at the time the Advert in question was seen. They noted that only one complaint had been received despite the significant number of people exposed to the campaign and submitted that this did not support a finding of widespread offence.

Examples of the other campaign adverts included an advertisement stating, ‘Nobody Does Football Better Than USA’ with an X through the letter ‘A’. Other examples included, ‘Choose Czechia – Think we’d all feel better about Prague if they won the whole thing’, ‘Viva Brazil – A football culture remarkably similar to our own’, and ‘Up the Aussies – basically just Irish folk with sunshine and mullets.’ They also highlighted an advertisement directed at Ireland and Paddy Power themselves which read ‘Forget your passport? At least you didn’t book this giant billboard hoping Ireland would qualify for the World Cup.’

The advertisers argued that consumers would have understood the campaign as humour related to football and the World Cup. The advertisement concerning England should therefore be viewed in the context of that wider campaign rather than a standalone message.

The advertisers further argued that the references to Japanese fans being ‘polite’, ‘organised’ and cleaning up after themselves were based on widely reported behaviour by Japanese supporters at World Cup tournaments. They maintained that the comparison with England would have been understood in the context of football culture, rather than as a statement about English people generally.

The advertisers stated that humour and satire were central elements of the Paddy Power brand and that consumers would be familiar with its style of advertising. They argued that the advertisement was intended as a joke and was unlikely to be interpreted as encouraging hostility, contempt, abuse or ridicule towards English people. They further argued that while some consumers may have found the advertisement distasteful, the Code did not prohibit advertising solely because it may offend individual tastes or preferences.

The advertisers referred to a previous ASA decision involving one of the advertisers’ advertisements. In that case, they noted that the adjudication found that the humorous and tongue-in-cheek nature of the advertisement meant that it had not breached the Code. They also referred to a adjudication against a third-party in which widespread offence was found on the basis of over 80 complaints, arguing that the single complaint received in this case did not provide comparable evidence of widespread offence.

Conclusion:

Complaint Upheld

The Independent Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.

The Council considered the requirements of the Code that humour and satire were natural and accepted features of the relationship between individuals and groups within society. Humorous and satirical treatment of people and groups of people were acceptable, provided that, taking into account generally prevailing societal standards, the portrayal was not likely to cause grave or widespread offence, or to cause hostility, contempt, abuse or ridicule (S. 3.16) and that marketing communications should respect the dignity of all persons and should avoid causing offence on grounds of gender, marital or civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race or membership of the Traveller community (S. 3.17).

The Council noted the advertisement formed part of a wider World Cup campaign that had included executions that had featured various competing nations, as well as Ireland and the advertisers themselves and that the intention behind the campaign was to be a light-hearted, satirical take on the sporting rivalry between England and Ireland within the wider context of the of the 2026 World Cup. However, the Council considered that, unlike the other advertisements in the campaign which were generally complimentary, light-hearted or self-deprecating, the advertisement concerning England was distinctive in that it contrasted English supporters unfavourably with another nationality. The Council considered that the treatment of England in the advertisement differed from that of other nations and went beyond light-hearted humour.

While accepting that that consumers could interpret the advertisement as a reference to solely football, the Council considered that the wording, ‘Polite. Organised. Clean up after themselves. The exact opposite of England,’ could reasonably be interpreted as referring to English people generally. They considered that the advertisement conveyed the message that English people were not polite, were unorganised and did not clean up after themselves.

While the Council acknowledged that humour is a recognised and accepted feature of advertising, they considered that the humour in this instance relied on a negative portrayal of a nationality. They considered that the advertising did not respect the dignity of all persons and was likely to cause ridicule.

The Council therefore concluded that the advertisement was likely to cause offense on the grounds of nationality and in breach of Sections 3.16 and 3.17 of the Code.

Action Required:
The advertisement must not reappear in its current form.