Activating your sponsorship of a sports team or athlete on social media is basically a case of crossing a live minefield.

You have to be funny or engaging, you have to be insightful or add something to the social media feeds of your followers – otherwise there’s basically no point in spending big money on the sponsorship in the first place.

In 2015, American coffee chain Dunkin’ Donuts activated their sponsorship with Liverpool by mocking up the club’s crest with their own logo in a bid to create a buzz around their new link to a Premier League football club. Football is growing fast in the US, but sometimes there’s no substitute for bringing in people who actually know the history and the culture of the team you’re sponsoring.

The changing of the crest was clearly a lighthearted move by Dunkin’, and although there was no offence meant, changing the eternal flames – a tribute to the 96 victims of the Hillsborough disaster – on the club’s crest to a cartoon representation of a coffee certainly caused great offence. You can see why.

Do you wanna tell @DunkinDonuts how bad replacing the eternal flame with coffee is or should we? #LFC pic.twitter.com/qnJRkEVDGT

— Kop Magazine (@TheKopMagazine) February 25, 2015

The company apologised, and that was the end of it. But clearly if you’re going to sponsor a club you need to do your research properly. It may have been an honest mistake, but it was clearly a bad one.

Fast forward to this year, and Liverpool were once again at the centre of another sponsor gaffe, this time from UK-based watchmakers Holler, who mocked Liverpool’s lack of league titles on one of their Twitter accounts.

Then there’s the age-old problem of screwing up by telling the truth.

Antonio has been an accident waiting to happen in defence, #WHUFC fans will hope that's the end of the experiment. pic.twitter.com/IeGp4zz1qM

— betway (@betway) August 15, 2016

West Ham United sponsors Betway tweeted that Hammers’ winger Michail Antonio was an ‘accident waiting to happen’ whilst playing at right back – a sentiment most West Ham fans would likely agree with. As with Dunkin’ Donuts, it wasn’t a malicious jibe at the club or the player; it was a truism, a fact that almost everyone knew. Most West Ham fans rate Antonio very highly as a footballer, just not as a right back.

But, as a sponsor, you can’t criticise the club, nor is it fair to single out a specific player for criticism.

So time and again we see how difficult the sponsorship dance can be. You need to engage with the fans – that’s the whole point of engaging in sponsorship in the first place, the brand is attempting to gain access to the club’s audience. But this week, Head Tennis took social media sponsor gaffes to the next level.

When Maria Sharapova was given a ban for her use of the banned substance meldonium – a substance she had been taking a period of 10 years, but was only banned in January – some of her main sponsors fled. Others, however, were unwavering in their support.

Amongst her steadfast sponsors were racquet manufacturer Head, who – after the Court of Arbitration for Sport shortened the length of Sharapova’s ban this week – posted this on Twitter:

Congratulations to @MariaSharapova! #WeStoodWithMaria #headtennis pic.twitter.com/NXGLvl4wzr

— HEAD Tennis (@head_tennis) October 4, 2016

The problem is that, although the court did reduce Sharapova’s ban from two years to 15 months, they did still uphold her guilt. A 15 month drugs ban is still a drugs ban, after all.

That prompted outrage on social media.

@head_tennis @MariaSharapova so sad. I can hardly get any sponsorships as a clean athlete and you guys sponsor dopers. Not right.

— Jeffrey Scott Martin (@Jsmartin22) October 4, 2016

. @head_tennis @MariaSharapova standing by a convicted doper. How can anyone celebrate that?

— Ciaran O Conluain (@LoveCycling) October 4, 2016

And so we have the other end of the spectrum: from Betway and Holler criticising their sponsored club, to Dunkin’ Donuts not doing their homework, now we have Head’s Pravda-like support of their athlete in the face of grave wrongdoing. Not just any wrongdoing, but drug-related wrongdoing – so this one’s bound to cause outrage. And not just any drug-related wrongdoing, but one that has been upheld by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, even if they’ve reduced the length of the ban.

It appears there’s whole spectrum of ways in which just sponsoring a sportsperson can drag your own brand’s name through the mud.