London (CNN) -- It's hard to imagine the president of the International Olympic Committee on the "naughty step," forced to stay there until he had repented for his behavior. But that's more or less what has happened. Jacques Rogge had to "clarify" (in other words, backtrack on) his newsworthy comment that there was a "question mark" over the suitability of McDonald's and Coca-Cola as Olympic sponsors. Apparently he had actually first flagged his concerns four years ago, but the lure of sponsors' cash far outweighed any considerations about growing obesity levels ... and apparently still does. However, now Rogge is far from alone in questioning high-calorie, high-sugar fast food brands sponsoring the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Academy of Royal Medical Colleges made a high-profile intervention in April, specifically singling out sponsorship of the Games by junk food and fizzy drink firms as sending out the wrong health message. The London Assembly has also recently passed a motion calling for a ban on the sponsorship of the Games (and other sporting events) by such companies. Even the Financial Times, though not sharing that policy prescription, agrees Big Macs are not necessarily compatible with Olympic values and in an editorial backs changes to the way sponsors are selected and expected to behave.
@highlight
IOC president questions suitability of McDonald's and Coke as Olympic sponsors
@highlight
Malcolm Clark says public unease is growing at promotion of unhealthy products
@highlight
Situation is made worse by the nature of the Olympic sponsorship deals, he argues
@highlight
Clark: Free equipment, sporting initiatives do not make unhealthy diets less unhealthy
The relationship should not be so imbalanced -- given that the @placeholder derives four times as much income from broadcasting rights as it does from sponsorship deals, it remains curiously reluctant to demand more from its global sponsors.