Sport Thought

Champions League Final 2011 – Taxing times!

2011-02-21T19:09:00.002Z

Written by: Stephen Dunham of Dunham Consulting, an independent capital allowances advisor and sports business commentator

The announcement by UEFA of the ticket prices for this year’s Champions League final at Wembley brought an outcry that UEFA were exploiting fans, despite UEFA’s claims that the pricing was in line with comparable events such as the World Cup and European Championship finals.

It also brought into question again the issue of tax and major sporting events and, for the Champions League final, it has already been a key issue for the UK.

When the FA bid to host the final in 2010, tax was the reason given by UEFA as to why Wembley was not selected, but the decision was delayed over the naming of the 2011 host venue to give the FA a chance to address UEFA’s concerns. These concerns related to UEFA’s request that the participating players from non UK teams be exempt from any tax liabilities arising from their presence in the UK for the period of the match. Under UK tax rules, visiting overseas sports stars are taxed on that part of their income that is deemed to arise from their time here and covers appearance money, prize money and a proportion of sponsorship and other commercial income which HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) deem to be earned during their time in the UK. While the issue of appearance or prize money has never really been in dispute, the allocation of an element of sponsorship and other commercial income has always been an issue as to how much, if any, relates to the time spent in the UK by the sports star, particularly when the majority of these deals are concluded overseas. This all came to a head in a case between HMRC and the tennis star, Andre Agassi, back in 2006 where HMRC won the right to levy tax against a proportion of Agassi’s commercial income wherever it arose, even though the deals that HMRC were looking at were between two US companies. Since then, the issue has been over how much of this income should be taxable. Initially it was looked at on a simple pro-rata of the time spent during a particular year in the UK but, over recent years, HMRC has sought to take a different approach by looking at it as a proportion of the key events that a sports person takes part in, with the overall effect of yielding a higher return for HMRC.

Therefore, for the 2011 Champions League final, specific legislation has been included in the UK tax system (Schedule 20, Finance Act 2010), to exempt any employee of the competing non-UK teams from any income tax that is related to the services or duties performed in the UK in connection with the final. There has already been a precedent for this as similar legislation was enacted for the 2012 Olympic Games in Finance Act 2006.

So that deals with the players, but what about UEFA itself? A question was asked about whether UEFA would have to pay tax in the UK on the income it would receive from the sales of the tickets for the final? The short answer is probably not as it is usual for the event holder to include as part of the conditions for the successful bidder to indemnify the event holder from any tax liabilities that may arise from holding the event. Given that there has not been any specific legislation needed for this area, it is assumed that the FA were comfortable about being able to provide these guarantees to UEFA and would have included any liabilities in their costs for hosting the event. The FA will receive a facility fee from UEFA for use of Wembley and also a share of the ticket income received by UEFA and this income will be subject to tax as part of the FA’s overall income. Given that UEFA will only be in the UK for a short period of time, they are unlikely to be regarded as having a permanent establishment in the UK which could render them liable for preparing tax returns and creating any potential tax liabilities. The ECB had similar issues with the ICC over the Twenty20 World Cup in 2009.

The length of time the event holder is expected to be in the UK is the key issue here. For the 2012 Olympic Games, specific legislation was enacted in Finance Act 2006 to exempt the International Olympic Committee (IOC) from any tax liabilities which provided certainty for the IOC that they would not be regarded as having a permanent establishment in the UK, which will also include the time spent prior to and after the Games in setting up and decommissioning. Similar legislation is likely to have been required for FIFA had England been successful in securing the bid for the 2018 World Cup.

So, as with all things in life, tax penetrates into areas where you would not normally expect to find it and can have a significant financial impact on a particular event.

Stephen Dunham
Tel: +44(0)118 933 2588
Email: steve@dunhamsconsulting.co.uk
Website: www.dunhamsconsulting.co.uk

Random mutterings about World Cup football shirts

2010-05-28T12:02:00.002+01:00

I was asked this morning to comment on adidas, Nike and Puma's World Cup strategies. Here is my (correct/incorrect) interpretation:

I think what we have with these three brands are very interesting and clearly different approached to marketing their brands. In the case of adidas, it has clearly positioned itself in the mainstream in that they bid for the official rights to become an event partner and they deliberately seek to acquire the highest profile, most prestigious properties (such as the German and Spanish national teams). That the company is able to do this reflects their financial power, but is also a reflection of its history and its development as a company/brand in conjunction with football. The consequence of this in terms of marketing is that adidas tends to engage in high value communications campaigns that are globally targetted, although they tend not to be especially innovative. Rather, innovation tends to come in terms of product development and the continued acquisition of properties such as players and teams. Nike in many ways is the complete opposite of adidas; the brand has always had a non-conformist edge to it and so the company has made a deliberate strategic decision not to bid for official event partnerships. Hence, Nike is not an official partner at e.g. the World Cup or the Olympic Games. Instead, the company actively engages in activities that some might label as being deliberate ambush marketing. Alongside this, we have seen Nike increasingly using social media as the basis for engaging in such activities, and also what some might call viral and/or gureilla marketing around its sport sponsorship programmes. Indeed, one is inclined to say that Nike revels in its role as 'the outsider'. Clearly, two decades ago, Nike had no presence in the lucrative world of football and so targetted resources at building up partnerships with some of the higest profile national teams (e.g. Brazil) and players in the world (e.g. Ronaldo). But as I have explained, the company stopped short of bidding for official event partnerships. As for innovation, Nike is not only characterised by its product innovations, but also in the way it markets itself - for instance, the Joga Bonita campaign it used during Germany 2006. Puma is an interesting further case; much stronger as a brand and as a company than it was 10 years ago, but still not in the position to successfully go head-to-head in a battle with Nike and adidas. As a result, the company has adopted an interesting continentally-based strategy, with Africa as its focus. Countries such as Cameroon and Ivory Coast will both be equipped by Puma, and there are numerous other teams across the continent e.g. Senegal, that are equipped by Puma. In one sense, Puma's African strategy is tacit acknowledgement that it can't compete with Nike and adidas. In another sense, it is a very clever and very shrewd move because it provides a very strong CSR backdrop to the brand (in terms of promoting African football), it provides a strong and clear presence in several markets where there is a strong predisposition towards football, and it also raises awareness of the brand in markets where there is clearly some growth potential e.g. Egypt. As regards Italy, my sense is that this simply retains a foothold in the European market for Puma. Nike and adidas are far more powerful, Puma simply can't compete e.g. Puma recently lost the Polish national team contract to Nike. In terms of returns, Puma I think has a great opportunity to enhance its CSR credentials, as well as securing brand awareness and creating affinity in countries across Africa and elsewhere. I think Nike will enhance it's credentials as the brand for non-conformists, while taking marketing through social media to new heights. While adidas will continue to play the role of the 'orthodoxy' i.e. mainstream, mass market. In the case of all three organisations though, given the cost of investing in football rights deals (allied to the additional costs of activiating their deals), the bottom line will be: turning over units i.e. boots, training shoes, shirts, shorts etc...this is a once in four year selling showcase for everything that the three companies do well.

Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal

2010-01-15T23:39:00.001Z

CALL FOR PAPERS

SPORT, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

TO BE PUBLISHED BY EMERALD (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/)

Further to my recent message, I am able to confirm that the first edition of the above new journal will be published in Spring 2011.

People are therefore invited to submit papers for inclusion in the journal.

Further details of the paper format guidelines and the submission procedure will be issued in due course, although authors may wish to note that the journal will in both cases follow the conventions already used by other Emerald journals.

An online submission platform will be available in due course, but in the meantime all enquiries about papers should be directed to Professor Simon Chadwick (Simon.Chadwick@coventry.ac.uk)

In general terms, submissions to the journal will be expected to:

· Use sporting examples and concepts to illustrate management theory
· Use management theories and concepts to investigate sport
· Address management problems and issues in a sporting context

The objectives of the journal are:

· To provide an outlet for high quality research, insight and opinion in the linked and related areas of sport, business and management
· To provide an outlet for high quality research, insight and opinion written by researchers predominantly working in business and management schools
· To examine sport from a business and managerial perspective
· To advance understanding of sport, business and management
· To enhance the academic study and the practice of business and management in and around sport
· To provide opportunities for exploring the latest developments, challenges, issues and thinking in sport e.g. from the perspective of a team, a club or a governing body
· To provide opportunities for exploring the latest developments, challenges, issues and thinking related to sport e.g. from the perspective of a broadcaster, a sponsor, a government department
· To deliver sport business management research that is based on perceived need, robust foundations and strong methodologies
· To deliver sport business management research that is credible, meaningful and scientifically rigorous

Within the context of these objectives, it is anticipated that papers submitted to the journal will normally fall into categories which could include:

· Fans and customers
· Athletes and coaches
· Clubs and teams
· Leagues and competitions
· Events and tournaments
· Stadiums and venues
· Commercial and non-commercial partners
· Governing bodies and representative associations
· Intermediaries and athlete representatives
· Traditional and new media outlets
· Suppliers, retailers and other outlets for sport
· Places and spaces
· Local economic, social and other relevant projects/initiatives

As such, the journal will accept submissions drawn from the full-range of business and management disciplines (either individually or inter-disciplinary in nature) including:

· Accounting
· Corporate Social Responsibility
· Economics
· Entrepreneurship
· Ethics
· Finance
· Global management
· Governance
· Human Resource Management
· Information Technology
· International Business
· Law
· Management
· Marketing
· Organisational Behaviour
· Strategy
· Supply-Chain Management

Professor Simon Chadwick
Editor
Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal
Centre for the International Business of Sport
Coventry University Business School
Priory Street
Coventry CV1 5FB
UK

Viral outbreaks, driving problems and 1980s fashion set to dominate sport in 2010

2010-01-08T12:02:00.003Z

This post first appeared on the Reuters Great Debate blog on 31st December 2009

Sport in 2009 proved to be as enthralling off-the-field of play as it was exhilarating on it, with high profile cases of cheating, corruption and player transgression affecting a number of sports, accompanied by some crowd-pleasing, record-breaking performances.

At the same time, the business, organisation and politics of sport continued to excite and baffle many of us in equal measure, with talk of sports brands, “fit and proper people” and legacy constantly simmering in the background of the collective sporting psyche.

With the fragrance of CR9 still in our nostrils, and the taste of fake blood still in our mouths, what has gone before in 2009 therefore provides us with some isotonic sustenance for looking forward to ‘five things we might see in 2010’.

Marketing Mania at FIFA World Cup 2010
The football World Cup hits Africa for the very first in June 2010, as FIFA makes good on a promise that Africa should host the tournament for the very first time. There will no doubt be an ongoing collective debate about the positive (or, more likely, the lack of a positive) impact that South Africa’s World Cup will have on the communities in which it takes place, the country as a whole, and across Africa as a continent. However, watch out for some interesting sub-plots too: the anticipation of an African team winning the tournament; intense debate about the use of goal-line technology; accusations of kick-backs, bribes and, match-fixing etc. Watch out too for sport’s first major sporting competition for the “Twitter-generation”. Some of FIFA’s official partners have already made it clear that they will cease using traditional marketing techniques next summer and will instead adopt social networking as the basis for their World Cup marketing activities. Expect therefore a series of consumer-focused, viral campaigns in which Twitter, YouTube et al. are employed to spread the corporate word. Expect ambush marketers too to utilise new media to undermine the official sponsorships of FIFA’s partners, as rival brands seek to fool consumers into thinking they are the official sponsors of World Cup 2010.

Respectable in the 80s: Formula 1 reminisces
Back in the 1980s I was a huge fan of Formula 1 during an era when a Senna first entered the F1 World Championship, a legendary former World Champion made his comeback into F1, the Lotus team had two cars sat proudly on the grid, private teams in general outnumbered official manufacturer teams, Cosworth engines were used by a majority of cars, and a wind of change was starting to blow around the sport. It seems entirely appropriate therefore that, just as music and popular culture are already giving a collective nod to the 1980s, F1 should do likewise. In 2010, Ayrton’s nephew Bruno enters F1 for the first time; Michael Schumacher “does a Lauda” and comes back to a sport he doesn’t actually seem to have been away from; Lotus rises again, albeit in a somewhat different form to before; the big-guns have largely gone, replaced by the likes of Campos F1; Cosworth will find themselves in the majority once more; and we have a new guy in charge at the FIA – someone who was a ‘big-cheese’ in 1980s motorsport. The net outcome: a return to F1 1980s style? Not quite gentlemen racers in goggles and shirt-sleeves, but expect much greater competition, a more unpredictable sport, less of a corporate juggernaut than F1 has been over the last decade, more privateer involvement etc. Moreover, just as we witnessed the “youthful” Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone rocking the boat of hierarchical stability back in the 1980s, expect the FIA to come under similar such pressure in 2010…and do not discount a breakaway F1 World Championship just yet.

Driving problems in golf (and other sports)
Poor old Tiger Woods: he has struggled to keep his balls on the fairway over the last year or two; he has had difficulty with his driving (balls and cars); plus, it would appear, he has also had some extra-marital difficulties too. Let’s not forget too that in 2009, he lost a string of major sponsorships and endorsement deals both before and after what has now come to be known as his “transgressions”. Yet Woods is not the first person or team to encounter driving problems in 2009; Nelson Piquet Junior, Flavio Briatore and the Benetton F1 team have all had their fair-share of problems in keeping it on the straight and narrow. So too previously has the T-Online professional cycling team, which effectively disintegrated in the wake of a doping scandal a couple of years back. The common denominator in each of these high profile cases has been the role that sponsors, endorsement contracts and commercial partners have had in regulating the athlete behaviour i.e. the “transgressions” displayed by athletes which have resulted in major partners withdrawing their financial support from an athlete or a team.
In the coming year, we should therefore expect to see contractual terms relating to transgression being “beefed-up” as big brands seek to protect their multi-million pound investments from the kind of “driving” problems we have recently witnessed. It is also likely that we will see the emergence of a new, market-driven morality governing athlete/team behaviour. This will not necessarily be driven by what is broadly considered to be socially or morally right or wrong, rather it will be defined by what is thought of as commercially acceptable or unacceptable.

End of the line for secret agents
For the first time in late 2009, English football’s Premier League released figures to show how much each club had paid to agents for transfer dealings in which they had been involved.
The media and the general public were aghast at the suns of money being paid out, but to no great effect as the surprise and criticism has rapidly petered out. Expect several of the contentious issues surrounding agents to keep coming back though, especially as the Premier League’s disclosure of information will become an annual occurrence. More significantly is the fact that we are still waiting for a European Union study of sports agents to be published. Initially commissioned in the last quarter of 2008, the study’s findings should have been released around mid-2009….but there has been nothing yet. Publication of the report is therefore imminent and it could spread shockwaves in 2010 through the agency business, as it could lead to the introduction of European Union sports agents’ regulations, and possibly even legislation that will govern and rule the agency business across the continent. For an industrial sector that has been simultaneously praised for the valuable role it plays and derided for its exploitative nature, the times they could well be changing.

East is East
Remember a time when European sport ruled the world? This was a time grounded in the 19th century socio-cultural development of sport when some of the world’s most popular games were codified, stratified and professionalised. And then came a new, 20th century sporting model, straight out of the United States, in which business, commerce, sponsorship, television and competitive balance took prominence. But now, in the 21st century, both of these models appear to be subsiding into the background as a third age of sport emerges from Asia where “the nation”, public/private sector cooperation and a more holistic sense of the role that sport can play, are beginning to dominate. We have already witnessed the emergence and growth of Indian Premier League cricket, the “Asianisation” of F1’s race calendar, and the strident ambitions of numerous Asian countries as they have sought to secure the right to host major international sporting events from the Olympic Games to the FIFA World Cup to F1 races. What more of a barometer does one need of the changing international balance in sport than the re-emergence of the proudly iconic British F1 team – Lotus (see above). Except that Lotus is now Malaysian owned and will shift its operations to Malaysia once the 2010 season is over.
Avid sport watchers should therefore keep a very close eye over the next year on growing “Asianisation” across all sports, whether it be Asian ownership of English football clubs and US sporting franchises or the relocation of governing bodies and teams to Asia – the sport that many Europeans and Americans know is going to be changing very soon.

Betting shop blues

2009-12-15T20:58:00.002Z

Guest blog writer: Graham Daniels, Coventry University, UK

The other day I popped into my local Ladbrokes, not because I thought I could back a winner, you understand, but because I thought I’d see if there were any bargains on offer, in much the same way I’d pop into Marks and Spencer’s or British Home Stores. Unusually for a Tuesday dinner time, there were no bargains but I did spot a ‘customer’ having a snooze. I took this to be a natural reaction to the low quality racing being transmitted but that turned out to be a mistake on my part. The fearsome shop manageress had already spotted this soporific regular and had decided she was having no more of that type of behaviour in her establishment. ‘Nobody sleeps in my shop!’ she belted out full blast, in a deliberate attempt to disturb the snoozing punter, whilst at the same time signalling to the rest of us she wouldn’t be the first lady you’d want to go to with a query about your payout.

He took a while to come round, this punter, as one does when one has been unexpectedly awoken from one’s slumbers, but, once fully awake, a torrent of abuse issued forth from his lips; the abuse probably caused plenty of embarrassment to customers in the Ann Summers shop next door. As he made his winding way towards the exit, he picked up a stool, held it high above his head and told the aforementioned manageress what he was going to do with that stool if she wasn’t careful. He then left quietly enough, probably to continue his snooze in the public library.
A typical tale from a bookmaker’s shop, you may think, but these days bookmakers’ shops are markedly different from a few years ago. They’re different because Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) – those machines on which punters play games such as roulette and the like - take pride of place in many establishments and the reason for that is simple enough – those machines generate lots of cash. A reader’s comment on my blog last November summed up the situation perfectly, ‘…bookies have become virtual arcades, with some horses and greyhounds running in the background.’

Here are some selective points from the Mintel report on Betting Shops – UK –August 2009 by way of illustration…

In some shops FOBTs generate half of all profit;

Horse racing’s share of betting shop turnover has halved in a little over a decade;

Ladbrokes reported its machine win in 2008 averaging £676 per cabinet per week, up 16% on 2007's £583 figure;In the mid-1990s, racing typically accounted for 80% of an average shop’s turnover. Today, trade sources put that figure as down in the 40s;In 2008, FOBTs became the first product to earn more for Ladbrokes than horse racing in the company’s entire 122-year existence.

If the live product is undeniably under attack from FOBTs on the one front, it’s coming under attack from virtual horse racing (‘cartoon racing’ is the term used by the blog reader to refer to such offerings) on a second front. Not that long ago I heard a punter in a shop telling anyone who’d listen they were better off punting on the virtual stuff “because it couldn’t be fixed.”
All of which should provide ample food for thought for those in charge of racing and appears to spell trouble for the transmission of the live product in the future.

Coded messages

2009-12-10T08:13:00.001Z

Guest blog writer - Dave Arthur, Southern Cross University, Australia

It seems that the rivalry between Australia and England when it comes to sport pales into insignificance when Australia’s three icon ‘football’ codes engage in a turf war. Australia’s bid (http://www.australia2018-2022.com.au/) to host in 2022 (2018 seems like a lost cause) has been handsomely supported by the Federal government to the tune of AUD46 million. Part of the FIFA edict to host the event is twelve, 40 000 plus seater stadia and a basic shut down of competing major events prior to and for the duration of the greatest show on Earth. This has led to both the Australian Football League (AFL) and National Rugby League (NRL) being asked to suspend their respective competitions for reportedly up to ten weeks. In addition, some venues would be off limits including the Melbourne Cricket Ground and possibly Etihad Stadium both of which are pivotal to the effective running of the AFL competition. There are many aspects to be played out, including of course whether Australia will indeed get to host the event but some interesting questions could be posed… Should government support for one code over another be so blatant? Are there inherent dangers for a Government sport policy such as this?Can the needs of all three codes be catered for? If seasons are suspended should those affected (which could include rights holders, leagues, clubs, sponsors etc) be compensated? If so, by whom?

The World Cup - A View From Down Under

2009-12-08T08:19:00.001Z

Guest blog writer: Con Stavros, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

In France a little while back, doing some teaching, I attempted to stir up a little passion surrounding a Rugby international match between my team, Australia, and the French. The students weren’t taking the bait however, telling me their real enemy was England. I suspect had I been in New Zealand or South Africa, the answer would have been the same.

You don’t grow up in Australia, as I have, without a fierce desire to beat England in any sport. Whether it is a colonial, convict of conflict driven desire, that sentiment is strong in many other parts of the world too. Not such a bad thing for sport marketers, particularly given that the notion of true rivalries, rather than media driven hype, are getting harder and harder to sustain.

This fierce competitiveness was borne out in recent days as Australian eyes turned to the FIFA World Cup draw. The lead-up angle was inevitably on whether the “Socceroos” would draw the same group as England. When we didn’t, getting a fearsome trio of Germany, Serbia and Ghana instead, some of the media made an important note of the fact that should we finish second in the group (behind the Germans) we would face England (who would surely win their group) in the first knockout round. I joked at the time that a few of the optimists leaping to this unlikely scenario (Australia finishing second, not England finishing first) probably couldn’t correctly place Ghana or Serbia on a map. But that was beside the point. In a land where football is taken automatically to mean an oval shaped ball, the connection was all about potentially challenging the mother country. Given the choice between victory over Brazil in the final or England in the round of 16, some would, I suspect, take the latter.

To be fair, or at least find an excuse to mention it, the last time we did play in 2003, the score line was Australia 3 England 1. It was only a friendly at Upton Park, but the appetite was stimulated for a meaningful contest that the World Cup could perhaps one day bring. Which makes me wonder why, given the passion and history surrounding the Ashes test series’, that the English and Australian football associations have never translated the contest to their sport? Is it, as I cheekily suspect, that England have too much to lose and nothing to gain by such a venture? Or is that just the patriotic Aussie in me speaking out? Can you make chicken squawking noises on a blog?

I will let you in on a little secret though that no Aussie will admit to. Promise not to tell, but Australian sport fans have a very soft spot for the English football team. Too many of us have spent too many late nights watching those “Match of the Day” highlights from the 1970’s onwards that we have become classically conditioned to believe that the elite of English football is the world’s best and therefore this should translate to the National team. Should Australia make an early exit from South Africa in June, we will rally behind Capello and the boys… even though we might not admit it. Rest assured that no such sympathy extends to the English cricket team however.

Finally a potential match on the pitch aside, there is also a football battle involving the Australians and English going on off the pitch that will have enormous ramifications for the business of sport. As you are probably aware, Australia is bidding for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup. Technically rivals, Australia is pragmatic enough to know that 2018 will almost certainly be a European event, thus leaving the door open for Australia to nab 2022.

I know the English have had a tough time with their bid in recent months, but hopefully all should come together by December 2010 when the winners are announced. I’d, along with many Aussies, love to see the 2018 competition return to England at stadiums and cities, through the magic of television, we feel connected to. Some of those clips being uploaded to the official England 2018 (http://www.youtube.com/user/officialengland2018) youtube site however are not exactly filling me with total excitement. I almost dozed off watching one.

If you want to see how we do it down under, check out Nicole Kidman in Australia’s bid reel (http://media.businessday.com.au/sport/sports-hq/kidman-helps-world-cup-bid-943850.html). Yes, we even like to beat England at making promotional videos!

One big story

2009-12-02T11:10:00.004Z

What has been the most important sport business story of 2009 and why? Has it changed sport forever? Will it fundamentally impact upon sport? How have the effects manifested themselves? What will the outcomes be?

I am enabling the comments section of my blog for a week in order for people to post their views....I would be interested to know what you think.

Secret agents?

2009-12-01T22:14:00.003Z

Following the introduction of a new set of regulations, the Premier League has for the first time revealed how much clubs such as Manchester United and Chelsea pay to agents involved in player transfer deals. The money paid out between October 2008 and September 2009 is £70 million, an average of around £360,000 per transaction. What has the public disclosure of these sums revealed? Are they going to allay fears amongst some people that the dealings of agents are too secretive and shrouded in mystery? Will will see a more open, transparent approach to agency emerging? Is it an example of good governance? But does the publication of the figures actually change anything? What do they tell us about why the money was paid to the agents, where the money has gone, or what it has been used for? Isn't regulation or legislation a better way to exercise the kind of control on agents that is required in order to bring a much stronger set of principles to the player transfer market? And what about the European Union? The Lisbon Treaty has now been ratified; sport is one of the competences within the Treaty; the regulation of agents is part of this competence; a report is due from the EU in which recommendations for monitoring/regulating/legislating on agents are made. When will we see it?

Fine and punishment

2009-11-30T20:39:00.005Z

Serena Williams has been fined $82,500 for the verbal abuse she gave to an official during the US Open earlier this year. Further punishment could be meted out if she is found guilty of further offences in any of the four tennis grand slams during the next two years: a suspension and a $175,000 fine. Williams' fine is the largest in Grand Slam tennis history, almost doubling the $48,000 fine Jeff Tarango received in the 1990s. At the same time, Williams earned $350,000 from this year's US Open; she has earned $6.5 million in prize money this year; and her career prize money is now heading up towards $28 million (and then there is commercial income on top of that). So, is the fine and punishment Williams has received too much or too little? Has she been targeted because of her position, status and income? Is the punishment consistent with the 'Tarango Tariff'? Is there actually a tariff in tennis to determine how much a player should be fined in such instances? If so, is it clear, transparent and fair? Did Williams actually know what would happen when she started abusing the official? Has an unfair example been made of Williams? Or is the punishment entirely just and fair? Possibly, given her income, she should have been fined even more, and the authorities have actually been lenient? Once Williams breached tennis' code of conduct, surely she must have known what the consequences would be? Or, is there a need for a much clearer and open statement of the punishments a tennis player will receive when unsporting conduct or behaviour is displayed?

Final of The Pitch, Beijing, November 2009

2009-11-29T20:59:00.007Z

http://www.britishcouncil.org/china-thepitch.htm

http://e-learning.coventry.ac.uk/thepitch/

The cost of failure

2009-11-29T19:39:00.003Z

This week is a big one for football clubs like Juventus, Inter Milan and Bayern Munich, as the final group phase game of the UEFA Champions League (UCL) takes place. Liverpool have already seen their chances in the season's competition disappear following last week's failure to qualify for the knockout phase of the UCL. How damaging is it for Europe's top teams when they fail to qualify for the later stages of the UCL? Is it an irretrievable blow in financial and commercial terms, or simply a short-term problem that can be rectified by a stronger showing in the following season's competition? What is the true extent of the revenue foregone by not qualifying for the knockout phase? Can any shortfall in revenue be made up by participating in the UEFA Europa League, especially if a club has a successful run to the Final of this competition? Having failed to qualify for the knockout phase, how does this impact on clubs like Juve, Inter, Bayern and Liverpool? How seriously would it affect their business models? Just how important is the UCL as a constituent part of the business models at Europe's leading clubs? Indeed, if one of Europe's leading clubs failed to qualify for the UCL two, three, or four seasons in succession, just how much pressure would this put on a business to change the commercial and managerial model it might have in place?

From Brown to Blue

2009-11-25T21:32:00.002Z

With a British election likely to be little more than six months away, attention has already turned towards the policies of a potentially incumbent Conservative government (although Gordon Brown may still remain hopeful of re-election given that poles suggest Labour are only six points behind the Conservatives). But what will be the impact for sport in the UK of a Cameron victory? From the quasi-autonomous interventionism of Brown's (and Blair's) government, we would move to what? More of the same? A dynamic new age for sport characterised by a completely new model and ideology? Or a return to the laissez faire principles of Thatcher and her predecessors? If the latter really is the case, surely there won't be an accompanying return to the right-wing loathing of sport that was displayed by sport? Factor in the downturn and the hole in government finances that has emerged under Brown, and will this mean that Tory ideology might result in the re-emergence of philanthropy in sport? And how might Cameron seek to support and promote the proliferating commercial sector in sport? What about grassroots, community and non-commercial sport? Interesting too will be the whole issue of how Cameron might address the rise and rise of EU sport, notably the interventionist model which the sport competence of the Lisbon Treaty effectively advocates? While we are here too, come on Liberal Democrats, tell us what sport means to you - surely you are far too silent on this matter?

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem

2009-11-24T23:23:00.002Z

With online gambling already banned in the US, with Poland now on the verge of a ban, and with the EU set to ratify the Lisbon Treaty (of which a socially responsible sporting competence is a part), just how much time does online gambling have left? More specifically, does sport have to prepare itself for yet another new sponsorship era as online gambling companies disappear from the marketplace following a ban? Is this an extreme outcome for the online gambling industry, and a real concern for sport? Or will online gambling companies an important part of the sporting environment, not least because of the way in which they can identify, track and report instances of irregular gambling activity? In other words: are legislators faced with a simple choice of online gambling companies either being the solution or the source of the problem?

Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal

2009-11-24T23:14:00.002Z

I am pleased to announce that Emerald (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/) has accepted a proposal to begin publishing a brand new sport business journal from the start of 2011.

The publication will be entitled: Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal.The objectives of the journal will be:

To provide an outlet for high quality research, insight and opinion in the linked and related areas of sport, business and management
To provide an outlet for high quality research, insight and opinion written by researchers predominantly working in business and management schools
To examine sport from a business and managerial perspective
To advance understanding of sport, business and management
To enhance the academic study and the practice of business and management in and around sport
To provide opportunities for exploring the latest developments, challenges, issues and thinking in sport e.g. from the perspective of a team, a club or a governing body
To provide opportunities for exploring the latest developments, challenges, issues and thinking related to sport e.g. from the perspective of a broadcaster, a sponsor, a government department
To deliver sport business management research that is based on perceived need, robust foundations and strong methodologies
To deliver sport business management research that is credible, meaningful and scientifically rigorous

Within the context of these objectives, it is anticipated that papers submitted to the journal will normally fall into broad categories that include:

Fans and customers
Athletes
Clubs and teams
Leagues and competitions
Events and tournaments
Stadiums and venues
Commercial and non-commercial partners
Governing bodies and representative associations
Intermediaries and athlete representation
Traditional and new media outlets
Suppliers and outlets for sport
Places and spaces
Local economic, social and other relevant projects/initiatives

As such, the journal will soon begin accepting submissions drawn from the full-range of business and management disciplines (either individually or inter-disciplinary in nature) including:

Accounting
Corporate Social Responsibility
Economics
Entrepreneurship
Ethics
Finance
Governance
Human Resource Management
Information Technology
International Business
Law
Management
Marketing
Organisational Behaviour
Strategy
Supply-Chain Management

Further information about the journal will be forthcoming in due course.

Trying to kick this blog into action

2009-11-24T23:13:00.001Z

For followers and readers, I promise to try and kick-start this blog........from now!

Blue is the colour, football is the game?

2009-10-08T15:01:00.004+01:00

This is a quote from an article written by Ashling O'Connor in The Times:

"Fans keen to follow the progress of Theo Walcott, one of England’s brightest World Cup prospects, will have to pay for the privilege after Chelsea TV secured the rights to Friday’s European Under-21 Championship qualifier against the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The club channel, available to subscribers for £5.87 a month, will screen the game from the Ricoh Arena in Coventry after rival broadcasters expressed a lack of interest. While there is no minimum contract for Chelsea TV, it is only available to those already signed up to Sky or Tiscali, although there are limited schedules available online. The news will compound anger among supporters forced to pay up to £11.99 to sit in front of a computer on Saturday evening to watch the senior England team face Ukraine."

The full article can be found here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/international/article6863732.ece

Just how important is the way in which this weekend's games are being covered? Is this era defining? A fundamental shift in the media and broadcast landscape? Or the fallout of an economic downturn through which broadcasters haven't been able to sustain themselves? And is the combination of pay-per-view AND the internet simply a step too far for most football fans. or will they be happy about the additional options it gives them?

Financial Services Authority - benchmark or barrier for football's cosmopolitan ownership

2009-10-06T21:49:00.003+01:00

As another English football club passes into the hands of a foreign owner, many commentators have been questioning whether or not the only structural impediment to such takeovers (the fit and proper person test) is up to the task of the challenges now facing it and English football.

The BBC details football's fit and proper person test here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6923831.stm

Compare this with the fit and proper person test developed and utilised by the Financial Services Authority:
www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/hb-releases/rel27/rel27fit.pdf

Which is the stronger test? The more appropriate? The more relevant? Could football learn from the FSA or vice versa?

Sport marketing, meeting needs and commercial exploitation

2009-10-01T10:50:00.003+01:00

Matt Bourn of Braben PR has recently blogged about the messages that came out of last week's Sport Marketing 360 conference in London. This is what he wrote:

1. The next 48 months offers huge potential for sports marketing and sport has an important role in pulling the country out of the recession.]
2. Manchester United is said to have 300 million fans, the same as Disney. Disney monetises every single one of those fans in many different ways – film, DVD, TV, merchandise. Manchester United does not yet. So do the Red Devils have a successful business model?
3. FIFA has a much higher profile than the IOC with the youth market. Why? Because of the video game, not the sport itself.
4. Advice to all sports rights holders: Don’t sell rights, create benefits for your sponsors.
5. More advice to sports rights holders: Remember, brands have a powerful role to play in marketing the sport for you.
6. A view from a sports rights holder: Sponsorship is about a true partnership – offer unique content, unique opportunities for fans.
7. In defence of sponsorship: There has been much debate this year focusing on the credit crunch, banks and corporate sponsorship which has led to the defence of sponsorship as a valued marketing medium. Does more need to be done?
8. Advice from an Olympian to potential sponsors: understand (and enjoy) the sport, don’t lose faith in an athlete’s performance, training comes first and remember - activate the sponsorship.
9. More advice from an Olympian: sponsorship is evolving and it is a platform for doing something good
10. It’s not just brands that benefit. The global nature of sport has seen cities and countries using it to promote themselves on a global scale – Dubai, London, China – this will continue.

In the light of Sport Marketing 360, are we to conclude that sport marketing has now come of age and has a significant role to play in sport, especially as it has benefits for all associated with sport? Or is there still a pervading sense that sport marketing is nothing more than a focus for using sport for commercial purposes and that it is essentially exploitative and cynical?

Basketball ahead in battle for global supremacy?

2009-09-30T13:31:00.003+01:00

Much has been made of the importance attributed to Asian markets by organisations both in football and in basketball (and, for that matter, in other sports too) - including by this blog. Indeed, whether it's CR9 branded Real Madrid shirts or the NBA and its network of partners in China, the battle lines for global domination in sport are slowly being drawn up, although the nature and rules of engagement are still unclear. Recent news though indicates that the confrontation is about to get a lot more intense with the announcement by the NBA that they are seeking market expansion in Europe: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/sep/29/nba-espn-tv-deal How penetrative, and therefore effective, this will be is open to question; while there is a strong predisposition towards basketball in European countries like Lithuania and Greece, others such as the UK and the Netherlands are more strongly oriented towards football. The NBA's international strategy raises some important questions though, most notably for football in its core European markets and the Asian market places which it aspires to control. In particular, how will football respond to the collectivist NBA strategy, whereby a central organisation works on behalf of a group of franchises? How will indivudualistic football clubs respond? By forming strategic alliances with one another? By adopting a much stronger strategic network approach in key markets e.g. by working with local clubs in places like China? Or is there an implication that organisations like UEFA and the EPFL (European Professional Football Leagues) must become more proactive, strategically stronger or adopt a more collectively oriented global strategy? Unless European football clubs adopt a different approach, will any of them have the strategic resources necessary to address the growing commercial threat posed by the NBA?

Gates closing for commercial partners in sport

2009-09-30T13:28:00.001+01:00

This summer’s Tour de France was truly historic: the race finished without anyone having returned a positive dope test. Monumental! In a sport seemingly beset with drug problems, professional cycling appeared to have turned the corner, started over, seen the error of its ways, cleaned up its act etc.

Some weeks later however, it was back to “situation normal” when Mikel Astarloza, winner of Stage 16 in this year’s race, tested positive for EPO use. To be honest, the only real surprise about this was that the media singularly failed to refer to the test result as “dope-gate” or some such other gating scandal.

Yet gates elsewhere were swinging this summer like those on a disused farm caught in a tornado. The world of sport witnessed scandals ranging from “crash-gate” to “blood-gate” and beyond (even to situations where women were apparently men – gender-gate?). Crash-gate was the most serious of the summer’s attempts at self-implosion, according to some possibly the most serious sporting scandal of all time.

Indeed, there was a sense amongst certain people that the 2008 F1 Grand Prix in Singapore will serve as a headstone on the grave of sporting credibility: we can no longer trust in or rely upon those involved in sport. Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds have admitted their guilt and apparently done the decent thing, but others may well be complicit too.

Just how could something so brazen, so dangerous, have remained secret for so long amongst such a small group of people? From whistle-blowing, to organisation culture, the use (and abuse) of power and the basis on which teams compete, the whole saga has been a sad, pitiful, mangled mess of managerial, organisational and commercial issues.

Blood-gate was a lot less controversial than the Renault fiasco, if for no other reason than it was essentially a domestic drama and wasn’t therefore played out in the glare of international publicity. Moreover, while the likelihood of a physically painful outcome was much greater in the F1 case, Harlequins willingness to feign a physically painful outcome was at the heart of bloody matters down at The Stoop.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the club is not the only one in rugby that maintains a supply of blood capsules, but Harlequins got caught. As with the Renault team, those responsible at Harlequins have either done the decent thing; or else had the decent thing imposed upon them by the relevant authorities. Dean Richards has been the main target of disciplinary interventions because of his prominent role in the affair – strangely, and worryingly, Richards is a former police officer.

While the RFU and the FIA both took a stance in respectively dealing with crashgate and bloodgate, the nature of the interventions was different, and has posed some interesting questions about how scandals in sport should be dealt with. In Renault’s case, the regulatory intervention was much less serious than it was for Harlequins, in part due to the team’s troublesome twins having already fallen on their gilded-swords.

However, Renault suffered more as a result of the commercial consequences than did Harlequins; at a conference late in September, a senior member of the rugby team’s senior management team claimed there had been no problems with sponsors and partners. Renault on the other hand lost its main sponsor (ING) and a secondary one (Mutua Madrilena), both on the same day. The team will undoubtedly have lost money as the result, as well as a considerable measure of commercial lustre.

Essentially, the two cases discussed here have raised an important issue: is sporting scandal dealt with more effectively by regulatory sanctions (as with Harlequins) or by market-led sanctions (as with Renault)?

The latter is controversial, as many people will argue that money got sport into trouble, so can it really be expected to now get it out of the difficulties it faces? Moreover, it relies upon sponsors and partners terminating their contracts with immediate effect, when in fact adjustments and sanctions may move much more slowly as these sponsors and partners only refrain from renewing a contract once it is finished (which might be years in advance).

Yet regulation appears to have a history of failure: despite everyone’s best efforts, doping still takes place, players pop blood capsules in their mouths and cars get deliberately crashed into walls by their drivers.

As such, if money does indeed talk, then perhaps it is pay-back time and the very big carrot that used to hang from a too frequently ineffective stick should be used as the medium through which cheats are dealt with?

Notes on jersey sponsorships in the US

2009-09-28T21:36:00.006+01:00

America has started to grapple with the issue of whether or not to allow jersey sponsorships, with sporting commentators expressing a variety of comments such as this from IEG:

http://www.sponsorship.com/About-IEG/Sponsorship-Blogs/Rob-Campbell/September-2009/Analyzing-Jersey-Sponsorships.aspx

The debate in the US is one that many sports in Europe have been through before. Indeed, in some European sports, the issue now is not should a sponsors name and logo be allowed on shirts, rather it is a case of how many? Indeed, in some countries, there are some additional questions being asked: sponsors on the back of shirts? On the shorts? How many on the shorts? On the socks too?

Having completed my doctoral thesis on jersey sponsorships and published work in the area (e.g. Journal of Advertising Research, Journal of General Management, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship etc.), there would appear to be a number of questions facing teams, franchises and sponsors in the US including:

Why is jersey sponsorship needed?
What do these other sponsorships potentially offer that others don't?
What value could jersey sponsorships add to teams, franchises and sponsors?
What is the nature of the link with the bottom-line?
In what ways would jersey sponsorships add to or cut through mar comms clutter?
On what basis should sponsorship partners be acquired, retained and then relationships dissolved?
What might be the cognitive and behavioural responses of consumers to jersey sponsorships?
What is likely to be the optimal level of activation required to maximise the effectiveness of jersey sponsorships?
What are the likely to be the ethics and legalities of jersey sponsorships?

Fanning emotions

2009-09-27T21:13:00.003+01:00

Spent the last few days at, or thinking about, a couple of conferences I attended last week. The first was Sport Marketing 360 on Wednesday; the second was Marketing Week's annual sponsorship conference on Thursdays event. Great cast list across the two events, and plenty of inside information e.g. people at Thursday's event knew in advance that ING was set to make a dramatic announcement. Details of the two events can be found here:

http://www.sportsmarketing360.com/

http://www.centaurconferences.co.uk/brands/marketingweek/events/thesponsorshipsummit/overview.aspx

Across the two days, the majority of sponsors talked about the need to engage with sports fans, and to harness the power of emotion that many of these fans feel for their sports. Indeed, there seemed to be open acknowledgment that sponsors need to work hard to ensure that they are not viewed as cynically exploiting sport, if sponsorship deals are to achieve maxiumum effectiveness. This poses the question therefore: how will sponsorship need to change, especially in the post-downturn world? If one thinks of the emotion that e.g. a football fan feels for their club, how can a sponsor (can a sponsor) replicate this? Harness it? Buy into it? Capture it? What is the most appropriate phraseology? Can it ever work? Won't fans always be cynical of sponsorship exploitation? As Marx might have put it: the appropriation of value (generated by a team, club or sport)? And what might movements such Against Modern Football (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9943026245) think about the role that sponsors are playing in 21st century sport? Yet surely sponsors have got a role to play in supporting sport, especially during these difficult times? And if they can help to induce, support and perpetuate the emotions associated with our favourite sports, this must be a good thing - mustn't it? Ultimately, if teams, clubs, sponsors and the fans all win from engaging in a mutually-benefical relationship, this has to be the way foward - hasn't it?

Naughty by numbers

2009-09-22T20:57:00.002+01:00

Craig Bellamy and Gary Neville will not face charges of improper conduct following Sunday's highly charged Manchester City/United confrontation, although Emanuel Adebayor still faces an improper conduct charge following his, er, charge down the field to celebrate the goal he scored against his old team Arsenal (again for Manchester City) in front of his ex-employer's fans. In the light of Bellamy and Neville's misdemeanours, Adebayor can therefore sleep peacefully, knowing that he is also unable to face charges. True? Or may be not? Given that most disciplinary cases inevitably seem to be dominated by interpretation, thereby implying the strong influence of a large degree of human judgement, errors and therefore inconsistency are surely the characteristic of such decisions? In other words, Emanuel, don't assume anything just yet. Could it therefore be that sport, in this case football, looks at a more scientific, possibly quantitative approach to arriving at disciplinary decisions? For instance, could approaches such as the Delphi or the Critical Incident Techniques produce more rigorous, more scientific, more balanced, fairer and more justifiable decisions than the current over-reliance on interpretivism?

Celebrate good times, come on?

2009-09-21T21:45:00.003+01:00

There is a whole series of issues one could debate around the subject of Manchester City 'hardboys': stamping, thumping and abusing being three - particularly interesting subject material too when one considers that Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger and their teams have been the most recipients of the Sky Blue Treatment. One simple observation for older readers of this blog: isn't Hughes the manager exactly the same as Hughes the player was? Hard as nails but rarely lost his cool. Otherwise, there's an interesting issue pertaining to goal celebrations, something I was asked to comment on in a Tweet this afternoon. Should Adebayor and Bellamy have celebrated in the way they should? More specifically, I was asked: should goal celebrations be banned? Are they becoming too provocative and inciting? Could players be linked in some way to health and safey concerns? Could a fan, someone who may have been hurt following such a goal celebration, take legal action against a player who celebrates in a provocative way? Possibly claiming some kind of vicarious liability, or otherwise, on the part of the player? Or is the notion that celebrations might be banned complete lunacy? Surely it is part and parcel of the game? And how would you stop/regulate/monitor/control it? Perhaps there is a middle way? Celebrate, but not too much? How would this work? And can one really imagine a set of procedures or rules for celebrating a goal? May be there would have to be video replays of goal celebrations to decide whether or not a regulation had been breached?

End in sight for social undesirables?

2009-09-20T21:38:00.003+01:00

With tobacco sponsorships and advertising long gone, how long can alcohol and online gambling sponsorships last? Within 10 years, will both of these other forms of sponsorship have disappeared? Will any disappearance be the result of domestic legislative change, will the European Union intervene, or could markets dictate a shift as properties move away from an association with products and brands that are generally considered to be of an undesirable nature? Or is the debate about alcoholism sponsorships in particular nothing more than sensationalism? Is there any tangible or proven link between sponsorship, alcohol consumption and, for that matter, bad behaviour? And what about sponsorships involving online gambling companies - any evidence to support a link?

"This is no run-of-the-mill piece of skulduggery"

2009-09-17T15:05:00.005+01:00

I continue my mild obsession with cheating and whistle-blowing in sport, in particular what has happened in the Benetton case. Journalist Simon Barnes (also author of The Meaning of Sport) this morning wrote what might almost be deemed to be an obituary for modern sport:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article6837713.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=796995

The ethics and morals aside, from a managerial perspective I am interested to know what the anatomy of the 'spingate' scandal was. In other words, how did we get from someone somewhere deciding that the best way to win an F1 race would be to ask a driver to deliberately crash his/her car (which as Barnes points out, is not like a Harlequins player popping a blood capsule inside his cheek - people get killed racing cars N.B. I wonder what Massa thinks about the matter?) to Piquet clambering from the wreck of his car in Singapore? Whose idea was it? Why did they have this idea? When did they have the idea? How did they decide to implement/communicate this idea? Who was involved? Why did they get involved? How was the whole thing organised? Did people sit in a room and talk about it? Did they make it up as they went along? Did they consider what the consequences might be e.g. drivers crashing and getting hurt; what might happen if someone noticed something strange? Did anyone in the team talk about what happened afterwards? When the team decided to (rightly or wrongly) sack Piquet, did nobody given any thought to the fact that disgruntled former employees hardly ever walk quietly away? And when Piquet started talking, how did the Benetton team respond? When was it decided that Briatore would take the fall? Was he responsible, complicit, or was it just because it was 'on his watch'? Piquet blew one whistle, will any other Benetton employees now blow another whistle: a) to provide insight into the anatomy of the scandal; and b) to ensure that that this and other teams engage in such stupidity again? Or was the whole thing just complete and utter arrogance on the part of the Benetton team? As someone with an interest in business and management, I could go on. Just one final question: will we ever really know what went on in and around the 2008 Singapore GP beyond a muffled exchange on a team car radio?

A measure of success

2009-09-16T13:28:00.003+01:00

This from a recent Reuters blog posting: "There is a famous song, composed in the run-up to UEFA Euro 96, in which the Lightening Seeds, Frank Skinner and David Baddiel refer to England’s 30 years of hurt (the period at the time since England won its one and only World Cup). England recently took a step closer towards addressing their continued failure to win world football’s biggest prize, by beating Croatia 5-1 to qualify for next year’s FIFA World Cup in South Africa. In so doing, the team also overcame its two years of hurt, following a failure to qualify for Euro 2008 at the hands of their Croatian rivals.

While the fervent mood amongst passionate English fans and patriots alike will no doubt grow as we progress towards the start of the tournament in June 2010, there is likely to be much more action off the pitch than there is on it – and not necessarily just in England, in all of the countries that have teams which qualify for South Africa. Indeed, as we get closer to the 11th June kick-off, World Cup micro-economies will start emerging domestically and internationally across the world.

Many English, Korean and Brazilian fans will already have booked their flights, arranged their hotels, possibly even have bought their replica shirts, flags and hats, diverting expenditure away from other industrial sectors or from their savings accounts. During English summers, the intensity of such expenditure is becoming legendary, if not mind-blowing. Whether bedecking one’s car in flags and stickers, hanging a banner out of the bedroom window, buying the latest England merchandise, bulk-buying beer and burgers for a garden barbeque or relentlessly purchasing packs of stickers for a World Cup album collection, all are becoming the essence of what football tournaments have become.

The question is: how much are such micro economies worth? In England, there are various estimates of this, ranging from 1.2 billion pounds through to 2 billion pounds or more. Such figures in themselves have taken on an almost mythical status, as reliable scientific data about the economic effects of winning is unavailable. We think we know what happens, there have historically been plenty of predictions, but we don’t actually seem to know what the precise economic impact will be when that winning goal goes in, nobody has ever collected the data.

In addition to the tangible impact of “that” goal in qualifying, there is a consensus too that qualification for big tournaments is also likely to generate intangible positive impacts.
The “Feel Good Factor” is seemingly worth something, with people working harder and spending more, as national team success induces a sense of euphoria, whilst also diverting people’s attention away from their normal everyday travails. Moreover, in terms of national identity, the enhanced national self-esteem that such high profile success brings is surely worth millions, if not billions, of pounds? But again, this is accepted wisdom rather than scientifically proven fact. Nobody really knows if this is true because nobody has ever set out to measure the impact.

It would be easy to surf the wave of hype and expectation that inevitably accompanies a national team qualifying for an international tournament, but one needs to mitigate the potential for a positive impact with the potential for negative impacts. Has anyone ever monitored the decrease in productivity around World Cup time, as people spend more time chatting and speculating than they do producing and managing? Moreover, is anyone prepared to acknowledge that absence through sickness stats go through the roof around tournament time, especially when a game at a crucial stage of the tournament kicks –off in the middle of the day? And what about the drunk and disorderly behaviour of some fans down at the local pub and the noise they make, or the litter that people generate when watching games on public viewing screens in the local park? All of these activities, and more, have a negative impact and, so, a cost attached to them. The question is: how much? And could it actually be the case that the costs of qualifying could, in theory at least, outweigh the benefits of progressing to the finals of a World Cup? Nobody knows because nobody has ever set out to accurately measure it before.

My prediction for next year? From an English perspective, Quarter-Final defeat, probably on penalties, following the sending off of a key player for a questionable challenge on an arch enemy. Off the field, who knows? Given the conventional wisdom, my next prediction is an economic impact of between 1 billion and 2 billion pounds – that’s a decent enough margin of error. But we really need precise, robust measures of impact to know exactly how important the World Cup will be."

Simple question: how and where do we start measuring such impacts?

This blog posting first appeared on the Reuters Great Debate blog:
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/09/14/whats-a-goal-or-five-worth/

Whistling a bit more

2009-09-15T13:51:00.003+01:00

Following yesterday's post on whistle-blowing, I received several messages from people, either commenting or asking for more information. Indeed, in this morning's Guardian newspaper, there was further coverage of Piquetgate:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/sep/15/pat-symonds-renault-piquet-briatore
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/sep/15/flavio-briatore-renault-singapore-nelson-piquet-transcript

My response to one person who contacted me was: "One needs to ask why whistle-blowers in sport are an important or a distinctive issue? Given the team mentality and the culture of groups of athletes sticking together in sport, individual interests and concerns will often be subjugated at the expense of collective solidarity. This has resulted in the emergence of a culture where the prevailing view is: ‘what happens in the dressing room, stays in the dressing room’. It is very clear from revelations that leak out on an almost weekly basis in sport, that one is entitled to be seen in sport but often one is not necessarily allowed to be heard. Hence, it would appear to be acceptable in many cases that athletes are neither able nor willing to express their views on matters that may be concerning them. However, individuals still retain the right to their personal freedom and liberty both legally and in terms of the guidelines laid down by organisations like the CIPD. The question is: in sport, given the prevailing organisational culture and mentality, are individual athletes being afforded their full rights, and in cases where they do actually exercise these rights, are such athletes then being marginalised or treated in a different to their peers?

My view is that sport is changing rapidly and faces many challenges that often lead individuals, groups and organisations to operate in ways that may be unethical, illegal, dangerous, and possibly even unfair. In these turbulent times, I think it is important that the integrity of sport is preserved, if not strengthened. In which case, I there should be policies, procedures and mechanisms in place to ensure that anyone who has concerns about an issue is able to represent their concerns to someone or something that will deal with them to the satisfaction of the person airing those concerns. There is a fundamental issue of good governance here, the principles of which would have to be applied in such cases. In other words, the potential for corruption, retaliation and ‘white-washing’ would have to be mitigated in the policies procedures and mechanisms put in place (and indeed the outcomes that are delivered). That said, I would not see any re-appraisal of what ‘whistle-blowing’ in sport means as being a charter for the disaffected, the aggrieved or the irritated to make unsubstantiated and scurrilous claims about people they work with or organisations they are employed by. This is why the Benetton case will be interesting to watch.

As for the biggest whistle-blowing case in history, this one has got to be up there at the top; even now it still rumbles on and has taken a lot of people down with it. Kirk Radomski was the whistle-blower in this case: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2009/01/15/2009-01-15_roger_clemens_grand_jury_probe_steroid_d.html

Otherwise, Mike Newell’s claims about football agents is an interesting case too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/luton_town/4605184.stm "

So, what was the biggest whistle-blowing scandal in the history of sport? What was involved? Who was involved? Was the whistle-blowing necessary, desirable or needlessly disruptive? Was the whistle-blower vindicated, discredited, protected, persecuted? And how was the whole issue managed? How should it have been managed?

You can whistle for it

2009-09-14T21:36:00.004+01:00

According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, whistle-blowing occurs: "when an employee or worker provides certain types of information, usually to the employer or a regulator, which has come to their attention through work. Whistle-blowing occurs when a worker raises a concern about danger or illegality that affects others, for example members of the public." Notwithstanding criticisms of Wikipedia, the entry for whistle-blowing on the site reads: "A whistle-blower is a person who publicly alleges concealed misconduct on the part of an organization or body of people, usually from within that same organization. This misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistle-blowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues). Whistle-blowers frequently face reprisal - sometimes at the hands of the organization or group which they have accused, sometimes from related organizations, and sometimes under law."

Interesting stuff indeed, especially if one considers some recent controversies in sport, most notably what is happening in the increasingly fractious stand-off between the Benetton F1 team and Nelson Piquet Junior. Having seemingly 'blown the whistle' on the team, Piquet now potentially faces court action as the team have responded by reporting Piquet's activities (which could be deemed to be criminal under French law) to the authorities. How do the above definitions apply to Renault/Piquet? Do they help us understand the problems in a more insightful way? Is the Renault/Piquet stand-off a classic example of whistle-blowing, or simply sour grapes on the part of a dismissed former employee? If the former, how should sport, F1 and Benetton respond? Is sport singularly failing in the way it addresses the issue or is whistle-blowing effectively dealt with and appropriate handled? If the latter, what action could/should Benetton take? Is the law the only way, or are there stronger managerial and/or policy measures that can be employed?

Overall, is there a need for sport to take the whole issue of whistle-blowing much more seriously? If so, how, especially given the strong sense of secrecy that prevails in some quarters of sport, especially in the dressing rooms of team sports?

International affairs

2009-09-10T14:27:00.005+01:00

A couple of Twitter posts from Sports Pro magazine have caught my eye today.

The first Tweeted headline was about the potential for a Swiss government takeover of the Sauber F1 team:

http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/_a/bmw_sauber_team_could_be_rescued_by_swiss_government/

I do not claim to be a trade expert or a lawyer, but what would be Sauber's legal position if it were effectively to be subsidised by the Swiss state? Wouldn't this give the Swiss team an unfair advantage over their F1 rivals? Would such an investment be illegal or in breach of trade rules/agreements? What is the FIA's and FOTA's views on such 'investments'? May be the bailout is not an issue, as sport/motorsport/F1/Switzerland are exempt from such rules/agreements? Perhaps it is simply not an issue?

The second headline relates to baseball and can be viewed here:

http://www.sportspromedia.com/deals/_a/baseball_world_cup_to_be_screened_around_the_world/

Another sport to populate the increasingly crowded global sportscape? While the NBA, European football and F1 motor racing clearly have global aspirations, does this flurry of broadcasting activity effectively signal the emergence of baseball as a sport with similar global aspirations? If so, how might this impact upon the competitive dynamic of the global sport market? Given the current limited appeal of the sport, does global coverage serve to build the market, raise awareness etc., or is it a waste of resources?

The times they are a changing....

2009-09-09T21:59:00.003+01:00

With the FIFA embargo on Chelsea transfers in place, President Blatter calling for further controls on predatory football clubs, Platini at UEFA seeking to regulate the signing of under-age players, and the European Union on the verge of ratifying the Lisbon Treaty (in which sport plays a very important part), how close are we to a fundamental change in the way that young players (indeed players of all ages) are recruited by sports teams? Will the current regulation of player recruitment and acquisition, often in direct contravention of European Union law, be changed in a way that is more significant than 1995's Bosman Ruling? In five years time, will we therefore have a completely different model in place to the one that we have currently? If so, what will it look like? And how will others in the transfer system e.g. agents and intermediaries be affected? Indeed, with the Lisbon Treaty looming on the horizon and the EU about to publish a report it commissioned on sports agents last year about to be published, will we actually see controls, possibly even legislation, being introduced to regulate the activities of agents?

Love thy neighbour

2009-09-08T11:09:00.003+01:00

As England gears up to present its bid to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup, cities across the country have begun jockeying for position as host venues for games that will be played if the Finals are awarded to England. Thus far, it appears that 18 cities and 25 stadiums have presented themsleves as possible host venues. Amongst them are Aston Villa, Birmingham City and West Bromwich Albion, in a show of an almost unprecedented nature. Aston Villa's home, Villa Park is being proposed as a game venue while St Andrews (City) and the Hawthorns (Albion) are being proposed as training session and training camp hosts. This collaborative strategy is as rerfreshing as it is surprising, especially as football clubs in other parts of the country are going head-to-head with each other in what some might see as a zero-sum game. Given that Villa, City and Albion are normally fierce adversaries, why is it that they have decided to approach 2018 in this way? Does the collaboration mark a genuine change in the model of relationship formation/management normally evident elsewhere in football? And if clubs can collaborate in such a way, then what potential might there be for them to collaborate in other ways? Could they open regionally branded retail outlets? Could they share training facilities? Could they engage in cross-promotion and selling? Could there be ways in which fans and customers are retained more effectively? And what might be the advantages and disadvantages of operating in this way? Does 2018 therefore provide an opportunity, at least in this case, for the West Midlands to create a family brand, within which there are three other brands, each coordinating with and working for one another? Or is this a rather optimistic view of a functional, possibly even a fractious, relationship?

Indian summer....and autumn, winter and spring

2009-09-07T22:40:00.002+01:00

This from Reuters India: "An Indian consortium has applied to buy BMW-Sauber, which is seeking new backers after German carmaker BMW said it was pulling out of Formula One at the end of the season, domestic media reported on Saturday. Indian investors have made an application to purchase the BMW-Sauber team," the Times of India quoted unnamed sources as saying. The paper said the deal was based around a 50 million euro investment and involved Swiss driver Neel Jani, who currently features in the A1 GP series and whose father is Indian. An Indian already owns an F1 team with liquor and airline billionaire Vijay Mallya's Force India. However, there is no Indian driver on the grid. Last month, team principal Mario Theissen said BMW-Sauber had several rescue proposals and had applied to keep their place in Formula One next year. Theissen told reporters ahead of the European Grand Prix in Valencia that he and founder Peter Sauber, who has a 20 percent stake in the team, were evaluating proposals from interested parties."

Is this yet further evidence to support a previous blog posting made here earlier on this year?

http://dailysportthought.blogspot.com/2009/05/decline-of-20th-century-empire.html

If the 19th century was dominated by the rise of European thinking about sport, and the 20th century was dominated by the rise of American thinking about sport, is it becoming the reality that 21st century is rapidly becoming the era in which Asian thinking about sport begins to predominate? If so, is there anything that America and Europe can do? If so, what? If not, what are going to be the ramifications for sport in these two continents? Do sports, governments and other stakeholders need to change their view of sport and start thinking about sport in a new and different way e.g. in the way in which the Qatari government has made sport a fundamental and central part of national governmental industrial strategy? Is it really the case that America and Europe very quickly need to 'wise-up' or 'lose-out'? Or is this an unnecessarily pessimistic scenraio?

Franchising the (sponsorship) deal

2009-09-06T21:07:00.002+01:00

There has been an interesting new development in North American sponsorship, that was brought to my attention via a Tweet from sponsorpitch. In NASCAR, it appears that there has been a major trend towards large stores sponsoring teams. In turn, stores are engaging their vendors in the deals, giving these organisations exposure in return for a contribution to the expense of the sponsorship deal:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1617-Detroit-NASCAR-Examiner~y2009m9d5-The-new-trend-in-NASCAR-sponsorship

Is this development likely to spread, both in the US and elsewhere? In the immediate post-recession era, is this a cost-effective way for some companies to engage in sponsorship deals? In what other ways might such deals be important for both the retailer (in other words, the senior partner) and the vendor (the junior partner)? Is the development to be celebrated as it potentially introduces new sponsors to sport? What might be some of the management challenges facing both parties? Is it a form of strategic collaboration? If so, how should the marriage be managed to ensure that both parties benefit? In the future, should we expect to see Debenhams sponsored sports, with Ben Sherman, Jasper Conran and Jeff Banks as vendor sponsors? Interesting collection of names - but just how easy would it be to engage them, manage them and keep them all happy?

Posturing and positioning: Clash of the Titans 2

2009-09-05T18:11:00.003+01:00

As the saga of Chelsea's transfer embargo gets into full swing, speculation grows about what will happen next. One theory is that Chelsea will delay an appeal to the Court for Arbitration in Sport. The reason for this is that, if the timing is correct, CAS will suspend the ban pending a judgement, thus ensuring that Chelsea would be able to sign players in the January 2010 transfer window. What will Chelsea do, and if they do delay should we expect the club to engage in a whirlwind of transfer activity in their anticipation of a summer ban being reimposed following CAS's ultimate ruling? And what of FIFA's threat to increase the penalty if Chelsea appeal to CAS and fail? Reasonable action, justifiable threat or bellicose reaction? Otherwise, are Manchester United next in the line of fire with FIFA for their signing of Paul Pogba from Le Havre? Plus, where do Arsenal fit it, currently tipping-toeing quietly around in the background of the furore? Perhaps, after years of watching the Premier League slowly begin to dominate European (and world?) football, is this finally the chance that FIFA has been waiting for to strike back? But still, where and how does the EU fit into all of this?

In a second case of posturing positioning, prospective FIA President, Ari Vatanen, has spoken out against the slow drift of Formula 1 away from traditional venues such as Silverstone. While people such as Bernie Ecclestone have supported, indeed promoted, the shift of F1 races to new venues and new countries, Vatanen is keen to preserve the heritage of motorsport, believing that traditional fans and customers are being alienated from the sport. Are we heading for a showdown in F1 that will run alongside or possibly replace current conflicts? Will Vatanen's stance effectively mean the governing body is at odds with Ecclestone? And where would the teams fit in: do they support Ecclestone the monopolist (with whom they seem to have issues) or Vatanen the traditionalist (which could well deny teams the lucrative commercial opportunities that new and emerging motor-sport markets appear to offer)? Could it be therefore that we are actually heading for an even more fractious period in F1 than we have been experiencing recently?

Two-brand tennis

2009-09-04T21:22:00.002+01:00

Much has been made in recent weeks of the fact that men's tennis is effectively a two-brand commercial race: Nadal and Federer. Indeed, in Nadal's recent absence, it could well be said that men's tennis has been a one-brand sport. An interesting initial question: how long does an athlete have to be away from a sport (through injury or otherwise) before the value of their brand begins to diminish? Does it happen straight away, or does it happen over time? And what kind of rate of decline might one witness? There does however appear to be a couple of challengers on the horizon: Murray and Roddick. The commercial potential of Murray has previously been examined on this blog, although it is worthwhile asking: how will 19 Entertainment manage and generate value from the Murray brand? Those in tennis have suggested that Murray is a charming, friendly guy, which is it odds with many people's public perception of him - in what ways might an agent, manager or other intermediary be able to reconcile these two aspects of the Murray persona/brand? And what of Roddick? Unfulfilled potential - in playing and commercial terms. Is it too late for Roddick to make the big money that Federer and Nadal have, and Murray is threatening to do? Will another good showing at the US Open, after Wimbledon, be sufficient to re-establish his brand and catapult him forward into Nadal/Federer territory? Or, commercially at least, has his time passed? Perhaps his current portfolio of sponsors is evidence that he lacks the appeal of some of his rivals? Moreover, is Roddick the opposite of Murray - amiable on-court but disliked off it - which may the source of problems he and his representatives have had in building the A-Rod brand? Perhaps the relative failure of his brand is simply due no more than to his weak playing record over the years?

Clash of the titans

2009-09-03T21:00:00.003+01:00

I am not a lawyer, nor a Chelsea fan, nor for that matter do I advocate poaching. However, FIFA's decision to impose severe sanctions follows the Premier League club's signing of Gaël Kakuta from Lens is an intriguing one. Further details of the ban can be found via

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/sep/03/chelsea-fifa-transfer-ban-gael-kakuta
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/8236187.stm

A statement from FIFA appearing in The Guardian provides an indication of the sanctions that Chelsea and Kakuta face:

"A restriction of four months on his eligibility to play in official matches is imposed on the player Gaël Kakuta while the club FC Chelsea is banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the notification of the present decision," the DRC statement said. "Furthermore, the club, FC Chelsea, has to pay to RC Lens training compensation in the amount of €130,000."

Given Sepp Blatter's recent comments about player slavery in football, the nature of controls, and indeed the sanctions, imposed in this case bring one back to the debate about slavery, only from a different angle. Given the principles upon which the European Union is founded, and the state of the law in the Union, whatever the age of a player and whatever the investment a previous club may have made in the player, can the player's movements be controlled (in this case penalised) and his trade be restarined in such a way? Doesn't the player have a democratic right to do as he pleases? Afterall, surely all of us routinely switch jobs, even though an employer may have invested heavily in our development, while some of us may even have been actively 'tapped-up' by rival prospective employers? Are footballers any different to other employees? Is there actually anything in European law yet that defines the specifity of sport, which would thus make Chelsea, Lens and Kakuta exempt from normal EU laws? Is Kakuta therefore a slave? Or are Chelsea's (and, for that matter, Kakuta's) actions flippant, arrogant, selfish and dismissive? If all clubs were to behave in such a way, surely football would start to polarise even more than it has done already, with larger clubs benefitting? Surely poaching in sport - where the labour market is different to other labour markets - has to be treated in a different way? And what of the macro-political context to this penalty: FIFA attempting to control the actions of EU citizens and organisations in a way that is inconsistent with EU feedom of movement/restraint of trade principles (and therefore possibly illegal in itself)? And if the EU were to intervene in FIFA's ruling, wouldn't FIFA object to this? Based on precedent, could one extreme scenario be that FIFA suspends all EU nations from international football competitions until such time that the EU withdrew any threatened action that undermined FIFA's Chelsea ruling? Are the EU and FIFA on a collision course? And what about Chelsea? Not just 'any' club, but one owned by a Russian with strong links to the Russian FA and to the Russian government - FIFA v Russia? Could this be one hell of a legal/political clash of the titans?

Undercover agents

2009-09-02T20:33:00.003+01:00

Matt Snow reports in today's Guardian newspaper that the UK tax authorities have now been given permission in the British courts that will enable them to secure access to the offshore accounts of sports agents. At the same time, stories circulating around the football player transfer market over the summer suggest that a small number of unscrupulous agents have been demanding money from players and clubs that they had no right to, and that other rogue traders routinely engaged in railroading rivals in sometimes unethical ways. Consider also that we are little more than a month away from the publication of the European Union's study into the sports agents industry, possibly the first step in moves to introduce guidance, regulations or legislation aimed at prompting a more centralist and interventionist approach to agents across Europe. Is time therefore running out for the agency industry as we know it? Are legal guidelines about to be laid down in Europe that will challenge the whole notion of what an agent is, what they do and how they operate? If the EU's Lisbon Treaty is finally ratified, will regulation become a certainty? In which case, how will the industry be regulated and who will police it? Or will such a development have only a limited impact on the industry, especially as a majority of agents operate according to good governance principles? And as for the unscrupulous agents, are they already operating so much beyond the law that they will continue to operate undetected or in a way that enables the few to continue operating in an unsatisfactory way?

Cheat, cheat, never beat?

2009-09-01T20:57:00.003+01:00

After a summer away from this blog, much has happened to that one might write about. However, one significant and recurring theme has been the issue of cheating (or at least alleged cheating) in sport. James Lawton in The Independent has been trying to get to grips with the vexed question of cheating:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/james-lawton-only-when-bloodgates-shamed-have-all-been-punished-can-rugby-move-on-1778897.html

In British rugby, the sport has been shocked to its core by an injury faking scandal in which a member of the Harlequins team feigned injury by breaking a blood capsule in his mouth to facilitate a tactical injury. The case has resulted in several high level resignations and bans (on both players and officials).

Before the women's 800 metres race at the World Athletics Championship in Berlin, gold medalist Caster Semenya recorded testosterone results that were three times higher than the normal expected level for a female, leading to a debate about whether 'she' is technically a woman or a man.

Last year's F1 Grand Prix in Singapore is now under scrutiny, with accusations having been made that a team may have instructed a driver to deliberately crash his car, thereby enabling the same team's lead driver to benefit from a saftey car intervention, thus boosting the lead driver's race position.

In there own ways, each is shocking for very different reasons, although they do raise one single question: why do athletes and sports teams cheat? Is it simply because money has helped corrupt sport, especially in the modern-era? Are the financial benefits of winning so great? Great enough to mitigate the potential costs of getting caught? Or is this a lazy and/or convenient way of explaining a phenomena that has deeper and more historic roots? Is the desire to win at all costs, covering oneself and one's team in glory, much more important than money? Or is it, and has it alway been the case, that cheating has taken place in sport, it's just that we are now more accutely aware of it and feel the need to address the issue: a) because of the commercial interests in sport; and/or b) because good governance seems to be on top of the agenda in a number of countries? And how should we deal with cheats and cheating? Through legal and regulatory means? By taking a laissez faire approach? And what might sport learn from agencies across the world that are involved in tackling crime, issues of malpractice and so on?

Pre-season tour

2009-08-06T22:57:00.006+01:00

If it's good enough for Manchester United and Chelsea, it's good enough for Daily Sport Thought - this blog will soon be setting off for an overseas tour and a pre-season training camp aimed at building the brand, targetting new customers and engaging in effective PR in an international market place. Service will be intermittent, dependent on the games and training schedule the blog will face during its overseas adventures.

Twittering Aquilani

2009-08-06T22:54:00.001+01:00

Early yesterday afternoon, amongst the trending topics on Twitter it appeared as though Alberto Aquilani of Serie A's FC Roma had actually already signed for a new club, the Premier League's Liverpool FC. A check on the major news sites (newspapers, television, specialist internet sites and new agencies) around this time failed to provide any evidence that Aquilani had switched clubs (although stories had been circulating for weeks that he would move to Liverpool from Roma once Xavi Alonso moved on to Real Madrid). This blog has already addressed issues pertaining to the wisdom of crowds, the role that social media play in predicting the future, and the use of Twitter in sport. Yesterday afternoon, all of these elements appear to have come together which poses some interesting questions: is Twitter one of the most powerful predictive tools currently available to members of the general public? If so, how should managers and decision-makers in and around sport be using it? Do sport organisations solely see Twitter as a marketing tool when in fact it is something much more powerful - a mechanism for generating an array of possible scenarios and outcomes to the challenges they face? Or is that Twitter is simply the fast medium for gathering and disseminating news? Had Aquilani indeed already signed when the Twitter stories started filtering through - hence Twitter isn't in this case predictive at all, it was just fast? Yet if Twitter really is so fast and effectively bypasses traditional outlets for news stories, then how should sport newspapers, television programmes and other content providers respond to the challenges it is now starting to set them?

Indian summer...and winter

2009-08-05T10:18:00.003+01:00

This was reported by Sport Business ealrier on today: "The All India Football Federation (AIFF) has made a request to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to help fund India’s national football team, according to media reports. The Kolkata-based Telegraph reported that the BCCI could give a $2 million grant to the AIFF’s "Goal 2011" project - where top 25 players will be taken away from club duties for nine months - to build the national team for the 2011 Asian Cup finals in Qatar." This is an interesting initiative, especially in a country where cricket rules and football, although popular, is definitely the junior partner in the relationship. Is such an initiative (or is it a strategy) the way forward for smaller, less popular sports to gain strength and vibrancy? Is this kind of 'piggy-backing' and appropriate strategy? What are the respective advantages and disadvantages? Could it be viewed as a form of cross-subsidisation, in which case, again, is this the right way to promote sport? Or, is it a a form strategic collaboration, in which case what are some of the pertinent issues in managing such a relationship? Could it be seen as an Indian macro-level equivalent of a Spanish polideportivo, in which case what is the national strategy underpinning the link between football and cricket? From the perspective of national sporting soldarity, could it be that the proposed cricket/football link will ultimately yield a number of important lessons for other countries seeking to create an integrated sporting model or national sporting strategy?

Age of concern

2009-08-04T13:04:00.005+01:00

Something that has been bothering me for a week or two - the subject of age in sport. Following Tom Watson's (aged 59) second place in this year's British Open at Turnberry, I asked in this blog whether golf could be considered as being the purest form of sport because it allows people of all ages to compete on a relatively equal basis. Watson's second place follows Greg Norman's (aged 53) third place at the British Open last year at Royal Birkdale. Problem is, the Royal and Ancient (the R&A) reduced its age limit for entrants to the British Open from 65 to 60 in 2007. This means that players of Watson's ilk can no longer look forward to competing in the British Open....because they are too old. Although the R&A has acknowledged that it needs to look again at the age restriction, one firstly needs to ask: are such age limits legal, certainly under British and EU law? If a 70 year old was good enough to compete in the Open (and, indeed, other golf championships, and in any other sporting competitions), would their exclusion because of an age restriction actually stand up in court? Whatever the legality of age restrictions, they do raise some interesting questions: are they for the benefit of young players (especially at the Open where starting slots are limited)? Are young players the most important focus of sport? Should they be? Or is the exclusion of older players to the detriment of specific tournaments and sport in general? Who should decide, and on what basis? Consider another scenario: in football, when a player retires, it is often accepted that they will become managers and coaches. Should lower age limits therefore be introduced so that younger athletes keep competing, allowing older former athletes a much better chance to find coaching and managerial positions in sport once they have retired?

A load of Bull

2009-08-03T09:52:00.008+01:00

At the Centre for the International Business of Sport (CIBS), we continuing to analyse Red Bull, and what the company/brand has brought to sport:

http://www.coventry.ac.uk/researchnet/external/content/1/c4/53/26/v1247730484/user/CIBS%20WP11.pdf

There is a whole series of issues related to the role that Red Bull has played/is playing in sport; some commentators are critical of what the company has done e.g. changing the name of SV Austria Salzburg to Red Bull Salzberg; others see the company as a major financial contributor to sport through its various sponsorship deals; while the company's entrepreneurial approach to sport has attracted the attention of many people (and is the focus of CIB's work). Of particular interest is the company's strategy of developing new sports, changing the format of existing sports, and the way it repackages and then re-brands existing sports

Further insight into Red Bull's activities can be found here:

http://www.redbull.co.uk/#page=HomePage.1232021262108-1071851984

This leads one to ask: is this form of entrepreneurialism in sport a good thing or a bad thing? Surely Red Bull is to be applauded for its commitment to sport, and is an object lesson in how sport can be used to simultaneously promote specific sports while at the same time promoting the company? A classic form of strategic collaboration, and great relationship marketing? Moreover, hasn't the fresh perspective that Red Bull has brought enlivened sport, creating a fresh perspective of what sport is and what it does? Indeed, isn't the company's creation of 'new sports' simply a replication of what happened across Europe in the 19th century and the US in the 20th century i.e. corporate backing for activities in which people were already engaged in order to strengthen and develop them? Or do we need to take a different view of Red Bull? Is the ubiquity of the company and its branding too much? Isn't it commercial exploitation? When companies start changing the nature of sports and sporting contests, hasn't their involvement become too intrusive, possibly even exploitative? Should sports fans be worried by Red Bull's activities?

A final question, in the light of Red Bull's involvement in sport, what does this tell us about the role that entrepreneurship in sport could/should and couldn't/shouldn't play in sport?

Swimwear - models

2009-08-02T14:13:00.004+01:00

Two observations today.

The first brings together several blog postings that have previously been made here: 'The Primacy of Machines' (July) and 'Suits You, Sir' (June). While the contentious debate about swimming 'super suits' appears to have been brought to a conclusion, the outcome nevertheless raises an important question:

Is there any sport in which an athlete can have primacy over technology (rather than machines), or are we now living in an age where the prevailing technological paradigm is such that it confers inevitable advantages on the athletes, teams and sports that embrace it? Alternatively stated, is sport now more about technological advantage rather than fair and open competition, and is there anything we can (or would want to) do about it?

Secondly, the nature of the following article from Time magazine, in my mind at least, invites a comparison with sport in the downturn:

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1913926,00.html/

Consider the following extract: "VW is benefiting from its traditional strengths — and even some of its weaknesses. The German firm has a strong position in Latin America, where it is the leading car maker, and in China, where it is ahead of the pack despite intense pressure from GM [and also in Europe]. Interestingly, the German car maker's weak position in the U.S. market, the world's largest, has turned out to be a blessing in disguise during this crisis." On this basis could football be the VW of the sporting world? If the comparison is a reasonable one, what could sport learn from taking a closer look at the downturn in the motor industry?

Cristiano Ronaldo, Ricardo Izecson dos Santos Leite and the post-Keynesian economics of football

2009-08-01T12:53:00.006+01:00

Ronaldo, Kaka and Keynes - a dream galacticos front line. The notion that this summer's transfer market has been blighted by a sporting equivalent of stagflation is addressed elsewhere in this blog. At the same time, Sepp Blatter has spoken of the need for regulation of the transfer market, while in yesterday's edition of The Guardian newspaper Matt Scott wrote about '[sport's] contribution to the Keynesian fight against recession.' All we need now is for Michel Platini to call for quantitative easing in football. Are any comparisons that one can draw between national and international economies, and the current state of the player transfer market, correct, appropriate and helpful? Can football learn anything from the way in which authorities across the world have dealt with the global economic crisis? In which case, is an interventionist approach similar to that advocated by John Maynard Keynes the best way to deal with the transfer market's problems? Or is a more laissez-faire, Friedmanite approach a better way of addressing football's difficulties? And what about quantitative easing - is an equivalent measure such a silly idea? Could a form of quantitative easing re-establish fairness, equity and balance in the transfer market? If so, who should do the easing and how should it be done?

The science of (sporting) rumours

2009-07-31T10:16:00.002+01:00

Ribery to Real Madrid? Cavendish to Team Sky? Alonso for Massa? Will Nadal make the US Open? Rumours in sport are part of landscape, there are even websites devoted to them. But what is a rumour; where do rumours come from; what purpose do they serve; and what impact do they have? It seems that rumour research, some might call it rumour science, is beginning to attract the attention of several academics and commentators, for instance:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/10/12/how_to_fight_a_rumor/?page=1

More specific details of the research cited in this article can be be found in a paper entitled 'Reining in rumors', by DiFonzo, Bordia and Rosnow in the following journal: Organizational Dynamics. Here is an extract:

"Rumors do not just fill up time around the water fountain. They can drain productivity, reduce profits, create stress in the workplace, or sully a company's image. Some rumors tear at a company's credibility, with both personnel and customers. Others have catapulted firms into financial disaster. It is imperative that managers know how to deal with the spread of questionable information

Generally defined, rumor is unverified information, usually of local or current interest, intended primarily for belief. In other words, rumors are propositions or allegations colored by various shades of doubt, because they are not accompanied by corroborative evidence. Thus, rumors scamper about organizations like some mischievous poltergeist, until skillful managers exorcise the allegations or the allegations vanish into thin air.

Excepting their lack of proof, rumors are similar to news. Both explain important events, pertain to people or to affairs that don't involve people, and may be positive or negative. But news is always confirmed, while rumors are, by definition, unconfirmed. The eminent sociologist, Tamotsu Shibutani, referred to rumors as "improvised news."

A second characteristic of rumors is that they spring from collective concerns. Improvised news is of interest to group members (the rumor public). That group interests motivate rumors is indicated by the close connection between rumors and collective interests. Exhibit 1 [not shown here] lists some subclasses of organizational rumors we found, along with the collective interests that spawn them. Turnover, job-security, and job-quality rumors are usually rooted in worries and ambiguities that stem from impending changes in management policy or personnel. Pecking-order rumors typically grow out of employees' doubts and insecurities about their position in a firm and their hope for a promotion. Costly-error rumors reflect concerns about damage caused by mistakes. Consumer-concern rumors usually reflect consumer fears about a company product or service.

A third characteristic of rumors is that they are intended primarily for belief, when reliable information is unavailable. Rumors, according to the forerunners of rumor research, Harvard Professors Gordon W. Allport and Leo Postman, are an "effort after meaning." They are speculations that arise to fill knowledge gaps or discrepancies. This function differentiates rumor from gossip, which is meant primarily to entertain or convey mores. Gossip is a tasty hors d'oeuvre savored at a cocktail party; rumor is a morsel hungrily eaten amid an information famine."

What relevance does this attract have for sport? Consider it in the context of Cristiano Ronaldo's transfer from Manchester United to Real Madrid, the exchange of £80 million, the general acceptance across football that United therefore have money to spend, and Sir Alex Ferguson's repeated denials that the club won't be spending any more money on players this summer. To what extent would an understanding of the science of rumours help fans, players, club officials, commercial partners and the media get to grips with what is going on in this summer's player transfer market?

Sport's next big thing

2009-07-29T23:19:00.003+01:00

The widely respected Harvard Business Review has recently published its latest edition, which is a special entitled 'Strategy in the New World'. In no way is the HBR intended to provide specific insight into the future for sport, although it does provide some helpful insight that may give us a better understanding of what is to come for sport. The following quotes are taken directly from an article that highlights 'what next'?

"After a full year in heads-down crisis mode, business executives are looking again to the future. As they reengage in strategic thinking, many are struck by a sense that the world has changed: The turmoil was not merely another turn of the business cycle but a restructuring of the economic order. Is that impression accurate?

To answer this question, it is necessary to examine the underlying forces that shape the business environment and to look for discontinuities. McKinsey & Company tracks the most important of these forces, from the growth of emerging markets to the evolving role of business in society. Here we discuss how the crisis may affect their trajectories, and we address the implications for strategy.

Some trends, we argue, remain firmly on track, but uncertainties are cropping up around others. We also see signs of new forces emerging, which we will be exploring in more detail in the months ahead. The overall picture is of an altered business landscape. It does seem there will be no going back to the pre-crisis world."

In this context, the following are identified as major emerging trends that all organisations will have to address and manage within the following developments:

-Resources feeling the strain
-Globalization under fire
-Trust in business running out
-A bigger role for government
-Management as a science
-Shifting consumption patterns
-Asia rising
-Industries taking new shape
-Innovation marching on
-Shifting consumption patterns

The article goes on to recommend the need to be aware of the following:

“Strategies will hinge on which scenario materializes, but for the moment companies should -

Prepare for slower long-term growth in global consumption. Companies that have relied on fundamental market growth, especially for mature products, now need to fight for market share or compete in new categories.

Shift investment to Asia. Consumption is clearly growing faster in China and India than in developed markets.

Focus on older consumers. Within five years, more than half of all consumer spending in the U.S. will be by consumers over 50, and the proportion of older households is rising in Europe and Japan as well.

Find ways to offer luxuries on a budget. Tighter household budgets don't mean lower aspirations. Our research shows that stretched consumers in slow-growing economies will still want to feel that they are living the good life.”

Simple question: what does this all mean for sport?

F1's good old, bad old days

2009-07-29T10:47:00.009+01:00

BMW today announced that it will be withdrawing from F1 at the end of this current season. The announcement follows Honda's withdrawal from the sport eight months ago, while several other teams - notably Renault and Toyota - are also thought to be considering their futures in the sport. There is inevitable speculation that the downturn is to blame, that the sport has become too expensive, and that political and governance problems in F1 are of grave concern to these global corporations that have reputations to uphold. This blog has addressed these issues in the past and, so, a more pertinent question to ask at this point is: what will F1 look like next year?

The first F1 race I ever attended was the non-championship International Trophy at Silverstone in 1978 (yes, I really am that old). Run in torrential rain, there were only five finishers, the race being won by Keke Rosberg (father of current F1 driver Nico). Today's BMW withdrawal led me to think about the entries for the event back then - there were no big factory teams racing: Ferrari stayed away (it was a non-championship race and, unlike today, the team was much more conformist back then) and outfits like Lotus and Brabham (which was running under the stewardship of one B. Ecclestone) could hardly be called 'big'. Here is what the entry list looked like:

Theodore Racing - Theodore-Cosworth; Copersucar Fittipaldi - Fittipaldi-Cosworth; Melchester Racing - McLaren-Cosworth; BS Fabrications - McLaren-Cosworth; Durex Team Surtees - Surtees-Cosworth; Villiger Kiel Team Shadow - Shadow-Cosworth; Olympus Hesketh - Hesketh-Cosworth; Team Tyrrell - Tyrrell-Cosworth; John Player Team Lotus - Lotus-Cosworth; Tissot Ensign - Ensign-Cosworth; Marlboro Team McLaren - McLaren-Cosworth; Parmalat Brabham - Brabham-Cosworth; Automobiles Martini - Martini-Cosworth; ATS Wheels Racing - ATS-Cosworth; Merzario Racing - Merzario-Cosworth

Some interesting teams and some interesting sponsors (of special note, the London Rubber Company). Given the entries we know have been posted for next season's F1 World Championship, is the sport now returning to a set of contestants like those that we saw back in the 1970s? Would this be to the detriment of F1, causing irreparable damage to one of the world's most valuable sporting properties? Or would it actually make the sport stronger, more egalitarian and more accessible? Could it return the sport back to the enthusiasts and the public?

Sporting capital of the world

2009-07-28T19:14:00.003+01:00

UEFA Champions League Final, 2011 (the government having made appropriate changes to tax legislation to enable it to happen); the Olympic Games, 2012; the Rugby League World Cup, 2013; the Commonwealth Games, 2014; the Rugby Union World Cup, 2015; and an impending bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2018: Great Britain is rapidly becoming the world capital for hosting sporting mega-events. From both a personal and a professional perspective, great! However, a pressing question needs to be asked: why? Is Britain's success in securing the rights to stage these events due to a specific, coherent and deliberate government strategy? If it is, where is the strategy, what is its focus and what is the official line on how hosting mega-sporting events is intended to make an effective contribution to the economic, social and physical well-being of the country? In the context of this answer, are there better ways to invest the huge sums of money involved in order to achieve the same goals? And what strategies are in place to ensure that the each of the events has some sort of sustainable impact upon the country? It is also worth asking whether or not the country's bid strategy is equitable when, for instance, football gets a government backed bid committee, whereas the Rugby Football Union effectively has to go it alone and do things itself? Ultimately, should we be concerned that one country is hosting so many of the world's major sporting events - are smaller, poorer nations being crowded out of the market by the costs of bidding for and hosting such events?

Countries in scrum ahead of RFU World Cup decisions

2009-07-27T21:37:00.002+01:00

The International Rugby Board is due to meet in Dublin tomorrow to decide whether South Africa or England will host the 2015 Rugby Union World Cup, and whether Italy or Japan will play hosts in 2019. The whole process of awarding the rights to stage both of the World Cups has been fractious and confusing, with threats of legal action, financial concerns, and doubts about government commitment characterising the bid process. Nevertheless, one rugby official has been quoted as saying: "This is rugby. No matter what the result, we will sit down with our opposite numbers afterwards and share a beer." Given problems associated with event bidding processes in other areas of sport, what are the problems in rugby? Are there particular reasons why the 2015 and 2019 World Cup bids have been so problematic? Is it because there are no appropriate structures in place to ensure good governance in the process of event bidding? Is it because whatever structures are in place have not been appropriately developed or applied? Is it because Rugby Union World Cups are a relatively new phenomenon and have yet to develop the sophistication found in other sports? Or could it be that such conflicts are also highly prevalent in other sports too, but rugby is much more open in addressing them? Perhaps it could be, after all, that rugby and its culture of aggression does indeed have a unique and distinctive approach to resolving competitive matters - including the awarding of World Cups - and that all involved will be sitting won tomorrow night to share a beer and talk about winners and losers in the bid process?

Top gear

2009-07-26T18:37:00.002+01:00

Two motor sport matters to consider today:

Firstly, this season's Moto GP World Championship has been intensely exciting, notably the battle between Valentino Rossi and Jorge Lorenzo. The strategic renewal of Moto GP, formerly the 500cc World Championship, has been one of the world's quietest sporting stories of the last decade. As such, the sport is very popular in countries including Spain, France and Italy, but still lacks the broad appeal of other forms of motor sport, in particular Formula One. Is there anything the organisers of Moto GP can do to further secure market share in the highly competitive world of motor racing?

Secondly, following yesterday's serious accident involving Felipe Massa at F1's Hungarian GP, Brawn driver Rubens Barrichello stated: "In the GPDA (Grand Prix Drivers' Association) we talked quite a lot about it yesterday [Friday] - and something needs to be done." Given recent political problems in F1, how might the safety agenda take priority over territory and commerce? Is this a good time or a bad time for the important issue of safety to re-emerge? What new safety changes could be identified and implemented, and who will do these things? And is there any way in which the sport could become stronger and more competitive as the result of new safety measures?

Inflate, deflate

2009-07-25T21:37:00.002+01:00

David Gill, Chief Executive of Manchester United, has been widely reported over the last two days as having said that United are unwilling to pay the transfer fees and player salaries that currently seem to be the norm in European football. Two weeks ago, the club announced that it wasn't going to sign any more players this summer. A week later, United signed Senegalese player Mame Biram Diouf from Molde in Norway. Does Gill mean what he says? Is the financing of the club such that United really are unwilling to pay fees that have been hyper-inflated by the actions of other clubs? Is he trying to dampen down the market with his comments before United makes another foray into the transfer market (after all, other clubs know the club has money to spend)? Thus, is the possible intention to dampen down the market a demonstration of collective responsibility on the part of United? Or is it entirely self-motivated? Perhaps this is United's riposte to Real Madrid's ostentatious transfer market activity? Real hyper-inflates, United dampen down? Could this be, therefore, the new power struggle in the second half of this summer's transfer window?

Money, slavery and African sport

2009-07-24T13:40:00.010+01:00

In a Coventry University seminar earlier this year, speakers considered whether or not football is the new slavery in Africa. Several African students questioned whether this was the right way to address the subject, stating that football for them is a way out of poverty, not a form of slavery. Fast-forward to this morning's coverage in The Independent newspaper of Emmanuel Adebayor's transfer from Arsenal to Manchester City, where it was suggested that the player may have moved for money. Both instances raise some important questions about how non-Africans view African football, footballers and, indeed, African sport in general: is sport slavery? Or is this an entirely European, especially Anglo-Saxon view? If one accepts the view that it is slavery, to what extent could this mean measures are imposed in football/sport that may actually be to the detriment of Africa? In which case, what does this tell us about the way in which decision-making takes place in sport? As for Adebayor, given his background in Togo, is it any surprise (should it be any surprise) that he possibly finds money to be an important motivator in his decisions about which team to play for? Is it therefore unnecessarily judgemental for Europeans to question the financial motivations of African athletes? After all, this summer's football transfer activities have been notable for the transfer of non-African players, and their financial motivations have not really questioned as strongly. Could it actually be that Adebayor is telling us how it is for African athletes, and that we (non-Africans) should accept that athlete motivation elsewhere in the world may sometimes be considerably different to our own? Perhaps this view is wrong too and a more Afro-centric view of football and sport needs to strongly emerge? Moreover, if one considers how Eto'o, Drogba and Weah have used the wealth they have derived from football to benefit their home countries, to what extent should we be looking at Adebayor in a positive light rather than alluding to a suspicion that he might be motivated by money? In the end, to a greater or lesser extent, aren't we all?

A funny old game

2009-07-23T21:21:00.002+01:00

A significant proportion of this summer's transfers have thus far indicated that players have been signed from an undisclosed fee e.g. Emmanuel Adebayor, from Arsenal to Manchester City.
What does an undisclosed fee mean though, what does it signify, and why are so many football clubs refusing to disclose the fees they have paid for players? What is it about this summer's transfers that means clubs and/or players do now want anyone to know the fee exchanged between two clubs in return for the services of a player? Is there information that one of the parties involved in a transfer would like to be kept secret? Is the avoidance of specifying a value an attempt to ward-off unwanted intrusion by fans, the media and other interested parties? Or is there an element to the transfer of players that is best explained by referring to Game Theory? If a club goes public, might it weaken (or possibly strengthen) its position in the transfer market? And how might the notion of 'Prisoner's Dilemma' contribute to understanding the use of 'undisclosed fees' and the football player transfer market?

N.B. Game theory can be explained thus: Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others. While initially developed to analyze competitions in which one individual does better at another's expense (zero sum games), it has been expanded to treat a wide class of interactions, which are classified according to several criteria.
Prisoner's dilemma can be explained thus: "Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act? In casual usage, the label 'prisoner's dilemma' may be applied to situations not strictly matching the formal criteria of the classic or iterative games, for instance, those in which two entities could gain important benefits from cooperating or suffer from the failure to do so, but find it merely difficult or expensive, not necessarily impossible, to coordinate their activities to achieve cooperation."

He's fit and proper, but is HE fit and proper?

2009-07-22T19:00:00.004+01:00

Sulaiman Al-Fahim, the prospective new owner of Portsmouth FC, has completed a period of due diligence prior to his acquisition of the club, and has also been passed by the Premier League as a person who is fit and proper enough to own a football club. However, the Premier League apparently remains concerned that Sulaiman may be acting on behalf of someone else, with many people believing that Thaksin Shinawatra could actually be the real new owner of Portsmouth (despite Thaksin having been found guilty of corruption in Thailand, thus disqualifying him from owning a Premier League club). This blog has previously addressed the issue of governance and club ownership in sport, examining why good governance matters, and why sport club owners should be fit and proper people in order to fulfil such a role. However, in the light of Portsmouth's takeover, it is worthwhile questioning the extent to which the system of governance, with particular reference to club ownership and the fit and proper person test, in the Premier League meets the following criteria laid down as being the principles of good governance:

Transparency: clarity in procedures and decision-making, particularly in resource allocation. Organisations charged with care of a public good such as sport have a particular obligation not simply to act in a fair and consistent manner but also to be seen to do so. Thus their inner workings should as far as possible be open to public scrutiny.
Accountability: sporting organisations are not only responsible to financial investors through financial reporting procedures, but also to those who invest other resources in the organisation - athletes, coaches, parents, supporters, sponsors and so on, even where that investment is largely emotional rather than material.
Democracy: access to representation in decision-making should be available to those who make up the organisation’s ‘internal constituencies’ - with for example representation on Boards of such organisations for constituencies such as players, supporters, and managers as well as owners.
Responsibility: for the sustainable development of the organisation and its sport, and stewardship of their resources and those of the community served.
Equity: in treatment of constituencies - for example gender equity in treatment of sports participants and in terms of positions within the organisation; and equity in treatment of sports participants (and employees) with disabilities.
Effectiveness: the establishing and monitoring of measures of effectiveness with measurable and attainable targets.
Efficiency: the achievement of such goals with the most efficient use of resources.

New Olympic sports to strike gold

2009-07-21T21:34:00.004+01:00

We are rapidly heading towards an IOC decision about which new sports are set to be included in the Olympic Games, and a number of sports are therefore jostling for pole position as they seek to gain entry. Why? According to Sports Illustrated, for the period 2004-2008, the IOC awarded $256 million to the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations i.e. those federations responsible for running those sports included in the 2004 Athens Games. Of this total amount, track and field athletics was the largest recipient receiving a reported $12.5 million. Pulling the above details together, on what basis are sports retained, accepted, excluded and rejected as Olympic sports? Is it on the basis of the consistency with and support for the IOC's core values (in other words, is it organisational and socio-cultural)? Or is it more to do with the nature of the sport and the format it takes? And what role economics and commerce? Are sports with media, specifically broadcaster, appeal and sponsorship potential more likely to make the cut? In which case, do sports that are a short, sharp spectacle with global appeal (possibly allied to strong community development programmes) constitute the ideal to which the IOC aspires for new sports? Are there some sports therefore that are inevitable favourites? And some sports that don't stand a chance? Interesting to ask: would test match cricket or one day cricket stand a chance of making an Olympic Games? Or would 20/20 Indian Premier League-style cricket be much more likely to be included?

Golf - the purest form of sport?

2009-07-20T08:16:00.003+01:00

In recent days, this blog has addressed the primacy of machines over sports people; on a longer term basis, the blog has repeatedly examined the core product in sport (the uncertain outcome to a sporting contest) and ways of enhancing it through measures aimed at establishing competitive balance between contestants. So how should we read the final outcome yesterday's British Open golf tournament? Does this mean that golf is the purest form of sport, a sport where humans do indeed seem to have primacy over machines and technology, and where defeat is more likely to come as a result of, say, the weather, rather than from the use of outdated or inferior equipment? After all, in which other sports could a 59 year old man (who last won a golf Major 26 years ago) contest the winners trophy with a man 23 years younger than him? Is golf therefore the ultimate in uncertainty of outcome and a model of competitive balance that sports like F1 motor racing and top-level football stand little, if any, chance of ever approaching? Can other sports learn lessons from golf? Could other sports learn lessons from golf, especially when technological input is implicitly greater, and more necessary, in other sports? Or are Tom Watson's efforts something of a red herring? Is age an obstacle to similar levels of success in rugby, boxing or track and field athletics? Is it something specifically about golf that makes it so uncertain, which can't be replicated in other sports? Is golf still a sport in which technical investment brings reward, and was Watson's position due as much to Tiger Woods' problems as to any notion that the sport is competitively balanced? Perhaps the sport is competitively balanced?

Machines, assets, fans and the threat of terrorism

2009-07-19T21:11:00.007+01:00

Following Floretino Perez's comments that his Real Madrid players are like machines (i.e. productive assets that generate revenue for the club - see Friday's blog posting here) and Brian Viner's comparisons of machinery in cycling and F1 (see Saturday's blog posting here), a 'machine' theme has been emerging. At the same time, the recent bomb explosions in Jakarta, which Manchester United players missed by a matter of hours, calls in to question how sports clubs should protect the humans, these assets, they employ, especially as reports suggest that United may have been informed about impending terrorist attacks in Indonesia as much as four months ago. This implies a crucial strategic issue in the management of assets, the management of events, marketing and branding, and the management of global market development: if players are a club's most important productive asset, especially in overseas market places that are potentially highly lucrative, how can these clubs reconcile the need for safety with the need for a commercial return? What is the point at which the former outweighs the latter, and have United passed that point in cancelling their game in Indonesia? This is the second time this year that such a decision has been taken, following the terrorist attacks that lead to Indian Premier League cricket shifting to South Africa. But in both cases, actually terrorist attacks had to take place first before the decisions not to risk productive assets were taken. On what basis, if at all, might games, tours, tournaments and events be cancelled where no act has been perpetrated? If events do go ahead, without an act of violence having taken place, but with the threat level all too apparent, what challenges does this pose to sport? In an age when overseas fans are seen as being important, when they gain access to teams like United perhaps only every two or three years, and when they want to chat to and shake hands with players like Rooney and Owen, should they be searched in 'high risk' countries, or would this be bad PR? Yet think also, what is a terrorist gained access to a meet-and-greet session with the world's best players and perpetrated a despicable act, what would be the ramifications of that?

Primacy of machines

2009-07-18T21:23:00.004+01:00

Simple, obvious, yet powerful insight from Brian Viner in today's Independent: "Formula One could learn a lot from the Tour de France, the rules in cycling insisting on 'primacy of man over machine'. In Formula One the primacy of machine over man is absolute." Is this true? Are the principles of cycling being upheld? With carbon technology and advanced aerodynamics (plus continued suspicions about drug use in the sport), is it really the case in cycling that humans have primacy over their machinery? With Greg Lemond's speech at the Play the Game conference held in Coventry this June still fresh in the mind, would he agree? If Viner is accurate in his proposition that F1 can learn from cycling, how should it learn and what would this mean for the sport? Perhaps all teams would run the same cars, with the same engines, on the same tyres, all prepared by the same team? Would this be possible, especially in Europe where EU legislators might well be concerned by the anti-competitive nature of such measures? Or, rather than standardising the nature of sport and the format of competition, is what Viner is suggesting more a case of narrowing the parameters within which teams operate? Would this mean restricting teams to certain levels of expenditure and cost? Might there be an opportunity for F1 to introduce a franchise system, through which the FIA enforce a set of rules and regulations? Would this be a step too far? In any case, if one were to create a new version of F1 in which all the teams were more of a homogenised mass rather than a differentiated field, would the sport retain its appeal and preeminent position across the world as a major sporting property?

For real, Real?

2009-07-17T16:14:00.002+01:00

An interesting blog posting from Mihir Bose of the BBC - 'Stately Perez defends big spending: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2009/07/stately_perez_defends_bigspend.html

More coverage of the story will follow on tonight's BBC 10pm news programme.

In the light of this coverage, some questions: 1) Can football at the top-level, and football clubs like Real Madrid, sustain themselves in the long-term with such levels of debt, and should we care? 2) To what extent is Real Madrid a football club, or is it now a global entertainment business? 3) Are players really like machines in a factory, or is this a completely erroneous analogy, and a damning indictment of what football has become? 4) Will Real Madrid be able to renegotiate commercial deals e.g. with sponsors, to fund their expenditure programme? 5) Is the business model in place at Real the most appropriate one, can it work, is it sustainable?

Why is Lance Armstrong a Twit?

2009-07-16T11:35:00.003+01:00

With Lance Armstrong continuing to make good progress in the Tour de France, attention has focused on his decision to Twitter as he participates in the event. Latest postings include the following:

"Driving 2 the start. Whattya think? A break makes it 2 the finish 2day? I'm guessing so. Rolling terrain today too. Tomorrow's stage is tuf!"

"St12 done. Uh, not easy! Up and down all day long and was aggressive from the start. Took 80 kms for the break to go. Ouch. Also pretty warm."

"Getting post race massage. Listening to the Garden State soundtrack. So good. Shins, Iron and Wine, Remy Zero, Simon and Garfunkel, etc."

More Tweets from Armstrong can be accessed via: http://twitter.com/lancearmstrong

In the meantime, SI.com has recently published the following article:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/the_bonus/06/05/twitter.sports/index.html

Why is Armstrong Twittering? What does he stand to gain? Is this an attempt to smooth out the rough edges of a personality which the cycling fraternity has in the past failed to warm to? Is this Armstrong's attempt to engage more openly and closely with fans? Is he trying to make a point to his critics - those in France and those more generally who are cynical about who he is, what he does and the vehement drug denials Armstrong continues to make? Is there a commercial reason for his decision, especially as he seeks to build a new cycling team that should enter the Tour at some stage in the future? Is Twitter being used as a marketing communications tool to promote 'Brand Armstrong'? Or is this simply a perfectly innocent case of an athlete finally having a tool that enables them to tell fans exactly like it is?

Do you see eye-to-eye, UCI?

2009-07-15T18:35:00.005+01:00

Pat McQuaid is set to stand unopposed as the only candidate in the UCI's presidential election, thus also clearing him for a bid to become a member of the IOC. How will the various people involved in professional cycling feel about this? In Chadwick and Arthur's book 'International Cases in the Business of Sport', Morrow and Idle address some of the governance and power issues that professional cycling faces, in a case entitled: 'The Challenges of Modernising a Professional Sport: A Case Study of Professional Road Cycling':

(http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/713079/description#description)

The following is a synopsis of the case: "Professional road cycling is a sport founded on commercialism. Since the first races of the late 1800s, the sport has maintained a close relationship with commercial companies and sponsors. We examine the challenges faced by a sport trying to restructure and modernise to retain its contemporary relevance. In 2005, the UCI Pro Tour was established. Based on models common in American professional sports, it created a super league of 20 licensed teams, obligated to contest all 27 ProTour races per season. Its creation has been controversial. The case focuses on the power play that has taken place between stakeholders in the sport - the governing body, race organisers, sponsors, teams, riders, the media, the public - and the conflict between stakeholders keen to protect their individual financial interests."

How will McQuaid's prospective re-election impact upon what appears to be a fragile peace in professional cycling? Will the continuity his re-election brings deliver a consensual and more constructive approach to governance of the sport? Or will old problems, old divisions and old conflicts re-emerge? Are we therefore set to witness a period of uncertainty or instability in cycling? Also, might we see the potential for the splintering and fragmentation of professional cycling increasing?

Sporting stagflation

2009-07-14T23:22:00.005+01:00

Two stories that have caught the eye over the last 24 hours:

Firstly, Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson's statement that he will not be signing any more players this summer because he feels the market is overheating, with transfer fees and salaries being artificially and dangerously inflated (by clubs such as Real Madrid and Manchester City)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jul/13/manchester-united-city-madrid-alex-ferguson

Secondly, a view from Italy that suggests at least four professional clubs (some with a history of playing in Serie A) are unlikely to make it to the start of the new football season http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/169913/economic-crisis-takes-toll-italian-football

With this interesting combination of hyper-inflation and economic stagnation throughout the majority of the sport, does it now mean that football has a problem with stagflation? Can the economic conceptualisation of stagflation be readily applied to sport, specifically football? Or is this something (slightly or significantly) different requiring a different conceptualisation? If what we are seeing is actually a form of sporting stagflation, how do we address the problems and challenges it is posing? The presumes it is a problem, is it? Assuming it is, what should happen: government intervention? Governing body intervention? Intervention by clubs, allied to collective action? Or do we simply let the market do its job (assuming, of course, that the market in football is a free and balanced one)? And what can sport/football learn from economists, national economic planners et al. in the ways they are dealing with or have dealt in the past with stagflation? Are we witnessing stagflation at the moment in the wider macro-economy? In which case, is there any need to worry about sport/football if stagflation is already taking place around it (i.e. it's not a sporting problem, it is a problem it has been exposed to by prevailing macro-economic conditions)?

You Twit

2009-07-13T20:44:00.005+01:00

SI.com has reported an interesting story on the role that Twitter is playing in sport: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/the_bonus/06/05/twitter.sports/index.html

This story clearly answers some of the questions raised by this blog back in May this year: http://dailysportthought.blogspot.com/2009/05/sporting-twitterati.html

Too many issues to discuss, but here are a few: if Twitter truly does allow sports fans to BIRG (bask in reflected glory), then is it just as an effective a tool for them to CORF (cut off from reflected failure)? In which case, can sports stars and teams use Twitter as a barometer of their popularity and of any decisions they have taken? Also, to what extent does Twitter invoke a sense of 'far away, so close' amongst athletes? That is, it enables them to expend very little energy in communicating with fans, simultaneously keeping them very much at arms-length, while also enabling fans to feel valued, wanted and much closer to their heroes? Perhaps Twitter is yet another fad, yet another content-generator in an already crowded information landscape, especially when the micro-blogging service is often being used for marketing purposes? Check out the recent cover story from Time for more information: www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1902604,00.html

Signal failure?

2009-07-12T21:19:00.005+01:00

Assuming that there is an element of relevance in yesterday's blog posting - Mass market mood swings - meaning that gambling markets could be an effective indicator of sport market activity, one therefore has to ask: are 'bricks and mortar' or 'clicks and mortar' gambling markets the most efficient of signallers? Given the ease, speed and freedom with which information is transmitted via the web, does this mean that online gambling markets are the most accurate way of predicting what will happen in sport markets? If so, there is a further question: are online services that offer a traditional form of gambling or services that take the form of betting exchanges the most accurate of predictors? Are there other fora in which large numbers of people participate that could have an impact on sport? Are bulletin boards or online chat rooms a way of making decisions or predicting the future? Would there be a large enough number of people involved in using such media? And is there any parallel here between the observations of this blog, James Surowiecki's views about crowds and what is happening with initiatives such as myfootballclub.com (http://www.myfootballclub.co.uk/)

Mass market mood swings

2009-07-11T14:46:00.003+01:00

Yesterday, The Sport Review.com carried the following headline: 'Bookmakers have slashed the odds on French international star Franck Ribery heading to Anfield from Bayern Munich.' This is interesting: either bookmakers had inside information leading them to reduce their odds so as to minimise any potential payouts should Ribery sign for Liverpool; OR, yesterday, betting patterns were such that large amounts of money were being placed by punters on the likelihood of a move to Merseyside by France's leading player. Whichever is correct, this is interesting and raises the question: to what extent are gambling markets, particularly online gambling markets where large groups of people have access to significant amounts of information that can enable them to make quick, well informed and public decisions, an accurate predictor of market activity? (notwithstanding the fact that some gambling markets may sometimes be exposed to irregular and possibly illegal gambling activities). In his book, 'The Wisdom of Crowds', James Surowiecki explains how 'large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant—better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future.' Does the sport gambling market thus serve as a decision-making and signalling mechanism for events that take place in sport? If the betting is that Ribery is going to Liverpool, does it mean that Ribery actually is going to Liverpool? If so, how should sports teams, clubs and other relevant organisations factor the power of large groups into their decision-making processes? Or are movements in betting patterns completely fallacious and no indication of anything other than the willingness of a small number of people to lose money guessing what might happen to football transfers and other sport-related activities?

Take away my breakaway?

2009-07-10T13:33:00.005+01:00

As F1 teams (through FOTA) again aparrently threaten to walk away from the official FIA World Championship for the 2010 season, and as new Real Madrid President Florentino Perez breaks the cover of his next grand project - to work on creating a European football super-league, does this mean that the next decade of the 21st Century will be a period that changes sport forever? Will we see the most powerful organisations in sport starting to plan for their own individual futures, rather than a collective future, meaning that as we get well into the 21st Century, the ties to the 19th and 20th Century heritages of many sports will be severed? Will 2010 - 2019 become the breakaway decade in which the rich get richer and the rest are left to do what they can to survive? Has the balance of power in the world sport network finally and decisively shifted in favour of individual teams/clubs, and media corporations? Is 2010 therefore the tipping point, when we will wave goodbye to sport as we have known it for the last 100 years or so? If breakaway is to be the prevailing phenomenon over the next decade, what will sport look like in 2019? Are we heading for the large-scale corporatisation of sport, or is this an excessively negative view of what is going to happen? If these corporates do emerge and dominate, what will be left elsewhere? Will the rest of sport look something like a network of cottage industries and micro-breweries, populated by organisations and sports that retain some popularity but lack mass appeal? Perhaps this is what we have already? Could it be however that, given the history, organisation and effectiveness of many governing bodies, the repossession of sports by the clubs that are engaged in creating and delivering it is the best thing that can happen? In which case, would this mean that sport sees the market as being the most appropriate stimulus for organising and managing its activities? Will the market, rather than the central coordination of, say, a governing body, thus come to deliver the signals that determine what happens in sport? If the new era does therefore emerge, will it be characterised by an approximation of a completely free market in sport?

The great sporting bounce

2009-07-09T21:04:00.005+01:00

Last weekend, the Financial Times considered whether or not there is a clear or tangible link between sporting success and a country's economic performance: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/53bf3cfa-6831-11de-848a-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Following this coverage, Reuters yesterday asked me to briefly argue the case for them that a link does exist. This is the substance of the Reuters blog entry that I wrote:

"I love sport, I have always loved sport, and I make my living researching, writing and talking about sport. As such, I do not need to be convinced about the social, cultural, psychological and health benefits associated with our engagement in sport. I also do not need any convincing about the economic benefits of sport, although some people will always and inevitably exclaim, 'he would say that wouldn’t he!'

Well, it is not me it is actually the United Nations which states that sport may account for as much as 3 percent of global economic activity. It is the European Union that estimates sport to be worth 1.5 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). And it is the British government that has recently acknowledged just how significant sport as an industry has become by commissioning research which will result in the development of robust measures for the contribution that sport makes to the British economy. Previous estimates already indicate that sport may generate as much as 2.5 percent of GDP, in which case this means it is an industry bigger than agriculture and not so far behind manufacturing.

Sport is, indeed, much more important than we realise or acknowledge. It is deeply ingrained in many of our psyches: for some people this dates back to our childhoods and is bound up in our social and geographic identities; for other people, sport allows us to indulge in vicarious achievement (related to the psychological phenomenon of BiRG-ing – Basking in Reflected Glory) and euphoric collective experiences.

The consumption of sport is thus not a rational economic activity, an observation that is particularly pertinent amidst these recessionary times. Whereas other industries continue to suffer the effects of the downturn, sport remains one of the more recession-resistant sectors, buoyed by the inherently unique features that differentiate sport, making it a safe-haven during difficult times.

Sport can be relied upon not to let people down, it provides value for money, not least because of its central proposition: the uncertainty of outcome – you never know what the result is going to be, something absent from virtually all other forms of consumption in our otherwise increasingly homogenised and standardised world. As such, people actively seek out sport and remain loyal to it, even during economic troubles.

There is clear evidence already that sport has bucked recent recessionary trends; for instance, over the last year, Arsenal reported a profit of almost 37 million pounds; both the Rugby Football Union and the Premier League have announced new, high value, long-term televisions rights deals; Badminton England signed its most lucrative ever sponsorship deal; advertising revenues derived from slots during American Football’s Superbowl broke all records; and television viewing figures for the Champions League Final in Rome were up by 27 percent.

If one then factors in the specific economic impacts that sporting success can have, there are strong grounds for optimism that our love affair with sport may actually help lift us out of our current economic malaise. In the months immediately after last year’s Beijing Olympic Games, sales of bicycles reportedly increased by upwards of 20 percent; sales of sports bras were up by 27 percent; sales of swimming equipment may have increased by upwards of 36 percent; and sales of energy bars and sports drinks apparently increased by as much as 155 percent.

Moreover, a YouGov poll conducted prior to the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany indicated that almost half of all men and women felt that sporting success lifts their mood, helps them be more optimistic and increases their productivity.

So what are the prospects for this summer, and beyond into the autumn? It is a pity that there is no major football tournament due to take place, as previous research indicates a tangible link between football success and economic uplift. A Manchester United victory in the Champions League Final would have been helpful, as would an Andy Murray win at Wimbledon. We still have the Ashes ahead, the World Athletics Championship in Berlin, and Jenson Button leading the Formula 1 World Championship.

It may nevertheless be towards the end of the year before witnessing the real economic excitement. If the England football team can keep their nerve and qualify for next year’s FIFA World Cup in South Africa, then businesses from pubs and pizza-makers to television manufacturers and internet service providers will be gleefully rubbing their hands.

Perhaps that Anglicised Scot, Gordon Brown, may be the one who will rub his hands more than most? Sporting success over the next year could not only help to save the economy, it might also help him to save his job. Roll on that Croatia game in September, eh Gordy?"

Is there a clear and tangible link? If so, what is the link, how does it work, and what are the results? In which case, to what extent is there an argument that governments should spend heavily on achieving sporting success (because it fuels economic activity)?

TOPSTAR

2009-07-08T12:40:00.005+01:00

When Cristiano Ronaldo was presented as a new Real Madrid player on Monday, 80,000 people were inside the Bernabeu Stadium. Several fans had to be restrained from jumping on their team's new star player, and the club reportedly sold 3,000 shirts (emblazoned on the back with the player's name) in two hours. Is what has been predicted for the last four weeks now coming to pass? Will Ronaldo truly be a golden egg laying goose for the Spanish club? Or was the presentation of Ronaldo the same kind of pomp that one normally see for any players at Spain's biggest clubs? Is Ronaldo himself on the verge of massive global and commercial success? Is he the new Brand Beckham; or does he have a long way to go yet; and, given the kind of person/athlete he is, will he ever be the commercial equal of Beckham? Within CIBS, we have been examining what it takes to become a global athlete brand, and propose that Ronaldo and, for that matter, will need to address some or all of the following before they can ascend to a position of commercial power:

Team – the team(s) that a player plays for or has played for; the associations a player has with a particular team; the profile, reputation and success of the team; the player’s role within the team;
Off-field – where the player lives; who the player socialises with and where; who the player is married to or is dating; the type of house the player lives in, the car they drive, the clothes they wear;
Physical characteristics, mentality and values – the facial appearance and physique of the player; other distinguishing features such as hairstyle, tattoos etc.; the way a players thinks and the views they hold;
Success – the player’s on-field record; the number of trophies, medals and prizes the player has won; the winning teams and games in which the player has been involved;
Transferability – the extent to which the player appeals to males and females, young and old, followers and non-followers of football; the extent to which the player and their image are culturally and geographically transferable; language(s) spoken;
Age – the stage at which a player is in their career; viewed in product life-cycle terms, this will have an impact on the profile, characteristics and longevity of the brand as well as influencing how the brand is managed;
Reputation - the player’s reputation as footballer; style of play; disciplinary record; the player’s reputation outside of football; way the player deals with public and media attention.

Within these parameters, does Cristiano Ronaldo, or Kaka, embody the qualities and characteristics needed to become global athlete brand successes?

Game, set and snatch

2009-07-05T15:08:00.002+01:00

Much has been made over the last fortnight of the potential rise in Andy Murray's endorsement income should he win Wimbledon. He isn't going to win, but Roger Federer might win his 15th Grand Slam tournament title. In which case, will this have any perceptible impact on his endorsement income? Is Federer operating at the optimum level of endorsement income already, and will any additional income generated by by a Wimbledon win have a marginal impact? Or could a win at Wimbledon propel Federer to an unprecedented level of endorsement income?

Showroom dummies?

2009-07-04T22:30:00.003+01:00

Three days ago, he was the forgotten man of English football, plagued by injury and a member of relegated Newcastle United's squad. Now, he's Manchester United's latest signing; some say replacing Carlos Tevez; others say an outstanding player in his own right; critics nevertheless question Alex Ferguson's judgement. Whichever is true, Owen was at the end of his deal with Newcastle and was entitled to leave for Manchester without a transfer fee changing hands. Was the main motivation for Man Utd in the light of their debts and the need to control costs? Or, was it because of Owen's much derided digital brochure, a 30+ page glossy document produced by the Wasserman Group, Owen's representatives, in which the player's virtues were extolled? Ferguson is thought to have looked at the document, his interest subsequently tweaked by it; does this mean that we are entering a new era of player selling and acquisition, and representation? Just like cars, holidays and houses, will players need to have a glossy brochure in which they highlight their performance and benefits? Now, with the benefit of hindsight, was the digital brochure a good idea or a bad idea? And will Owen's real legacy to football be the goals he scored, or the way in which he changed the labour market in football?

Horse racing dismounted

2009-07-03T21:24:00.003+01:00

Following yesterday's blog posting about Wednesday's debacle at Worcester race course, I received this today from a race-goer and horse watcher:

"Management @ Worcester racecourse know they’ve had a ruddy close shave – if the damn beast hadn’t come round, all hell would have broken loose.

No refunds offered to spectators (but that’s within normal rules); I’ve seen a comment that spectators offered free admission to next meet (which again is regular practice). Chances are few will take up the offer.

What are Worcester’s legal obligations to owners (who, in the end, foots the bills)?

This episode brought to mind a Towcester meet a couple of years ago Jan/Feb time. Stiffest course in the country, heavy ground/waterlogged down the back straight. Touch and go whether to race. Saw couple of officials, desperate to go ahead (it’s all about money) but clearly worried horses wouldn’t get the longer trips on the going. Meet went ahead, horses finish exhausted (slow motion finishes at Towcester on soft ground) but no obvious problems.

An anomaly in the course design at Towcester means horses have to race past the paddock entrance/exit to the finishing post; seen several tired beasts jink at the entrance and try to duck out – can catch the jocks unaware – McCoy has been vocal in asking for re-design."

Simple question: how serious, if at all, are the event management, track management, governance, finance and legal challenges facing British horse racing, and is the sport equipped to respond appropriately, effectively, proactively and strategically?

Water torture

2009-07-02T13:52:00.002+01:00

From the Racing Post: "Racing was abandoned in controversial circumstances after just one race at Worcester on Wednesday, with the hot weather taking its toll as the track ran short of water for the horses. After the first race, Highland Laddie collapsed due to heat exhaustion and required '600 to 800 gallons of water [2,700 to 3,600 litres]' to revive him, diminishing the supplies on course. After a lengthy delay and an inquiry during which they consulted jockeys and trainers, the stewards elected to call off the meeting on 'wholly equine grounds'." Trainer Ferdy Murphy later told the Racing Post: "those responsible for racing at Worcester 'don't understand horses'." The first issue here is one this blog has raised in the past, that is how is sport intending to address the effects of climate change that it is coming to face? Otherwise, one has to ask if Worcester, or indeed any other racing venue in the country, is appropriately equipped to stage races when current conditions are so challenging? What are the management and equine welfare issues that track owners face when events are taking place in intense heat? Does the Worcester debacle represent a systematic failure on behalf of stewards, tracks and and/or the authorities to address the potential problems that heat is causing, or was Worcester just a one-off? Are there broader animal welfare issues to consider? Perhaps we expect too much of animals in sport, perhaps letting commercial and/or racing decisions dictate what happens rather than placing the welfare of the horse/animal at the heart of decisions? Otherwise, what is the extent of Worcester's legal obligations: to horses? To trainers? To the paying public? To people who might have bet money on scheduled events? If it were ever proven that Worcester had been negligent in some way, how then might this affect their legal position?

FATF-ull of money

2009-07-01T21:13:00.001+01:00

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) appears to have identified in a new report on football what it believes to be evidence of money laundering, systematic avoidance of taxation and the potential for criminal activity by gamblers and those seeking to buy English clubs. A full version of the report can be found here:
http://www.fatf-gafi.org/document/20/0,3343,en_32250379_32237202_43216660_1_1_1_1,00.html

Examples of how the document was reported can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8127790.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/feedarticle/8586572
http://www.espnstar.com/football/news/detail/item288619/Report-warns-of-crime-in-football/
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hJve-7AR_iiCHfRuSBHz7Vh8s64A

Just how accurate is the report, and by how much should we be worried? Is there the potential for criminal activity in football to take place? Is it happening already? If so, what is the scale of the problem? (Are there owners, managers and players who are clearly under suspicion?) If not, just how close are we to it becoming a real threat? Why is it that English football is apparently so ripe for pillaging by unscrupulous individuals and groups? Is this fundamentally a governance issue? Are the governance systems in place within sports organisations fit-for-purpose? Is it really a case of 19th Century systems trying to cope with 21st Century challenges? Or is the perceived problem more one of club ownership structures? In countries like Germany, where the ownership of clubs is much more tightly controlled, is it that similar fears about criminal activity are so intense? Or is this indeed a peculiarly English problem? irrespective, if FATF is correct, then what preventative measures could be employed to address the problem?

Wimbledon tennis fails to go through the roof

2009-06-30T14:54:00.003+01:00

....principally because the roof was shut and was therefore doing its job well. After decades of rain affected, incomplete matches, the All-England club last night successfully closed its brand new £50 million roof to enable the match between Murray and Wawrinka to finish (which it duly did, at 22.38 London-time). With Wimbledon having suddenly dived headlong into the 21st Century, a whole series of important issues has emerged: Ian Ritchie, Chief Executive of Wimbledon, has spoken glowingly about the new roof; the BBC's audience peaked at 12 million, instantaneously establishing Wimbledon as a newly reinvigorated television spectacle; Andy Murray complained that the combination of grass, a roof, a late night and the heat made for difficult playing conditions; and those attending the match expressed concerns that afterwards they were unable to find their way around the Wimbledon site - a site which is not usually used at such a late hour and thus doesn't have e.g. the lighting that is needed to ensure people move around safely. Thus, what should the organisers of Wimbledon learn from this new experience? Can the tournament proceed in both the short-term and the long-term without any further work on the site being undertaken? Are there particular issues or concerns that the event manager's need to address if the new roof is to be the asset that many are already purporting it to be? And what will happen when it rains? A warm summer night could well be a considerably different experience to a wet Wednesday afternoon, characterised by torrential rain - has Wimbledon thought about or accounted for the differences? In this context, how have any associated risks been identified and addressed, and what contingencies are there in place if the roof, or any other part of the tournament experience, causes difficulty in any way?

Court out by a Mango

2009-06-29T08:12:00.006+01:00

Following the attention that ambush marketing has recently been receiving, both in this blog and elsewhere, I received the following e-mail over the weekend: "I had centre court tickets for [Wimbledon] last week. Get off tube at Southfields and pick up all the usual freebies on the 15 min walk up Wimbledon Park Rd. Have bottle of Evian and a fizzy drink in a can 'Rubicon' Mango I think. When they check my bag at the entrance - I'm told I can take the Evian in (official sponsor) but can't take the Rubicon into the ground. I either have to drink it before entering (which I did) or dispose of it - there were piles of Ribena, Mars bars (I think) and cans of Rubicon where people had just left them. When I question it, I'm told 'ambush marketing'. Just how mad is this? These guys can't start telling me what I can / can't take into an arena? This belongs in a totalitarian state; my guess would be that some of this stuff must contravene Human Rights law." Is this true? Is sport heading for confrontation if it continues to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to 'policing' what event managers and sponsors perceive as being ambushing attempts? Or are ambush police now behaving disproportionately? Are such actions justifiable and necessary, or are they now becoming entirely reprehensible? And how long before a human rights group, lawyer, consumer protection group or another similar organisation, take matters into their own hands, and how will/should sport and its sponsors react to this?

Hello Moto

2009-06-28T19:56:00.007+01:00

While F1 does its best to destroy itself through a mixture of politics, a failure to agree how the sport should move forward, and the absence of truly exciting racing, a rival motor sport series goes from strength-to-strength, providing a lesson in how to re-organise, brand and deliver exciting motor sport. Motor cycling's international MotoGP series is thriving; in the last race, the Catalunya GP in Spain, Valentino Rossi was victorious after the lead had changed three times on the last lap alone. Heading into this weekend's Dutch Grand Prix at Assen, three riders were tied at the top of the championship - Rossi, Casey Stoner and Jorge Lorenzo. The sport is a phenomenon, with a huge following in countries like Spain, Italy and France, and races in countries as far afield as Qatar, Great Britain, Japan and the United States (http://www.motogp.com/) One simple question: such has been the success of MotoGP over the last decade, what can F1 learn from its two-wheeled rival?

Water, water everywhere....but cover the label

2009-06-27T21:19:00.007+01:00

A really nice piece of Wimbledon coverage from Kevin Eason at The Times: "[Andy] Murray was swigging from a bottle provided by Highland Spring, a sponsor reckoned to pay around £1 million-a-year to keep the Murray tonsils lubricated. But that is Verboten here at Wimbledon because it has its own sponsor, Evian, who pay an awful lot more for the privilege of being the only H20 provider on site. So Murray was instructed to tear the label from his illegal bottle so we poor saps in the crowd would not be led down the paths of watery unrighteousness in the thirst department." The story ties in nicely with a working paper we have just published here at CIBS entitled: 'A Typology of Ambush Marketing: The Methods and Strategies of Ambushing in Sport' http://www.coventry.ac.uk/researchnet/d/755
Did Murray deliberately or accidentally ambush Evian (did he actually ambush or was he just complicit)? If deliberate, what might be the the implications of his actions? What should the implications of his actions? Should tournament officials impose sanctions on him? Or would this be complete madness? Did Highland Spring ask Murray to do what he did? What should be done if they did? What if they applied pressure on him? Given that Murray tore the label off his water, isn't it 'story over'? Or is it a case of objective achieved (although the label came off, the story has drawn attention to Highland Spring)? And should any of this matter? Hasn't sponsorship gone mad, and aren't ambushers simply providing unnecessary further corporate distraction from the central attraction - the sport?

Futurology Focus

2009-06-26T08:17:00.006+01:00

I was really fortunate yesterday to be able to spend time listening to a presentation by Robin Mannings, Chief Researcher and Futurologist for BT Innovate. In his presentation, Mannings set out his predictions for the long-term challenges that he thinks we are all facing. Given the pervasiveness of these challenges, they will inevitably impact upon sport and it would therefore seem worthwhile summarising them to promote consideration of just exactly how sport will be affected:

Financial chaos: it was stated that, with current UK debt levels running at 300% of GDP and with other countries also suffering similar debt crises, the economic problems of the last two years are a slow-burner that will continue to cause further, future, possibly even more serious, problems;
Global pandemics: with bird flu and now swine flu thought to be posing a danger to human health, and with global mobility ever increasing, the threat level of virulent viruses will remain high;
Extreme weather: there was no debate here; weather patterns are changing, the climate is definitely changing, and the climate problems we are therefore likely to face will intensify leading us into a need to radically address both how we consume/produce, and how we respond to the difficulties we will inevitably face;
Energy demand: a specific issue about the use of current use of unsustainable sources of energy that one can nevertheless extrapolate from into a more general discussion about future competition for resources and space, allied to the likelihood of major human security worries;
Demographic shifts: larger populations, ageing populations, more mobile populations, sedentary lifestyles; all will cause major headaches for governments, for the financial system, for health care providers et al.

Hence, the important questions would seem to be: how will each of these mega-issues impact upon sport, how will sport respond and what will sport therefore look like in 50, or even 25, years time?

Murray's minted

2009-06-25T21:06:00.004+01:00

It's open season at the moment as commentators across Britain have been speculating on how much Andy Murray will be worth following this year's Wimbledon, especially if he wins the men's singles title. With his career prize winnings amounting to somewhere around £4 million, predictions of Murray's endorsement value have ranged from career earnings of £80 million (a prediction admittedly made by Murray's agent) through to £10 million from such deals. Moreover, there are suggestions that if an unsuccessful British (former) player like Tim Henman can earn a career total of £20 million from endorsements, then things should be plain sailing for a winner like Murray. As if to accentuate this even further, Murray has just signed deals with CAA and 19 Entertainment (in the latter case joining David Beckham on the company's roster of clients). Is all of this realistic thinking on the part of commentators and Murray's advisers? Does Murray really have what it would take to make him a major endorsement property in tennis, let alone sport generally? Is he the finished product? Does he have the looks, persona and performance to enable him to compete for the top money with Federer, Nadal et al? Are the raw materials there? What role will intermediaries play? To what extent can 19 Entertainment do for Murray what they have done for Beckham? Could whatever issues there might be in building the Murray brand be addressed if he married someone famous, was photographed in popular night-spots, and picked up some famous friends? For a man who is known for being somewhat humourless, how should Murray's advisers work-up the brand? Is edgy the way to go? Is there something there, say, for brooding teenagers? Or are there other target markets which, with some appropriate image management, Murray could appeal to? And a leading final question: Andy Murray or Cristiano Ronaldo? Which one is worth £80 million, and which one is more likely to be an endorsement success?

Gimme a break!

2009-06-24T10:21:00.004+01:00

The Spanish government was set to remove a tax-break on high-earning foreigners (a tax-break aimed at encouraging leading executives to relocate to Spain) that would have hit the pocket's of Real Madrid's incoming galacticos (Mk II) hard. The plan has now been rejected, and the proposed increase in tax from 24% to 43% will not therefore happen. Cristiano Ronaldo et al. will probably be breathing a sigh of relief. Last year, the British government, in a similar move, announced that the earnings of players appearing for an overseas team in finals staged in the country would be exempt from taxation. It is thought that Wembley lost out in its bid to host UEFA's 2010 Champions League Final because players were liable to pay tax on earnings from bonuses and endorsements, should they play in the UK. However, the British government changed the law, and Wembley subsequently won the right to stage the 2011 Champions League Final. Are such tax advantages right? Are they fair? In terms of Adam Smith's canons of taxation, can we agree that both the Spanish and British governments were correct in their approach to managing these sports taxation issues? Does sport, does football, deserve such breaks? Aren't such tax advantages discriminatory, and shouldn't the general population be concerned? Or is it important that governments do their utmost to promote the hosting of leading sport events and support the immigration of the world's leading players and athletes? Indeed, taking the example of Ronaldo (CR9®?) as a case in point, if he is going to sell as many shirts as people think he will, could the net outcome be that whatever tax benefits are conferred upon such people, the economic activity they induce actually generates tax revenues in excess of any tax advantages they are given? Overall therefore, should tax breaks of the nature described above be made more progressive, more regressive, or should they remain the same?

History, heritage and a load of balls

2009-06-23T08:15:00.002+01:00

A very interesting piece of sponsorship coverage from http://sponsorpitch.com/blog/show/148 in which it is highlighted that the Wimbledon Grand Slam tennis championship has had several long relationships with 'sponsors', including: Slazenger (100 years+); Robinsons' (75 years+); Rolex (30 years+); and IBM (20 years+). The durability of these 'sponsorships' is astonishing, which raises some interesting questions. Why have the sponsorships been so durable? Does it mean they have been effective and profitable for all concerned? What is required to ensure that such relationships continue, with both parties satisfied by their relationship? To what extent do such deals reveal something about the role that trust and commitment play in sponsorship relations? Could sponsorship actually be akin to a good marriage, in which case: what lessons does the longevity of strong marriages provide sponsorship managers with? Perhaps it may simply be a case of not tinkering with something that appears to be working well? Ultimately, dare we believe that the above 'sponsorships' really are the quintessence of good sponsorship? Or is this view naive? Surely such long relationships must be dominated by age-old practices, norms and procedures that mean the sponsorships are neither as strong or as lucrative as they could/should be? Indeed, at a time when sporting events are exposed to as many competitive pressures as the brands that support them, don't the deals effectively mean that Wimbledon must be incredibly entrenched in the way it does business, relying more on a misplaced sense of loyalty rather than being outward-looking and reliant on strong commercial and strategic management?

A qualified success?

2009-06-22T13:58:00.007+01:00

With Chief Executive Rick Parry set to leave the club, Liverpool FC has announced that his replacement, as Managing Director, will be Christian Purslow. Purslow is reported to have a degree from Cambridge University and an MBA from Harvard Business School, as well as being fluent in Spanish (handy given the proliferation of Spaniards at the Merseyside club). Liverpool co-owner George Gillett is thought to believe that Purslow's experience will be vital to the future of the club. An interesting story, especially for someone who works in academia and who's business is delivering education. But what does it tell us: about Liverpool? About football? About sport? And about the changing environment in which sports clubs now operate? At one time, the off-field workforce of football clubs was characterised by the employment of ex-players as leading officials and managers (e.g. former player Pedrag Mijatovic has only recently left Real Madrid, following Ramon Calderon's resignation as Club President) - is this changing? Are the managerial challenges now facing sport so different, so intense, and much less directly related to on-field performance, that the recruitment of managers from outside sport is becoming much more of a norm? If so, is this a good thing? Do such people bring skills and knowledge that can only be good for sport and the development of its managerial and commercial activities? Will the new breed bring more of a calculating, dispassionate and rational perspective to sport? Given the financial problems facing many sport organisations, rapid changes in the demands of fans, increasingly complex media markets and global developments in sport, the engagement of highly qualified managers is surely a no-brainer for clubs? Besides, isn't it about time that sport went through a period of culture-busting, with important decisions being made by educated, informed managers? Or, once MBA graduates start running sport, haven't we got to worry? Doesn't it herald the final descent of sport from a position of socio-cultural embeddedness to one where it is simply a commercial commodity? Do the people now securing important positions in sport diminish the heritage of sport? Isn't one of the reasons that managers in sport are often ex-athletes because they care so much and know so much more about sport than anyone else? Don't they make up for the absence of a top-business school education with their commitment and passion for sport, and their inside knowledge? And, if ex-players are going to disappear from sport management roles, won't it severely damage the link between current athletes and their on-field performances and what happens off-field?

Basketball Nation

2009-06-21T21:28:00.003+01:00

An interesting story on the Sport Business website, which addresses the emergence, growth and strategic plans of Euroleague basketball: http://www.sportbusiness.com/print-edition/conquering-continent In the article, some of the sport's leading teams are mentioned, including the polideportivos of Real Madrid and Barcelona (both often better known for their football teams). Given the view being stressed by some commentators that China has become a basketball nation, and the fact that basketball is one of the United States' most popular sports, what might be the implications of Euroleague success for the overall success of the family brand? That is, could the polideportivo structure of these two clubs confer market advantages upon their associated football teams in attempts to secure market share, in countries like China and the US, ahead of rival football teams like Manchester United, AC Miland and Bayern Munich?

No Nadal, no deal

2009-06-20T20:40:00.008+01:00

Number 1 seed Rafa Nadal has withdrawn from the Wimbledon tournament due to a knee injury. Number 2 seed and chief rival Roger Federer responded by saying: "I'd love to play him. He's my main rival.....we've had some wonderful matches over the years, including last year, so that we can't repeat that is obviously sad." But who is more sad, Federer or the Wimbledon organisers? In sport, when a star player or the best player in the world at that moment withdraws from a tournament or event, what is the economic, commercial and financial impact of the withdrawal? Will Nadal's absence undermine Wimbledon's revenues? Will ticket sales fall? Will sponsorship revenues be affected? Will broadcasting contracts be worth less? Will corporate clients be less receptive to buying hospitality packages? And in this year more than in any other year, due to the downturn, will Nadal's knee especially undermine Wimbledon's performance? That said, given the 128 male singles players who are turning out at this year's Wimbledon, will Nadal's absence be economically, commercially and financially imperceptible? Taking domestic hopes for Andy Murray out of the equation, is the prestige, status and general appeal of the tournament such that the absence of a player, even the Number 1 seed, is insufficient to reduce demand for tickets, hospitality packages etc? Indeed, this raises an interesting question, what would it take for the impact of a tennis Grand Slam to be seriously affected? A global economic downturn? The absence from a tournament of the top two seeds? The top three seeds? Or is the nature of these sporting properties so unique, so robust, that they are essentially immune to the same kinds of pressure that might undermine the performance of organisations one might observe in other sports, or in other industries?

Chronicle of a death foretold

2009-06-19T09:17:00.004+01:00

As predicted some time ago in this blog, F1's problems have failed to go away, last night resulting in most of the teams announcing that they will split from the official FIA championship to form their own series for the start of the 2010 season. Some people are suggesting that this is simply brinkmanship on the part of the teams, a show of strength in their attempt to get the FIA to back-down on new cost-control measures; other people however believe that the current situation was entirely predictable, as major underlying schisms have long been a feature of F1. Which is true? Is this actually a battle about economy measures in F1? Or something else? Is it more a case of the current feud being loaded with issues of power and control? Are the teams right to be concerned? Afterall, they deliver the core product in F1, they provide the appeal, surely they should be the dominant force in determing future strategy in the sport? Or does this detract from, and undermine, the central role that any governing body should play in sport? Are the teams simply out of touch with the economic realities of a sport that has become too much of a commercial and financial monster? Perhaps there is actually something even more fundamental at stake here? Consider this: concerns have been expressed about Alan Donnelly. Donnelly simultaneously serves as Official Representative of the President of the FIA (Max Moseley), and Chairman of the F1 Stewards. Many of the teams in F1 apparently feel that Donnelly's duel roles constitute a conflict of interest, and have allegedly asked for him to resign. Is this what F1's problems are therefore really all about? That is, is the serious impasse that F1 now faces due not to financial or economic issues, but a problem of governance? In which case, would even the FIA's capitulation on the matter of budget-capping address underlying and deep concerns about the governance of F1? Perhaps this is now the crossroads F1 has been heading towards for some time? May be the sport has to change and will change, and 2010 will be the year that we bid farewell to F1 as we have known it?

It's all about the money

2009-06-18T17:30:00.004+01:00

Ahead of the IOC's decision about which city will host the 2016 Olympic Games, the organisation's President, Jacques Rogge, has stated that: “I share the view...the economics should not drive our decision...it is not the economics but leaving a sustaining legacy.” In other words, the city that potentially will deliver the highest revenues will not necessarily win the right to host the Games. To what extent is this an acceptable, appropriate or realistic view? When many host countries are using billions of pounds of domestic tax-payer's money, are Rogge's views not entirely appropriate? Don't citizens of host nations deserve for the Games to at least break-even, if not actually make a profit in order to reward their sacrifices? Isn't there an argument that the IOC has an obligation to work towards generating an acceptable financial return for their hosts? What's wrong with making a profit from such sporting events anyway? The IOC surely makes such a profit, doesn't it? Perhaps this is an unnecessarily calculating view? Surely playing host to the world's biggest sporting event provides other rewards that directly or indirectly generate benefits for host countries that cannot and need not be measured in financial terms? Nevertheless, if Rogge's views do actually prevail in most cases, how does/how will legacy strategy be affected in countries seeking to bid for the Games? If the expectation is that money invested in hosting the Games is not expected by the IOC to generate a commercial return, what other returns are available to any hosts of the Games? Indeed, doesn't this stance effectively reduce the Olympic Games to the position of e.g. an infrastructural investment, rather than being a celebration of sport? That is, doesn't the whole 'legacy effect' relate more to the construction of e.g. new roads, railways etc, rather than delivering a memorable Games? Although, in the end, is the intended outcome of hosting the Games really a straight choice between profit and some notion of legacy?

Everything's gone green

2009-06-17T19:14:00.002+01:00

Two interesting 'green' stories recently that seemingly serve to highlight sport's environmental credentials: http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/169689/ryder-cup-goes-green and http://www.insidethegames.com//show-news.php?id=5956 When it comes to the environment, is sport really so virtuous? Or is it an inconvenient truth that many sports are complicit in the environmental problems we are increasingly having to face up to? When one thinks about, for instance, the land and resource usage associated with golf; the intense and frequent use of fossil fuels in motor sport; the waste generated by sports fans; and the plastics and other artificial materials used in sport, aren't initiatives such as those covered by the above web links merely a sop to the green lobby? Perhaps environmental concerns in sport are nothing more than a constituent part of some vague or poorly defined notion of corporate responsibility? In these terms, surely sport is thus part of the problem, not part of the solution? Or is this being unfair? Is it not the case that many sports are actually waking up to their environmental responsibilities, and that we are seeing positive action and considerable dynamism e.g. FIFA's 2006 World Cup in Germany was labelled football's greenest ever championship? Given the global profile of many sports, allied to the loyalty and affinity exhibited by its fans, surely sport has a hugely important role to play in trumpeting new environmental initiatives? Might there be an opportunity for some sports/sport organisations to establish a market position or brand image based on clear and well defined responses to environmental concerns? In which case, to what extent might sport organisations be able to set environmental performance benchmarks that organisations in other industrial sectors might be able to follow?

Balanced argument

2009-06-16T11:52:00.003+01:00

With the multi-million pound signings of football players still looming large on the sporting horizon; with the Indian Premier League in cricket having just come to an end; with the Formula One World Championship possibly heading towards a split; and with the centralist principles of the North American sporting model still firmly intact, a serious debate about competitive balance has now begun to emerge. But what is competitive balance, and what is involved in securing balanced competition? Indeed, in sports like European football and Formula One motor racing, is competitive balance an unattainable ideal, or are the prospects much brighter than such a judgement might suggest? Can the quest for competitive balance be simply fulfilled by preventing clubs like Real Madrid from expensively acquiring the services of the world's best athletes? Or is there something much more fundamental to it than this? For competitive balance to really exist, do all competitors need to be as equal as possible in every possible sense e.g. organisation size, available financial resources etc? Moreover, how should competitive balance be measured? If a different team wins the championship each season, should we be happy? Perhaps this is an over-simplification and it means something much more? How can/should the tensions inherent in managing competitive balance (e.g. player concerns about salary controls) be effectively addressed? And where might the optimum competitive balance lie? Isn't it actually more beneficial for sport if there is some element of imbalance? After all, in the extreme, if all teams are equally balanced, is there actually a sense that one might witness a series of drawn contests?

On-demand footage

2009-06-15T18:14:00.004+01:00

Play the Game: on-demand footage of the week's events now available:
http://www.playthegame.org/conferences/play-the-game-2009/on-demand-streaming.html

Rokaka v Yao Ming

2009-06-15T15:27:00.004+01:00

Given the amount of money that Real Madrid has spent on acquiring the services of Rokaka, it would seem to be entirely predictable that the Spanish club will be adopting an aggressive overseas commercial strategy over the next five years. Markets including those in Central and South America could be important, but South-East Asian markets are likely to be even more important, particularly China which is often perceived as having tremendous commercial potential. However, there is a number of issues that football clubs like Real need to consider before the monetary value of such markets is fully realised: against whom are Real Madrid competing for market space and share in countries like China? Is it Manchester United and AC Milan; or the NBA and MLB; or Apple and Chanel? If it is actually the NBA, is the signing of Rokaka too little too late, has China already become a basketball nation? Has the NBA stolen first-mover advantage? Is signing two of the world's leading players the best way to enter and develop a market? Or is opening up a China office with 500+ staff, investing in a predicted 6,000 retail outlets and guaranteeing to help build thousands of basketball courts across China a more effective strategy? And is a collective strategy (the NBA) or an individual organisational strategy in which sporting rivals do not coordinate with one another (European football clubs) the most appropriate way of seeking a foothold in overseas markets? In which case, do European football clubs need to work together if they are to fight the challenges posed by sports such as basketball?

A week is a long time in sport

2009-06-14T19:31:00.001+01:00

Having promised to Blog and Twitter my way through the Play the Game conference last week, I failed dismally. If you would like to find out what went on during the conference, check out the on-demand coverage: http://www.playthegame.org/conferences/play-the-game-2009/on-demand-streaming.html My own personal favourite session was that which addressed the issue of match fixing. While I was holed-up in the conference, the world record transfer fee for a football player has been broken twice and a major sport broadcaster has been brought to the brink of bankruptcy. So, a week of blogging lost, but plenty to talk about; so, drawing inspiration from the week's events and the Play the Game conference, here is a series of questions to consider:

To what extent is it justifiable (economically, socially and morally) to spend £80 million to 'purchase' the services of one person, and does the acquisition of Cristiano Ronaldo by Real Madrid tell us anything about the value we place on sport?
Is match-fixing in sport really taking place to any great extent and, if it is as serious as some suspect, exactly what is the 'threat-level' that it poses?
Are on-line gambling companies to blame for the presumed growth in fixing; alternatively stated, are they part of the problem when they need to be part of the solution?
Is European football now polarising to such an extent that we are rapidly heading for a two-track game - the 'haves' and the 'have nots' - which will seriously undermine competitive balance thereby destroying the sport's fundamental appeal?
Just exactly how many athletes/competitors in sport take performance-enhancing drugs that often go undetected, and is it our fault or theirs that the case for taking drugs often seems so seductive to them?
Has the relationship between sport and television become too close, and is there a need for the dependency of sport on revenues derived from TV to be reappraised?
Are sporting mega-events worth the money, or should the money spent on them be allocated to the funding of other forms of sport?
Do we need to think more about the role that animals play in sport, when there thousands and thousands of animals being discarded each year in the name of sporting success?

Playing the game

2009-06-07T13:25:00.005+01:00

This coming week, I will be attempting to play the game at Play the Game, a major sport conference taking place at Coventry University (www.playthegame.org/conferences/play-the-game-2009.html). That is, I will be trying to blog and Twitter about the main issues each day. Ahead of the conference, it is worthwhile considering its main themes:

Ethics in governance: Will sports federations come clean?
Between Beijing and London: Mega-events as drivers of development
Business battles: The power struggles in football
Match-fixing: A blow to the core of sport
Terrible teenagers? Sport’s quest for the hearts and minds of the youth
Anti-Doping: Will the technological arms race come to an end?
Paralympic athletes: More different than the rest?
Sport for the Good: What is it good for?

Do these themes represent the biggest challenges facing sport at the moment? Are there other key themes that are missing from the programme? In which case, how should a conference of this nature actually address these issues?

Break-dance

2009-06-06T21:33:00.004+01:00

Back to F1 - while the crisis talks that took place between FIA and FOTA at the Monaco Grand Prix are likely to get F1 through to the end of the season, the debate about regulations for next season rumbles on. Indeed, the Toyota team has actually come clean and said that a 2010 breakaway championship is one of a number of options that FOTA is considering. We have been here before: in 1980, a stand-off between FIA and FOCA (the Formula One Constructors Association - the 80's incarnation of FOTA) led to the emergence of break-away threats. What can F1 learn from the precedents and politics of 1980s motor sport? Can history provide any lessons to help in eliminating the potential threat of a massive and permanently damaging split in F1? From here, how best should decisions be taken to ensure that FIA and FOTA both emerge from the current impasse, satisfied and having saved face? Is there a role for an independent arbiter, and is this person already in waiting? Could it be Bernie Ecclestone? Should it be Bernie Ecclestone? Or is there a need for someone from outside, and independent of, the sport to become involved? Is the role that Lord Stevens (a former Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police Force) played in investigating football player agents for the English Football Association a model that might prove useful in F1? Or is F1's current predicament tantamount to a domestic dispute that is best resolved privately between partners? Whatever the correct course of action, surely the governing bodies and the teams have to get their acts together? At a time of economic hardship, with several sponsors due to withdraw from F1, but with a number of historic teams threatening to withdraw, surely there has to be an obvious, consensual way forward?

Suits you, sir

2009-06-05T21:39:00.006+01:00

FINA (the Fédération Internationale de Natation), essentially the main international swimming federation, is facing legal action after swimwear brand blueseventy expressed concerns about FINA's bodysuit tests, which led to the banning of several blueseventy suits due to air trapping (which apparently gives the suits more buoyancy). Notwithstanding arguments about the testing procedure and the meaning of 'air trapping', blueseventy are especially concerned about having lost a month's worth of business already due to the ban, and about the impending World Championships from which the aforementioned suits could well be absent unless the company's products are reinstated into swimming. How could such a situation arise in the first place? Surely the company must have taken into account the rules concerning 'air trapping' during its product R&D phase? Was the product tested, and how did it perform? Were the tests used by the manufacturer different to those that are used by FINA? And how is FINA defining, quantifying and measuring 'air trapping'? Is measurement possible and, if so, how is it carried out? Is it a precise science or something that has gross margins of error? With millions of pounds presumably invested in the product, should blueseventy have the right to litigate against FINA if it is proven that FINA has made an incorrect, inaccurate or careless ruling? In which case, how might one calculate the damage to short-term profit and long-term brand health? And what are the lessons here for other sports, where governing bodies could enforce a ruling which is subsequently overturned? Should individuals, teams and clubs and sports be able to readily and freely litigate against the governing body, or would this be against the spirit and morality of sport?

Obsessive-compulsive sport sponsorship

2009-06-04T17:18:00.003+01:00

The obsessive compulsive part of this is this blog's continuing preoccupation with football (even though the football season has ended and I promised not to write about it). Reports have surfaced that Manchester United has signed an £80 million shirt sponsorship deal with the Aon Corporation, a US-based insurance company. The deal will start at the beginning of the 2010/11 football season and is being hailed as the biggest shirt sponsorship deal in history. In the context of reports late last year when it was becoming clear that AIG would pull their deal with United, how do we read the Aon deal? Are United now established beyond all doubt as the world's leading football club brand? Are Aon being commercially naive, over-estimating the power of football to reach out to customers across the world? Is this the ultimate recession-busting deal, a testament to the power of sport and of football? In short, what is this deal all about?

OK, OK, OK, OKaka

2009-06-03T16:07:00.008+01:00

OK, OK, OK.....I know I said I wouldn't blog about football again for a while, but with an (un)reliable source having told me me that Kaka will sign for Real Madrid tomorrow, I couldn't resist. Apologies to the non-football lovers. Real's seemingly imminent signing of Kaka from AC Milan has been brought about by the re-election as club president of Florentino Perez, the man who splashed the cash when he was previously Madrid's president thereby ushering-in the 'galacticos' era of Ronaldo, Zidane, Beckham et al. What are we to make of Kaka's signing, and will it be followed by the signings of Ronaldo, Fabregas and Ribery? Are we on the cusp of a new galacticos era? What does Kaka's signing reveal about Real Madrid's commercial strategy, their marketing strategy, and their approach to on-field performance? How will this and other possible signings impact upon the club's brand, and the targetting of overseas fans? Will the size and nature of such transfer deals further skew an already highly distorted transfer market? Will Kaka's departure undermine Italian football, causing even more problems for the nation's football leagues than they have already? To what extent will Kaka's expected arrival reinforce the position of Spain's La Liga as one of the world's 'Big-2' (alongside England's Premier League)? And a final question: where is Florentino Perez getting the money from to engage in such player acquisition and remuneration? Last time round, he sold Real Madrid's training ground as real estate, netting the club upwards of Euros 400 million. Where is he getting the money from this time and what problems, if any, might these cause for the club?

Personality crisis?

2009-06-02T15:56:00.006+01:00

A posting on this blog a couple of months ago highlighted state payments that had been made to Tiger Woods in return for the player's appearance at the Australian Masters golf tournament this November. Early indications are that there will be record demand for tickets as a result of Woods playing in the competition, something that has been reinforced by a sensible ticket pricing policy which will only lead to in an increase in prices for the finals day's rounds. Are the expectations surrounding the event merely hype on the part of the organisers, who are no doubt keen to ensure that the $3 million outlay on Woods is recouped? Is the potential success of the event down to the creation of an appropriate pricing strategy? Or are we to conclude that golf is now simply a personality-driven sport? More damningly, a one-person personality-driven sport?