Shedding some Brawn

Despite having won the opening F1 Grand Prix of 2009 with Jenson Button, Brawn GP has announced that it will be making around 270 people redundant (out of a total workforce of approximately 700). Although the withdrawal of Honda has no doubt forced Brawn to instigate such a move (and the redundancies simply take the team back to its 2004 staffing levels), the downturn is clearly forcing those involved in sport to address how their operations are managed. We are thus left to ask, could the current economic downturn therefore actually be an opportunity rather than a threat?

Olympics torched

Following some of the scenes witnessed during last year's Beijing torch relay in cities including London and Paris, the IOC has apparently decided to scrap future torch relays outside the country hosting the Games. Is this a wise decision? From a PR perspective in particular, surely the move makes great sense? Does what happened in 2008 highlight the risks of torch relays and the problems associated with managing them? Are host country torch relays that much easier to control? Can the potential appropriation of the Olympic Games by unrelated groups therefore be prevented? Or are we now seeing the IOC's response to a situation they failed to control and thus reflected badly upon the organisation? Is isn't it naive to assume that the same thing won't happen again? Aren't the management challenges just as great and intense? And isn't the move counter-productive, denying a vast majority of the world's population any access to the Games other than through television?

The legal spirit of sport

For the first time since the 1950s, an F1 Grand Prix team making its debut has secured first and second places, the Brawn team winning the Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne. Some believe that the team's domination of the race was due to their use of a special diffuser on their cars that is thought to give them a half-second per lap advantage over their rivals. Renault, Ferrari and Red Bull are challenging Brawn's right to use the diffuser, claiming that is is not within the spirit of new rules introduced for this season. Surely the diffuser is either legal or illegal? Rather than not being within the spirit of the rules, isn't it rather a case that struggling rival teams are trying to erode the competitive advantage that Brawn has achieved through innovation and a creative interpretation of the rules? May be motor sport, unlike say athletics, is as much about technology as it is the athlete, in which case, are Brawn there to be caught rather than legally challenged? Or is what Brawn are doing tantamount to cheating? Should they be stopped and forced to remove the diffuser, especially as they clearly have a strong advantage over other teams? Wouldn't it be better to start this new era in F1 with a level playing field and common agreement about what is and isn't acceptable?

Choices United

The saga of who will takeover Manchester United's shirt sponsorship deal from AIG, who have indicated that they will not be renewing their current contract with the Premier League club when it runs out in 2010, is increasingly taking on an air of mystery and excitement. One rumour suggests a deal with Saudi Telecom is already done and dusted, while other rumours contradict this indicating that United is negotiating with Tata, the Sahara Group, AirAsia, or Prudential. The financial value of any such deal aside, which of these corporations would be the best shirt sponsor for United, and why? Perhaps United could alternatively look to Barcelona and Aston Villa for inspiration, by operating either without a sponsor or with the logo of a cause or charity appearing on their shirts? Wouldn't this be a better move in the long-term?

Irresponsible sport?

Amidst the turmoil of the downturn, questions have already variously been raised about the level of player salaries, the nature of sport sponsorship deals, the level of accumulated debt in sport, the costs of taking part in events, entry prices for fans and so forth. Are we therefore in a period where sport needs to become more socially responsible? Is sport facing the need for a paradigm shift in the way it functions?

Points mean prizes?

In leagues and competitions such as English football's Premier League, the rules for awarding prize money to clubs for attaining a particular league position are clear and open. In other sports, including the Formula 1 World Championship, there is apparently not the same transparency and openess in detailing how prize money is allocated to teams. Which approach is the right one? What are advantages and disadvantages of being open and transparent? Similarly, isn't it best simply for the teams and federations to deal with such matters between themselves, and is there any need for the public or other external stakeholders to know how prize money is allocated?

France's '39th Game'

The French handball league is set to stage its semi-finals, final and an all-star game in Miami at the start of April. Alongside the games, there will also be a French trade exhibition. What might the motives be for such an initiative? Is there strong US interest in handball? Or is handball simply being used as the vehicle for promoting France and French industry? What comparisons can we draw between e.g. the English Premier League's 39th Game plan, or the NBA's overseas development strategy, and French handball's entry into the US market? Should we expect to see the staging of overseas games more often? In which case, is sport solely becoming a way of generating a commercial return, or are initiatives such as that in French handball, a genune attempt to 'grow' the appeal and reach of sport?

No way out?

Contingency seems to be the name of the game at the moment for a number of major sporting events. As the IPL works to decide where the 2009 competition will take place, UEFA continue to monitor the situation in Ukraine as the country prepares to stage the Euro 2012 tournament alongside Poland. Rumours persist that Germany has been identified as a potential contingent partner for Poland. As we head towards the World Cup 2010 in South Africa, FIFA maintains that there is no 'Plan B' i.e. it's South Africa or nothing. Surely this can't be true, especially given the lucrative commercial and broadcasting deals FIFA will have in place for 2010? If it is true, what contingencies will FIFA have made and how might they be working with their prospective South African hosts? If it isn't true, how does a governing body or federation manage the relationship with a contigent host? Indeed, what management challenges does it pose for the contingent hosts themselves? In the event of an event needing to be moved to another country, how can the negative consequences of the move be mitigated? Do contingencies create needless duplication and waste, or are they just good sense?

Entrepreneurial sport

Any decision to shift the IPL away from India calls into question some interesting issues regarding the role of entrepreneurship in sport. For Europeans, who are used to the socio-cultural embeddedness of sport, such transportability may be anathema. What role therefore do sports entrepreneurs like Lalit Modhi, Dietrich Mateschitz (Red Bull), George Gillett and Tom Hicks (Liverpool etc.) et al. play in sport? Are they crucial to the development and future health of sport? Do they bring much-needed managerial competence and innovative approaches to sport? Do they see things, and act, in a way that changes sport for the good? Or are they simply business people, who ignore the history, culture and relevance of sport in favour of securing the highest possible commercial returns from it? Are they therefore using sport? Perhaps they don't even care about sport? In which case, what managerial challenges does this pose when such commercial managers are juxtaposed with people in sport who have a completely different orientation?

Accidental advantage

Terrorist attacks on the Indian sub-continent and an impending general election in India have prompted a decision by cricket's Indian Premier League (IPL) to re-locate the 2009 competition overseas. Lalit Modhi, the IPL's Commssioner has stated: "We have to ensure that the quality of the tournament as expected by our fans is delivered to the fullest without any compromise." Given that cricket's most ardent, passionate fans are to be found on the sub-continent, surely any change to the competition's structure will inevitably compromise it? Isn't this particularly the case when cricket in countries such as England, and in the West Indies, is having to fight hard to compete with other, more popular sports? Or will the enforced move have the same effect as that which, for example, the Premier League (e.g. via its 39th Game proposal) and the National Basketball Association (e.g. through its market presence in China) are seeking through their internationalisation strategies? In other words, could adversity inadvertently strengthen the IPL rather than undermining it?

Handbrake turn

Only a few days after a new points system was introduced into Formula 1, the Formula One Teams Association (FOTA) has claimed the system is invalid resulting in the Federation International Automobile (FIA) abandoning it until at least 2010. In view of the FIA's about turn, will the maintenance of the existing points system enhance, maintain or diminish the uncertainty of outcome? Does there need to be a broad, in-depth debate involving all F1 stakeholders aimed at determining a new points system? Or is the FIA's imposition of the new scheme, FOTA's rejection of it, and then the FIA's change of heart actually more about power politics than the sport's fundamental appeal?

Caps on or off?

The Chief Executive of AC Milan, Adriano Galliani, has called for European football clubs to adopt an American-style salary-cap to help in sustaining them through the difficult current economic conditions. Galliani is also believed to have claimed that even English and Spanish clubs, which will account for six of the eight Champions League Quarter-Final places this year, need such a measure. Is this true? Or do Galliani's comments reflect the troubled position of a once pre-eminent football league? More importantly, given that such a cap would breach EU law, a voluntary agreement amongst clubs across Europe would be needed to organise and implement a cap. Given that English and Spanish clubs are currently in the ascendancy, how likely are they to agree to a measure that is intended to foster greater collective equality rather than individual prosperity? And is the salary-cap issue the acid test of how strong Europe's football community actually is?

Is sport really worth it?

Australian tax payers are set to pay half of a $3 million appearance fee being given to Tiger Woods in return for his participation in the Australian Masters tournament later this year. Critics have questionned the payment, asking whether is it fair to other players and to Australian tax payers (especially in the light of the current downturn), and if it will lead to sponsorship being diverted away from other sports events. Supporters have nevertheless defended the payment, claiming that Woods' presence in Australia, the first time he will be playing in the country for a decade, will massively boost economic activity resulting in a net economic benefit for Australia. The fundamental question therefore is: who is right?

Should the winner take it all?

A new points scoring system has been introduced into Formula One motor racing, where the driver with the most wins at the end of the season will triumph in the F1 World Championship. What is the purpose of this? Will it make the points scoring system fairer? Will it ensure that the World Championship is more open and competitive? Will smaller teams stand a greater chance of winning the F1 title? Or does the new system create more problems than it solves? Will it promote one-shot racing where teams only aim to win a proportion of races to ensure a championship winning position (and consequently they do not focus on that proportion of races where they are less likely to be successful)? If one driver wins a majority of races by the mid-season mark, is the championship effectively over? Are consistent drivers i.e. those who regularly finish second and third going to be adversely penalised? Will the new system de-motivate them? Is the new system sufficient in itself to promote and enhance the uncertainty of outcome in a sport where often only a small number of teams are actually in the position of being able to win races?

Tevez fallout continues

Following West Ham's ineligible fielding of Carlos Tevez in a 2007 Premier League game, Sheffield United have now successfully claimed compensation from West Ham, following their relegation from the Premier League. The manager and players of Sheffield United are nevertheless set to pursue their own individual claims against West Ham, given that Sheffield's manager resigned three days after relegation, and that United players are likely to have lost earnings as a result of relegation. One issue is: for the good of sport, are such claims appropriate or not? Assuming that such claims are appropriate, on what basis should compensation be calculated in order to ensure fairness to the manager and players of Sheffield United, but also to ensure that individual players do not feel as they though have suffered disproportionately compared to other claimants?

Market-driven responses to bad behaviour

Sport has often been dominated by discussions concerning what to do about bad behaviour. What seems to be emerging is what one might term 'market responses' to such bad behaviour. For instance, numerous sponsors in professional cycling have now withdrawn from the sport following a spate of positive drugs tests. More recently, Australian National Rugby League player Breet Stewart was charged with sexual assault, resulting in some sponsors pulling out of deals in the sport. In both cases, the loss of sponsors has clearly had an impact on the financing, commercial viability and appeal of the respective sports. Hence, it can be asked: is market-driven regulation of bad behaviour in sport a better way of regulating behaviour than, say, intervention by a governing body or federation?

Culture clash

On Wednesday night, when Arsenal defeated Roma in the Champions League, none of the team's starting eleven were from Britain. Indeed, Arsene Wenger has routinely put out sides consisting of players from Spain, Cameroon, France, Russia, Czech Republic et al. Arsenal are not alone in doing this, especially in football. Yet we also see evidence of global labour migration in sports such as basketball, with Pau Gasol (Spain) and Dirk Nowitzki (Germany) both playing NBA in the US. What cultural issues does the multinational nature of teams pose for managers and coaches when players from different countries are likely to have often widely different views on decision-making, relationships on and off-the-field, authority figures, responses to victory and defeat, individual rights, perceptions of time, ways of addressing conflict etc? And what qualities and skills does a coach or manager need to have in order to successfully manage such a heady mix of cultures?

Flash-mob future?

Given developments in the market for sporting mega-event sponsorships (i.e. the sale of rights to a small number of top-level sponsors), the phenomenon of ambush marketing has emerged. With developments in social networking, allied to sponsors and ambushers looking for new and innvovative ways of protecting against ambushing, of engaging in ambushing and of promoting counter-ambushing (i.e. get the ambushers first before they get you), what role might activities like flash-mobbing play?

Boosting the crowds

Attendance at this week's Cheltenham horse racing festival is reportedly 'down on last year'. Within the last couple of weeks too, Second Division Darlington has closed down one side of its stadium due to poor match attendances. Notwithstanding prevailing economic problems, how should events, clubs and teams promote attendance? Are creative and innovative approaches to pricing the key? Should they advertise more? Provide a better experience or service for fans? Does sport need to treat its fans better? Should sports become more market-oriented and customer-focused? Or is it simply the case that the more exciting a sporting contest is, the more people will attend? Perhaps sport is actually powerless to influence how many people attend matches and events?

England 3 - Italy 0?

English teams played Italian teams in three Champions League last sixteen games this week, winning all three ties. Some commentators have therefore suggested that English football is better than Italian football. But is this really the case? Perhaps the rise of English football and the fall of Italian football (a change from the situation twenty years ago) is nothing more than a cyclical fluctuation that will ultimately be reversed? Does the influx of broadcasting revenues and new ownership money necessarily make one league better than another? Does the Italian ground ownership model, as well as their method of individually selling broadcasting rights, hinder the development of football in the country? Or are there fundamental flaws in both English and Italian football, apparent success effectively masking any problems the English may have? Ultimately, should the condition of lower league or national team football be the real barometer of a nation's footballing health? In which case, is English or Italian football in a stronger position?

Fans the key to good governance?

Speaking in the wake of allegations made against Allen Stanford, the British government's Culture Secretary, Andy Burnham, has stressed that sport will start losing fans in huge numbers if good governance principles are not established in sport. Are fans therefore the key to creating and establishing these principles? Will fan dissatisfaction with, and protests against, weak governance be the most important motivation for change in sport? Do sports fans have any conception or notion of good governance? Do they actually care about good governance, particularly if 'their' team or sport prospers, even as the result of suspect individuals being involved in them? If fan concerns about governance are so important, is English football's Supporters Direct (SD) initiative the way forward for football and for other sports too? Could the SD initiative be rolled out across different sports? Or is there another way to engage fans in the fight to establish good governance principles in sport?

Has Beckham got what he really, really wants?

Is David Beckham's time share agreement with LA Galaxy and AC Milan the best possible deal for him? Does it allow him to maintain his business interests and market presence in the US while generating further equity in his brand by playing in one of the world's leading fashion capitals? At the same time, is it the best way to ensure that he prolongs his playing career as the 2010 World Cup and Peter Shilton's England appearance record loom on the horizon? As such, what does the time share tell us about Beckham? About his portfolio of business interests? And about the management of athlete brands?

Positive test, negative result

British athlete Dwain Chambers, banned from ever taking part in the Olympic Games again following a positive drugs test, yesterday won the 60 metres sprint title at the European Indoor Athletics Championship in Turin. Today, it has been announced that Chambers will not be selected for the 4x100 metre British relay squad that will run in the World Championships in Berlin this August. At the same time, Chambers has just published his autobiography, which has not been well received by some people in and around sport. For an athlete who has tested positive in a drugs test, is there ever a way back to legitimacy? Will people always distrust you and your performances? Or are there proactive and tangible steps an athlete can take to mitigate the damages caused by such a misdemeanour?

Turning the corner

The former Honda F1 team has announced that it will make the 2009 grid, having secured financing to run two cars this season - as the Brawn GP team. Team principals have thanked people such as Ron Dennis and Luca Montezemolo, and the other teams, for helping them achieve their goal. In the meantime, the Formula Teams' Association (FOTA) has proposed a package of measures designed to ensure the future good health of Formula 1. Is this form of collective and collaborative team strategy the best way forward for all sports, irrespective of the views a governing body might have?

Double-whammy for cricket

The potential implications of the terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan, and the allegations of fraud made against Allen Stanford, have already been raised by this blog. The issue now for cricket's strategic decision makers is: what should they do with the sport? Retrench? Consolidate? Or seek to pursue an aggressive fight-back or growth strategy?

An age of wage restraint?

To ensure that he keeps his drive with the Honda F1 team in 2009, reports suggest that Jenson Button has accepted a £15 million pay-cut (from £24 million per annum to £9 million per annum). Is this the action of a passionate racing driver? Or the action of someone who will still be earning millions? Is Button the first of many, as athletes from across the sporting world accept that a new austerity is emerging in the light of the current economic downturn?

Bid brands and mega-event success

Some critics have recently suggested the English committee that is working on the country’s bid to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup is over-laden with politicians. The view is that England should utilise its distinctiveness rather than relying on elected officials. Hence, this would mean using Beckham, the Premier League, Wembley, etc. as the focus for a bid – but is this the approach to take? Should bids be viewed as brands and be developed and positioned accordingly? And what is the art and the science of a successful sporting mega-event bid?

Benitez counts cost of Torres' injury

Liverpool manager Rafa Bentiez has been bemoaning the absence of striker Fernando Torres from his side, and the consequent dip in form this has resulted in for his team. Indeed, Benitez appears to be suggesting that, should Liverpool fail to win the Premier League title this season, it will be directly connected to Torres’ various injuries. This raises some interesting questions: what is the total cost of an injury to a club? How much of this cost can be attributed to medical care for the player? How much of this cost can be attributed to lost revenues in the light of weaker performances on the pitch? Are there opportunity costs that can also be attributed to the injury of a leading player?

Risk and security in sport

Sport has never been able to ignore risk and security issues, but in the light of today's armed attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan the severity of such attacks is evident. The human tragedy aside, there will now be serious ramifications for international cricket's fixture list. The Australian cricket team has already refused to tour Paksitan for the foreseeable future and others will surely follow suit. Could terrorism therefore be destroying cricket in Pakistan? With the sport on the brink, how can the cricket authorities mitigate the threat of terrorism? Moreover, with heightened security clearly necessary in Pakistan, how can or should the risks of attack be minimised?

Diamond opportunity

IAAF delegates are due to meet in Monaco to discuss the formation of a 'Diamond League' for athletics. This would entail creating a circuit, something akin to tennis' ATP circuit, that would pit leading competitors against each other a number of times, internationally, across the year. Is the league a good idea? Is it needed? Is it a way of enhancing the best features and qualities of athletics, particularly during harsh economic times, thereby securing its future? Will it make the athletics season more accessible and clearer to sports fans? Will it make the most of top-level athletes? Or is it simply elitist, favouring a small number of top athletes rather than athletics as a whole? Isn't it simply yet another case of the impending commercialisation and polarisation of a sport out of which the upper echleons of the sport benefit but few others do? Is it really about coordination and rationalisation, or more about utilising 'star' assets more effectively? There also remains a fundamental question: what's wrong with athletics as it stands?