Ticking bomb?

With entries for the 2010 Formula One World Championship now closed, both FIA and the previously dissenting F1 teams will likely be satisfied that they now hold the upper-hand in the stand-off over budget capping (see previous entries elsewhere on this blog). FIA will look forward to a full contingent of entrants, including the 'big names' (such as Ferrari) as well as a number of new entrants. The teams meanwhile will no doubt begin to plan on the basis of current regulations and the absence of a budget cap for 2010. Surely though, this is a ticking bomb, and we still have some considerable way to go before the situation is actually satisfactorily involved? Surely it can't possibly be the case that FIA, despite its best intentions, has merely capitulated in the face of pressure from F1's leading teams? Surely the F1 teams can't really expect that they have got things their own way? Will the remainder of this F1 season therefore be characterised rather more by off-circuit posturing and politics than it is about racing? Do the F1 teams have a get-out clause that will enable them to abandon the F1 World Championship if FIA doesn't keep its promises? And would FIA care about this anyway, as they now have a healthy number of entries for next year's championship, far in excess of recent championship starting numbers? Does this mean therefore that F1 really is a ticking bomb, the detonation of which will lead to the splintering of F1 into two championships, either in 2010, or in 2011?

Sponsorship's a lottery

When Bristol Rovers FC, of the English First Division, attempted to find a new shirt sponsor, only four companies bid for the rights and none offered the amount the club was looking for. As a result, the club decided to launch a raffle to determine the organisation that would have the right to sponsor the club's shirts next season. In the end, 96 companies paid £1000 each for a raffle ticket, with N-gaged emerging victorious in the lucky draw. The £96,000 the club has earned from the raffle is more than double what it would otherwise have earned. Is this a stroke of creative genius on the part of Bristol Rovers, or a sad indictment of the state of sponsorship and the esteem in which it is held by sports properties?

Golf clubs and Rolex watches

Polo Ralph Lauren and Rolex have just announced separate new sponsorship deals with various golf properties. On the face of it, both make sense: clearly there would appear to be considerable synergy between the target demographics of the sponsors and the spectators engaged in watching golf. But is sponsorship that easy, which prompts a further question: what makes a good sponsor? In sponsorship deals such as those mentioned here (as indeed is the case in many sponsorships), the emphasis seems to be placed on identifying a compatible partner, and then on confirming that this partner is actually likely to be suitable. But is this approach to sponsorship management only half the story? Getting together is one thing, but how should partners manage a relationship once they are in it? And when the inevitable divorce comes (as it surely must in sponsorship), on what basis might an amicable and value-generating split be achieved? Alternatively stated, isn't prevailing sponsorship thinking more about the rules of attraction than it is about the rules of the deeper relationship? That is, is too much emphasis placed on establishing the criteria for getting together in the first place, rather than working to ensure that the depth of a relationship (as one does in any other type of relationship with a partner)? In which case, where do factors such as trust, commitment, communication, shared values et al. fit into the sponsorship process? Or is this a rather idealistic viewpoint? Perhaps sponsorship is ultimately much more direct than that, is it simply a way of boosting the bottom-line and requires little appreciation of the art and science of relationships?

The crowding-out effect

My apologies to non-football loving fans that this blog has been somewhat preoccupied by football in recent days. Summer's here, and so the football postings should die down for a while (unless I find something to say about the upcoming Confederations Cup). This blogger's preoccupation nevertheless raises an important issue: is football crowding out other sports? That is, does the popularity of and interest in football occupy space that might otherwise be occupied by other sports? Extending this viewpoint, does football attract revenues from e.g. broadcasters, sponsors etc., at the expense, and to the detriment, of other sports? Can other sports offer the returns (e.g. in terms of exposure and recognition) that football can? Are we therefore seeing a process of industrial concentration taking place whereby football will ultimately becomes a dominant industrial force, with only a small number of other sports surrounding it? Or is this an overly-apocalyptic scenario, the view of someone observing events from the perspective of a football-obsessed nation? Are other sports strong enough to resist the crowding-out effect? Perhaps the notion that crowding-out is taking place (or that it actually exists) is entirely fallacious? And may be industrial concentration in sport is the wrong way to look at a game (football) that is incredibly popular?

Victory in battle of ideologies

If Manchester United had won this evening's Champions League Final in Rome, to what extent would it have validated the private sports entrepreneur ownership model as being the most appropriate one for securing consistent success in European football? Given Barcelona's victory, does it confirm that the supporter-owned club model is just as robust and appropriate in ensuring that a football club is successful? Or is there another way, a still more effective ownership model? And how might the answers to these three questions impact upon UEFA, the EU, domestic leagues across Europe, and organisations such as Supporters Direct?

Formula for a successful relationship

Sporting Lisbon of Portugal is the latest football club to join motor-racing's Superleague Formula (http://www.superleagueformula.com/), in which the club will enter a car to race against the cars of other football clubs including Beijing Guoan, Borussia Dortmund and Flamengo. Why would such a club do this? What are the benefits of fielding a motor sports team when most of the football clubs involved in the series are not even multi-sports organisations (in the same way as e.g. the polideportivos of Spain)? What are some of the problems in fielding a team, in particular won't it simply distract a football team from its core business of playing football? Is it cynical and needless exploitation of football clubs, their histories and their brands? Is it therefore a gimmick? Or is there a serious purpose to the Superleague Formula? Is it a genuine attempt to facilitate e.g. cross promotion, co-marketing and/or strategic collaboration? Does it illustrate that the established business totem of 'collaborate to compete' is as relevant/important in sport as it is in other industrial sectors? At a time when building global reach, identifying sustainable new fan bases' and creating lucrative new revenue streams are all important, isn't the relationship between football and motor sport entirely rational, sensible and justifiable? In which case, what forms of collaboration might we therefore expect to see in the future, when already we are seeing e.g. FC Barcelona engaging in similar such relationships with sports organisations in the US? In which case, a further debate opens up: who/what are appropriate partners; how are they selected; how are relations instigated, developed, organised, managed, dissolved etc?

The mourning after

So, following my team's relegation from the Premier League yesterday, along with the two other accompanying teams, one inevitably has to ask: what happens next? In strategic terms, relegated Premier League clubs face some challenging decisions: do they continue to behave like PL clubs in the hope that they can achieve promotion after only only season in the Coca Cola Championship? Or do they confront the new financial realities of playing football at a lower level, cutting costs by selling players, and focusing on reconfiguring their business models (again, hoping that the club is promoted quickly, while acknowledging that a failure to gain promotion is a possibility)? Perhaps some clubs might accept that their market and strategic positioning should be conceived of in terms of being a Championship, rather than a PL, team? At a time when off-field performance is becoming more important, could a club actually become more commercially successful following relegation, if it is managed correctly? Or is this simply wishful thinking, the PL being the only place one can signal on- and off-field success?

How much does relegation cost?

....a question my hometown team will be asking tonight after having been relegated from the Premier League this afternoon. And will the costs be solely financial?

Spectacles required for 20/20 vision

Following the spectacle of last year's Indian Premier League 20/20 cricket championship, much was expected of this year's competition. Terrorist attacks on the Indian sub-continent nevertheless resulted in the IPL moving its prime asset to South Africa, but with only limited success. As the championship comes to an end, it is clear that the IPL 20/20 2009 has been only a shadow of what it was last year. Does this mean that the Indian IPL is solely India's sporting property? Is it a case that, in spite of globalisation, many sports remain deeply socio-culturally embedded? And to what extent should the IPL's experience this year sound as a warning to other sport leagues and competitions that have aspirations of international expansion?

Final flourish

It's financial bonanza weekend for all of those English football teams contesting the league play-off finals at Wembley. Notwithstanding the now routine debate about why, when and how the new Wembley Stadium is being used, the main point of interest for many is the Championship Final (the winners of which will gain promotion to the supposed promised land: the Premier League). It has become ritual to dub this Final 'the £60 million match', as commentators believe the revenues a club can earn from one season in the PL will reach that sum. Is this true? Or has the figure rapidly become an urban myth? If it is true that the sum can be earned by staying in the PL for one season alone, what does the figure reveal about the revenue generating capacity of the PL's leading teams? Is PL promotion really such a bonanza? Consider promotion in a more balanced fashion: what costs are incurred as the result of promotion to the PL, and do the additional costs actually cancel out any financial windfall? What about the costs associated with signing the players a team is likely to need in order to guard against relegation from the PL? And their salaries? But there are other issues too, notably: faced with rapidly proliferating revenues and challenging cost control issues, to what extent does promotion to the PL engender any sense of strategic decision-making amongst promoted clubs? Amongst those clubs that do have an underpinning strategy, which is the best approach: a conservative business model? Aggressive player acquisition and remuneration? An on-field decision to win at all costs? Another approach? And how many promoted teams ultimately behave like a 'rabbit caught in headlights' rather than businesses needing to make some important commercial, financial and managerial decisions?

From Bos to Mat

After Bosman, Kolpak and Webster, comes the Matuzalem case. For reasons of accuracy, I quote from the euFootball.biz website: "The [Matuzalem] decision concludes that the Brazilian football player had terminated his contract with the Ukrainian club FC Shakhtar Donetsk “unilaterally, prematurely and without just cause” and condemned him to pay a compensation to his former club of EUR 11.86 million, plus interest of 5% per year starting on 5 July 2007 until the effective date of payment. Real Zaragoza SAD, the Spanish club with whom Matuzalem had subsequently signed a new contract, was declared “jointly and severally liable for the payment” of the afore-cited amount. In an unprecedented decision, the Court underlined that “the termination of a contract without just cause, even if it occurs outside the so-called Protect Period, remains a violation of contractual obligations”, adding that “Article 17 of the FIFA Players’ Status Regulations does not give, neither to a club nor a player, a free pass to unilaterally breach an existing agreement”. Does this mean that the pendulum of power has swung back in favour of clubs, power having clearly been in the hands of players since the 1995 Bosman Ruling? Is the Matuzalem Ruling as significant as Bosman, or simply a further iteration in our interpretation of Europe's freedom of movement laws? Should we expect the ramifications of Matuzalem to be as serious as Bosman? In which case, will they favour clubs or players? And what might be the implications, if any, for this summer's impending football player transfer market? Otherwise, how might the Matuzalem Ruling play out across other sports?

We're all going on a summer holiday

It is rumoured that three English Premier League teams - Tottenham Hotspur, West Ham United and Hull City - will play a series of games in Beijing this summer as part of a competition involving Chinese Super League team Beijing Guoan. This won't be the first time that English (or indeed European) teams have headed for South East Asia (Manchester United will also be playing in China this summer). Why are the teams doing this? Is it simply for pre-season practice? Somewhere warm? Somewhere that teams are guaranteed a good reception? Somewhere away from the usual pre-season pressures and scrutiny? Or is there something more to it? Are such games a short-term commercial opportunity? Or part of a long-term strategy aimed at promoting brands and boosting an overseas fan base? Is this a situation of new market entry for the teams involved? In which case, what are some of the management, marketing and operational challenges that such teams face? If it is a repeat visit for a team, how should it aim to take advantage of the trip, and is it a case for the club of having to focus on market development activities? If it is a short-term commercial opportunity, the question is: is the trip worth it? While the financial benefits may be appealing, do the travel distances and demands of a high profile visit make the trip worth anything? If the trip is part of a long-term strategy, how does it actually fit in with a club's strategy? Can a sustainable fan and/or long-term brand equity be built on the basis of infrequent visits to South East Asia? If not, then what else are the clubs involved doing to leverage value from their upcoming summer games?

As the glory fades....

An interesting feature by the BBC on what happens to post-career boxers: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/8051701.stm In the light of problems encountered by retired boxers including Frank Bruno and Price Naseem Hamed, as well as other retired sports people (e.g. former footballer Warren Aspinall, who tried to commit suicide immediately post-career) there are some interesting, important and sensitive issues raised by the BBC's coverage. When in sport there is so much emphasis on identifying and recruiting new talent, and then on creating and managing competitive, successful teams, why is it that there is considerably less emphasis in some sports on the post-career phase of sports people's lives? Or is it the case that some athletes don't think carefully enough about this phase of their careers? Perhaps such athletes are sometimes not as well advised as they should be by their representatives? Is there a prominent role to play for athlete representative associations and unions? Should there be structured programmes in place that help retired athletes to manage their post-sport careers, their business affairs and/or their personal lives? Or are the cases of Bruno, Naseem et al. exceptions rather than the rule?

Branded as bad

A sex scandal that took place seven years ago is having major ramifications for Australian rugby league, as its sponsors start to amend their contracts and question their involvement in the sport. Many have already publicly stated that they do not want to be associated with such conduct as it will reflect badly on the companies and their brands. Is such conduct something that sponsors and other commercial partners in sport should expect and account for in their contracts? Or are such instances of bad behaviour/misconduct untypical? Can/should sponsors expect to have an influence on how and what players do when they are not playing rugby? Does this breach a player's rights to privacy and freedom? Did the sponsors get it wrong in the way that they selected a property (or properties) to sponsor which they had not full researched, they did not know, and/or they did not share values with? And is such behaviour necessarily bad for sponsors, commercial partners and their brands? Do consumers respond in a 'typical' or common way? Can the negative effects of the way in which consumers respond be mitigated? Or is the outcome inevitable? That is, do such scandals simply lead to negative brand associations and decreasing sales?

Back to the future

Following the resignation of Ramon Calderon earlier on this year, Real Madrid is set to hold elections for a new president this summer. One candidate already for the post is Florentino Pérez, a man who previously held the position of president (from 2000-2006), during which he most famously heralded in the 'galacticos' era. Is the return of Perez what Real needs? Given his previous record of spending big, marketing the club across the world, and selling-off club assets (most notably the club's training ground in an upmarket part of the city), is Perez what Real needs to ascend to the top of European football again? Is his mix of aggressive commercialism and major investment in playing talent as relevant today as it was in 2000? Or has football moved on? Aren't clubs like Chelsea better financed; Liverpool better managed; and Manchester United more commercially astute? Moreover, didn't the first galacticos era prove that, while it can be successful in the short-term, it is unsustainable in the long-term? And with football in the grips of the economic downturn, would a new galacticos era at Real Madrid be the short- and long-term detriment of the club, rather than being a solution to years of underachievement at the club?

Bottling Brand-y

Bloomberg magazine recently published an article comparing the Federer and Nadal brands, while a number of marketing consultancies have recently been trying to get to grips with the real nature of sports brands. Clearly there are some sports brands out there (e.g. Nike and Adidas) that have been commercially, strategically and carefully created and managed, others have developed in a different way e.g. David Beckham; Manchester United etc. In respect of the latter, do such brands actually exist, or is their existence purely a myth? How can a 19th Century sports club that encapsulates a particular set of values actually be branded in a clear and meaningful way? Aren't marketers simply engaging in post-hoc rationalisation when claiming to have created a brand, with an identity and a set of values? When, in actual fact, sports clubs are living organisms with a history and a legacy that branding is appropriating rather than creating or shaping? Consider the case of German football club St Pauli; left-wing, somewhat anarchistic, with a fan base begrudging of commercial influences on sport. How could/should such a club be branded? Would it be wrong to even start using the word 'brand' in relation to such clubs? Or are sports clubs woefully ignorant? Are they really brands in the accurate sense of the word/concept, standing comparison with other brands the world over e.g. Microsoft? And can the notion of branding truly add to sports clubs, other than/in addition to the bottom-line? In which case, how might one brand unique football clubs like St Pauli, Atletico Bilbao or Palermo?

Racing green

An IOC inspection group has recently visited the 2014 Winter Olympic Games site in Sochi amid claims by environmentalists that event construction projects are damaging the local eco-system. Claims made include: trees having been cut down; riverbeds excavated; and roads built in protected national parks. The IOC were nevertheless convinced that Sochi's environmental record is an acceptable one, although the visit raises some interesting issues. After all, sport is both the victim of environmental problems (e.g. torrential rain can seriously undermine the commercial viability of an event or competition) and the source of environmental concerns (e.g. the use of land for stadia, golf courses etc; the excessive generation of litter by crowds; the pollution caused by motor racing events etc.) Can sport be a leader in addressing environmental problems? Is so, how, and on what basis? If not, why? Is sport not strong or powerful enough? Otherwise, is there any will in sport to make a difference? Could sport create a set of environmental standards for industry members to follow? If so, who would do this, and what might such standards focus on? If not, is the implication that sports organisations themselves and/or the market should regulate bad environmental practice? In which case, would anything ever change? Or could it be that the environmental problems, global warming, deforestation etc. are nothing to do with sport, and that sports organisations should 'stick to the knitting' i.e. concentrate on playing sport?

A Gayle blowing through the old world

19th Century sport and 21st Century sport have come face-to-face, in the first of what will surely become an increasingly frequent occurrence. West Indian cricketer Chris Gayle arrived late for his country's test match series with England, having travelled straight from the Indian Premier League 20/20 cricket series in which he had been playing. England captain, Andrew Strauss, appears to have questioned Gayle's loyalties, stating in the press that: "You don't want Test cricket to be devalued in any way, shape or form." Gayle retorted in The Guardian stating that: "I wouldn't be so sad [if Test cricket ended]". So, where now? Do we have to accept the inevitable decline and eventual demise of test match cricket? Is the emergence of 20/20 cricket really so important that it will lead to a once great tradition of test match cricket disappearing for good? More importantly, what does the Strauss/Gayle spat tell us about what is going to happen to sport in the 21st Century? Is it simply just a case of two professionals expressing their very different views? Or is it the portent of things to come? At this time in 2109, will people thus be looking back and affectionately remembering the heyday of five-day cricket test matches? Will they be questioning the relevance of 20/20 cricket? Will they be getting to grips with yet another iteration of cricket? Or could it actually be the case that most people ask: what's cricket?

Farewell Ferrari?

The economic downturn was supposed to have been a tipping point, marking the shift to a new era in Formula 1. An era in which the sport responded to the excesses of previous years in an attempt to get its house back in order: lower costs; closer racing; better management; possibly even improved governance were on the agenda. Yet F1 is now on the verge of losing Ferrari: not just a part of the F1 brand, they are arguably part of the tangible product on offer. Instead of a tipping point therefore, did the downturn simply signal the dawning of a new political battle? To what extent might we see a re-configuration of the politics of F1 as a result? What will this re-configuration entail, and how might the process play out? Will the teams (Toyota has threatened to withdraw too) ascend to a new position of power? Or will the governing body, the FIA, seek to assert its power position as the dominant force in F1? And how might the overall introspection associated with internal political struggles impact upon the overall commercial appeal of the sport? At a time when sponsorship budgets around the world are being slashed, and when product rivals are gaining strength, can F1's governors and teams really afford to have such a public argument and potentially fractious split?

Flying by 777

It's good governance and fit-and-proper person time again. In the saga that just won't go away, Richard Scudamore, Chief Executive of the Premier League, has defended the League's governance record by alerting people to an increase in the number of their rules from 322 in 1999, to 777 in 2009. Despite this proliferation of rules, the British government's Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Andy Burnham, remains concerned about: "football's relationship with money". Expect therefore to see further developments and revisions around the Football Association's 'Fit and Proper Person Test', and other such initiatives. The PL must surely be doing enough to address concerns about governance and ownership, isn't it? After all, a more than doubling in the number of regulatory measures has to signal intent and progress on the PL's part, doesn't it? And why is this such a major issue for the current government when progress seems to have been made by the PL? There's also the issue raised in a much earlier posting on this blog: what is it about football that makes people respond so strongly in their comments about governance? For instance, cricket's Alan Stanford scandal still looms large on the sporting horizon, yet few people are making as big a deal about it as they are some far less serious matters in English football. Or is this being naive and simplistic? Are there significant and very different problems in football than there are in cricket? Why is it that we need to get to grips with governance issues in football more than we do in cricket? Is there an historically accumulated legacy of bad practice in football that needs to be overcome? Alternatively, let's consider the issues in a different way: exactly what are the similarities and differences between Allan Stanford and former Manchester City owner, Thaksin Shinawatra?

British bid bonanza

With the 2012 Olympic Games and the 2014 Commonwealth Games already secured by Britain, and a full bid for the 2018 FIFA in preparation, news has emerged today that the British government is also set to back the RFU's bid to host the 2015 Rugby Union World Cup. Exciting times indeed for British sports fans, but why the sudden frenzy of activity in bidding for the right to host such sporting mega-events? Although the British government has publicly claimed that won't stop investing in sport, is the decision to bid for sporting mega-events part of a long-term strategy? In which case, what is the nature and focus of the strategy? What are the goals of it? What resources will underpin behind it? Is there a sense of legacy motivating such bids, or something else? Are sporting mega-events the most appropriate vehicle through which the government can achieve the nation's sporting goals? Do they provide the best value for money? Or are there better, more effective sporting strategies that will help the Britain move sport forward? While national profile may well be enhanced by bidding for and winning the right to stage sporting mega-events, what contribution do they make to attaining broader objectives such as improved public health or an improvement in national well-being? Or is the bid bonanza simply about business and commerce? Either in terms of the net economic benefit that such events can deliver, or does the country simply bid because it can afford to?

Forza Ferrari?

Such has become the fractious nature of relations between Ferrari and the FIA, that rumours have started suggesting that the famous Italian marque will withdraw from F1. Indeed, some commentators are already asking: could F1 survive without Ferrari? Why is there a need to ask such a question when teams, including Alfa Romeo, Lotus and Honda, have come and gone without significant effects on F1? Is Ferrari really so important to the sport? To its global strategy? To the F1 brand? Does the suggestion that the team will withdraw point to fundamental weaknesses in the core product, the tangible product and/or the augmented product that F1 has to offer? In which case, does the internal relationship between the FIA and Ferrari need to be reconfigured? Who is the customer in this relationship, the FIA or Ferrari? And should this customer be king? Ultimately, will power politics actually be the determinant of whether or not Ferrari leaves the sport, rather than the strategic or marketing intentions of either party?

Decline of 20th Century empire

The 2010 Asian Games, which will take place in China, has attracted a record 28 sponsors, who are paying in total more than four times the revenue generated from sponsorship for the last Asian Games (in 2006, in Qatar). And all this, despite the markets for sport sponsorship having collapsed in countries like the US, Britain and Spain. What should we therefore read into the magnitude of sponsorship revenue secured for 2010? Is it a significant commercial opportunity for sponsors to associate themselves with such a sporting event, especially as it is taking place on the world's most populus continent? Or is it a case of sponsorship reflecting relative economic health in a part of the world where the downturn has had a much less profound effect? Is it actually that something much more profound is happening? Is this the next phase in the eastward shift of global sporting power? Are the figures presented above clear evidence that the 20th Century sporting model, in which a North American commercial model of sport came to the fore, is now at an end? Does what is happening signal the final death-knell for the 19th Century socio-cultural, European model of sport? Above all, do the figures confirm that 21st Century sport will be dominated by the emergence and power of an Asian, nation-state model of sport?

Youth's Gunner stop you

A pundit once claimed that football teams win nothing with kids, and this certainly seems to be the case again for Arsenal as they crashed out of the Champions League by losing to Manchester United. But is this really the case? Is the Arsenal squad really too young to win? If so, when will they be old enough, and isn't it conversely the case that: if you are good enough, you are old enough? And can Arsenal be perpetually in a state of transition? Or is something much more complex happening at Arsenal? Is managing a mixture of youth and a multicultural squad simply too much for any manager to deal with? Given that Arsenal has one of the most culturally diverse squads in the Premier League, isn't this the real reason for their lack of success? After all, how can a manager reconcile such a disparate group of people to ensure they are a cohesive and unified group, with a common purpose? To this end, how could the work on cultural differences by theorists such as Hofstede have a major impact on sports teams, especially in football, and how might this affect the level of performance by these teams?

Game on!

So, it's to be FC Barcelona v Manchester United in the UEFA Champions League Final in Rome. Whatever happens on the field will surely be enthralling, but what will be the impact of 70,000+ football fans descending on Rome for the Final?

Think global, act local?

Or vice versa? Could North West Leicestershire District Council scupper the future of the British Grand Prix, bringing the race to an end after decades of being on the F1 calendar? Donnington Park, the proposed venue for the British F1 GP from 2010, and its leaseholder, Simon Gillett, face the threat of planning permission for the circuit being revoked unless certain conditions are met. If they are not met, planning permission could be withheld, the British Grand Prix would be without a home, and the race could be over, and likely to move elsewhere in the world. Could the routine activities of a small local planning committee thus bring to an end to the history of British F1 motor-racing, thereby undermining a motor sports industry that may be worth as much as £50 billion each year to the British economy? If so, is this sporting suicide? Is it an unnecessary waste of British racing heritage? Or is it a victory for (local) democracy in a globalising world of sport? Does it confirm that local action can still counter global power? Will the British government or motor-racing authorities step in to ensure history is preserved? Are there contingencies in place? If so, what are they and how will they be implemented? Or is it best that Britain actually loses its F1 GP to a country and circuit with better facilities in order to sharpen the country's sense of what it had and what it lost? And would this serve as a prompt to the future construction/re-construction of a British motor sport infrastructure that is competitive with and comparable to that in other countries elsewhere in the world?

Sayonara Setanta?

Rumours abound that broadcaster Setanta has less than a month to save itself; unless it can renegotiate contracts that it has with various sports, and bring in new investors, the company may disappear potentially creating problems for a number of sports. Which of these sports are most likely to be hit by the potential disappearance of Setanta, by how much, and in what form? Is the key to the company's future and for sports seeking to ensure that they retain a revenue generating relationship with the broadcaster, for these company's to accept a negotiation down in the financial values of contracts they have with the broadcaster? Or is playing 'hard-ball' (holding Setanta to the deal they have with a sport) the best way forward for a sport, and how might this tactic impact upon a sport's future relationship with Setanta (or perhaps this won't matter if Setanta disappears)? In addition to the micro-management issues of broadcaster/property relations, what are some of the macro-management issues that may emerge if Setanta goes out of business? How might the European Union view the company's demise, especially in sports where broadcast deals would thus be likely to fall into the hands of a small number of rival broadcasters, possibly creating a monopoly situation? And how might the demise contribute to a debacle that could become something akin to ITV Digital's ill-fated involvement in English football back at the start of this decade? Overall, though, given the relative size of Setanta, will its disappearance actually have any significant impact on any sport?

The Sporting Twitterati

Last year, the use of Twitter grew by almost 1000%, with sport often being a major focus for Twitterers. But what relevance and value is Twitter to sport? Is it simply a parallel virtual universe in which people discuss what they would otherwise discuss in bars, in cafes, on the phone etc? Is it merely heightening the sense of rumour, gossip and glamour around sport, thus reinforcing the sporting celebrity culture? Or could there be a much more serious purpose to Twitter? Could skilled data-miners actually interpret the usage of Twitter thereby adding value to the activities of sport organisations? To generate revenue from them? Could Twitter enable sport to better understand its fans? To enhance fan democracy? To foster stronger governance principles? Perhaps Twitter is actually only one in a long-line of virtual innovations that are symbolic of our accelerated 21st century culture, which will make life even more difficult for sport organisations when many already find it difficult to adapt and respond to a rapidly changing operating environment?

This Flu is a swine

As concerns about Swine Flu grow, the presumed Mexican source of the outbreak is starting to have ramifications for the country's sport. Games, competitions and events have been postponed; teams have been prevented from travelling; and athletes associated with the country have been subjected to special measures. For example, the Mexican round of the A1 GP championship has been cancelled; Chilean and Columbian football teams have refused to play Mexican teams in the Copa Libertadores; and England's Arsenal football team effectively placed their Mexican player Carlos Vela in quarantine following his direct contact with some native friends recently arrived in the UK from Mexico. How significant is the risk associated with swine flu and how should sport's risk managers address the problems it is posing/potentially posing? What risk factors are being taken into account by sport managers in, for example, cancelling games? Are the precautionary measures we are seeing emerge a knee-jerk reaction or a calculated decision that takes into account the relative risks of engaging in a relationship with Mexico or Mexicans? What benefits are sport teams likely to fore go in retrenching from relations with Mexico? How will managers retrieve any losses, post-Swine Flu, that will emerge following recent decisions? And, at a time of globalisation, what will Swine Flu teach us about managing sport, and managing risk in sport?

The Magic formula

This weekend, Edinburgh's Murrayfield Stadium will play host to Rugby League's 'Magic' tournament, which will see fourteen teams play each other in seven matches over two days....and all at the same venue. In event management terms, is this a recipe for disaster or success? One would assume that the benefits of hosting such an event for a city like Edinburgh will be significant; what is likely to be the overall economic and commercial impact of the 'Murrayfield Magic' days? And are such benefits likely to be sufficient to prompt other cities in the future to compete with Edinburgh (and former host city, Cardiff) for the right to host the event? Will the event actually deliver a net economic benefit to the city and to the event's organisers? Or will event costs outweigh the benefits, yielding a net economic loss? After all, organising and managing the event must constitute a logistical nightmare? How will crowds be managed? How will the pitch be maintained? How can security be ensured? Won't hotel accommodation be at a premium? Surely there will be problems with congestion? Won't there be diminishing returns associated with the event's benefits and disproportionately higher economic costs? Or, in reality, is Edinburgh actually a great and economically justifiable venue, as the city has hosted such 'mega' events before?

Mambo Italiano

Following a meeting in Italy yesterday, involving current Serie A and Serie B football clubs, it appears that disagreements between the clubs involved will lead to the formation of a new upper-tier Italian league (something akin to the English Premier League). After years of falling crowds, declining TV revenues and poorly managed stadiums, is this the breakthrough that Italian football needs? Strategically, will the Italians be able to recapture some of the ground lost to other European leagues? In what way will the strategy be developed, implemented and managed? If the English Premier League is the benchmark, should it be followed or should a unique, distinctively Italian strategy be formulated? Has Italian football (and its clubs) had a business model in recent years? In which case, how will the proposed initiative impact upon it (them)? Or is the relative decline of Italian football in part due to the absence of a business model? If this is the case, what will will the Italian football business model look like? Like the Premier League's? Like La Liga's? Or like something else? Perhaps the proposed change is nothing more than a false dawn for Italian football, a game beset by social, economic and political problems? And how long will it be before we find out this? Moreover, in the brave new world of Italian football, how will good governance principles be established, how will competitive balance be maintained, and how will equity and fairness across the league structure be preserved?