The science of (sporting) rumours

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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?