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?