Basketball ahead in battle for global supremacy?

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

Gates closing for commercial partners in sport

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes on jersey sponsorships in the US

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

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

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

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

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

Fanning emotions

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

http://www.sportsmarketing360.com/

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

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

Naughty by numbers

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

Celebrate good times, come on?

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

End in sight for social undesirables?

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

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

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

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

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

A measure of success

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whistling a bit more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can whistle for it

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

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

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

International affairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The times they are a changing....

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

Love thy neighbour

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

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

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

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

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

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

Franchising the (sponsorship) deal

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

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

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

Posturing and positioning: Clash of the Titans 2

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

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

Two-brand tennis

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

Clash of the titans

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

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

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

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

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

Undercover agents

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

Cheat, cheat, never beat?

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

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

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

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

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

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