This piece is the Editorial from Volume 2, Issue 3 of the Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal
It is my pleasure to again welcome Professors Harald Dolles and Sten Soderman as Guest Editors of our journal. As in the last volume, Dolles and Soderman present a selection of the best papers that appeared at the European Academy of Management’s (EURAM) Annual Conference (this time from the 2011 conference in Estonia). I would like to extend my thanks to the professors for their continuing support of the journal, and for their excellent work in building the EURAM Special Interest Group ‘Sport as a Business’.
In tandem with sport’s prominence at the EURAM conference, the journal’s growing stature and profile continues to promote the growth of sport business management as a field of research. This growth is both timely and inevitable; a recent study by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) (2011) has estimated that the global sport economy will be worth $145 billion by 2015, reflecting an average growth of rate of 3.7% per annum.
We therefore believe that Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal is both reflecting and contributing to our understanding of growth in the sport industry. Indeed, the contents of this edition are apt, and consistent with the role which the journal is playing. Three of the papers appearing here focus on football, two of them specifically on English football. Deloitte (2011) recently reported that Premier League football revenues recently exceeded £2 billion per annum. Football is big business, therefore requiring careful, well-informed management. The papers presented here address some of the most crucial issues facing the sport, namely efficiency, business practice and the role of senior managers and directors.
As we head towards the summer Olympic Games in London, much has been made of the £10 billion the British have spent on hosting the Games. There has been an ongoing debate about the extent to which the event will yield a lasting legacy for the British economy. This debate has been heightened by the balance of funding between private and public sector providers that has been put together for London. Whether a return is generated remains a moot point until the Games are finally over, although figures from Keynote (2011) show that when the summer Olympic Games was held in Sydney (2000) and Athens (2004), the direct contribution of travel and tourism to gross domestic product (GDP) in Australia and Greece rose by 18.3% and 12%, respectively. Given the nature of such matters, the final two papers here – on public policy sport funding, and financial management – are consistent with and relevant to this public debate.
As this journal prepares to move from three to four issue per volume (from Volume 3 onwards), the compelling evidence noted above reminds us that sport is an industry in its own right, and is therefore worthy of the growing interest in it being shown by academic researchers. Long may EURAM and this journal continue to be an outlet for this growing and increasingly important body of research.
References
Deloitte (2011), Premier League clubs’ revenues exceed £2 billion for the first time in 2009/10, despite the economic downturn, accessed 12th June 2012 from http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/industries/sportsbusinessgroup/sports/football/annual-review-of-football-finance-2011/6b5666645ae60310VgnVCM2000001b56f00aRCRD.htm
Keynote (2012), Olympics 2012: The Economic Impact Market Assessment 2012, accessed 12th June 2012 fromhttp://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/olympics-2012-the-economic-impact-market-assessment-2012-147927585.html
Price Waterhouse Cooper (2011), Outlook for the global sports market to 2015, accessed 12th June 2012 from http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/hospitality-leisure/changing-the-game-outlook-for-the-global-sports-market-to-2015.jhtml
Thursday, 14 November 2013
(SOCIAL) MEDIA CONTENT: SPORT’S NEXT GREAT FRONTIER?
This piece is the Editorial from Volume 2, Issue 2 of the Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal
Over the last decade, the world has seen the emergence and dramatic growth in social media. Such has been the impact of social media, that its pioneers and innovators are now heralded and revered as icons of our age. The sport industry has often been at the forefront of developments; for instance, The Chain, which was part of Nike’s Joga Bonito campaign launched at the time of the 2006 FIFA World Cup, was an early showcase for the way in which consumers could be engaged to generate content for a marketing communications campaign. More recently, several sports teams have begun to actively employ Facebook to the extent that there some organisations now compile sporting league tables of ‘most followed teams’.
According to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), social media is "a group of Internet-based applications that are built on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content." Among the most commonly used and prominent forms of social media are Twitter, Facebook and You Tube. In addition to these forms of social media, there have also been several other significant developments, such as the Huffington Post which is an online newspaper with content generated by its readers.
In one respect, the impact of social media on sport was inevitable, as it has long been held that the relationship between sport and the media is a symbiotic one. Indeed, as the dynamism of the media landscape has intensified over the last two decades, the symbiosis between sport and the media has arguably strengthened as the technology and product portfolios of global media corporations have changed. Accompanying these changes, there have been simultaneous changes in many countries such as the growth of a consumer culture. These changes have, for instance, enhanced the voice of fans; hence, there has been a significant growth in radio phone-in programmes, fanzines, and specialist television programmes.
Yet in spite of the symbiosis, the established relationship been sport and the media has essentially been a bi-directional one, with the media located at the nexus of a network that includes fans, customers, teams, events, venues and governing bodies. At this fundamental level, the emergence of social media has re-configured the nature, scale, and flows within the network. This is already having profound effects on sport, not least in the way that social media enhances democracy, speed and immediacy across the media space.
As a result, instead of fans being distant customers, mediums like Twitter have enabled them to gain direct access to athletes, players, coaches and managers. At the same time, teams and clubs have been able to open themselves up to the world, providing insights they have never been able to provide before. At the same time, sports’ commercial partners have actively begun to leverage social media as a way of activating their relationships with the sector. Even in the case of athletes, many use social media as a means of engaging with fans and as a way of publicly expressing views they might otherwise be unable to express, while some even use social media as a signalling device (as in the case of some professional footballers who have tweeted the availability for transfer on Twitter).
The rapidity of social media’s appearance in the sport industry landscape poses some interesting issues for academic researchers, indeed for applied researchers in the field too. The fields of business and management are replete with research opportunities, especially in terms of conceiving and understanding the new media environment in which sport functions. Researchers should, however, make a cautionary note: fast changing, rapidly evolving technologies can pose some problems, such as the way in which a phenomenon might significantly change over a period of analysis.
Notwithstanding the difficulties in researching social media, there are nevertheless still numerous areas that are likely to be of interest to, and be potentially fruitful for, researchers. Conceiving of the role that social media plays in the business and management of sport would appear to be an obvious and immediate opportunity for researchers working in this field. Beyond this, analysing the strategic (and tactical) role of various social media would inevitably emphasise some interesting issues. For instance, in marketing there is already a widespread acceptance that Twitter and Facebook are effective mechanisms for acquiring and retaining customers. Opinion is still divided nevertheless about how to monetise this form of engagement.
At the same time, it is often claimed that social media is changing the way in which sport organisations operate, by opening them up to their external stakeholders, in a way never previously experienced. For those with an interest in sporting governance or corporate social responsibility, this poses some interesting questions, not least whether social media can affect or has affected a change a change in the way sport organisations operate. Accepting that a change has taken place (or is at least in progress) implies that there are some interesting studies to be undertaken that examine to change process, as well as the outcomes of any such changes. Furthermore, as the dual agenda of good governance and corporate social responsibility continue to prevail, understanding the contribution that social media makes to both would make for an interesting study.
There are several other areas of business and management in which social media in sport could be researched and analysed; for example, in organisation behaviour, management information systems, human resource management and so forth. But for the purposes of this one of the more intriguing aspects of social media is the way in which it potentially serves as a signalling mechanism. In recent case from English football, a Premier League player used Twitter to signal his availability for transfer to another club. Such a move was highly unusual, circumventing the normal process for alerting clubs to one’s availability, while also negating the role that agents might normal fulfil in such situations. Why social media is being used in this way, and how it influences labour market dynamics, signalling activities, human resource management strategy and the role of intermediaries all represent highly intriguing research opportunities.
While some may dismiss the growing prominence of social media as merely fad and fashion, it rapid proliferation strongly suggests otherwise. As such, there are clear issues for sport, which should be embraced by sport business and management researchers, and which should therefore stimulate new and exciting research themes in sport. One hopes that readers of this journal will become part of this important new area of research and duly make appropriate future submissions to our journal.
Over the last decade, the world has seen the emergence and dramatic growth in social media. Such has been the impact of social media, that its pioneers and innovators are now heralded and revered as icons of our age. The sport industry has often been at the forefront of developments; for instance, The Chain, which was part of Nike’s Joga Bonito campaign launched at the time of the 2006 FIFA World Cup, was an early showcase for the way in which consumers could be engaged to generate content for a marketing communications campaign. More recently, several sports teams have begun to actively employ Facebook to the extent that there some organisations now compile sporting league tables of ‘most followed teams’.
According to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), social media is "a group of Internet-based applications that are built on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content." Among the most commonly used and prominent forms of social media are Twitter, Facebook and You Tube. In addition to these forms of social media, there have also been several other significant developments, such as the Huffington Post which is an online newspaper with content generated by its readers.
In one respect, the impact of social media on sport was inevitable, as it has long been held that the relationship between sport and the media is a symbiotic one. Indeed, as the dynamism of the media landscape has intensified over the last two decades, the symbiosis between sport and the media has arguably strengthened as the technology and product portfolios of global media corporations have changed. Accompanying these changes, there have been simultaneous changes in many countries such as the growth of a consumer culture. These changes have, for instance, enhanced the voice of fans; hence, there has been a significant growth in radio phone-in programmes, fanzines, and specialist television programmes.
Yet in spite of the symbiosis, the established relationship been sport and the media has essentially been a bi-directional one, with the media located at the nexus of a network that includes fans, customers, teams, events, venues and governing bodies. At this fundamental level, the emergence of social media has re-configured the nature, scale, and flows within the network. This is already having profound effects on sport, not least in the way that social media enhances democracy, speed and immediacy across the media space.
As a result, instead of fans being distant customers, mediums like Twitter have enabled them to gain direct access to athletes, players, coaches and managers. At the same time, teams and clubs have been able to open themselves up to the world, providing insights they have never been able to provide before. At the same time, sports’ commercial partners have actively begun to leverage social media as a way of activating their relationships with the sector. Even in the case of athletes, many use social media as a means of engaging with fans and as a way of publicly expressing views they might otherwise be unable to express, while some even use social media as a signalling device (as in the case of some professional footballers who have tweeted the availability for transfer on Twitter).
The rapidity of social media’s appearance in the sport industry landscape poses some interesting issues for academic researchers, indeed for applied researchers in the field too. The fields of business and management are replete with research opportunities, especially in terms of conceiving and understanding the new media environment in which sport functions. Researchers should, however, make a cautionary note: fast changing, rapidly evolving technologies can pose some problems, such as the way in which a phenomenon might significantly change over a period of analysis.
Notwithstanding the difficulties in researching social media, there are nevertheless still numerous areas that are likely to be of interest to, and be potentially fruitful for, researchers. Conceiving of the role that social media plays in the business and management of sport would appear to be an obvious and immediate opportunity for researchers working in this field. Beyond this, analysing the strategic (and tactical) role of various social media would inevitably emphasise some interesting issues. For instance, in marketing there is already a widespread acceptance that Twitter and Facebook are effective mechanisms for acquiring and retaining customers. Opinion is still divided nevertheless about how to monetise this form of engagement.
At the same time, it is often claimed that social media is changing the way in which sport organisations operate, by opening them up to their external stakeholders, in a way never previously experienced. For those with an interest in sporting governance or corporate social responsibility, this poses some interesting questions, not least whether social media can affect or has affected a change a change in the way sport organisations operate. Accepting that a change has taken place (or is at least in progress) implies that there are some interesting studies to be undertaken that examine to change process, as well as the outcomes of any such changes. Furthermore, as the dual agenda of good governance and corporate social responsibility continue to prevail, understanding the contribution that social media makes to both would make for an interesting study.
There are several other areas of business and management in which social media in sport could be researched and analysed; for example, in organisation behaviour, management information systems, human resource management and so forth. But for the purposes of this one of the more intriguing aspects of social media is the way in which it potentially serves as a signalling mechanism. In recent case from English football, a Premier League player used Twitter to signal his availability for transfer to another club. Such a move was highly unusual, circumventing the normal process for alerting clubs to one’s availability, while also negating the role that agents might normal fulfil in such situations. Why social media is being used in this way, and how it influences labour market dynamics, signalling activities, human resource management strategy and the role of intermediaries all represent highly intriguing research opportunities.
While some may dismiss the growing prominence of social media as merely fad and fashion, it rapid proliferation strongly suggests otherwise. As such, there are clear issues for sport, which should be embraced by sport business and management researchers, and which should therefore stimulate new and exciting research themes in sport. One hopes that readers of this journal will become part of this important new area of research and duly make appropriate future submissions to our journal.
SPORT BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT RESEARCH IN THE 21ST CENTURY: HEADING FROM WEST TO EAST?
This piece is the Editorial from Volume 2, Issue 1 of the Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal
If one looks back to the 19th century, the history of sport during this era was one of European pre-eminence. During this era, sports such as football developed through custom and practice, and were later codified to become the basis of sports that are stilled played today. Several sporting mega-events, like cycling’s Tour de France, were also a product of the era, and many are still staged even today. The way in which sport in the 19th and early 20th centuries emerged, effectively enforced distinctive modes of research and analysis. Studies often stressed the historic, socio-cultural, and philosophical foundations of sport, with disciplines such as sociology prospering as vehicles through which contemporary sporting phenomena could be examined.
As the 20th century progressed, a North American model of sport emerged, initially paralleling the European model. Latterly, this model appeared to transcend the European model leading to the development of a business and managerial focus on sport. Underpinned by strategic intent and commercial purpose sport in North America, rather than reflecting custom and practice, was reflected operating considerations such as the sale of rights, and the notion of fans as customers. It is within such a tradition that this journal emerged, reflecting a prevailing paradigm that pervades across many sports (but which has still to have a profound or meaningful impact on others).
Yet while some sports, and the organisations within them, continue to grapple with the ramifications of sport’s 20th century model, a new model appears to be emerging. Some might be surprised by the emergence of this model, while some may dismiss it as a mirage rather than a meaningful reality. However, I predict that the 21st century will see the emergence and eventual dominance of an Asian model of sport. This will have serious ramifications for journals such as this publication, but also for the areas of sport in which we engage in research, and also in terms of the methodologies, tools and techniques employed by researchers.
We already have ample evidence that this is happening: for instance, the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing was notable not just for the financial commitment of the Chinese government to the event, but also for the way in which a sporting mega-event became the focal point for the re-branding and symbolic re-birth of a nation. More recently, Qatar has won the right to stage the 2022 FIFA World Cup, an achievement that signifies how important the Asian model is becoming.
The Qatari experience is an interesting one: just as some countries may seek to invest in manufacturing, electronics or tourism as the basis for building and sustaining economic activity, so the Qatari government has adopted sport as a central strategic pillar. By investing in this way, Qatari is creating foundations for the development of civic infrastructure such as roads, houses, shops and industrial areas. In parallel, sport is simultaneously being used to boost participation in sport amongst the population, improve health and lifestyles, promote social cohesion, enable the generation of country branding opportunities, and provide the basis for international networking and political influence. There is also the intention too that the new and emerging Asian model of sport will produce the kind of elite athletes that could propel Asian countries to the top of leader boards across the sporting world. The nature and scale of state intervention in sport does not, nevertheless, preclude the continuing global commercial development of sport, and so we are witnessing the on-going development of issues in the business and management of sport. Indeed, Qatar’s first sport hedge-fund has recently been set-up, with the purpose of analysing global sporting investment opportunities.
The 21st century is thus witnessing the emergence of a new sporting model, and this will inevitably impact upon the nature, focus and delivery of sport research in the years to come. What the specific impacts will be is currently difficult to precisely identify, but given the nexus of different goals and the multi-institutional nature of emerging developments, one should expect to see network perspectives of sport continue to develop and flourish. Moreover, studies emphasising the embedded context of relationships in sport are also likely to enjoy some degree of prominence. At the same time, research undertaken from various stakeholder perspectives is likely, presumably accompanied by examinations of how the needs and expectations of these stakeholders are reconciled. One should also expect to see associated developments in methodology; as the United States has dominated sport, so too has research built upon a North American positivist tradition. One suspects that this tradition will continue to prevail for some time yet, especially given the global appetite for quantitative data. If one considers issues in measuring, for example, the intangible impact of sporting investments on country brands, the further importance of quantitative data analysis should not be under-estimated. However, such is the nature of an activity such as country branding, that qualitative and mixed-method approaches to research should not be underestimated.
And so, as we move deeper into the 21st century, emerging trends already indicate that this will be a very different sporting century to those we have encountered over the last 200 years. Whether these changes lead to on-field successes at major sporting events remains a moot point. However, off the field, it is anticipated that Asia and its sporting model will fundamentally change the way in which we observe, research and analyse sport in the coming years.
If one looks back to the 19th century, the history of sport during this era was one of European pre-eminence. During this era, sports such as football developed through custom and practice, and were later codified to become the basis of sports that are stilled played today. Several sporting mega-events, like cycling’s Tour de France, were also a product of the era, and many are still staged even today. The way in which sport in the 19th and early 20th centuries emerged, effectively enforced distinctive modes of research and analysis. Studies often stressed the historic, socio-cultural, and philosophical foundations of sport, with disciplines such as sociology prospering as vehicles through which contemporary sporting phenomena could be examined.
As the 20th century progressed, a North American model of sport emerged, initially paralleling the European model. Latterly, this model appeared to transcend the European model leading to the development of a business and managerial focus on sport. Underpinned by strategic intent and commercial purpose sport in North America, rather than reflecting custom and practice, was reflected operating considerations such as the sale of rights, and the notion of fans as customers. It is within such a tradition that this journal emerged, reflecting a prevailing paradigm that pervades across many sports (but which has still to have a profound or meaningful impact on others).
Yet while some sports, and the organisations within them, continue to grapple with the ramifications of sport’s 20th century model, a new model appears to be emerging. Some might be surprised by the emergence of this model, while some may dismiss it as a mirage rather than a meaningful reality. However, I predict that the 21st century will see the emergence and eventual dominance of an Asian model of sport. This will have serious ramifications for journals such as this publication, but also for the areas of sport in which we engage in research, and also in terms of the methodologies, tools and techniques employed by researchers.
We already have ample evidence that this is happening: for instance, the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing was notable not just for the financial commitment of the Chinese government to the event, but also for the way in which a sporting mega-event became the focal point for the re-branding and symbolic re-birth of a nation. More recently, Qatar has won the right to stage the 2022 FIFA World Cup, an achievement that signifies how important the Asian model is becoming.
The Qatari experience is an interesting one: just as some countries may seek to invest in manufacturing, electronics or tourism as the basis for building and sustaining economic activity, so the Qatari government has adopted sport as a central strategic pillar. By investing in this way, Qatari is creating foundations for the development of civic infrastructure such as roads, houses, shops and industrial areas. In parallel, sport is simultaneously being used to boost participation in sport amongst the population, improve health and lifestyles, promote social cohesion, enable the generation of country branding opportunities, and provide the basis for international networking and political influence. There is also the intention too that the new and emerging Asian model of sport will produce the kind of elite athletes that could propel Asian countries to the top of leader boards across the sporting world. The nature and scale of state intervention in sport does not, nevertheless, preclude the continuing global commercial development of sport, and so we are witnessing the on-going development of issues in the business and management of sport. Indeed, Qatar’s first sport hedge-fund has recently been set-up, with the purpose of analysing global sporting investment opportunities.
The 21st century is thus witnessing the emergence of a new sporting model, and this will inevitably impact upon the nature, focus and delivery of sport research in the years to come. What the specific impacts will be is currently difficult to precisely identify, but given the nexus of different goals and the multi-institutional nature of emerging developments, one should expect to see network perspectives of sport continue to develop and flourish. Moreover, studies emphasising the embedded context of relationships in sport are also likely to enjoy some degree of prominence. At the same time, research undertaken from various stakeholder perspectives is likely, presumably accompanied by examinations of how the needs and expectations of these stakeholders are reconciled. One should also expect to see associated developments in methodology; as the United States has dominated sport, so too has research built upon a North American positivist tradition. One suspects that this tradition will continue to prevail for some time yet, especially given the global appetite for quantitative data. If one considers issues in measuring, for example, the intangible impact of sporting investments on country brands, the further importance of quantitative data analysis should not be under-estimated. However, such is the nature of an activity such as country branding, that qualitative and mixed-method approaches to research should not be underestimated.
And so, as we move deeper into the 21st century, emerging trends already indicate that this will be a very different sporting century to those we have encountered over the last 200 years. Whether these changes lead to on-field successes at major sporting events remains a moot point. However, off the field, it is anticipated that Asia and its sporting model will fundamentally change the way in which we observe, research and analyse sport in the coming years.
THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF SPORT: OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESEARCH IN THE FIELD
This piece is the Editorial from Volume 1, Issue 2 of the Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal
In the inaugural edition of this journal, it was argued that the development of sport, its size and scale, and its unique features have necessitated the introduction of a journal of this nature. Readers will recall that a broad-range of areas was identified as being potentially fruitful areas for the development of existing, or the development of new, research streams.
For researchers considering sport as a research field (indeed, also for those already working in the field), building upon observations made in the inaugural editorial will hopefully bring further clarity to the opportunities that exist in sport business management research. To begin with, it is worthwhile identifying what makes sport different to other industrial sectors. While there are some unique and highly specific industrial characteristics in sport, it is these characteristics in combination with several others that make sport research a compelling and important proposition. By understanding them, one therefore anticipates that researchers can build appropriate research:
• Uncertainty of outcome – in an age where many industries and products emphasise uniformity of standards, the essence of sport, the heart of the industry and the core product in sport are all based around the uncertain outcome to a competitive contest involving individuals or teams. Hence, not knowing who will win a game or a race is what defines competitive sport and imbues it with the strengths and qualities that consumers and organisations find attractive;
• Competitive balance – in order to maximise the uncertainty of outcome, sport requires evenly balanced competitors. In this way, there is a more equal chance of two individuals or two teams winning a contest. In this case, the outcome of a contest is more unpredictable, and the ensuing contests are therefore more likely to closely contested thus producing more excitement, tension and interest amongst various stakeholders;
• Product-led industry – the prevailing philosophy in many industries is that organisations should be market-led and customer-focused. In sport, the history and socio-cultural embeddedness of the industry dictates that the core product, the competitive contest, drives industrial activity. The extent to which such industrial norms and conventions can or should be challenged, is an interesting point that has recently been challenged by the emergence of short-format sports such as 20/20 cricket, and by the creation of new sports such as the X-Games;
• Coordination, cooperation and collaboration – the notion and significance of ‘collaborating to compete’ and is firmly established across the industrial landscape, but in sport collaboration, coordination and cooperation are enforced rather than being a strategic choice. That is, groups of individuals or organisations need to work together in order to create competitions, and in turn enact competitive contests. As such, ‘collaborating to compete’ is a component of the sport industry’s existence and continuing development, rather than a way of ensuring an organisation’s commercial success in the market place;
• Limited organisational control over product – as with other industries, sport is subject to local, national and international laws that will dictate the rights and responsibilities of organisations within the industry. Yet sport is also exposed to externally imposed sets of laws, regulations and operating criteria that other industries do not have. For instance, the core product specification (i.e. the competitive contest, its duration and its format), are not within the control of individual organisations, clubs or individuals. This effectively removes a series of variables from being within the control of institutional decision-makers, therefore limiting their scope to attain competitive advantage;
• Performance measurement – normal measures of performance evident in other industries, including profitability, turnover and so forth, are also evident in sport, increasingly so in some specific cases. However, sports are subjected to other performance measures that expose the industry to unparalleled and unique levels of scrutiny. League tables, rankings, medal tallies, as well as athlete analytics, bring an additional level of scrutiny and performance measurement. Adding to the distinctiveness of sport, the contradiction between on-field and off-field measures of performance are also often problematic, adding further complications to decision-making and management;
• Fans (customers) are producers & consumers – whenever a customer in an industry such as engineering or financial services makes a product selection decision, they are motivated by an array of factors that often have much in common. But there are two features of these motives that again highlight sport as being different to other industries. Firstly, the importance of other people at the point of consumption is unnecessary; secondly, consumers essentially have a singular role, that is as people who buy and use a product. In sport, customers are both consumers and producers; they not only purchase and consume the product, they also help to create the interest, intensity, atmosphere and rivalry which gives strength to the core product in sport;
• Symbiotic relationship with media – sport provides various media platforms with the content they to deliver products to customers across the world. At the same time, such content provides sport with a level of exposure that ensures it is constantly in the public domain. As such, this symbiotic relationship is self-perpetuating, in a way that is not evident in other industrial sectors.
In combination, these factors mean that sport is distinct from many other industries and products, even those with which sport may share some similarities and characteristics.
In the inaugural edition of this journal, it was argued that the development of sport, its size and scale, and its unique features have necessitated the introduction of a journal of this nature. Readers will recall that a broad-range of areas was identified as being potentially fruitful areas for the development of existing, or the development of new, research streams.
For researchers considering sport as a research field (indeed, also for those already working in the field), building upon observations made in the inaugural editorial will hopefully bring further clarity to the opportunities that exist in sport business management research. To begin with, it is worthwhile identifying what makes sport different to other industrial sectors. While there are some unique and highly specific industrial characteristics in sport, it is these characteristics in combination with several others that make sport research a compelling and important proposition. By understanding them, one therefore anticipates that researchers can build appropriate research:
• Uncertainty of outcome – in an age where many industries and products emphasise uniformity of standards, the essence of sport, the heart of the industry and the core product in sport are all based around the uncertain outcome to a competitive contest involving individuals or teams. Hence, not knowing who will win a game or a race is what defines competitive sport and imbues it with the strengths and qualities that consumers and organisations find attractive;
• Competitive balance – in order to maximise the uncertainty of outcome, sport requires evenly balanced competitors. In this way, there is a more equal chance of two individuals or two teams winning a contest. In this case, the outcome of a contest is more unpredictable, and the ensuing contests are therefore more likely to closely contested thus producing more excitement, tension and interest amongst various stakeholders;
• Product-led industry – the prevailing philosophy in many industries is that organisations should be market-led and customer-focused. In sport, the history and socio-cultural embeddedness of the industry dictates that the core product, the competitive contest, drives industrial activity. The extent to which such industrial norms and conventions can or should be challenged, is an interesting point that has recently been challenged by the emergence of short-format sports such as 20/20 cricket, and by the creation of new sports such as the X-Games;
• Coordination, cooperation and collaboration – the notion and significance of ‘collaborating to compete’ and is firmly established across the industrial landscape, but in sport collaboration, coordination and cooperation are enforced rather than being a strategic choice. That is, groups of individuals or organisations need to work together in order to create competitions, and in turn enact competitive contests. As such, ‘collaborating to compete’ is a component of the sport industry’s existence and continuing development, rather than a way of ensuring an organisation’s commercial success in the market place;
• Limited organisational control over product – as with other industries, sport is subject to local, national and international laws that will dictate the rights and responsibilities of organisations within the industry. Yet sport is also exposed to externally imposed sets of laws, regulations and operating criteria that other industries do not have. For instance, the core product specification (i.e. the competitive contest, its duration and its format), are not within the control of individual organisations, clubs or individuals. This effectively removes a series of variables from being within the control of institutional decision-makers, therefore limiting their scope to attain competitive advantage;
• Performance measurement – normal measures of performance evident in other industries, including profitability, turnover and so forth, are also evident in sport, increasingly so in some specific cases. However, sports are subjected to other performance measures that expose the industry to unparalleled and unique levels of scrutiny. League tables, rankings, medal tallies, as well as athlete analytics, bring an additional level of scrutiny and performance measurement. Adding to the distinctiveness of sport, the contradiction between on-field and off-field measures of performance are also often problematic, adding further complications to decision-making and management;
• Fans (customers) are producers & consumers – whenever a customer in an industry such as engineering or financial services makes a product selection decision, they are motivated by an array of factors that often have much in common. But there are two features of these motives that again highlight sport as being different to other industries. Firstly, the importance of other people at the point of consumption is unnecessary; secondly, consumers essentially have a singular role, that is as people who buy and use a product. In sport, customers are both consumers and producers; they not only purchase and consume the product, they also help to create the interest, intensity, atmosphere and rivalry which gives strength to the core product in sport;
• Symbiotic relationship with media – sport provides various media platforms with the content they to deliver products to customers across the world. At the same time, such content provides sport with a level of exposure that ensures it is constantly in the public domain. As such, this symbiotic relationship is self-perpetuating, in a way that is not evident in other industrial sectors.
In combination, these factors mean that sport is distinct from many other industries and products, even those with which sport may share some similarities and characteristics.
SPORT STEPS UP TO TAKE THE INSIDE TRACK
This piece is the Editorial from Volume 1, Issue 1 of the Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal
In preparing the editorial for this first edition of ‘Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal’, for inspiration I decided to reflect upon the latest sports news, as well as some of the more pressing issues facing sport at the time. As a regular user of Twitter, I am exposed to a relentless flow of news stories that not only reflect our popular obsession with sport, but also, increasingly, the business and management of it. Even as I typed, a story was breaking that FIFA was planning to abandon its agent licensing regulations because globally little more than 30% of football transfers are concluded by licensed agents. This story alone is loaded with business and management issues: from regulation and intervention, to representation and jurisdiction, to human resource management and governance.
At this time too, the Ryder Cup had just concluded, with discussions predominating about the economic impact the tournament had had in the southern part of Wales where it took place. The consequences of torrential rain for the event had been at the forefront of discussions, with several clothing companies reporting an upsurge in business as a result of the downpours. Further east, the Delhi Commonwealth Games organisers were having to deal with a multitude of problems including management of the media and public relations; issues in project and risk management; concerns about competition rules; issues in health management; and more general concerns about overall event management. While India tried to get to grips with its problems, Manchester United’s Wayne Rooney was dealing with the consequences of his reportedly deviant behaviour, which had been widely reported across the media. Following Tiger Woods’ misdemeanours, the notion of athlete transgression is something that has entered into the public consciousness, especially in the way that it affects people’s brand perceptions and purchases behaviours. As a consequence, sponsors, lawyers and brands are thinking much more carefully about how endorsements are organised, managed and evaluated. It is interesting that, while one sponsor (Coca Cola) decided to drop Rooney as an endorsement property, another (EA Sports) has continued with him as a lead in its television advertising of a new console game.
While the above examples are by no means intended to be a defining statement about this journal’s scope, they do provide an indication of the market space in which the journal is positioning itself. Sport clearly fulfils a number of roles, some of which may be predominantly historical, socio-cultural, related to the natural sciences, an element of health and participation, or connected to matters of social cohesion. However, ‘Sport, Business and Management’ is deliberately intended to specifically address the growth of sport as a business and the practice of management within this context. Clearly and inevitably, there will be interdisciplinary links between, for instance, the business of sport and culture. The intention is nevertheless that this journal will be at the forefront both of facilitating a further development in the community working in the area of sport business management, and of developing a high-quality, research-driven body of knowledge that establishes sport business management as a respected field.
The arrival of ‘Sport, Business and Management’ is the direct result of a successful sport special which was published in the Emerald journal, Management Decision (2009). Thirteen papers appeared in the special edition, covering areas such as corporate citizenship, benchmarking, consumer behaviour, market dynamics, remuneration and reward, and loyalty. In turn, these studies were undertaken in football, American football, cricket, the Olympic Games and public-sector sport provision. The breadth, diversity and quality of the papers was such, that it clearly signalled a bright future for sport-related research, and also for the potential success of this journal here.
As if further proof was needed to demonstrate the significance of 21st century sport, it is worthwhile noting that estimates indicate that sport may account for as much as 3% of global economic activity. In the UK alone, sport is thought to be worth £17 billion ($27 billion) per annum to the nation’s economy, with around 441,000 people (around 2% of the total workforce) being identified as working in sport (Sport Industry Research Centre, 2010). The UK motorsports industry alone is thought annually to generate approximately £5 billion worth of economic activity. Export earnings from the industry are estimated as being in the region of £2 billion per annum, 2200 companies are thought to generate 50% of their sales from motorsports (UK Motorsport Industry Association, 2010). Further reinforcing the case, readers are also invited to consider the following: that America’s NFL Superbowl is thought to be the world’s most valuable sport event brand, worth $420 million (Forbes, 2010a); that Manchester United is the world’s most valuable sports team brand, worth $270 million (Forbes, 2010b); and that Nike is the world’s most valuable sports brand, worth $10.7 billion (Forbes, 2010c). Fertile ground indeed for sport business and management researchers.
Set against the backdrop of a rapidly expanding and increasingly dynamic sport industry, the market space in which this journal is positioned, and the growing interest in sport research, ‘Sport, Business and Management’ therefore intends to create opportunities for researchers in the following areas:
• Studies which address issues that are distinctive and unique to the sport industry e.g. based around the uncertainty of outcome, or around media relations;
• Studies which apply existing business and management theory to the sport industry e.g. based around athlete motivation, or around financial management;
• Studies which adopt sport as the basis for creating analogies or comparisons that able a better understanding of other industries to be developed e.g. around issues of team building, or around issues of building customer loyalty.
In a paper entitled ‘From outside lane to inside track: sport management research in the twenty-first century’, which I had published in a sport special edition of Management Decision (Chadwick, 2009), I identified several areas in which researchers might carry out further sport, business and management studies. These are reproduced again here in Table 1 as they help to define the focus of this journal, while potentially helping researchers to identify research opportunities. Readers should nevertheless also be aware that the papers appearing in this inaugural edition are also intended to be representative of the nature and type of papers we will be publishing in this journal in issues to come.
In this context, this inaugural edition of the journal not only falls within the above parameters that we have set for the journal, it also sets a benchmark for the breadth, depth and standard of papers that will appear in future editions. To begin with, we present a paper by Burnes, entitled ‘What Business Leaders Can Learn From Sport’. This is an entirely apt first paper as it simultaneously acknowledges the special characteristics of sport and the impact that sport can have on other industrial sectors. At the same time, the paper helps in defining some of the parameters regarding the impact that other industrial sectors can have on sport.
References
Chadwick, S. (2009), From outside lane to inside track: sport management research in the twenty-first century, Management Decision, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 191-203.
Forbes, (2010a), World’s Most Valuable Sport Event Brand, Forbes Magazine, accessed 15th March 2010 from http://www.forbes.com/global/2010/0315/companies-olympics-superbowl-daytona-worlds-top-sports-events.html
Forbes, (2010b), World’s Most Valuable Sports Team Brand, Forbes Magazine, accessed 18th May 2010 from http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/17/most-valuable-sports-team-brands-business-sports-brands.html
Forbes, (2010c), World’s Most Valuable Sports Brand, Forbes Magazine, accessed 3rd February 2010 from http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/03/most-powerful-sports-names-tiger-woods-nike-cmo-network-sports-brands.html
Management Decision (2009), Special Issue: Taking Sport Seriously, Vol. 47, No. 1.
Sport Industry Research Centre (2010), Sport Market Forecasts, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.
UK Motorsport Industry Association (2010), UK Motorsport Industry – definitive reliable statistics, accessed 30th September 2010 from http://www.the-mia.com/UK-Motorsport-Industry---definitive-reliable-statistics
In preparing the editorial for this first edition of ‘Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal’, for inspiration I decided to reflect upon the latest sports news, as well as some of the more pressing issues facing sport at the time. As a regular user of Twitter, I am exposed to a relentless flow of news stories that not only reflect our popular obsession with sport, but also, increasingly, the business and management of it. Even as I typed, a story was breaking that FIFA was planning to abandon its agent licensing regulations because globally little more than 30% of football transfers are concluded by licensed agents. This story alone is loaded with business and management issues: from regulation and intervention, to representation and jurisdiction, to human resource management and governance.
At this time too, the Ryder Cup had just concluded, with discussions predominating about the economic impact the tournament had had in the southern part of Wales where it took place. The consequences of torrential rain for the event had been at the forefront of discussions, with several clothing companies reporting an upsurge in business as a result of the downpours. Further east, the Delhi Commonwealth Games organisers were having to deal with a multitude of problems including management of the media and public relations; issues in project and risk management; concerns about competition rules; issues in health management; and more general concerns about overall event management. While India tried to get to grips with its problems, Manchester United’s Wayne Rooney was dealing with the consequences of his reportedly deviant behaviour, which had been widely reported across the media. Following Tiger Woods’ misdemeanours, the notion of athlete transgression is something that has entered into the public consciousness, especially in the way that it affects people’s brand perceptions and purchases behaviours. As a consequence, sponsors, lawyers and brands are thinking much more carefully about how endorsements are organised, managed and evaluated. It is interesting that, while one sponsor (Coca Cola) decided to drop Rooney as an endorsement property, another (EA Sports) has continued with him as a lead in its television advertising of a new console game.
While the above examples are by no means intended to be a defining statement about this journal’s scope, they do provide an indication of the market space in which the journal is positioning itself. Sport clearly fulfils a number of roles, some of which may be predominantly historical, socio-cultural, related to the natural sciences, an element of health and participation, or connected to matters of social cohesion. However, ‘Sport, Business and Management’ is deliberately intended to specifically address the growth of sport as a business and the practice of management within this context. Clearly and inevitably, there will be interdisciplinary links between, for instance, the business of sport and culture. The intention is nevertheless that this journal will be at the forefront both of facilitating a further development in the community working in the area of sport business management, and of developing a high-quality, research-driven body of knowledge that establishes sport business management as a respected field.
The arrival of ‘Sport, Business and Management’ is the direct result of a successful sport special which was published in the Emerald journal, Management Decision (2009). Thirteen papers appeared in the special edition, covering areas such as corporate citizenship, benchmarking, consumer behaviour, market dynamics, remuneration and reward, and loyalty. In turn, these studies were undertaken in football, American football, cricket, the Olympic Games and public-sector sport provision. The breadth, diversity and quality of the papers was such, that it clearly signalled a bright future for sport-related research, and also for the potential success of this journal here.
As if further proof was needed to demonstrate the significance of 21st century sport, it is worthwhile noting that estimates indicate that sport may account for as much as 3% of global economic activity. In the UK alone, sport is thought to be worth £17 billion ($27 billion) per annum to the nation’s economy, with around 441,000 people (around 2% of the total workforce) being identified as working in sport (Sport Industry Research Centre, 2010). The UK motorsports industry alone is thought annually to generate approximately £5 billion worth of economic activity. Export earnings from the industry are estimated as being in the region of £2 billion per annum, 2200 companies are thought to generate 50% of their sales from motorsports (UK Motorsport Industry Association, 2010). Further reinforcing the case, readers are also invited to consider the following: that America’s NFL Superbowl is thought to be the world’s most valuable sport event brand, worth $420 million (Forbes, 2010a); that Manchester United is the world’s most valuable sports team brand, worth $270 million (Forbes, 2010b); and that Nike is the world’s most valuable sports brand, worth $10.7 billion (Forbes, 2010c). Fertile ground indeed for sport business and management researchers.
Set against the backdrop of a rapidly expanding and increasingly dynamic sport industry, the market space in which this journal is positioned, and the growing interest in sport research, ‘Sport, Business and Management’ therefore intends to create opportunities for researchers in the following areas:
• Studies which address issues that are distinctive and unique to the sport industry e.g. based around the uncertainty of outcome, or around media relations;
• Studies which apply existing business and management theory to the sport industry e.g. based around athlete motivation, or around financial management;
• Studies which adopt sport as the basis for creating analogies or comparisons that able a better understanding of other industries to be developed e.g. around issues of team building, or around issues of building customer loyalty.
In a paper entitled ‘From outside lane to inside track: sport management research in the twenty-first century’, which I had published in a sport special edition of Management Decision (Chadwick, 2009), I identified several areas in which researchers might carry out further sport, business and management studies. These are reproduced again here in Table 1 as they help to define the focus of this journal, while potentially helping researchers to identify research opportunities. Readers should nevertheless also be aware that the papers appearing in this inaugural edition are also intended to be representative of the nature and type of papers we will be publishing in this journal in issues to come.
In this context, this inaugural edition of the journal not only falls within the above parameters that we have set for the journal, it also sets a benchmark for the breadth, depth and standard of papers that will appear in future editions. To begin with, we present a paper by Burnes, entitled ‘What Business Leaders Can Learn From Sport’. This is an entirely apt first paper as it simultaneously acknowledges the special characteristics of sport and the impact that sport can have on other industrial sectors. At the same time, the paper helps in defining some of the parameters regarding the impact that other industrial sectors can have on sport.
References
Chadwick, S. (2009), From outside lane to inside track: sport management research in the twenty-first century, Management Decision, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 191-203.
Forbes, (2010a), World’s Most Valuable Sport Event Brand, Forbes Magazine, accessed 15th March 2010 from http://www.forbes.com/global/2010/0315/companies-olympics-superbowl-daytona-worlds-top-sports-events.html
Forbes, (2010b), World’s Most Valuable Sports Team Brand, Forbes Magazine, accessed 18th May 2010 from http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/17/most-valuable-sports-team-brands-business-sports-brands.html
Forbes, (2010c), World’s Most Valuable Sports Brand, Forbes Magazine, accessed 3rd February 2010 from http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/03/most-powerful-sports-names-tiger-woods-nike-cmo-network-sports-brands.html
Management Decision (2009), Special Issue: Taking Sport Seriously, Vol. 47, No. 1.
Sport Industry Research Centre (2010), Sport Market Forecasts, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.
UK Motorsport Industry Association (2010), UK Motorsport Industry – definitive reliable statistics, accessed 30th September 2010 from http://www.the-mia.com/UK-Motorsport-Industry---definitive-reliable-statistics
Wednesday, 13 November 2013
THE PARADOX OF PERFORMANCE AND OTHER SPORTING CONUNDRUMS
This piece is the Editorial from Volume 3, Issue 2 of the Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal
As we draw to the close of one sporting year and head towards the start of the next, there is simultaneously deep reflection on the year just gone and feverish anticipation of what is to come. Annual award ceremonies abound for those athletes, teams, coaches, managers and officials who have performed best over the last twelve months. At the same time, cyclists, racing drivers, tennis players and others are training ahead of a new season, honing their skills and technique in order to improve on last season’s performances. Inevitably, athletes, teams and sport fans will view winning as the ultimate performance, but in reality many will have to accept something other than winning as an ultimate outcome. In which case, ‘performance’ and its improvement become relative concepts and rather more complex than many might imagine. For a journal of this nature, this raises some interesting issues.
At its most fundamental, one has to ask what performance, more specifically ‘good performance’, actually is, and does performing well always mean having to win? Indeed, this raises some pertinent questions about how, where and on what basis athletes, teams and other sporting organisations ‘perform well’. Consider the case of Real Madrid, FC Barcelona and Manchester United, arguably the three best performing teams in world football over the last couple of decades, having won competitions across the world. Yet consider too their financial performances: currently, these three clubs are the largest financial debtors in world football. This apparent paradox raises some interesting issues, not least the implication that on-field performance and financial performance are inversely related to one another. That said, managers at Bayern Munich or Arsenal might well disagree with such a hypothesis because their financial prudence has not necessarily brought these clubs the level of playing success achieved by the aforementioned three clubs. Critics of recent developments at football clubs like Manchester City and Malaga CF might also question the hypothesis; significant financial expenditure, allied to growing debt, have not led to significant playing achievements, certainly at the European level.
Closer consideration of on-field performance poses further questions: is victory the only true measure of successful performance, or are other measures relevant as well? In recent years, there has been the growth of a statistics industry around sport, with a plethora of performance measures being generated ranging from the number of successful (or unsuccessful) passes through to the number of shots on target and so forth. What such statistics mean is a moot point: are they simply ways of measuring performance or do they have real and tangible meaning in terms of managing and improving performance? Such issues are at the heart of the growth in sabermetrics, the statistical analysis of baseball player performance, most notably elucidated through the ‘Moneyball’ phenomenon. The essence of sabermetrics equates performance management with scientific method, using quantitative data as its basis. Many working within sport, particularly coaches and managers, nevertheless still believe that performance and its management remains an art not a science, and is founded on interpersonal relationships and an understanding of individual nuances in athletes’ psychologies. This ideological and methodological schism is in itself a debate that continues to build and is yet to be resolved.
Some commentators believe that performance can be bought, while others believe that performance can only be achieved through sustainable internal growth. Understanding such processes is a challenge for managers in sport: while there is evidence that the acquisition of playing talent can deliver success, throughout sporting history there is clear evidence of high expenditure on individuals and teams in an attempt to secure success. Yet the latter is often observed to have delivered poor returns on investment in terms of performance on the field or track. Such acquisition nevertheless often addresses sometimes pressing short-term demands to deliver successful performances, something that is especially significant when fans of a sport demand instant success. The development of internal competence can be a rather more laborious process, something that may be unacceptable to sport fans who demand instant success for their team. But through careful and considered management, long-term sustainable performance can be achieved through the creation of formal scouting networks, of structured training and development programmes, of appropriate reward and remuneration systems and so forth. For many advocates, internal or organic growth equally can have more a more positive impact upon financial performance that simply buying-up the best talent.
The importance of performance (and its management) in sport is indisputable. While many people and organisations have understood it and continue to do so, there are just as many that have not and have wrestled with the secrets of getting the very best from themselves, their athletes or their teams. There would seem to be a great deal that businesses can learn about performance from sport organisations, as Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson’s recent lecture to executives at Harvard Business School testifies. Yet at the same time, in the quest for the extra metre, the one second less, or one place higher, it is equally the case that sport can learn a great deal from business. As such, this issue of the journal makes a contribution to developments in thinking about performance, most notably through the first three papers appearing here. One hopes that readers will derive some value from reading them, as well as from reading the subsequent two papers.
As we draw to the close of one sporting year and head towards the start of the next, there is simultaneously deep reflection on the year just gone and feverish anticipation of what is to come. Annual award ceremonies abound for those athletes, teams, coaches, managers and officials who have performed best over the last twelve months. At the same time, cyclists, racing drivers, tennis players and others are training ahead of a new season, honing their skills and technique in order to improve on last season’s performances. Inevitably, athletes, teams and sport fans will view winning as the ultimate performance, but in reality many will have to accept something other than winning as an ultimate outcome. In which case, ‘performance’ and its improvement become relative concepts and rather more complex than many might imagine. For a journal of this nature, this raises some interesting issues.
At its most fundamental, one has to ask what performance, more specifically ‘good performance’, actually is, and does performing well always mean having to win? Indeed, this raises some pertinent questions about how, where and on what basis athletes, teams and other sporting organisations ‘perform well’. Consider the case of Real Madrid, FC Barcelona and Manchester United, arguably the three best performing teams in world football over the last couple of decades, having won competitions across the world. Yet consider too their financial performances: currently, these three clubs are the largest financial debtors in world football. This apparent paradox raises some interesting issues, not least the implication that on-field performance and financial performance are inversely related to one another. That said, managers at Bayern Munich or Arsenal might well disagree with such a hypothesis because their financial prudence has not necessarily brought these clubs the level of playing success achieved by the aforementioned three clubs. Critics of recent developments at football clubs like Manchester City and Malaga CF might also question the hypothesis; significant financial expenditure, allied to growing debt, have not led to significant playing achievements, certainly at the European level.
Closer consideration of on-field performance poses further questions: is victory the only true measure of successful performance, or are other measures relevant as well? In recent years, there has been the growth of a statistics industry around sport, with a plethora of performance measures being generated ranging from the number of successful (or unsuccessful) passes through to the number of shots on target and so forth. What such statistics mean is a moot point: are they simply ways of measuring performance or do they have real and tangible meaning in terms of managing and improving performance? Such issues are at the heart of the growth in sabermetrics, the statistical analysis of baseball player performance, most notably elucidated through the ‘Moneyball’ phenomenon. The essence of sabermetrics equates performance management with scientific method, using quantitative data as its basis. Many working within sport, particularly coaches and managers, nevertheless still believe that performance and its management remains an art not a science, and is founded on interpersonal relationships and an understanding of individual nuances in athletes’ psychologies. This ideological and methodological schism is in itself a debate that continues to build and is yet to be resolved.
Some commentators believe that performance can be bought, while others believe that performance can only be achieved through sustainable internal growth. Understanding such processes is a challenge for managers in sport: while there is evidence that the acquisition of playing talent can deliver success, throughout sporting history there is clear evidence of high expenditure on individuals and teams in an attempt to secure success. Yet the latter is often observed to have delivered poor returns on investment in terms of performance on the field or track. Such acquisition nevertheless often addresses sometimes pressing short-term demands to deliver successful performances, something that is especially significant when fans of a sport demand instant success. The development of internal competence can be a rather more laborious process, something that may be unacceptable to sport fans who demand instant success for their team. But through careful and considered management, long-term sustainable performance can be achieved through the creation of formal scouting networks, of structured training and development programmes, of appropriate reward and remuneration systems and so forth. For many advocates, internal or organic growth equally can have more a more positive impact upon financial performance that simply buying-up the best talent.
The importance of performance (and its management) in sport is indisputable. While many people and organisations have understood it and continue to do so, there are just as many that have not and have wrestled with the secrets of getting the very best from themselves, their athletes or their teams. There would seem to be a great deal that businesses can learn about performance from sport organisations, as Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson’s recent lecture to executives at Harvard Business School testifies. Yet at the same time, in the quest for the extra metre, the one second less, or one place higher, it is equally the case that sport can learn a great deal from business. As such, this issue of the journal makes a contribution to developments in thinking about performance, most notably through the first three papers appearing here. One hopes that readers will derive some value from reading them, as well as from reading the subsequent two papers.
STILL TO BE FIXED: CORRUPTION POSING NEW CHALLENGES FOR SPORT BUSINESS RESEARCHERS
This piece is the Editorial from Volume 4, Issue 1 of the Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=SBM"
Some people say that a week in politics is a long time; others say that 90 minutes in football can seem like a lifetime. It has therefore been a significant length of time since the last edition of this journal, during which there have been some dramatic developments in sport. Among the most significant, and possibly the most serious, have been emerging and on-going issues related to corruption in sport.
In snooker, former world ranked number 5 player Steven Lee was banned from the sport for twelve years having been found guilty of match-fixing. Football continues to be awash with allegations about match-fixing, including Europol’s investigation into 425suspected cases in football, and the international pursuit of alleged ‘super-fixer’ Dan Tan. Off the fields and tracks of the world, the Federation Internationale de Football (FIFA) has continued to grapple with seemingly interminable problems of corruption, while the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) has been dealing with accusations both of bribery and of vote-fixing.
Over the least five years, matters of corruption in sport have become especially pointed as some organisations across the industry have started to respond to proven cases of corruption. For instance, sport merchandiser Puma recently terminated a supply agreement with the South African national football team. Meanwhile, Dutch bank ING withdrew sponsorship from the Benetton Formula 1 Grand Prix team following the team’s fixing of a race in 2008. In response to several problems in professional cycling, Australian sportswear brand Skins has alternatively taken the opportunity to use the problems as the basis for repositioning its brand (as being at the forefront of clean sport, through the ‘Change Cycling Now’ initiative).
Corruption in sport is not a new phenomenon; however, it appears that rapid changes in the industry, most notably the commercialisation of sport and a resultant influx of revenues seem to have exacerbated the problem. The seriousness of the matter has been further compounded by the intense scrutiny that sport organisations are exposed to (especially following the emergence of social media), by growing economic inequalities in sport (which incentivise poorly rewarded athletes to fix contests or accept bribes), and by often weak approaches among sport organisations to issues of governance and risk management.
Immediately, these initial observations generate some key challenges for sport business researchers. The nature, scale and extent of corruption in sport are major issues, as is the potential cost for the sport industry of corruption. While many of us would probably be accurate in our assessment about the origins of and motives for corruption in sport, thus far we have developed little accurate understanding of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of it.
Similarly, little attention has thus far been given to the responses to corruption of organisations engaged in some way with sport. How the threat of corruption is mitigated and managed implies some interesting opportunities for risk managers and those with an interest in, for example, governance, economic inequality or event management. Whether it is a moral stance, a response to consumer disquiet or an unwillingness to associate with illegal activity, the responses of key stakeholders also raises some important issues. For example, issues of partner selection, relationship termination, brand damage and market response would appear to be just some of the areas upon which academic researchers might want to focus.
In previous work on corruption in sport, Maening (2005) distinguishes between competition corruption and management corruption. The former generally covers activities that undermine, diminish or detract from the uncertainty of outcome and includes activities like match-fixing. The latter generally covers activities related to the governance, organisation and management of sport like vote-rigging in governing body elections.
Around Maening’s classification, there are several issues: for example, is doping a form of fixing and should it fall within such classifications (which thus far it has not)? New forms of fixing have emerged in recent years, most notably spot-fixing (the fixing of a specific action in a sporting contest – like the time of a corner or throw-in – but which does not affect the final outcome of the contest), which poses challenges in terms of understanding, defining and managing them. Moreover, money laundering is now often identified as being one reason that business people invest in sport. If this assessment is correct, then how such activity impacts upon sport and its management would seem to be a pressing matter for the research community to address.
What corruption is currently costing the sport industry is something nobody yet has a sense of. This is a concern, as the costs of monitoring and controlling corruption, the misappropriation or misuse of funds and the withdrawal of commercial partners (and their funding) undermines the economic and commercial security of sport. Clearly therefore, there is an opportunity for researchers to begin the task of estimating the economic, financial and business implications of corruption. Beyond this, understanding, creating and researching measures for mitigating threat would seem to be a priority.
Given the absolute paucity of published studies in the field of sport corruption, particularly from a business and management perspective, the research agenda is currently an open field. Among major research studies currently being undertaken in universities, two appear notable: how sponsors respond to corruption in sport, and how consumers respond to corruption in sport. Further studies of this and a similar nature are important: as an opportunity for researchers, and also as a foundation for maintaining the integrity of sport.
Reference
Maening, W. (2005), Corruption in International Sports and Sport Management: Forms, Tendencies, Extent and Countermeasures, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 5, pp. 187-225.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=SBM"
Some people say that a week in politics is a long time; others say that 90 minutes in football can seem like a lifetime. It has therefore been a significant length of time since the last edition of this journal, during which there have been some dramatic developments in sport. Among the most significant, and possibly the most serious, have been emerging and on-going issues related to corruption in sport.
In snooker, former world ranked number 5 player Steven Lee was banned from the sport for twelve years having been found guilty of match-fixing. Football continues to be awash with allegations about match-fixing, including Europol’s investigation into 425suspected cases in football, and the international pursuit of alleged ‘super-fixer’ Dan Tan. Off the fields and tracks of the world, the Federation Internationale de Football (FIFA) has continued to grapple with seemingly interminable problems of corruption, while the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) has been dealing with accusations both of bribery and of vote-fixing.
Over the least five years, matters of corruption in sport have become especially pointed as some organisations across the industry have started to respond to proven cases of corruption. For instance, sport merchandiser Puma recently terminated a supply agreement with the South African national football team. Meanwhile, Dutch bank ING withdrew sponsorship from the Benetton Formula 1 Grand Prix team following the team’s fixing of a race in 2008. In response to several problems in professional cycling, Australian sportswear brand Skins has alternatively taken the opportunity to use the problems as the basis for repositioning its brand (as being at the forefront of clean sport, through the ‘Change Cycling Now’ initiative).
Corruption in sport is not a new phenomenon; however, it appears that rapid changes in the industry, most notably the commercialisation of sport and a resultant influx of revenues seem to have exacerbated the problem. The seriousness of the matter has been further compounded by the intense scrutiny that sport organisations are exposed to (especially following the emergence of social media), by growing economic inequalities in sport (which incentivise poorly rewarded athletes to fix contests or accept bribes), and by often weak approaches among sport organisations to issues of governance and risk management.
Immediately, these initial observations generate some key challenges for sport business researchers. The nature, scale and extent of corruption in sport are major issues, as is the potential cost for the sport industry of corruption. While many of us would probably be accurate in our assessment about the origins of and motives for corruption in sport, thus far we have developed little accurate understanding of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of it.
Similarly, little attention has thus far been given to the responses to corruption of organisations engaged in some way with sport. How the threat of corruption is mitigated and managed implies some interesting opportunities for risk managers and those with an interest in, for example, governance, economic inequality or event management. Whether it is a moral stance, a response to consumer disquiet or an unwillingness to associate with illegal activity, the responses of key stakeholders also raises some important issues. For example, issues of partner selection, relationship termination, brand damage and market response would appear to be just some of the areas upon which academic researchers might want to focus.
In previous work on corruption in sport, Maening (2005) distinguishes between competition corruption and management corruption. The former generally covers activities that undermine, diminish or detract from the uncertainty of outcome and includes activities like match-fixing. The latter generally covers activities related to the governance, organisation and management of sport like vote-rigging in governing body elections.
Around Maening’s classification, there are several issues: for example, is doping a form of fixing and should it fall within such classifications (which thus far it has not)? New forms of fixing have emerged in recent years, most notably spot-fixing (the fixing of a specific action in a sporting contest – like the time of a corner or throw-in – but which does not affect the final outcome of the contest), which poses challenges in terms of understanding, defining and managing them. Moreover, money laundering is now often identified as being one reason that business people invest in sport. If this assessment is correct, then how such activity impacts upon sport and its management would seem to be a pressing matter for the research community to address.
What corruption is currently costing the sport industry is something nobody yet has a sense of. This is a concern, as the costs of monitoring and controlling corruption, the misappropriation or misuse of funds and the withdrawal of commercial partners (and their funding) undermines the economic and commercial security of sport. Clearly therefore, there is an opportunity for researchers to begin the task of estimating the economic, financial and business implications of corruption. Beyond this, understanding, creating and researching measures for mitigating threat would seem to be a priority.
Given the absolute paucity of published studies in the field of sport corruption, particularly from a business and management perspective, the research agenda is currently an open field. Among major research studies currently being undertaken in universities, two appear notable: how sponsors respond to corruption in sport, and how consumers respond to corruption in sport. Further studies of this and a similar nature are important: as an opportunity for researchers, and also as a foundation for maintaining the integrity of sport.
Reference
Maening, W. (2005), Corruption in International Sports and Sport Management: Forms, Tendencies, Extent and Countermeasures, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 5, pp. 187-225.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)