The businessman, the writer and the match-fixer

At the forthcoming Play the Game conference, to be staged at Coventry University in June, Mark Davies (Managing Director of Betfair), Declan Hill (journalist, writer and academic) and Michael Franzese (convicted mafia boss and former match fixer) will go head-to-head in a public debate about match-fixing in sport. Is such a debate relevant and necessary? Is match-fixing a massive problem that is getting worse, given the influx of 'big' money into many sports allied to the advent of online gambling? Or is the debate likely to over-emphasise a practice which, at worst, is almost insignificant and essentially confined to the margins of sport? At the heart of the debate will be a fundamental and challenging question: what actually constitutes match-fixing?

Is France showing Europe the way?

Hot on the heels of Frenchman Michel Platini's work to regulate the football player labour market on behalf of UEFA, the French rugby union league (LNR) is thought to be on the verge of introducing a salary cap and a limit on the number of overseas players that can appear for its domestic clubs. There are consequently a number of very important issues bound up in moves the French are making to ensure that prevailing labour market challenges do not spiral out of control. These range from, for example, legal (are the proposed regulations compliment with or in breach of European Union laws?) and socio-political (is France seeking to serve its own interests, make a play for preeminence across Europe, or are the French genuinely concerned about the general future of sport in Europe?), through to managerial (how will the LNR stop player drift to countries with fewer regulations and higher salaries?) and the macro-sporting environment (will what works in France necessarily work elsewhere in Europe?).

Spygate, Liegate and Water(gate)

Although the early cancellation of today's F1 race in Malaysia due to heavy rain may have been the day's biggest highlight, the McLaren team's conduct is yet again being called into question. Following the 'Spygate' row of a couple of years ago, the spotlight is now on the team again following allegations that they instructed Lewis Hamilton to lie to race stewards following the first race of the season in Australia. Notwithstanding the moral and philosophical dimensions of the McLaren team's behaviour, there have surely got to be some major team management issues which they have got to get to grips with? Is the team's organisational culture one that fosters a 'win at all costs' mentality? If so, how does this impact upon the drivers, the technical and managerial staff, and McLaren's relationship with the other F1 teams? If the team's culture is not 'win at all costs', then how is the constant scrutiny of and allegations against them influencing motivation and morale? Indeed, given that a senior member of the team has now been suspended by McLaren following recent events, could it be said that the team's culture (as well as its values, vision, management style and strategy) is actually tearing McLaren apart?

27,750 - love

The Wimbledon tennis Grand Slam has announced that it will be seeking to raise almost £60 million through an issue of debenture tickets, tickets which will give their owners a reserved seat on Centre Court everyday for the tournaments 2011 to 2015 inclusive (cost per ticket: £27,750). Why does Wimbledon need to do this, and doesn't it simply exacerbate the already often acute shortage of tickets for the tournament? Accepting that it is a good source of revenue for the organisers, does it not nevertheless reinforce the view that tennis is an elitist sport by effectively denying preferential access to anyone other than those who can afford £27,000+? The debenture issue, which Wimbledon has a history of engaging in, also recalls past developments in football, notably the stadium debenture issues associated with West Ham and Arsenal. When these two clubs proposed the idea of a debenture scheme to fund stadium re-development projects, there was uproar. Why is it that many felt so passionately about these cases but that the Wimbledon case will simply disappear from view? Are such debentures bound up in the history and heritage, the social class system, and British attitudes towards sport? Or do we actually just like and care more about football than we do tennis?

Web of intrigue

Italian football club Juventus has recently launched new official websites in China and Japan, providing services including an online store, match highlights, interviews and discussion forums. The club and its advisors are making some very confident claims about the Chinese and Japanese markets, and apparently seem to believe that the sites will be a major success for the club. Is this the case? Is Juve big enough in China and Japan to succeed? Or will the club have to continue playing second best to Manchester United and Real Madrid in South-East Asia? Has the recent scandal in which the club was involved damaged the Juve brand, and are the effects of this enduring? And what about the websites, are they really so important in achieving market-entry, and building affiliation and securing retention amongst fans in South-East Asia? What do fans in this part of the world actually want from their European football clubs, is it simply a website or do they want something more? What does the online experience provide them with? What should it provide them with? Isn't a website simply a holding strategy, and tour games and direct access to players is much more important to fans? In which case, what part does a website play in terms of marketing, international and overall corporate strategies? May be websites are dead? Is the creative use of Twitter, Facebook, You Tube etc. a better way to engage with distant (sometimes referred to as 'dislocated') fans?

A G20 for sport?

Sport across the world currently faces a myriad of challenges: for example, in countries like Argentina and Brazil, there are issues about football player migration to other countries; in the US, so badly hit by the downturn has NASCAR been that the sport's governors are considering fundamental changes to the model of operation, possibly leading to the introduction of a franchise system; in relation to South Africa, some remain concerned about the stadium building programme in place for the FIFA World Cup 2010, just as people are concerned in the same way about UEFA 2012 in Ukraine; in India and Pakistan, major security concerns have beset cricket, both country's most popular sport; in Japan, leading motor sport teams such as Honda, Subaru and Kawasaki have all withdrawn entries from respective competitions in which they were involved; and across Europe there are concerns about debt levels, competitive imbalance and falling crowds in professional football. Add to these examples, matters pertaining to corruption, changing ownership patterns, the shifting balance of power in sport etc, and we are thus left to ask: does sport need the equivalent of a G20 summit?

Going South

Trading in the shares of Southampton FC was today suspended amidst fears that the club is about to go into financial administration. In the meantime, Cheltenham Town FC faces an anxious wait to find out whether their local council will loan them £100,000 to see the club through a difficult period. Add to this information, the following: in the last 20 years, an English football club has been in administration at least 65 times; moreover, there are claims that the accumulated debt of English football is running at somewhere between £2 billion and £3 billion. Given the precedent set by recent government bailouts of financial institutions, is it: a) time for the government to step in and bailout football? b) feasible for the government to bailout football? and c) morally and/or socially acceptable for the government to bailout football? Or has football created its own financial problems and should therefore be left to deal with them on its own? And what might the European Union, Michel Platini, Sepp Blatter et al. have to say about such a move?