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.
Wednesday, 13 November 2013
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.
Friday, 27 April 2012
Can the UK survive as a major player in international sporting events without changes to the way events and competitors are taxed?
Guest blog post, from Steven Dunham, Dunham Consulting
As the UK prepares to host the world’s largest sporting event, the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, part of the so-called ‘Golden Decade’ of sport events to the held in the UK, the long term ability to compete to host major sporting events continues to be undermined by HM Revenue & Customs’ (HMRC) attitude and strategy to the taxation of the organisers and competitors at these events.
The danger is that the UK will be seen as ‘closed for sport’, deterring organisers from wanting to consider the UK as a location for their event and prompting athletes to question whether participation in an event staged in the UK should be included in their schedule.
The impact of losing or not being able to attract the world’s best events and athletes to the UK needs to be measured in more than pure economic terms alone. The recent enquiry by the Riots, Communities and Victims Panel into last Summer’s riots identified a lack of ‘belonging to society’ as a key factor, especially in the young and sport, more than any other activity, builds bridges, brings together all levels of society and develops a level of inclusion for the benefit of all.
So, how do we find ourselves in this position?
Taking athletes first, the UK revenue authorities, in line with most other countries, tax non-UK resident competitors on prize money and appearance fees attributable to matches or tournaments held here. However, in addition to this, HMRC also seek to tax a proportion of an athletes’ global endorsement income following their victory in a tax case against Andre Agassi back in 2006. The only other country that applies the same treatment to worldwide endorsement income is the US. In addition, since their victory, HMRC has significantly changed the way it calculates how much of this endorsement income should be liable to tax. Initially a proportion of overall deals which related to non-playing services (the ‘image’ element) was excluded from the UK tax calculation, with the ‘playing’ element simply pro-rated based on time spent in the UK in a particular tax year. However in recent years, HMRC has sought to take a different approach by asserting the whole contract relates to ‘playing’ services and apportioning on the basis of the proportion of the events an athlete takes part in, which has the overall effect of yielding a higher return for HMRC.
The impact of these rules on athletes behaviour has already been seen with Usain Bolt declining to take part in the Aviva London Grand Prix in 2010, Rafael Nadal announcing he will not be taking part in the AEGON Championships at the Queen’s Club this year and the ATP considering moving the end of season World Tour Finals from London once its current deal expires in 2013.
Turning to the event holders, where they are also non-UK resident, such as International Olympic Committee (IOC), FIFA, UEFA, ATP, ICC etc, they could potentially fall within the charge to tax in the UK. The length of time the event holder is expected to be in the UK is the key issue as if they are regarded as having a ‘permanent establishment’ during that time they could be subject to tax as an entity. This is in respect of direct taxes, VAT is subject to different rules and is not considered here, though it too can have a significant financial impact on an event.
It is normal that the event holder will include as part of the conditions for a successful bidder, to indemnify the event holder from any tax liabilities that may arise on them as a result of being awarded the event. If a bidder is unable to offer such indemnities or secure exemptions from their revenue authorities, then it is unlikely they will be successful in securing an event, as was the case for the 2010 UEFA Champions League final, when UEFA cited the lack of certainty over the taxation of the event in its reason for choosing Madrid over London as the venue.
Because of HMRC’s unwillingness to alter the current rules, what we have seen is individual sports lobbying both Government and HMRC for specific event exemptions, which though ceded to in certain situations, has led to holders of UK based events demanding a level playing field as they consider the value of their events could be eroded if they are unable to secure the world’s best athletes to compete.
To date, legislation has already been enacted in Finance Act 2006 for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in London to exempt non-UK resident individuals and organisations from income and corporation tax from the period from 30 March 2012 to 8 November 2012. However, HMRC have announced in their guidance notes that what they consider to be exempt activities under the legislation are not as generous as first thought, meaning organisations and individuals, especially athletes, will need to take care so as not to fall within the normal taxation provisions for non-UK residents.
Finance Act 2010 included specific exemptions for non-UK resident finalists of the 2011 UEFA Champions League held at Wembley, which exempted from income tax any employment or trading income arising on employees related to duties or services performed by them in the UK in connection with the final. A similar exemption has been included in Finance (No 4) Bill 2012 to apply to the 2013 UEFA Champions League final which will also take place at Wembley.
Budget 2012 also saw the Government announce that legislation would be included in Finance Bill 2013 to exempt non-UK resident athletes competing in the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games from tax and the assumption is this is likely to follow that introduced for London 2012.
Another welcome, if surprising, move was also announced in Budget 2012 when it was stated that HMRC will revise its practice on the taxation of non-resident sports people to take training days into account when calculating the proportion of worldwide endorsement income subject to UK tax. However, there are still questions around what constitutes training days and the non-inclusion of travel days that need to be addressed. In addition, the bigger issue of what is included in the endorsement income calculation on which the tax is assessed needs to be revisited. Currently HMRC still consider the whole of these contracts relate to performance and make no allowance for the value of the athlete’s image so look to take into account 100% of the contract value in the apportionment calculation. A recent tax case in the US involving the golfer Retief Goosen saw the courts attribute a 50/50 split between image and performance for on course endorsement contracts and the case has not been appealed by the IRS. Therefore a movement by HMRC in this area would also be beneficial, though surely the long term solution must be to exclude endorsement income altogether from the calculation and only tax prize and appearance money.
So while specific exemptions are being given and there does appear some movement in HMRC’s attitude to the endorsement income issue, surely the time has come for tax exemptions to be provided for all major sports events to be hosted in the UK? Studies have suggested that the amount of tax collected from non-UK resident athletes on their endorsement income is around £7m per annum - a minute sum when set against the UK’s overall tax take. The substantial economic benefit to the UK economy that these events bring far exceed the tax lost and the social impact of hosting major events and being able to witness major sports stars in our country has on society means the current situation cannot continue.
Sport is a vital piece of this country’s make-up and if we are to continue to preserve this for future generations the taxation of major events and athletes cannot undermine this.
For further information please contact:
Stephen Dunham
Tel: +44(0)118 933 2588
Email: steve@dunhamsconsulting.co.uk
Website: www.dunhamsconsulting.co.uk
Monday, 21 February 2011
Champions League Final 2011 – Taxing times!
Written by: Stephen Dunham of Dunham Consulting, an independent capital allowances advisor and sports business commentator
The announcement by UEFA of the ticket prices for this year’s Champions League final at Wembley brought an outcry that UEFA were exploiting fans, despite UEFA’s claims that the pricing was in line with comparable events such as the World Cup and European Championship finals.
It also brought into question again the issue of tax and major sporting events and, for the Champions League final, it has already been a key issue for the UK.
When the FA bid to host the final in 2010, tax was the reason given by UEFA as to why Wembley was not selected, but the decision was delayed over the naming of the 2011 host venue to give the FA a chance to address UEFA’s concerns. These concerns related to UEFA’s request that the participating players from non UK teams be exempt from any tax liabilities arising from their presence in the UK for the period of the match. Under UK tax rules, visiting overseas sports stars are taxed on that part of their income that is deemed to arise from their time here and covers appearance money, prize money and a proportion of sponsorship and other commercial income which HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) deem to be earned during their time in the UK. While the issue of appearance or prize money has never really been in dispute, the allocation of an element of sponsorship and other commercial income has always been an issue as to how much, if any, relates to the time spent in the UK by the sports star, particularly when the majority of these deals are concluded overseas. This all came to a head in a case between HMRC and the tennis star, Andre Agassi, back in 2006 where HMRC won the right to levy tax against a proportion of Agassi’s commercial income wherever it arose, even though the deals that HMRC were looking at were between two US companies. Since then, the issue has been over how much of this income should be taxable. Initially it was looked at on a simple pro-rata of the time spent during a particular year in the UK but, over recent years, HMRC has sought to take a different approach by looking at it as a proportion of the key events that a sports person takes part in, with the overall effect of yielding a higher return for HMRC.
Therefore, for the 2011 Champions League final, specific legislation has been included in the UK tax system (Schedule 20, Finance Act 2010), to exempt any employee of the competing non-UK teams from any income tax that is related to the services or duties performed in the UK in connection with the final. There has already been a precedent for this as similar legislation was enacted for the 2012 Olympic Games in Finance Act 2006.
So that deals with the players, but what about UEFA itself? A question was asked about whether UEFA would have to pay tax in the UK on the income it would receive from the sales of the tickets for the final? The short answer is probably not as it is usual for the event holder to include as part of the conditions for the successful bidder to indemnify the event holder from any tax liabilities that may arise from holding the event. Given that there has not been any specific legislation needed for this area, it is assumed that the FA were comfortable about being able to provide these guarantees to UEFA and would have included any liabilities in their costs for hosting the event. The FA will receive a facility fee from UEFA for use of Wembley and also a share of the ticket income received by UEFA and this income will be subject to tax as part of the FA’s overall income. Given that UEFA will only be in the UK for a short period of time, they are unlikely to be regarded as having a permanent establishment in the UK which could render them liable for preparing tax returns and creating any potential tax liabilities. The ECB had similar issues with the ICC over the Twenty20 World Cup in 2009.
The length of time the event holder is expected to be in the UK is the key issue here. For the 2012 Olympic Games, specific legislation was enacted in Finance Act 2006 to exempt the International Olympic Committee (IOC) from any tax liabilities which provided certainty for the IOC that they would not be regarded as having a permanent establishment in the UK, which will also include the time spent prior to and after the Games in setting up and decommissioning. Similar legislation is likely to have been required for FIFA had England been successful in securing the bid for the 2018 World Cup.
So, as with all things in life, tax penetrates into areas where you would not normally expect to find it and can have a significant financial impact on a particular event.
Stephen Dunham
Tel: +44(0)118 933 2588
Email: steve@dunhamsconsulting.co.uk
Website: www.dunhamsconsulting.co.uk
The announcement by UEFA of the ticket prices for this year’s Champions League final at Wembley brought an outcry that UEFA were exploiting fans, despite UEFA’s claims that the pricing was in line with comparable events such as the World Cup and European Championship finals.
It also brought into question again the issue of tax and major sporting events and, for the Champions League final, it has already been a key issue for the UK.
When the FA bid to host the final in 2010, tax was the reason given by UEFA as to why Wembley was not selected, but the decision was delayed over the naming of the 2011 host venue to give the FA a chance to address UEFA’s concerns. These concerns related to UEFA’s request that the participating players from non UK teams be exempt from any tax liabilities arising from their presence in the UK for the period of the match. Under UK tax rules, visiting overseas sports stars are taxed on that part of their income that is deemed to arise from their time here and covers appearance money, prize money and a proportion of sponsorship and other commercial income which HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) deem to be earned during their time in the UK. While the issue of appearance or prize money has never really been in dispute, the allocation of an element of sponsorship and other commercial income has always been an issue as to how much, if any, relates to the time spent in the UK by the sports star, particularly when the majority of these deals are concluded overseas. This all came to a head in a case between HMRC and the tennis star, Andre Agassi, back in 2006 where HMRC won the right to levy tax against a proportion of Agassi’s commercial income wherever it arose, even though the deals that HMRC were looking at were between two US companies. Since then, the issue has been over how much of this income should be taxable. Initially it was looked at on a simple pro-rata of the time spent during a particular year in the UK but, over recent years, HMRC has sought to take a different approach by looking at it as a proportion of the key events that a sports person takes part in, with the overall effect of yielding a higher return for HMRC.
Therefore, for the 2011 Champions League final, specific legislation has been included in the UK tax system (Schedule 20, Finance Act 2010), to exempt any employee of the competing non-UK teams from any income tax that is related to the services or duties performed in the UK in connection with the final. There has already been a precedent for this as similar legislation was enacted for the 2012 Olympic Games in Finance Act 2006.
So that deals with the players, but what about UEFA itself? A question was asked about whether UEFA would have to pay tax in the UK on the income it would receive from the sales of the tickets for the final? The short answer is probably not as it is usual for the event holder to include as part of the conditions for the successful bidder to indemnify the event holder from any tax liabilities that may arise from holding the event. Given that there has not been any specific legislation needed for this area, it is assumed that the FA were comfortable about being able to provide these guarantees to UEFA and would have included any liabilities in their costs for hosting the event. The FA will receive a facility fee from UEFA for use of Wembley and also a share of the ticket income received by UEFA and this income will be subject to tax as part of the FA’s overall income. Given that UEFA will only be in the UK for a short period of time, they are unlikely to be regarded as having a permanent establishment in the UK which could render them liable for preparing tax returns and creating any potential tax liabilities. The ECB had similar issues with the ICC over the Twenty20 World Cup in 2009.
The length of time the event holder is expected to be in the UK is the key issue here. For the 2012 Olympic Games, specific legislation was enacted in Finance Act 2006 to exempt the International Olympic Committee (IOC) from any tax liabilities which provided certainty for the IOC that they would not be regarded as having a permanent establishment in the UK, which will also include the time spent prior to and after the Games in setting up and decommissioning. Similar legislation is likely to have been required for FIFA had England been successful in securing the bid for the 2018 World Cup.
So, as with all things in life, tax penetrates into areas where you would not normally expect to find it and can have a significant financial impact on a particular event.
Stephen Dunham
Tel: +44(0)118 933 2588
Email: steve@dunhamsconsulting.co.uk
Website: www.dunhamsconsulting.co.uk
Friday, 28 May 2010
Random mutterings about World Cup football shirts
I was asked this morning to comment on adidas, Nike and Puma's World Cup strategies. Here is my (correct/incorrect) interpretation:
I think what we have with these three brands are very interesting and clearly different approached to marketing their brands. In the case of adidas, it has clearly positioned itself in the mainstream in that they bid for the official rights to become an event partner and they deliberately seek to acquire the highest profile, most prestigious properties (such as the German and Spanish national teams). That the company is able to do this reflects their financial power, but is also a reflection of its history and its development as a company/brand in conjunction with football. The consequence of this in terms of marketing is that adidas tends to engage in high value communications campaigns that are globally targetted, although they tend not to be especially innovative. Rather, innovation tends to come in terms of product development and the continued acquisition of properties such as players and teams. Nike in many ways is the complete opposite of adidas; the brand has always had a non-conformist edge to it and so the company has made a deliberate strategic decision not to bid for official event partnerships. Hence, Nike is not an official partner at e.g. the World Cup or the Olympic Games. Instead, the company actively engages in activities that some might label as being deliberate ambush marketing. Alongside this, we have seen Nike increasingly using social media as the basis for engaging in such activities, and also what some might call viral and/or gureilla marketing around its sport sponsorship programmes. Indeed, one is inclined to say that Nike revels in its role as 'the outsider'. Clearly, two decades ago, Nike had no presence in the lucrative world of football and so targetted resources at building up partnerships with some of the higest profile national teams (e.g. Brazil) and players in the world (e.g. Ronaldo). But as I have explained, the company stopped short of bidding for official event partnerships. As for innovation, Nike is not only characterised by its product innovations, but also in the way it markets itself - for instance, the Joga Bonita campaign it used during Germany 2006. Puma is an interesting further case; much stronger as a brand and as a company than it was 10 years ago, but still not in the position to successfully go head-to-head in a battle with Nike and adidas. As a result, the company has adopted an interesting continentally-based strategy, with Africa as its focus. Countries such as Cameroon and Ivory Coast will both be equipped by Puma, and there are numerous other teams across the continent e.g. Senegal, that are equipped by Puma. In one sense, Puma's African strategy is tacit acknowledgement that it can't compete with Nike and adidas. In another sense, it is a very clever and very shrewd move because it provides a very strong CSR backdrop to the brand (in terms of promoting African football), it provides a strong and clear presence in several markets where there is a strong predisposition towards football, and it also raises awareness of the brand in markets where there is clearly some growth potential e.g. Egypt. As regards Italy, my sense is that this simply retains a foothold in the European market for Puma. Nike and adidas are far more powerful, Puma simply can't compete e.g. Puma recently lost the Polish national team contract to Nike. In terms of returns, Puma I think has a great opportunity to enhance its CSR credentials, as well as securing brand awareness and creating affinity in countries across Africa and elsewhere. I think Nike will enhance it's credentials as the brand for non-conformists, while taking marketing through social media to new heights. While adidas will continue to play the role of the 'orthodoxy' i.e. mainstream, mass market. In the case of all three organisations though, given the cost of investing in football rights deals (allied to the additional costs of activiating their deals), the bottom line will be: turning over units i.e. boots, training shoes, shirts, shorts etc...this is a once in four year selling showcase for everything that the three companies do well.
I think what we have with these three brands are very interesting and clearly different approached to marketing their brands. In the case of adidas, it has clearly positioned itself in the mainstream in that they bid for the official rights to become an event partner and they deliberately seek to acquire the highest profile, most prestigious properties (such as the German and Spanish national teams). That the company is able to do this reflects their financial power, but is also a reflection of its history and its development as a company/brand in conjunction with football. The consequence of this in terms of marketing is that adidas tends to engage in high value communications campaigns that are globally targetted, although they tend not to be especially innovative. Rather, innovation tends to come in terms of product development and the continued acquisition of properties such as players and teams. Nike in many ways is the complete opposite of adidas; the brand has always had a non-conformist edge to it and so the company has made a deliberate strategic decision not to bid for official event partnerships. Hence, Nike is not an official partner at e.g. the World Cup or the Olympic Games. Instead, the company actively engages in activities that some might label as being deliberate ambush marketing. Alongside this, we have seen Nike increasingly using social media as the basis for engaging in such activities, and also what some might call viral and/or gureilla marketing around its sport sponsorship programmes. Indeed, one is inclined to say that Nike revels in its role as 'the outsider'. Clearly, two decades ago, Nike had no presence in the lucrative world of football and so targetted resources at building up partnerships with some of the higest profile national teams (e.g. Brazil) and players in the world (e.g. Ronaldo). But as I have explained, the company stopped short of bidding for official event partnerships. As for innovation, Nike is not only characterised by its product innovations, but also in the way it markets itself - for instance, the Joga Bonita campaign it used during Germany 2006. Puma is an interesting further case; much stronger as a brand and as a company than it was 10 years ago, but still not in the position to successfully go head-to-head in a battle with Nike and adidas. As a result, the company has adopted an interesting continentally-based strategy, with Africa as its focus. Countries such as Cameroon and Ivory Coast will both be equipped by Puma, and there are numerous other teams across the continent e.g. Senegal, that are equipped by Puma. In one sense, Puma's African strategy is tacit acknowledgement that it can't compete with Nike and adidas. In another sense, it is a very clever and very shrewd move because it provides a very strong CSR backdrop to the brand (in terms of promoting African football), it provides a strong and clear presence in several markets where there is a strong predisposition towards football, and it also raises awareness of the brand in markets where there is clearly some growth potential e.g. Egypt. As regards Italy, my sense is that this simply retains a foothold in the European market for Puma. Nike and adidas are far more powerful, Puma simply can't compete e.g. Puma recently lost the Polish national team contract to Nike. In terms of returns, Puma I think has a great opportunity to enhance its CSR credentials, as well as securing brand awareness and creating affinity in countries across Africa and elsewhere. I think Nike will enhance it's credentials as the brand for non-conformists, while taking marketing through social media to new heights. While adidas will continue to play the role of the 'orthodoxy' i.e. mainstream, mass market. In the case of all three organisations though, given the cost of investing in football rights deals (allied to the additional costs of activiating their deals), the bottom line will be: turning over units i.e. boots, training shoes, shirts, shorts etc...this is a once in four year selling showcase for everything that the three companies do well.
Friday, 15 January 2010
Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal
CALL FOR PAPERS
SPORT, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
TO BE PUBLISHED BY EMERALD (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/)
Further to my recent message, I am able to confirm that the first edition of the above new journal will be published in Spring 2011.
People are therefore invited to submit papers for inclusion in the journal.
Further details of the paper format guidelines and the submission procedure will be issued in due course, although authors may wish to note that the journal will in both cases follow the conventions already used by other Emerald journals.
An online submission platform will be available in due course, but in the meantime all enquiries about papers should be directed to Professor Simon Chadwick (Simon.Chadwick@coventry.ac.uk)
In general terms, submissions to the journal will be expected to:
· Use sporting examples and concepts to illustrate management theory
· Use management theories and concepts to investigate sport
· Address management problems and issues in a sporting context
The objectives of the journal are:
· To provide an outlet for high quality research, insight and opinion in the linked and related areas of sport, business and management
· To provide an outlet for high quality research, insight and opinion written by researchers predominantly working in business and management schools
· To examine sport from a business and managerial perspective
· To advance understanding of sport, business and management
· To enhance the academic study and the practice of business and management in and around sport
· To provide opportunities for exploring the latest developments, challenges, issues and thinking in sport e.g. from the perspective of a team, a club or a governing body
· To provide opportunities for exploring the latest developments, challenges, issues and thinking related to sport e.g. from the perspective of a broadcaster, a sponsor, a government department
· To deliver sport business management research that is based on perceived need, robust foundations and strong methodologies
· To deliver sport business management research that is credible, meaningful and scientifically rigorous
Within the context of these objectives, it is anticipated that papers submitted to the journal will normally fall into categories which could include:
· Fans and customers
· Athletes and coaches
· Clubs and teams
· Leagues and competitions
· Events and tournaments
· Stadiums and venues
· Commercial and non-commercial partners
· Governing bodies and representative associations
· Intermediaries and athlete representatives
· Traditional and new media outlets
· Suppliers, retailers and other outlets for sport
· Places and spaces
· Local economic, social and other relevant projects/initiatives
As such, the journal will accept submissions drawn from the full-range of business and management disciplines (either individually or inter-disciplinary in nature) including:
· Accounting
· Corporate Social Responsibility
· Economics
· Entrepreneurship
· Ethics
· Finance
· Global management
· Governance
· Human Resource Management
· Information Technology
· International Business
· Law
· Management
· Marketing
· Organisational Behaviour
· Strategy
· Supply-Chain Management
Professor Simon Chadwick
Editor
Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal
Centre for the International Business of Sport
Coventry University Business School
Priory Street
Coventry CV1 5FB
UK
SPORT, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
TO BE PUBLISHED BY EMERALD (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/)
Further to my recent message, I am able to confirm that the first edition of the above new journal will be published in Spring 2011.
People are therefore invited to submit papers for inclusion in the journal.
Further details of the paper format guidelines and the submission procedure will be issued in due course, although authors may wish to note that the journal will in both cases follow the conventions already used by other Emerald journals.
An online submission platform will be available in due course, but in the meantime all enquiries about papers should be directed to Professor Simon Chadwick (Simon.Chadwick@coventry.ac.uk)
In general terms, submissions to the journal will be expected to:
· Use sporting examples and concepts to illustrate management theory
· Use management theories and concepts to investigate sport
· Address management problems and issues in a sporting context
The objectives of the journal are:
· To provide an outlet for high quality research, insight and opinion in the linked and related areas of sport, business and management
· To provide an outlet for high quality research, insight and opinion written by researchers predominantly working in business and management schools
· To examine sport from a business and managerial perspective
· To advance understanding of sport, business and management
· To enhance the academic study and the practice of business and management in and around sport
· To provide opportunities for exploring the latest developments, challenges, issues and thinking in sport e.g. from the perspective of a team, a club or a governing body
· To provide opportunities for exploring the latest developments, challenges, issues and thinking related to sport e.g. from the perspective of a broadcaster, a sponsor, a government department
· To deliver sport business management research that is based on perceived need, robust foundations and strong methodologies
· To deliver sport business management research that is credible, meaningful and scientifically rigorous
Within the context of these objectives, it is anticipated that papers submitted to the journal will normally fall into categories which could include:
· Fans and customers
· Athletes and coaches
· Clubs and teams
· Leagues and competitions
· Events and tournaments
· Stadiums and venues
· Commercial and non-commercial partners
· Governing bodies and representative associations
· Intermediaries and athlete representatives
· Traditional and new media outlets
· Suppliers, retailers and other outlets for sport
· Places and spaces
· Local economic, social and other relevant projects/initiatives
As such, the journal will accept submissions drawn from the full-range of business and management disciplines (either individually or inter-disciplinary in nature) including:
· Accounting
· Corporate Social Responsibility
· Economics
· Entrepreneurship
· Ethics
· Finance
· Global management
· Governance
· Human Resource Management
· Information Technology
· International Business
· Law
· Management
· Marketing
· Organisational Behaviour
· Strategy
· Supply-Chain Management
Professor Simon Chadwick
Editor
Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal
Centre for the International Business of Sport
Coventry University Business School
Priory Street
Coventry CV1 5FB
UK
Friday, 8 January 2010
Viral outbreaks, driving problems and 1980s fashion set to dominate sport in 2010
This post first appeared on the Reuters Great Debate blog on 31st December 2009
Sport in 2009 proved to be as enthralling off-the-field of play as it was exhilarating on it, with high profile cases of cheating, corruption and player transgression affecting a number of sports, accompanied by some crowd-pleasing, record-breaking performances.
At the same time, the business, organisation and politics of sport continued to excite and baffle many of us in equal measure, with talk of sports brands, “fit and proper people” and legacy constantly simmering in the background of the collective sporting psyche.
With the fragrance of CR9 still in our nostrils, and the taste of fake blood still in our mouths, what has gone before in 2009 therefore provides us with some isotonic sustenance for looking forward to ‘five things we might see in 2010’.
Marketing Mania at FIFA World Cup 2010
The football World Cup hits Africa for the very first in June 2010, as FIFA makes good on a promise that Africa should host the tournament for the very first time. There will no doubt be an ongoing collective debate about the positive (or, more likely, the lack of a positive) impact that South Africa’s World Cup will have on the communities in which it takes place, the country as a whole, and across Africa as a continent. However, watch out for some interesting sub-plots too: the anticipation of an African team winning the tournament; intense debate about the use of goal-line technology; accusations of kick-backs, bribes and, match-fixing etc. Watch out too for sport’s first major sporting competition for the “Twitter-generation”. Some of FIFA’s official partners have already made it clear that they will cease using traditional marketing techniques next summer and will instead adopt social networking as the basis for their World Cup marketing activities. Expect therefore a series of consumer-focused, viral campaigns in which Twitter, YouTube et al. are employed to spread the corporate word. Expect ambush marketers too to utilise new media to undermine the official sponsorships of FIFA’s partners, as rival brands seek to fool consumers into thinking they are the official sponsors of World Cup 2010.
Respectable in the 80s: Formula 1 reminisces
Back in the 1980s I was a huge fan of Formula 1 during an era when a Senna first entered the F1 World Championship, a legendary former World Champion made his comeback into F1, the Lotus team had two cars sat proudly on the grid, private teams in general outnumbered official manufacturer teams, Cosworth engines were used by a majority of cars, and a wind of change was starting to blow around the sport. It seems entirely appropriate therefore that, just as music and popular culture are already giving a collective nod to the 1980s, F1 should do likewise. In 2010, Ayrton’s nephew Bruno enters F1 for the first time; Michael Schumacher “does a Lauda” and comes back to a sport he doesn’t actually seem to have been away from; Lotus rises again, albeit in a somewhat different form to before; the big-guns have largely gone, replaced by the likes of Campos F1; Cosworth will find themselves in the majority once more; and we have a new guy in charge at the FIA – someone who was a ‘big-cheese’ in 1980s motorsport. The net outcome: a return to F1 1980s style? Not quite gentlemen racers in goggles and shirt-sleeves, but expect much greater competition, a more unpredictable sport, less of a corporate juggernaut than F1 has been over the last decade, more privateer involvement etc. Moreover, just as we witnessed the “youthful” Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone rocking the boat of hierarchical stability back in the 1980s, expect the FIA to come under similar such pressure in 2010…and do not discount a breakaway F1 World Championship just yet.
Driving problems in golf (and other sports)
Poor old Tiger Woods: he has struggled to keep his balls on the fairway over the last year or two; he has had difficulty with his driving (balls and cars); plus, it would appear, he has also had some extra-marital difficulties too. Let’s not forget too that in 2009, he lost a string of major sponsorships and endorsement deals both before and after what has now come to be known as his “transgressions”. Yet Woods is not the first person or team to encounter driving problems in 2009; Nelson Piquet Junior, Flavio Briatore and the Benetton F1 team have all had their fair-share of problems in keeping it on the straight and narrow. So too previously has the T-Online professional cycling team, which effectively disintegrated in the wake of a doping scandal a couple of years back. The common denominator in each of these high profile cases has been the role that sponsors, endorsement contracts and commercial partners have had in regulating the athlete behaviour i.e. the “transgressions” displayed by athletes which have resulted in major partners withdrawing their financial support from an athlete or a team.
In the coming year, we should therefore expect to see contractual terms relating to transgression being “beefed-up” as big brands seek to protect their multi-million pound investments from the kind of “driving” problems we have recently witnessed. It is also likely that we will see the emergence of a new, market-driven morality governing athlete/team behaviour. This will not necessarily be driven by what is broadly considered to be socially or morally right or wrong, rather it will be defined by what is thought of as commercially acceptable or unacceptable.
End of the line for secret agents
For the first time in late 2009, English football’s Premier League released figures to show how much each club had paid to agents for transfer dealings in which they had been involved.
The media and the general public were aghast at the suns of money being paid out, but to no great effect as the surprise and criticism has rapidly petered out. Expect several of the contentious issues surrounding agents to keep coming back though, especially as the Premier League’s disclosure of information will become an annual occurrence. More significantly is the fact that we are still waiting for a European Union study of sports agents to be published. Initially commissioned in the last quarter of 2008, the study’s findings should have been released around mid-2009….but there has been nothing yet. Publication of the report is therefore imminent and it could spread shockwaves in 2010 through the agency business, as it could lead to the introduction of European Union sports agents’ regulations, and possibly even legislation that will govern and rule the agency business across the continent. For an industrial sector that has been simultaneously praised for the valuable role it plays and derided for its exploitative nature, the times they could well be changing.
East is East
Remember a time when European sport ruled the world? This was a time grounded in the 19th century socio-cultural development of sport when some of the world’s most popular games were codified, stratified and professionalised. And then came a new, 20th century sporting model, straight out of the United States, in which business, commerce, sponsorship, television and competitive balance took prominence. But now, in the 21st century, both of these models appear to be subsiding into the background as a third age of sport emerges from Asia where “the nation”, public/private sector cooperation and a more holistic sense of the role that sport can play, are beginning to dominate. We have already witnessed the emergence and growth of Indian Premier League cricket, the “Asianisation” of F1’s race calendar, and the strident ambitions of numerous Asian countries as they have sought to secure the right to host major international sporting events from the Olympic Games to the FIFA World Cup to F1 races. What more of a barometer does one need of the changing international balance in sport than the re-emergence of the proudly iconic British F1 team – Lotus (see above). Except that Lotus is now Malaysian owned and will shift its operations to Malaysia once the 2010 season is over.
Avid sport watchers should therefore keep a very close eye over the next year on growing “Asianisation” across all sports, whether it be Asian ownership of English football clubs and US sporting franchises or the relocation of governing bodies and teams to Asia – the sport that many Europeans and Americans know is going to be changing very soon.
Sport in 2009 proved to be as enthralling off-the-field of play as it was exhilarating on it, with high profile cases of cheating, corruption and player transgression affecting a number of sports, accompanied by some crowd-pleasing, record-breaking performances.
At the same time, the business, organisation and politics of sport continued to excite and baffle many of us in equal measure, with talk of sports brands, “fit and proper people” and legacy constantly simmering in the background of the collective sporting psyche.
With the fragrance of CR9 still in our nostrils, and the taste of fake blood still in our mouths, what has gone before in 2009 therefore provides us with some isotonic sustenance for looking forward to ‘five things we might see in 2010’.
Marketing Mania at FIFA World Cup 2010
The football World Cup hits Africa for the very first in June 2010, as FIFA makes good on a promise that Africa should host the tournament for the very first time. There will no doubt be an ongoing collective debate about the positive (or, more likely, the lack of a positive) impact that South Africa’s World Cup will have on the communities in which it takes place, the country as a whole, and across Africa as a continent. However, watch out for some interesting sub-plots too: the anticipation of an African team winning the tournament; intense debate about the use of goal-line technology; accusations of kick-backs, bribes and, match-fixing etc. Watch out too for sport’s first major sporting competition for the “Twitter-generation”. Some of FIFA’s official partners have already made it clear that they will cease using traditional marketing techniques next summer and will instead adopt social networking as the basis for their World Cup marketing activities. Expect therefore a series of consumer-focused, viral campaigns in which Twitter, YouTube et al. are employed to spread the corporate word. Expect ambush marketers too to utilise new media to undermine the official sponsorships of FIFA’s partners, as rival brands seek to fool consumers into thinking they are the official sponsors of World Cup 2010.
Respectable in the 80s: Formula 1 reminisces
Back in the 1980s I was a huge fan of Formula 1 during an era when a Senna first entered the F1 World Championship, a legendary former World Champion made his comeback into F1, the Lotus team had two cars sat proudly on the grid, private teams in general outnumbered official manufacturer teams, Cosworth engines were used by a majority of cars, and a wind of change was starting to blow around the sport. It seems entirely appropriate therefore that, just as music and popular culture are already giving a collective nod to the 1980s, F1 should do likewise. In 2010, Ayrton’s nephew Bruno enters F1 for the first time; Michael Schumacher “does a Lauda” and comes back to a sport he doesn’t actually seem to have been away from; Lotus rises again, albeit in a somewhat different form to before; the big-guns have largely gone, replaced by the likes of Campos F1; Cosworth will find themselves in the majority once more; and we have a new guy in charge at the FIA – someone who was a ‘big-cheese’ in 1980s motorsport. The net outcome: a return to F1 1980s style? Not quite gentlemen racers in goggles and shirt-sleeves, but expect much greater competition, a more unpredictable sport, less of a corporate juggernaut than F1 has been over the last decade, more privateer involvement etc. Moreover, just as we witnessed the “youthful” Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone rocking the boat of hierarchical stability back in the 1980s, expect the FIA to come under similar such pressure in 2010…and do not discount a breakaway F1 World Championship just yet.
Driving problems in golf (and other sports)
Poor old Tiger Woods: he has struggled to keep his balls on the fairway over the last year or two; he has had difficulty with his driving (balls and cars); plus, it would appear, he has also had some extra-marital difficulties too. Let’s not forget too that in 2009, he lost a string of major sponsorships and endorsement deals both before and after what has now come to be known as his “transgressions”. Yet Woods is not the first person or team to encounter driving problems in 2009; Nelson Piquet Junior, Flavio Briatore and the Benetton F1 team have all had their fair-share of problems in keeping it on the straight and narrow. So too previously has the T-Online professional cycling team, which effectively disintegrated in the wake of a doping scandal a couple of years back. The common denominator in each of these high profile cases has been the role that sponsors, endorsement contracts and commercial partners have had in regulating the athlete behaviour i.e. the “transgressions” displayed by athletes which have resulted in major partners withdrawing their financial support from an athlete or a team.
In the coming year, we should therefore expect to see contractual terms relating to transgression being “beefed-up” as big brands seek to protect their multi-million pound investments from the kind of “driving” problems we have recently witnessed. It is also likely that we will see the emergence of a new, market-driven morality governing athlete/team behaviour. This will not necessarily be driven by what is broadly considered to be socially or morally right or wrong, rather it will be defined by what is thought of as commercially acceptable or unacceptable.
End of the line for secret agents
For the first time in late 2009, English football’s Premier League released figures to show how much each club had paid to agents for transfer dealings in which they had been involved.
The media and the general public were aghast at the suns of money being paid out, but to no great effect as the surprise and criticism has rapidly petered out. Expect several of the contentious issues surrounding agents to keep coming back though, especially as the Premier League’s disclosure of information will become an annual occurrence. More significantly is the fact that we are still waiting for a European Union study of sports agents to be published. Initially commissioned in the last quarter of 2008, the study’s findings should have been released around mid-2009….but there has been nothing yet. Publication of the report is therefore imminent and it could spread shockwaves in 2010 through the agency business, as it could lead to the introduction of European Union sports agents’ regulations, and possibly even legislation that will govern and rule the agency business across the continent. For an industrial sector that has been simultaneously praised for the valuable role it plays and derided for its exploitative nature, the times they could well be changing.
East is East
Remember a time when European sport ruled the world? This was a time grounded in the 19th century socio-cultural development of sport when some of the world’s most popular games were codified, stratified and professionalised. And then came a new, 20th century sporting model, straight out of the United States, in which business, commerce, sponsorship, television and competitive balance took prominence. But now, in the 21st century, both of these models appear to be subsiding into the background as a third age of sport emerges from Asia where “the nation”, public/private sector cooperation and a more holistic sense of the role that sport can play, are beginning to dominate. We have already witnessed the emergence and growth of Indian Premier League cricket, the “Asianisation” of F1’s race calendar, and the strident ambitions of numerous Asian countries as they have sought to secure the right to host major international sporting events from the Olympic Games to the FIFA World Cup to F1 races. What more of a barometer does one need of the changing international balance in sport than the re-emergence of the proudly iconic British F1 team – Lotus (see above). Except that Lotus is now Malaysian owned and will shift its operations to Malaysia once the 2010 season is over.
Avid sport watchers should therefore keep a very close eye over the next year on growing “Asianisation” across all sports, whether it be Asian ownership of English football clubs and US sporting franchises or the relocation of governing bodies and teams to Asia – the sport that many Europeans and Americans know is going to be changing very soon.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)