Is Wii tennis sport?

It enables a contest with an uncertain outcome to take place between competitors, and requires physical as well mental effort to play it - but is it actually sport? Taking an alternative view, could Wii tennis be reconceptualising sport for the 21st century?

Sport sponsorship at the crossroads

The economic downturn has resulted in numerous sport sponsors withdrawing their support from individuals, teams and events. The Benetton and Williams F1 teams have suffered, as have Tiger Woods, Manchester United and the Epsom Derby. While there appears to be a new industrial morality emerging - 'we can't spend on sport while we are making people redundant' - there also appears to be something of a 'slash-and-burn' mentality emerging too. What does this imply, especially when former sponsors continue to engage in other forms of marketing communication? Does it suggest that, compared to marketing communication techniques such as television advertising and direct marketing, sponsorship is less effective? Why aren't television advertising budgets being slashed in the same way as sponsorship? Is sponsorship the unfortunate victim of a knee-jerk reaction amongst sponsors? Sponsorship would therefore appear to be at a crossroads raising some important questions: what is it? How does it work? How should it work? How should it be organised, implemented and managed? What is it good at doing? And, ultimately, do we need to reappraise our perception of sponsorship, and is there a consequent need for a new sponsorship paradigm to emerge?

Get the balance right

In order to strengthen the uncertainty of outcome, sporting contests require competitive balance. There are several ways to achieve this balance including a player draft system, salary caps, wage to turnover ratio caps and so on. The aim of such measures is to equalise the participants taking part in a contest. Could such measures ever work in, say, football or Formula One motor racing? Do they need to, do we actually need them? Can non-US sports learn anything from the interventionist approaches of US sports and their governing federations? Are there new and different ways of creating effective balance? Could there be a generic approach that will work for all sports, or will different measures be needed according to the degree of imbalance that exists in different sports?

Time for some uncertainty

At the heart of sport is the uncertainty of outcome - not knowing who the winner will be in a contest involving two or more competitors. With continuing economic problems, there is a real chance for sport to re-assert and strengthen its most distinctive feature, some thing that strongly differentiates it from other industries. How should this be done, both across sport and within specific sports?

What is going to happen to horse racing?

British horse racing is in something of a state of turmoil at the moment. The Derby and the King George VI Stakes are both still seeking sponsors, while there have been various recent betting scandals that some see as having tarnished the good name of the sport. All the while, horse racing still faces many of its perpetual problems, such as asset utilisation i.e. what to do with the race courses when events are not taking place. While sports such as darts have come out fighting in recent times by looking to new markets while seeking to enhance commercial appeal, horse racing still has some way to go in this regard. We are therefore left to ask: how can, and how should, horse racing change if the ravages of the current downturn are not to undermine the sport´s heritage? How can the sport attract and retain new customers? Will television coverage of horse racing ever again reach the heights of the glory days of two or three decades ago? And how can lucrative sponsors be secured when some people clearly have preconceived ideas about what horse racing is and who it appeals to?

The good, the bad, and sport

The contemporary and orthodox view of sport is that it is unequivocally positive. Events such as the Global Sports Forum (taking place in Barcelona over the next three days) appear to celebrate what sport can achieve, while the legacy plan of the 2012 London Olympic Games is clear about the positive impact that sport can have on economy, society, health etc. However, some people question this view; sport can be aggressive, divisive, confrontational, and may sometimes lead to crime and even war. If one reads Ryszard Kapuscinski's book 'The Soccer War' or Joe Humphrey's book 'Foul Play', the negative effects of sport are clear. On this basis, should we simply accept the currently prevailing view that sport is all good?

Platini financial plan - a response

Richard Scudamore, Chief Executive of the English Premier League, has responded to Michel Platini's wage cost plan by claiming that it will reinforce and exacerbate the established financial order in European football rather than successfully addressing it i.e. a club like Real Madrid, with an annual turnover of $471 million per year, will have a far greater amount of money to spend on player salaries than clubs that turnover considerably less. Is Scudamore right? Will his comments effectively kill Platini's plan? Does Platini's plan need thinking through in more detail? Or is it simply a case of the league that benefits most by paying high wage costs trying to defend against an undesirable development? Perhaps there is an alternative, more creative, and ultimately more effective way to address some of the perceived financial problems in European football?