Sporting capital of the world

UEFA Champions League Final, 2011 (the government having made appropriate changes to tax legislation to enable it to happen); the Olympic Games, 2012; the Rugby League World Cup, 2013; the Commonwealth Games, 2014; the Rugby Union World Cup, 2015; and an impending bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2018: Great Britain is rapidly becoming the world capital for hosting sporting mega-events. From both a personal and a professional perspective, great! However, a pressing question needs to be asked: why? Is Britain's success in securing the rights to stage these events due to a specific, coherent and deliberate government strategy? If it is, where is the strategy, what is its focus and what is the official line on how hosting mega-sporting events is intended to make an effective contribution to the economic, social and physical well-being of the country? In the context of this answer, are there better ways to invest the huge sums of money involved in order to achieve the same goals? And what strategies are in place to ensure that the each of the events has some sort of sustainable impact upon the country? It is also worth asking whether or not the country's bid strategy is equitable when, for instance, football gets a government backed bid committee, whereas the Rugby Football Union effectively has to go it alone and do things itself? Ultimately, should we be concerned that one country is hosting so many of the world's major sporting events - are smaller, poorer nations being crowded out of the market by the costs of bidding for and hosting such events?

Countries in scrum ahead of RFU World Cup decisions

The International Rugby Board is due to meet in Dublin tomorrow to decide whether South Africa or England will host the 2015 Rugby Union World Cup, and whether Italy or Japan will play hosts in 2019. The whole process of awarding the rights to stage both of the World Cups has been fractious and confusing, with threats of legal action, financial concerns, and doubts about government commitment characterising the bid process. Nevertheless, one rugby official has been quoted as saying: "This is rugby. No matter what the result, we will sit down with our opposite numbers afterwards and share a beer." Given problems associated with event bidding processes in other areas of sport, what are the problems in rugby? Are there particular reasons why the 2015 and 2019 World Cup bids have been so problematic? Is it because there are no appropriate structures in place to ensure good governance in the process of event bidding? Is it because whatever structures are in place have not been appropriately developed or applied? Is it because Rugby Union World Cups are a relatively new phenomenon and have yet to develop the sophistication found in other sports? Or could it be that such conflicts are also highly prevalent in other sports too, but rugby is much more open in addressing them? Perhaps it could be, after all, that rugby and its culture of aggression does indeed have a unique and distinctive approach to resolving competitive matters - including the awarding of World Cups - and that all involved will be sitting won tomorrow night to share a beer and talk about winners and losers in the bid process?

Top gear

Two motor sport matters to consider today:

Firstly, this season's Moto GP World Championship has been intensely exciting, notably the battle between Valentino Rossi and Jorge Lorenzo. The strategic renewal of Moto GP, formerly the 500cc World Championship, has been one of the world's quietest sporting stories of the last decade. As such, the sport is very popular in countries including Spain, France and Italy, but still lacks the broad appeal of other forms of motor sport, in particular Formula One. Is there anything the organisers of Moto GP can do to further secure market share in the highly competitive world of motor racing?

Secondly, following yesterday's serious accident involving Felipe Massa at F1's Hungarian GP, Brawn driver Rubens Barrichello stated: "In the GPDA (Grand Prix Drivers' Association) we talked quite a lot about it yesterday [Friday] - and something needs to be done." Given recent political problems in F1, how might the safety agenda take priority over territory and commerce? Is this a good time or a bad time for the important issue of safety to re-emerge? What new safety changes could be identified and implemented, and who will do these things? And is there any way in which the sport could become stronger and more competitive as the result of new safety measures?

Inflate, deflate

David Gill, Chief Executive of Manchester United, has been widely reported over the last two days as having said that United are unwilling to pay the transfer fees and player salaries that currently seem to be the norm in European football. Two weeks ago, the club announced that it wasn't going to sign any more players this summer. A week later, United signed Senegalese player Mame Biram Diouf from Molde in Norway. Does Gill mean what he says? Is the financing of the club such that United really are unwilling to pay fees that have been hyper-inflated by the actions of other clubs? Is he trying to dampen down the market with his comments before United makes another foray into the transfer market (after all, other clubs know the club has money to spend)? Thus, is the possible intention to dampen down the market a demonstration of collective responsibility on the part of United? Or is it entirely self-motivated? Perhaps this is United's riposte to Real Madrid's ostentatious transfer market activity? Real hyper-inflates, United dampen down? Could this be, therefore, the new power struggle in the second half of this summer's transfer window?

Money, slavery and African sport

In a Coventry University seminar earlier this year, speakers considered whether or not football is the new slavery in Africa. Several African students questioned whether this was the right way to address the subject, stating that football for them is a way out of poverty, not a form of slavery. Fast-forward to this morning's coverage in The Independent newspaper of Emmanuel Adebayor's transfer from Arsenal to Manchester City, where it was suggested that the player may have moved for money. Both instances raise some important questions about how non-Africans view African football, footballers and, indeed, African sport in general: is sport slavery? Or is this an entirely European, especially Anglo-Saxon view? If one accepts the view that it is slavery, to what extent could this mean measures are imposed in football/sport that may actually be to the detriment of Africa? In which case, what does this tell us about the way in which decision-making takes place in sport? As for Adebayor, given his background in Togo, is it any surprise (should it be any surprise) that he possibly finds money to be an important motivator in his decisions about which team to play for? Is it therefore unnecessarily judgemental for Europeans to question the financial motivations of African athletes? After all, this summer's football transfer activities have been notable for the transfer of non-African players, and their financial motivations have not really questioned as strongly. Could it actually be that Adebayor is telling us how it is for African athletes, and that we (non-Africans) should accept that athlete motivation elsewhere in the world may sometimes be considerably different to our own? Perhaps this view is wrong too and a more Afro-centric view of football and sport needs to strongly emerge? Moreover, if one considers how Eto'o, Drogba and Weah have used the wealth they have derived from football to benefit their home countries, to what extent should we be looking at Adebayor in a positive light rather than alluding to a suspicion that he might be motivated by money? In the end, to a greater or lesser extent, aren't we all?

A funny old game

A significant proportion of this summer's transfers have thus far indicated that players have been signed from an undisclosed fee e.g. Emmanuel Adebayor, from Arsenal to Manchester City.
What does an undisclosed fee mean though, what does it signify, and why are so many football clubs refusing to disclose the fees they have paid for players? What is it about this summer's transfers that means clubs and/or players do now want anyone to know the fee exchanged between two clubs in return for the services of a player? Is there information that one of the parties involved in a transfer would like to be kept secret? Is the avoidance of specifying a value an attempt to ward-off unwanted intrusion by fans, the media and other interested parties? Or is there an element to the transfer of players that is best explained by referring to Game Theory? If a club goes public, might it weaken (or possibly strengthen) its position in the transfer market? And how might the notion of 'Prisoner's Dilemma' contribute to understanding the use of 'undisclosed fees' and the football player transfer market?

N.B. Game theory can be explained thus: Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others. While initially developed to analyze competitions in which one individual does better at another's expense (zero sum games), it has been expanded to treat a wide class of interactions, which are classified according to several criteria.
Prisoner's dilemma can be explained thus: "Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act? In casual usage, the label 'prisoner's dilemma' may be applied to situations not strictly matching the formal criteria of the classic or iterative games, for instance, those in which two entities could gain important benefits from cooperating or suffer from the failure to do so, but find it merely difficult or expensive, not necessarily impossible, to coordinate their activities to achieve cooperation."

He's fit and proper, but is HE fit and proper?

Sulaiman Al-Fahim, the prospective new owner of Portsmouth FC, has completed a period of due diligence prior to his acquisition of the club, and has also been passed by the Premier League as a person who is fit and proper enough to own a football club. However, the Premier League apparently remains concerned that Sulaiman may be acting on behalf of someone else, with many people believing that Thaksin Shinawatra could actually be the real new owner of Portsmouth (despite Thaksin having been found guilty of corruption in Thailand, thus disqualifying him from owning a Premier League club). This blog has previously addressed the issue of governance and club ownership in sport, examining why good governance matters, and why sport club owners should be fit and proper people in order to fulfil such a role. However, in the light of Portsmouth's takeover, it is worthwhile questioning the extent to which the system of governance, with particular reference to club ownership and the fit and proper person test, in the Premier League meets the following criteria laid down as being the principles of good governance:

Transparency: clarity in procedures and decision-making, particularly in resource allocation. Organisations charged with care of a public good such as sport have a particular obligation not simply to act in a fair and consistent manner but also to be seen to do so. Thus their inner workings should as far as possible be open to public scrutiny.
Accountability: sporting organisations are not only responsible to financial investors through financial reporting procedures, but also to those who invest other resources in the organisation - athletes, coaches, parents, supporters, sponsors and so on, even where that investment is largely emotional rather than material.
Democracy: access to representation in decision-making should be available to those who make up the organisation’s ‘internal constituencies’ - with for example representation on Boards of such organisations for constituencies such as players, supporters, and managers as well as owners.
Responsibility: for the sustainable development of the organisation and its sport, and stewardship of their resources and those of the community served.
Equity: in treatment of constituencies - for example gender equity in treatment of sports participants and in terms of positions within the organisation; and equity in treatment of sports participants (and employees) with disabilities.
Effectiveness: the establishing and monitoring of measures of effectiveness with measurable and attainable targets.
Efficiency: the achievement of such goals with the most efficient use of resources.