The science of (sporting) rumours

Ribery to Real Madrid? Cavendish to Team Sky? Alonso for Massa? Will Nadal make the US Open? Rumours in sport are part of landscape, there are even websites devoted to them. But what is a rumour; where do rumours come from; what purpose do they serve; and what impact do they have? It seems that rumour research, some might call it rumour science, is beginning to attract the attention of several academics and commentators, for instance:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/10/12/how_to_fight_a_rumor/?page=1

More specific details of the research cited in this article can be be found in a paper entitled 'Reining in rumors', by DiFonzo, Bordia and Rosnow in the following journal: Organizational Dynamics. Here is an extract:

"Rumors do not just fill up time around the water fountain. They can drain productivity, reduce profits, create stress in the workplace, or sully a company's image. Some rumors tear at a company's credibility, with both personnel and customers. Others have catapulted firms into financial disaster. It is imperative that managers know how to deal with the spread of questionable information

Generally defined, rumor is unverified information, usually of local or current interest, intended primarily for belief. In other words, rumors are propositions or allegations colored by various shades of doubt, because they are not accompanied by corroborative evidence. Thus, rumors scamper about organizations like some mischievous poltergeist, until skillful managers exorcise the allegations or the allegations vanish into thin air.

Excepting their lack of proof, rumors are similar to news. Both explain important events, pertain to people or to affairs that don't involve people, and may be positive or negative. But news is always confirmed, while rumors are, by definition, unconfirmed. The eminent sociologist, Tamotsu Shibutani, referred to rumors as "improvised news."

A second characteristic of rumors is that they spring from collective concerns. Improvised news is of interest to group members (the rumor public). That group interests motivate rumors is indicated by the close connection between rumors and collective interests. Exhibit 1 [not shown here] lists some subclasses of organizational rumors we found, along with the collective interests that spawn them. Turnover, job-security, and job-quality rumors are usually rooted in worries and ambiguities that stem from impending changes in management policy or personnel. Pecking-order rumors typically grow out of employees' doubts and insecurities about their position in a firm and their hope for a promotion. Costly-error rumors reflect concerns about damage caused by mistakes. Consumer-concern rumors usually reflect consumer fears about a company product or service.

A third characteristic of rumors is that they are intended primarily for belief, when reliable information is unavailable. Rumors, according to the forerunners of rumor research, Harvard Professors Gordon W. Allport and Leo Postman, are an "effort after meaning." They are speculations that arise to fill knowledge gaps or discrepancies. This function differentiates rumor from gossip, which is meant primarily to entertain or convey mores. Gossip is a tasty hors d'oeuvre savored at a cocktail party; rumor is a morsel hungrily eaten amid an information famine."

What relevance does this attract have for sport? Consider it in the context of Cristiano Ronaldo's transfer from Manchester United to Real Madrid, the exchange of £80 million, the general acceptance across football that United therefore have money to spend, and Sir Alex Ferguson's repeated denials that the club won't be spending any more money on players this summer. To what extent would an understanding of the science of rumours help fans, players, club officials, commercial partners and the media get to grips with what is going on in this summer's player transfer market?

Sport's next big thing

The widely respected Harvard Business Review has recently published its latest edition, which is a special entitled 'Strategy in the New World'. In no way is the HBR intended to provide specific insight into the future for sport, although it does provide some helpful insight that may give us a better understanding of what is to come for sport. The following quotes are taken directly from an article that highlights 'what next'?

"After a full year in heads-down crisis mode, business executives are looking again to the future. As they reengage in strategic thinking, many are struck by a sense that the world has changed: The turmoil was not merely another turn of the business cycle but a restructuring of the economic order. Is that impression accurate?

To answer this question, it is necessary to examine the underlying forces that shape the business environment and to look for discontinuities. McKinsey & Company tracks the most important of these forces, from the growth of emerging markets to the evolving role of business in society. Here we discuss how the crisis may affect their trajectories, and we address the implications for strategy.

Some trends, we argue, remain firmly on track, but uncertainties are cropping up around others. We also see signs of new forces emerging, which we will be exploring in more detail in the months ahead. The overall picture is of an altered business landscape. It does seem there will be no going back to the pre-crisis world."

In this context, the following are identified as major emerging trends that all organisations will have to address and manage within the following developments:

-Resources feeling the strain
-Globalization under fire
-Trust in business running out
-A bigger role for government
-Management as a science
-Shifting consumption patterns
-Asia rising
-Industries taking new shape
-Innovation marching on
-Shifting consumption patterns

The article goes on to recommend the need to be aware of the following:

“Strategies will hinge on which scenario materializes, but for the moment companies should -

Prepare for slower long-term growth in global consumption. Companies that have relied on fundamental market growth, especially for mature products, now need to fight for market share or compete in new categories.

Shift investment to Asia. Consumption is clearly growing faster in China and India than in developed markets.

Focus on older consumers. Within five years, more than half of all consumer spending in the U.S. will be by consumers over 50, and the proportion of older households is rising in Europe and Japan as well.

Find ways to offer luxuries on a budget. Tighter household budgets don't mean lower aspirations. Our research shows that stretched consumers in slow-growing economies will still want to feel that they are living the good life.”

Simple question: what does this all mean for sport?

F1's good old, bad old days

BMW today announced that it will be withdrawing from F1 at the end of this current season. The announcement follows Honda's withdrawal from the sport eight months ago, while several other teams - notably Renault and Toyota - are also thought to be considering their futures in the sport. There is inevitable speculation that the downturn is to blame, that the sport has become too expensive, and that political and governance problems in F1 are of grave concern to these global corporations that have reputations to uphold. This blog has addressed these issues in the past and, so, a more pertinent question to ask at this point is: what will F1 look like next year?

The first F1 race I ever attended was the non-championship International Trophy at Silverstone in 1978 (yes, I really am that old). Run in torrential rain, there were only five finishers, the race being won by Keke Rosberg (father of current F1 driver Nico). Today's BMW withdrawal led me to think about the entries for the event back then - there were no big factory teams racing: Ferrari stayed away (it was a non-championship race and, unlike today, the team was much more conformist back then) and outfits like Lotus and Brabham (which was running under the stewardship of one B. Ecclestone) could hardly be called 'big'. Here is what the entry list looked like:

Theodore Racing - Theodore-Cosworth; Copersucar Fittipaldi - Fittipaldi-Cosworth; Melchester Racing - McLaren-Cosworth; BS Fabrications - McLaren-Cosworth; Durex Team Surtees - Surtees-Cosworth; Villiger Kiel Team Shadow - Shadow-Cosworth; Olympus Hesketh - Hesketh-Cosworth; Team Tyrrell - Tyrrell-Cosworth; John Player Team Lotus - Lotus-Cosworth; Tissot Ensign - Ensign-Cosworth; Marlboro Team McLaren - McLaren-Cosworth; Parmalat Brabham - Brabham-Cosworth; Automobiles Martini - Martini-Cosworth; ATS Wheels Racing - ATS-Cosworth; Merzario Racing - Merzario-Cosworth

Some interesting teams and some interesting sponsors (of special note, the London Rubber Company). Given the entries we know have been posted for next season's F1 World Championship, is the sport now returning to a set of contestants like those that we saw back in the 1970s? Would this be to the detriment of F1, causing irreparable damage to one of the world's most valuable sporting properties? Or would it actually make the sport stronger, more egalitarian and more accessible? Could it return the sport back to the enthusiasts and the public?

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?