There seems to be a course called Sports Marketing 101 that is offered at some unknown university with the same subject around the world.
While many sports follow some aspects of this, rugby in Australia, and especially the Super 14, seem to use every line from every lecture.
First of all, the term “franchise.”
Without giving a dry explanation and exact terminology, a franchise is a business which sells a brand and its products with some autonomy for the independent owner.
At what point does a sporting team and all its emotions and loyalties become a franchise?
Does this evoke passion? “Hey my franchise beat your franchise on the weekend!”
The traditional sports team is locality based and tribal.
Yes, that can be limiting in terms of geography, and therefore population and potential new converts. But it also inspires loyalty, especially in Sydney where public transport has been so dire that people are tied to their suburbs.
For example, the Newtown Jets have been out of a front line competition for many years yet still have many fiercely loyal fans.
Can that be said for the East Coast Aces. The East Coast, which crosses three states and has and countless cities and towns, inspires fans from Bombala to Cooktown? I think not.
And why are they Ace?
There are countless other examples of this, and yes you can argue that sports is a business. But as the ultimate expression of a business, Manchester United is publicly listed, yet its ties are firmly rooted in Manchester.
So the questions are, has there been comparisons where this new marketing has massively improved revenue but still enjoyed die hard fans? Or has it turned into a commodity with no “brand loyalty”?
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (5)
- Nathan Sharpe to retire at end of 2012 (6)
- Queensland ready for Super challenge (2)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (54)
- Foley excited about Samoan rugby challenge
- Force rugby coach praises his pack (2)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (66)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (27)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- Rugby Union
NUFCMVFC said | March 18th 2009 @ 7:46am | Report comment
Firstly, from what I understand, Manchester United PLC is a Privately Listed Company
Manchester United Football Club is not, but Manchester United PLC is the holding Company. They designed it this way to get around laws of share dividends, salaries etc restrictions under FA law to enable the people wanting to make money out of football to move in
Regarding Franchise, well to me the governing body administer the Sport. Now while there are many good reasons for adopting Marketing structures, marketing research techniques to find the most suitable place to plac a team and to have the capacity to remove a team and place it elsewhere ala New Zealand Knights A League team, in essence the Sport is not something owned by the parent company/governing body (in my case FFA) and my passion is not a “product” for them to sell.
To me they are still in essence football clubs and there are certain obligations and duties that go along with that
Something that seems to get lost on the FFA at times
Andystath said | March 18th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Interesting article Dimebag I think using rugby and the APC is fair but not the best example.The A-League is the franchise specialist in Australian sport and look at the success that it has accrued and the development of its fan base. The problem with franchises is that they are wholly self serving and the development of the sport at grassroots level is inconsequential to the franchise owners.I think you’ll find many fans aligned to the old NSL clubs in Sydney won’t support Sydney FC due to the fact that there is very limited youth/grassroots development from this franchise and yet they pick and choose the best players from these clubs with little or no renumeration to the clubs that have funded these players development.
Dimebag said | March 18th 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Thanks guys. I wasnt trying to pick on Rugby, its just what i know and have observed. To me, sport is passion, and that is brought on tribally by geography. I cant understand heads of a sport talkign in business terms to people who follow the sport. If you want to inspire people, as a start, using the term franchise is not the way to go
Pippinu said | March 18th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
The AFL toyed with private ownership, but have since moved back to first principles, i.e. members based clubs – and as a consequence, I’m pretty sure the “franchise” terminology disappeared from our lexicon a long time ago (not sure if it ever really had a big place in it).
There’s no doubt in my mind that this sort of ownership structure suits the culture and traditions of aussie rules, very much for the reasons you have said – people want to feel part of something – membership of a club satisfies that yearning far more than some nebulous form of “brand loyalty”.
Millster said | March 18th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Soooommmmeee wheeeeeere….. oooover the raaainnnbowwww….. (intense sarcastic tone intended)
Guys we live in the 21st century not the 19th. Sports IS business, IS entertainment, and faces all aspects of the management of any other complex organisation.
I’m writing from KL, having been here a day after time in Europe and the Middle East where among other things I watched a ton of good football and a couple of games of Rugby. There is no, repeat no, conflict in fans minds that on the one hand their clubs are franchises / businesses / whatever and on the other they are a passion-inspiring community activity. Clubs can be, and are, both the world over. And sorry for being cynical but any person or club that wistfully looks back at the ‘good old days’ should probably just look inwardly because their angst is probably more reflective of thier incompetence to manage things in the modern era rather than anything else.
Finally Dimebag are you Gruffalo by another name, or his love child? Do a search on that name and you’ll see some almost identical thinking (and my almost identical rebokes) scattered across the last 12 months.
Pippinu said | March 18th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Millster
Your Harvard credentials don’t cut any ice here! Governments are bailing out banks the world over – the era of sports clubs returning to the hands of members is nigh!
Papa Romeo said | March 18th 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
(Wow, Millster, harsh! Tho I did like your opening.)
ComPLETELY concur with the essence of what you are trying to say, Dimebag.
Franchise? Huh? What happened to my club/team?
Now I do not pine for ‘the good old days’ – whatever they are exactly – as I am all for the professionalism of sports and the financial benefits that flow there from, but isn’t it still the Tahs…or Sydney FC…or Dickie Johnson’s race team (Oh yes, the V8s run a franchise system too), for example?
Even if the structure of a team is indeed a franchise, as per its business world definitiion (good observation about the owner’s interests not necessarily lending itself to junior development, Andystath), the act of referring to it as such seems to sap large quantitiies of PASSION from the enterprise. It speaks of two businesses engagaing in 80 or 90 minutes of ‘entertainment’. Which, sure, in some ways it is (all the talk of sport competing for the entertainment dollar and share of wallet, etc., does gall me a bit but, as I think Millster suggests, it is the reality), but sheesh, it ignores the root cause of these two teams coming together. Competition.
I blame it all on the Seppos.
I’m all in favour of progress, but not for the sake of it.
Redb said | March 18th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
When you look at instant successes it’s hard to go past the Gold Coast Titans in the NRL in 2008. I know they went through a few incarnations in the past (Chargers, et al), but they really hit the ground running with good marketing and communtity engagement.
The other franchises like the West Coat Eagles and Adelaide Crows in the AFL did simiarily well with huge local football followings as a platform. GC17 is following a build it from the beginning path, giving them 3-4 years to build before they play, that shoudl work well (stadium deals aside). This is unlike the Gold Coast A League team which appears to have been very quickly hobbled together with a very large cheque book.
Community engagement and on field success is the key for new sporting franchises.
Redb
Michael C said | March 18th 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
FOr all the talk of globalisation of sports, of international ‘franchise’ branding and the like, – well, like a lot of things, there’s often an equal and opposite demand for ‘localisation’ (on some scale).
This might be seen in the number of people who for example follow Man Utd in the soccer, but, follow a local AFL/NRL team in what in the main are self contained domestic competitions (that said, anywhere else in the world, the geographic distances of Australia would dictate either a multi-national competition or a multi-conference domestic competition).
I reckon people seek a balance, a bit like, buying a balance of imported product and Australian made. For some, it’s not an issue. For others, it’s a major issue, one way or the other.
There’s also the capacity to be a 100% tv sport interaction or a live attendance interaction.
There’s also the level of a sense of ‘ownership’ vs simply being a ‘customer’. This I guess is like any business/co-operative, and poor management, poor communications etc can quickly disenfranchise the ‘supporters’ from the ‘franchise’.
To me, the main point is about the financials. And the EPL for example has now set a standard where by private ownership by a billionaire with loose purse-strings is the pre-requisite.
The AFL by comparison is a member based model requiring revenue streams from sponsors, attendances, broadcast rights, other streams (inc. pokies). This probably has a ogical ‘cap’ within the Australian market. THe HAL by comparison, has internal expenditure regulatory structures, but, allows private ownership. Private owners have only their personal whim to limit them. Clive Palmer for now, is very willing to splurge as much as it takes. It the HAL regulatory structures were removed, then, the standard would be set – that ‘natural’ revenue streams would be insufficient and you’d require wealthy owners with loose purse-strings.
At the end of the day – the danger of pandering to the super rich is that if the ‘owner’ appears to be more involved for their own glory rather than that of the club, then the rank and file supporter base can feel alienated. Elements of this has been seen with Man Utd, their US owners, and those ‘rebel’ fans who created ‘FC united.
REality is, a lot of people yearn to feel important. That is more gained for the average fan at the grass roots level. Whether as a junior coach, or a local player or committee volunteer. The more the top level sports becomes commercialised, the more it becomes just another entertainment option. It becomes a discretionary spend.
Andystath said | March 18th 2009 @ 11:02am | Report comment
The Tahs board is currently and quietly trying to divorce itself from NSW rugbyto create a franchise.I think that this board has lost the essence of community involvement and is only thinking of the dollars and cents rather than the wellbeing and development of Rugby in NSW.NSW Rugby and the Waratahs are one entity and this should always remain so.
As for the billionaire boys club,ocean racing used to be the sport for that club,its now Soccer clubs for the insanely wealth and U.K/french Rugby clubs for the millionare boys club.