Does sport have an obligation to be entertaining?
Columnist By Luke Doherty, 29 Oct 2012 Luke Doherty is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, robbie deans, Rugby Union, wallabies
New Zealand All Blacks fly-half Daniel Carter, right, blocks a kick from his counterpart Australia's Berrick Barnes during their Bledisloe Cup rugby match(AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)
Related coverage
Sports entertainment was once the realm of Vince McMahon and the World Wrestling Federation.
Now, all modern day sport, for better or worse, has been moved into this category.
Fans choosing when, how and where to spend their leisure dollar have more choice than ever.
I pressed one button on my remote control yesterday and had at least eight different options available to me without having to leave the couch.
Most sports administrators are acutely aware of the market they operate in and the competition that confronts them.
New Sydney FC chief executive Tony Pignata put his feet under the desk, realised that Sydney siders need a little more convincing than others and went and signed Alessandro Del Piero.
Players voted among the best of all time aren’t readily available to CEOs across all sports, but Pignata saw a need and filled it.
Fans have responded by turning up in record numbers.
What every club, state, country is searching for is mass market appeal.
It’s a need to be loved by everyone and if love isn’t possible then the goal is to at least be respected.
It doesn’t have to be through a big signing, but sports must do everything possible to make sure they’re acknowledged by the average sports fan.
A person might not be a fan of football, rugby league or the AFL, but they know if they sit down for a couple of hours and watch that they’ll be mildly entertained.
Those sports, including cricket with its open-armed embrace of all things Twenty20, are doing everything possible to increase their mass market appeal.
So, why is rugby union different?
Let’s eliminate Super Rugby from this argument because at least they acknowledged that a problem existed.
It was interesting, yet also concerning, to hear key members of the Wallabies set-up this week tell the world that tries weren’t important.
Coach Robbie Deans led the charge by defending his side’s draw with the All Blacks in Brisbane.
“I think people get hung up with tries scored and not scored,” said Deans.
Wallabies captain Nathan Sharpe echoed the view of his coach in a radio interview with ABC Grandstand on Saturday.
That opinion was countered by New Zealand coach Steve Hansen who described the clash as “one of the ugliest games of rugby I have ever been involved in.”
Sport is entertainment and the Wallabies are losing a war they may not even know they’re involved in.
My close group of friends are sports mad.
They would watch anything even closely resembling a contest between two things vaguely resembling teams.
At the moment I couldn’t pay one of them to come to a Wallabies game with me.
All of these guys used to love watching Australia play. These aren’t typical “rugby-bashers”, but the type of fan the game is losing.
They’re the passionate majority.
If it’s in green and gold they’ll support it, but the Wallabies have fallen off that list.
Outgoing Australian rugby union chief executive John O’Neill told the Sunday Telegraph yesterday that the game needed to realise that it was “in the entertainment business and with the freedom of choice you run the risk people will turn it off.”
O’Neill also acknowledged that scrum resets and penalty kicks don’t equal entertainment.
The argument made by those defending the game has always been that perhaps the rest of us don’t appreciate the contest within the contest.
Perhaps that is true.
The Wallabies pulled 51,888 to Suncorp for the match against New Zealand, 22,278 to their clash with Argentina on the Gold Coast and 34,377 turned up to watch the Aussies take on South Africa in Perth.
So, maybe rugby fans don’t care about what the international game is dishing up. They’re still coming through the turnstiles.
But, as O’Neill said, rugby is now in the “entertainment business” and I highly doubt any new fans are being drawn to the sport.
Their competitors copped the hint a long time ago and they’re already reaping the rewards.
It’s not enough just to win anymore. Now, more than ever, how you win matters.
They need to rediscover the magical formula that made the Wallabies the pride of the nation.
You can follow Luke Doherty on Twitter @Luke_Doherty and on Sky News Australia.
- Explore:
- All Blacks, robbie deans, Rugby Union, wallabies
October 29th 2012 @ 7:24am
Ryan O'Connell said | October 29th 2012 @ 7:24am | Report comment
Great article, Luke.
It’s always a tricky debate this one. There is much more to rugby than just tries, yet that’s what the casual wants to see, and that’s the market rugby therefore needs to convert.
But are tries really what (casual) fans want to see? I’ve always wondered that if that’s what people truly want, then how come touch football, or rugby 7′s, which both provide endless amount of tries, are not the most popular codes or type of football?
I’m not sure tries are the be-all or end-all. As Soapit states above, we’ve all witnessed enterprising rugby that may not have necessarily resulted in a try, but was still supremely entertaining.
Sports don’t have an obligation to be entertaining, but they certainly have a motivation. In a competitive sporting landscape like Australia, you’re competing with other sports for crowds, sponsorship and media coverage, and you therefore need to do all you possibly can to attain an unfair share of those variables, in order for your sport to grow.
That’s essential the business of professional sports now days.
Perhaps, in rugby’s case, that doesn’t mean that it needs to increase the amount of tries scored. Perhaps the strategy should be educating casual fans to finer points of the game, so they appreciate the overall package more?
October 29th 2012 @ 9:46am
Markus said | October 29th 2012 @ 9:46am | Report comment
I’d liken tries to CGI. A fantastic tool to add to a film, but without emotional investment in the characters, build up of suspense and a successful resolution to complement the CGI, all you have is a Michael Bay movie.
October 29th 2012 @ 9:49am
aussie sports lover said | October 29th 2012 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Good point regarding the overall package being presented differently. For example, let’s say they change the camera angle when there is a scrum so viewers get a more intiimate perspective of what actually happens (admittedly there’s a danger of someone caught doing dodgy things).
October 29th 2012 @ 11:03am
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | October 29th 2012 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Good point about the camera work. I watched the Quad series netball from New Zealand and I thought the camera crew really added to the contest with different angles.
I’ve no doubt that IF the camera could get us a better shot of scrum time, that us average punters would start to appreciate that aspect of the overall contest far more than we currently do.
In addition to better camera angles, I’d like to see a commentating team with knowledge of scrums, talking us through what is going on as the two packs go at it. At the moment it just seems like a good time to answer the call of nature, and that can’t be right.
October 29th 2012 @ 5:55pm
Arthur Fonzarelli said | October 29th 2012 @ 5:55pm | Report comment
Its not that we MUST see tries to be entertained in a rugby match.
Its that we do NOT want to watch lengthy stoppages for penalty goals.
October 29th 2012 @ 6:37pm
aussie sports lover said | October 29th 2012 @ 6:37pm | Report comment
Or dropped balls from lineouts and passes that goes nowhere near the intended target, Fonzie.
Good entertaining and knowledgable commentators would be awesome, Blinky Bill. I wonder who network 10 has lined up for the team.
October 29th 2012 @ 6:46pm
biltongbek said | October 29th 2012 @ 6:46pm | Report comment
Aussie, they actually tried that with the John Smit game earlier in the year, there was a camera setup 5 meters from the trylines in the ground, and whenever there was a scrum 15 meters in 5 from the line this camera would show you the inside of the scrum where the front rows bind.
Problem was with stampeding feet the grass kept on blocking the view. Needs some work, but it could become a way to “intigue” viewers more.
October 29th 2012 @ 6:57pm
aussie sports lover said | October 29th 2012 @ 6:57pm | Report comment
Biltongbek, I would love to see what happens inside those scrums especially when South Africans are involved
it would be awesome. The scrum is one of the most recognisable feature of union, there need to be more exposure for the exponents of the dark arts. Is there a video of this game posted up online somewhere?
October 29th 2012 @ 7:24pm
biltongbek said | October 29th 2012 @ 7:24pm | Report comment
I’ll have to check mate, it was played on the 22nd of June this year, Perhaps if you search under Barney’s army you might find something.
October 29th 2012 @ 7:25am
biltongbek said | October 29th 2012 @ 7:25am | Report comment
I watched the Currie Cup final last night. There was only one try scored in the match, yet it was tense, intrigueing and exciting.
There were kicking, mauls, backs running, forwards running, tightheads, awesome tackles and the game was in the balance until the final whistle blew.
To score a try takes a mere few seconds of time, there is 80 minutes in a game, even if there are 10 tries scored in a match it still only makes up a minute portion of the match.
For me rugby is about the physicality, the pace, the tackles, watching Eben Etzebeth at 20 years old steal 4 line outs, how an underperforming Western Province Scrum with an average age of 23 got a tight head in the last quarter, how Juan de Jongh sliced through a gap and scored the sole try of the match, watching Willem Alberts make 5 meters at a time and give the Sharks over the gainline, how Lambie got his backline away, how Catraklilis under pressure from Lambie switch to his left foot to kick the winning dropgoal.
It is about all of that, and the tries.
October 29th 2012 @ 8:40am
B-Rock said | October 29th 2012 @ 8:40am | Report comment
I agree Biltongbek, but the article is not about people like you or I. The casual fan cares about tries (and line breaks/creative play/etc) above all else as it is the most entertaining aspect of the game to the broader public. If no tries are scored, what higlights will they show on the news? This all seems trivial to the passionate rugby fan but is very important for the health of the sport in a competitive sporting market like Australia.
October 29th 2012 @ 8:49am
biltongbek said | October 29th 2012 @ 8:49am | Report comment
B-rock, then the ARU is in a catch 22, rugby union will never become rugby league, it will never change it’s ways because the casual supporter in Australia wants a higlights reel full of line breaks and tries.
I really don’t get this obsession with criticisibg rugby union because of that.
Thiscseason in the Currie Cup Premier division there were 5.5 tries per match, if there were something wrong with the game, then that wouldn’t be the case.
October 29th 2012 @ 3:37pm
Warren said | October 29th 2012 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Completely agree BB. I too watched the game and thoroughly enjoyed it. What was attendance? 40 000? The problem of “the spectacle” of the game and an obsession with try-scoring might be an Australian phenomenon, and not a rugby one.
October 29th 2012 @ 5:58pm
biltongbek said | October 29th 2012 @ 5:58pm | Report comment
Warren, the commentators said before the game that it was a sell out, alhtough I think that was a bit of an exaggeration, it was still a very good crowd though, typical finals athmosphere, sis you hear the roar of the crowd when the sharks got the ball in the 80th minute and started running at the goal line?
That was a near as anything and we would have seen extra time, shame that pass to Lambie was not more accurate.
October 29th 2012 @ 11:59pm
Warren said | October 29th 2012 @ 11:59pm | Report comment
Haha, I am a WP from way back, although in Aus for the last dozen years. My heart was in my mouth and yes, the crowd was incredible. They were a close run thing, those last few phases!
I am still a bit of a traditionalist regarding the game and think that winning brings support more than basketball type attractive rugby. I think there is an obsession with playing attractive rugby (esp here in Oz) when really, I think that a higher win ratio, however that is accomplished, will do the trick. If that means kicking, then fine. But kick well. We don’t do that well here in Aus.
The Bulls, when playing unattractive but winning rugby had plenty of support. Equally, some of the northern hemisphere club sides routinely play what we would consider unattractive rugby, yet still engender support. Because they win.
I maintain that kicking is still a legitimate way to accumulate points, a pushover try is something to behold and a rolling maul a thing of beauty. Is this “attractive”? I think so.
Groete
October 30th 2012 @ 12:09am
biltongbek said | October 30th 2012 @ 12:09am | Report comment
cheers boet. We are on the same page as far as what constitutes entertaining rugby.
October 29th 2012 @ 7:42am
tc said | October 29th 2012 @ 7:42am | Report comment
Here here biltongbek
October 29th 2012 @ 8:50am
soapit said | October 29th 2012 @ 8:50am | Report comment
you can explain away a lack of tries in a single match despite lots of enterprise and good running from the backs. that just the way it pans out sometimes, they might make a 90m run but then get tackled before the line.
however a pattern of lack of tries over a period of time does reflect a poor chance of a spectacle.
oz rugby needs to stop focusing all their energies on their world ranking. it has really distracted them from the real battle which is the domestic battle to win market share from the other codes. being number 2 in the world is a fairly meaningless stat in terms of bringing in dollars or fans or the next generation of players by itself (three fairly important measures of success i would have thought).
if we can do the things that will increase its market share in oz successfully the world ranking will take care of itself (and will insure ourselves against not winning every internaional trophy which is impossible to always achieve).
btw this doesnt mean the rest of the rugby world should change to suit us though, just do what we can within the framework we have.
October 29th 2012 @ 8:51am
chris said | October 29th 2012 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Here here B-Rock.
October 29th 2012 @ 9:07am
Pollock said | October 29th 2012 @ 9:07am | Report comment
There is no doubt as a game rugby has become more defense focused in recent years. I find less and less enjoyment in watching games now to the extent that boycott games with certain sides playing.
Any law changes brought in seem to have the opposite of the desired effect.
October 29th 2012 @ 11:42am
stainlesssteve said | October 29th 2012 @ 11:42am | Report comment
great point Pollock
too many rules already
but one change could possibly provide for more enterprising and positive rugby, which is to reduce the points for dropgoals and penalty goals perhaps to 1 and 2 points respectively. There are plenty of great games which are lowscoring, but for example, in the recent Bledisloe, i’d much rather have seen the ABs hang onto the ball and go for the try, than go for the droppy at the end. Regardless of the result.
Another point, about people in Australia caring about how the Wallabies win, as much as whether they win……..don’t think so. Talk is cheap. Wait till the Wallabies achieve another purple patch; the attendances will shoot up.
October 29th 2012 @ 9:23am
Markus said | October 29th 2012 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Journos often talk about all these casual fans who demand tries in their rugby, but who are these people? And will an increase in tries, regardless of results, magically bring said casuals out of the woodwork?
The Reds biggest crowds have been as a result of last year’s Super Rugby title. The Brumbies was between 2000 and 2004.
And the Waratahs was around 2001-02.
One could make the assumption it was purely due to the attractive rugby displayed, until the Waratahs are mentioned, who were just as conservative then as they are now.
The difference was that they were winning, regularly. Enough to look like legitimate title contenders.
People want to see winners. And not just wins where your team managed to be just slightly less bad than the other team, but dominant winners. Tries are more often than not a positive side-effect of said dominance, but are not mandatory.
The biggest problem with the Wallabies is that despite being number 2 on the IRB rankings, you have to think quite hard to remember the last time they showed any real dominance in a win.
October 29th 2012 @ 9:36am
soapit said | October 29th 2012 @ 9:36am | Report comment
its impossible to be winners forever. you have to come up with some sort of plan b to keep as many fans as you can when the winning glow departs.
October 29th 2012 @ 9:52am
ThomasCrown said | October 29th 2012 @ 9:52am | Report comment
I strongly disagree and the State of Origin proves it. NSW have lost 7 in a row yet they keep.setting new records for tv ratings. The Eels have had a shocking few years yet the fans stick.through thick and thin.
October 29th 2012 @ 10:08am
Markus said | October 29th 2012 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Good point Thomas, and it’s one I briefly touched on in a previous comment (that is pending moderation for some reason).
While some of the SOO ratings increase would be related to tuning in to watch the dominance of the Maroons, a lot can also be attributed to one other key factor – emotional investment.
It is something that any team needs from its supporters to be continually viable, yet something I think the Wallabies have probably struggled to sell to the public in recent years.
October 29th 2012 @ 10:40am
ThomasCrown said | October 29th 2012 @ 10:40am | Report comment
I think ur right about the.emotional investment but there is also no denng that u are guaranteed to see an amazing specticle of attack,skill,defense and athletic ability. the Maroon dominance is similar to allblacks domination so im not sure the.rise of ratings is from the domination.
October 29th 2012 @ 10:09am
nk7792 said | October 29th 2012 @ 10:09am | Report comment
State of Origin is different. It’s the most followed game in NSW and QLD and it’s a game involving arguably the best 26 players in the world. The Eels are not getting the same crowds now as they did when they last made the finals.
October 29th 2012 @ 10:21am
ThomasCrown said | October 29th 2012 @ 10:21am | Report comment
True however any sporting team that is makong the finals.will see an.increase an attendance. Despite a poor few seasons from the Eels, the showing of fans is reapectable. Sorry for .poor grammar im using a malfuntioning phone
October 29th 2012 @ 9:54am
The Bush said | October 29th 2012 @ 9:54am | Report comment
“The biggest problem with the Wallabies is that despite being number 2 on the IRB rankings, you have to think quite hard to remember the last time they showed any real dominance in a win.”
This is a very astute comment – perception is reality sometimes and the Wallabies, rankings aside, all too often lose games they shouldn’t and are far from spectacular when they do win.
A three game whitewash of Wales should have been memorable, yet I can hardly remember anything from the games, outside of about a single half in the second game (if I’ve even remembered that correctly).
I am not just picking on the Wallabies here though, it is incredible how average some of the skills are in international rugby. The game against Argentina featured enough dropped ball that not a single player would have been lucky to get picked the following week in the NRL…
October 29th 2012 @ 9:42am
ThomasCrown said | October 29th 2012 @ 9:42am | Report comment
As a die hard Leaguie, me and.my partner missed going to the Origin so we decided to go to Bledisloe 1. This was the first time have given Rugby a go and it left a bitter taste in my mouth. I watched my hard earned tick away on the xlock with penalties n scrums, and when we would cheer loudly we would stand out so we decided to keep quiet. Seriously Parrastadium at half capacity is more exciting and louder even when the Eels are losing lol. Ill just stick to watching it on TV cause when u have.been to Origin games, the expectation are very high. No intention of offending ruggers just sharing the thoughts of a Leaguie that gave live Rugby a go and found its not my cup.of tea.
October 29th 2012 @ 10:27am
astro said | October 29th 2012 @ 10:27am | Report comment
As a fan of both codes, I think you’ve touched on one of the key issues here…officiating!
A HUGE part of making any sport entertaining is the officiating, and on this front, rugby union is in the dark ages. League brought in 2 refs to help enforce some of the basic rules and make the game flow more freely…and although its not perfect, at least the game is trying something to improve the product.
Same thing happens in American sports regularly. Years ago the NBA did away with hand check fouls because they slowed the game down, made it too ‘defensive’ and was hard to fans to follow. The result is higher scores and more exciting plays. There are numerous other examples in football and ice hockey.
Rugby union is over-officiated. Pure and simple. The rules at the breakdown need to be revised and simplified. I know the rule changes were made to allow for more free kicks a while back, but they seem to be rarely used.
Besides officiating, union needs to change the scoring. Goals and droppies should rarely be the first choice option for teams. We only need to listen to everyone cheer when a team decides to ‘go for it’ and kick for touch, rather than take the points,to prove that tries are more ‘exciting’ and ‘entertaining’ than more penalty goals.
October 29th 2012 @ 11:22am
Brendon said | October 29th 2012 @ 11:22am | Report comment
but it doesn’t.. All lowering the points for penalties would mean is an increase in penalties from the defensive team because they don’t get punished on the scoreboard and get to reset the defensive line
October 29th 2012 @ 2:04pm
Col Quinn said | October 29th 2012 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Brendan,
I understand that lower the value of penalties in SA did result in more penalties. However, this suggests that there is something amiss in the mindset of those playing in that particular comp. RL has decreased the number of penalties awarded during games, due to increased discipline from the players. I can’t see why RU can’t do the same. De-simplify the breakdowns in RU and reduce the penalties to 2 and tries to 4 and coach the players into going for tires rather than position and penalty then RU will change.
November 2nd 2012 @ 2:17pm
Leo said | November 2nd 2012 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
nothing wrong with the game just as there’s nothing wrong all other football codes out there. enjoy whatever code you like to support.
October 30th 2012 @ 2:48pm
yahyah said | October 30th 2012 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
Yea I have to agree that the atmosphere at Bledisloe 1 was terrible. Im not sure if it was just the usual behaviour from Sydney rugby union fans or what but that was a poor vocal effort. We were often stared down if we got too animated. But to be fair, I also attended Origin 1 and the game was relatively quiet (not the crowd mind you), but unless you were in the stadium, the game would not have been worth watching at all. Often at times, games that bear much pressure tend to be either highly entertaining or extremely boring.
October 29th 2012 @ 9:44am
Homer6 said | October 29th 2012 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Ever since David Hill put the score permanently in top of the screen on US Fox Sports broadcasts, it been all about entertainment. If the games arent close people will switch channels. The Wallabies 3rd 15 are playing close games at the mo but their style is lacking for a lot of the game. We were spoilt when larkham, mortlock etc were playing stylish footy – less so now and the Waratahs are struggling but some of the other province go OK. RU will give you a fair dinkum contest – some other codes give you a mcmahon style contest where a guaranteed close result suits the TV execs . I know which one I prefer….
October 29th 2012 @ 11:34am
TC said | October 29th 2012 @ 11:34am | Report comment
It’s a good point.
The authorities can’t engineer results: their job is to set the stage, and it’s up to the players to perform.
As soon as the first whistle is blown, whatever happens happens – if one team is dominant on the day, they will have a big win – such is life.
Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence to show that neutral TV viewers will switch off in droves if the result is known early in the game. The AFL is no stranger to blow outs, and we can see the big difference in viewing numbers when the game goes down to the wire.
But all games can’t go down to the wire – that’s the nature of the beast.
In this context, all authorites can do is to create an environment which assists clubs in maintaining competitiveness, or at least gives them a chance to bounce back within a couple of seasons of hitting rock bottom.
Someone has to finish bottom – and that team will always suffer losses and a decrease in support as a result.
Do it too many times, and you’ll find a club that has gone broke.
TC
October 29th 2012 @ 12:07pm
Homer6 said | October 29th 2012 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
You can have officials that can make calls that make it a closer game see Roy Masters 23 March 2011 Sydney morning herald – “low diet penalty referees something…
October 29th 2012 @ 9:51am
TC said | October 29th 2012 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Life used to be a lot simpler.
Once upon a time it was footy in Winter and cricket in summer (with a bit of horse racing and tennis thrown in, and the Olympics every four years).
I don’t even have to tell you what footy means – it will be the game you watched during Winter, year on year, every year, since time immemorial.
If you were a rugby enthusiast, it was more or less an amateur game and much of your energy was focused on high end rep games.
No one gave a fig about market share, metrics, commercial imperatives, corporate governance and the word “profit” was rarely uttered in the context of sporting clubs.
But at some point, and the timing was in close proximity, each of the major footy codes endured their own epiphany.
Quality means greater professionalism, greater professionalism means bigger salaries (for everyone), bigger salaries means the ongoing, never-ending search for more revenue.
The major sources of revenue (in no particualr order) comprise: gate receipts (memberships); broadcasting fees; sponsorship and merchandise.
Each and every one of those demand sustained fan interest and involvement.
Passive fans are not really of any value to a sport anymore, although they represent a pool of potential sources of revenue, in the ongoing quest for increasing revenues.
How do you add these passive fans to your list of revenue generators, remembering that the number of passive fans might be 3 or 4 times the number of active fans?
That brings us to the subject of today’s debate. You will make some headway with advertising and other marketing initiatives and to this end AFL clubs maintain massive data bases of fans and potential fans.
Beyond that, you will get game-breaking initiatives: new clubs in new areas; big signings or big PR seeking initiatives.
Beyond that again, you will get a whole lot of energy going into the game itself. Is it sufficiently attractive to fans? Are there any trends in the game that we want to stamp out to assist in retaining its attractiveness to fans?
But note: this is a can of worms – get 100 fans in the same room and you will get 100 different opinions on the state of the game and what they want to see more of and less of. This is probably especially so for rugby fans, where there is a diversity of views about the current state of the game (how it is actually played at the highest levels).
In terms of controlling the game itself, the AFL has the greatest flexibility (and uses its powers shamelessly, some say, too much).
The NRL has a very strong influence over its game – one could say that today it is the senior partner in controlling the game.
Rugby and soccer authorities in this country have less influence, although they too will look for loopholes that allow them to influence how the game is presented on match day.
In the case of soccer, as one example, the FFA has taken strong action in the past against divers because they appreciate that the local market finds that distasteful and puts them off watching soccer games – this is very much pertinent to today’s discussion.
Does something similar happen in rugby? I’m not sure. One could argue that the bonus points system in Super Rugby is an attempt to positively influence the way the game is played in the big Souther Hemisphere rugby nations.
But in terms of the actual laws of the game, that’s a different matter again – unfortunately, the ARU is stuck there in terms of wanting to make the game more attractive to local tastes (if that is what it wants to do – many would argue it does not need to do that).
TC
October 29th 2012 @ 11:26am
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | October 29th 2012 @ 11:26am | Report comment
You raise some very good points here TC.
Ultimately it won’t matter what anyone but sponsors say. Sponsors provide the big $$$’s and sponsors will eventually influence things so that their dollars are spent as cleverly as possible.
Make no mistake, without sponsors the wheel stops turning.
October 29th 2012 @ 11:54am
TC said | October 29th 2012 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Hi BBB
The influence of sponsors has been a slow burn in Australian sport.
My early sporting childhood memories involve watching VFL games on muddy ovals on cold, wet Wintry Melbourne afternoons.
35 years ago or so, VFL clubs were making a few dollars out of signage around the ground, and that was pretty much the full extent of their sponsorship dollars.
Sponsors’ logos on jumpers would come later, but for a long time, gate receipts and memberships were the primary source of income – only enough to sustain the game at a semi-pro level (barely).
In the late 80s, I recall hearing Tommy Hafey talk at a sportsman’s dinner, and he made the point how in the space of a decade, sponsorship revenue had increased from around 10% to around 50%, with money from gate receipts going the opposite direction (talking in loose terms, I can’t remember the exact numbers, but you get the picture).
These days, clubs across all the codes talk of primary and secondary sponsors (and minor sponsorships below that). It has almost become a business in itself, the club will live and die on its level of sponsorships.
And yes, as you are saying, it doesn’t take much to imagine that if a major sponsor is putting in millions into the club per annum, they will make demands.
Most of the demands are things that are not going to upset the average fan too much – but there might be exceptions to that. You will get plenty of debate amongst sports fans about authorities trying to “clean” up games, with fans offended that certain traditions are put aside in order to put forward a cleaner image – and no doubt that is all about:
1. appeasing parents (to get more kids to play a certain sport); and
2. appeasing sponsors.
TC