Do Australia’s professional sporting teams have an obligation to entertain? Is it incumbent upon them not just to play hard, but to put on a ‘show’ as well?
The easy answer is ‘no’. They have an obligation to win, as ultimately, that is how they will be judged.
However, that’s too simplistic and idealistic an answer, because the reality is that professional sports are dependent upon revenue if they wish to remain professional.
Said revenue – either directly or indirectly – is generated by the fans. It’s raised via gate-takings, broadcast rights, merchandise and sponsorships, all of which can be attributed to the public and their level of interest in the particular sport. And make no mistake, there is plenty of competition for their interest.
There are a number of professional sporting competitions in this country, all scrambling to attract as many fans – and thereby revenue – as possible.
With such a cluttered and competitive sporting landscape, the individual sports and their teams therefore need to make their ‘product’ as attractive as possible, so as to gain and keep the interest of the public.
Winning obviously helps, but it’s very hard to actually guarantee success. It’s not exactly a unique strategy either; everybody is trying to win. And simple mathematics will highlight the fact that not everyone can do it anyway.
That’s why the entertainment factor comes into play.
Sport is entertainment. It always has been, right back to the gladiator days. But as professionalism has crept into sport, along with an increase in the actual number of sports, it becomes even more important that it is entertaining.
When you ask fans to pay to watch a sport, it becomes a transaction. The ‘fan’ makes the subtle shift to ‘customer’, and with that financial agreement comes an obligation to provide value for money.
Additionally, the very second you ask fans to pay to watch sport, you enter a market that is extremely competitive: the one asking for their wallet.
That places sports against a vast number of competitors: cinemas, the pub, gaming consoles, restaurants, theme parks, Foxtel, national parks, holidays, the theatre, museums, shopping, and the list goes on.
With such healthy competition for their dollar, suddenly the fan is a discerning one. So when it comes to watching sport, they don’t want entertainment, they demand it. And they’ll vote with their feet.
Therefore, teams may not have an obligation to entertain, but it’s most certainly in their best interests to entertain.
That’s why many sports and competitions have attempted to ensure the entire experience is as entertaining as possible for the paying public.
Cheerleaders, bands, fireworks, mascots, dancers, face painting, Mexican waves, t-shirt cannons, food stalls, bars, celebrity fans, pre-game and halftime entertainment, video highlights, trivia questions, dress-ups, comedians, chants, crowd announcers, etc.
All are designed to maxmise the fan’s enjoyment, and provide bang for their buck.
Yet the sport itself will always remain the ‘main show’ and spectacle, and thus remains the part that fans really want to be entertaining.
In many cases, it’s not just about being entertaining, it’s about being true to the Australian way of approaching sport. It’s a cliché – but it doesn’t make it any less true – that Aussies like to see their teams ‘have a crack’, rather than being cautious or defensive.
They’re not shy about voicing their opinions either.
The Socceroos under Pim Verbeek were lambasted for not playing the attacking football for which the team had become renowned.
For the last couple of years, the Wallabies have been derided for not playing the traditional Australian style of free flowing, running rugby.
You often hear people complain that Ed Cowan is too slow when he bats.
Australian sports fans want to be entertained.
It’s a fine line though, because Australian’s are very a tough crowd. They expect their teams to play a certain way, but they also expect to win. In fact, I don’t think it’s an unfair statement to proclaim that they want both equally.
The St George Illawarra Dragons claimed the 2010 NRL Premiership, much to the chagrin of fans who hated their methodical, high percentage, kick-heavy style of play.
The Sydney Swans won the 2005 Premiership, yet even AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou labelled them as “unattractive” and “ugly”.
So winning isn’t enough to please everybody. Yet neither is just being entertaining. You need to be both.
The Steve Waugh-led Test team, the 2005 Wests Tigers, and the 2011 Queensland Reds are three examples of teams that perfected the magic formula of winning and being entertaining.
It’s far easier said than done, but in Australia, that’s the harsh expectation.
An obligation to be entertaining? No.
A need to be entertaining? Yes.
BowledShane
Guest
Dont agree with that one Jayden. Agree that Stoke are not attractive to watch but if this style of play had them sitting on top of the Premier League then every game they played would be televised. Good argument relating to 'winning' as opposed to 'entertaining'.
Delpy
Roar Pro
I consider myself a rugby fan, but I am definitely a Southern Hemisphere rugby fan. It seems that winning games is all that is important for some of the European / UK-based teams. Similarly with football (soccer), scoring a goal then "parking the bus" can be so draining (the Italian sides seem incredibly gifted at this). I much prefer to watch a team in search of a second or third.
A1
Guest
Or not bore them to death when you have tjrm
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Absolutely Astro. Great call. No one understood 'putting on a show' better than Dr Buss. It's a shame his son seems to have NFI.
Pot Stirrer
Guest
My answer is no they dont. I think professional sport is the entertainment regardless of flamboyanc. Its the best of the best vs the best of the best and as such it is watching players do what we cant but wish we could do that is the enertainment. Which also expains why the top of the table matches are usually the more entertaining games becuase those teams have more of the better players.
astro
Guest
Hey Ryan...definitely need to 'tip your hat' to your former Lakers owner Jerry Buss, when it comes to sport and entertainment. If there was ever anyone who understood the link between the two, it was Dr Buss. He turned the Showtime Lakers into more than just a team, but an event. There's a good reason why they are one of the world's biggest franchises...and it's not all related to winning.
Patrick Effeney
Editor
I'm with you on the obligation to try. You're right though, it's all just semantics after all.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I'm more concerned that you didn't pull AndyMack up for saying you have a boy-crush on me!
Brett McKay
Expert
You never let opportunites like that slip...
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
"They just believe that it gives them the best chance of winning matches." Sorry, that's what I meant by safer - they assume it's an easier path to success, whereas I'm not sure that's true. But yes, it's a valid point use raise in your second paragraph.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I would ague that the Tigers have a big supporter base because of their style of play though, no?
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I totally agree, I actually wouldn't have Cowan in my side based on his lack of runs and nothing else. But it would be a risky move to drop a batsmen who looked better on this type of pitch than Hughes did, that's all I'm saying.
Matt F
Roar Guru
Agree with your second paragraph. I don't care if Cowan scores slowly as long as he scores. Re your first paragraph - the reason why most people are calling for Cowans head is because it's yet another failure. It's not just based on this last test match. He's played 14 tests and averages around 30. Hughes has only been back in the side since the SL series and, while he hasn't been great, he has made some decent scores. He did look poor in this game though. I'd be very interested to find out how many batsmen have played that many test matches with an average as poor as Cowans. Perhaps a few young guys might have as they could have had improvement in them but Cowan should be at his peak now. If this is it then we're in trouble
Matt F
Roar Guru
I'm not sure they consider it safer. They just believe that it gives them the best chance of winning matches. Whether they're right or not is of course another issue. In terms of job security I'd argue that it might actually be safer for a coach to play an entertaining style. Fans will only tolerate ugly play if the team wins consistently. As soon as results turn south they'll start complaining. A team that plays what most people would consider to be an entertaining style usually gets a bit more time if results aren't what they are expected to be
Matt F
Roar Guru
The Tigers have a big fan base, at least compared to most Sydney clubs, which helps more than anything when it comes to TV. They've also been fairly successful over the period. No premierships but they've made the finals a fair bit. TV bases its game choices around two factors as they want to get as many people watching as possible; success and supporter base. In salary cap competitions the first one is unreliable as teams rise and fall but the latter reason is why teams like the Bulldogs, Broncos and Tigers will still get TV games even if they're out of the finals while Cronulla won't unless they're in the Top 4. Canberra and the Warriors have always played entertaining football but aren't shown because Channel 9 gets limited benefit from showing their matches.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Yep, nice summary, Matt. As Sheek alluded to before (and this obviously depends on the sport), what can be annoying is the assumption that playing negative/defensive/cautious/conservative is somehow provides a better chance of winning. As you mentioned, it does matter what 'cattle' you have, but even then, there are coaches who's default position is negative/defensive/cautious/conservative" because it's safer. Safer than what, I would ask. .
Matt F
Roar Guru
It's an interesting topic. Obviously any team would rather win and be entertaining. However if a side needs to play ugly in order to win then they should do it. Some teams have to play an "ugly" style in order to win as they don't have the natural talent to win another way. I suppose there are really 4 types of teams. Teams that win and are entertaining about how they play, teams that win ugly, teams that lose but still are good to watch, and the ugly losers. If you were to rank the 4 types in terms of desirability then you'd have a clear number one and a clear number four. It then comes down to whether you'd prefer a team that wins ugly or one that loses but tries to entertain. Personally I'd much rather my teams win ugly than be entertaining losers.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Yep. Winning certainly helps. But mid-table, exciting teams get plenty of coverage as well. I'd be willing to bet the Wests Tigers have been one of the most televised teams on Channel 9 over the last 5 or 6 years despite being far from the best side in the NRL during that time.
Matt F
Roar Guru
But wouldn't prospective fans be more inclined to go and watch a certain side because they've been successful? Generally the winning team gets the media coverage and then the bandwagon kicks in. An attractive team who is sitting mid-table or below isn't going to get sufficient coverage to gain the attention prospective fans
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Pretty much!