For a long time now sports fans have been told that sport is now a business. It is no longer simply about the sporting contest, it is supposedly about the whole package, which falls into the business of entertainment.
The entertainment industry is we are led to believe flush with money. That is why so many sports are clamouring to sell their product to broadcasters and streaming companies, because they are sold on belief that by being part of the entertainment industry the money will suddenly come rushing in, and all their problems will be answered.
Many are finding that a failure to understand the motives of those looking to purchase the rights, and knowing the value of their product will ultimately result in more issues to resolve. In some cases it has ended up restricting the organisations ability to generate income.
The trouble with the whole entertainment industry is that you have to offer just that, entertainment. That is not just down to the broadcasters but also down to the teams participating. So many sports have unfortunately in the past ten to twenty years become incredibly bland. To compensate for the dullness commentators have resorted to shouting over the top praise for a rare moment of individualism, as if it was the greatest moment the sport had ever witnessed. Maybe it is the shock of witnessing such a moment in yet another predictable homogenised game. Everyone playing the same style, a style in which conformity is the key.
While many fans have reduced the amount of sport they watch, others take to social media to slam the competition, their team or individual players. What is clear is that there is a fairly large amount of dissatisfaction. Is this because there is too much sport?
It was interesting recently to hear in a casual conversation the opinion of someone who claimed to take a cursory interest in sport. Their involvement they claimed was watching the national team play no matter the sport, but they had no interest in competitions below that level. Yet they did have an interest in the way sport was run, and their view was that in many cases here was “a million dollar business being run by second hand care salesmen.”
One observation which resonated was, just a headmaster worth his salt would not employ a teacher straight out of University, they would tell then to go and learn a bit more about life, which will benefit their students as much as their knowledge of their chosen subject, they were of the opinion that a smart sporting organisation would adopt the same principle. They would look to take people into their business who come with knowledge from other industries that is adaptable to the one that they are joining. Their view was it should not be about cheap labour under the guise of giving a youngster an opportunity, it is about employing the best staff for the role. They believed that too often all of the money was being spent on those in management leaving no budget to employ the right people responsible for making things happen; hence the employment of kids fresh out of university.
Sport as an industry on and off the pitch is competitive. If you want to be the best on the pitch you sign the best players, so if you want to be one of the best run clubs or organisations why do you not have the same policy?
Just as many Headmasters will tell you that once a teacher goes and experiences what they can be paid in other industries few will return to schools; or only those who really see it as a vocation. Money is a key issue in sport too, but as the gentleman said, it is about working out your priorities.
Which is more important, short term gain from a playing perspective or long term sustainability of the club or sport? There has to be a balance.
Investing in the right people both on and off the field of play is equally important. As with teaching some of the best people will in fact work for less money if they believe they can make a difference. Whereas many who are not the right fit for your organisation will be looking to make as much as they can in as short a stay as possible.
This writer highlighted the fact that administrators in sport tend to be very transient. Many moving from one sport to another after an Olympic Cycle is over, others simply to try and climb higher up the sporting corporate ladder.
His response was if they are changing jobs every three to four years you need to really look at what they have achieved, if anything. Are these really the people that you want in your organisation?
He went on to explain how when a coach is putting a squad together for an international match, he or she will look for the best players in every position. They will then look to see if those players attributes will compliment each other in order to achieve the desired outcomes for the team as a whole. This sounded like commonsense.
Why do the boards of sporting organisations and sporting clubs not do the same? He asked before making the observation that the only position that they take an interest in is the appointment of the CEO. While many get this appointment wrong, a failure to oversee the recruitment in other key positions within the organisation will cause continued long-term problems.
How many sports actually have succession planning?
When you think about this question and look at many of the clubs and sports administrations it is a very good question.
As a club especially, but also as a sport most would look to create a culture. They would identify what their role is in society, or their community, and would look to reflect the values and beliefs of that community. Over time the goals and aims may change, but the core values will usually remain the same.
So before a position becomes available within an organisation should the decision-makers be looking to identify people in other roles whose values and beliefs align with theirs, and who would be able to bring a fresh approach while sticking to those key components? Surely this is a far better option than advertising a position and hoping to find someone that may fit. It is also more proactive to already know who you want rather than waiting to react when someone does leave?
In today’s world relying on employment agencies, or the honesty of some of the candidates who apply is not going to ensure that you end up with the right person. As has been mentioned before, one sport gave the CEO role to a candidate purely because they had held that role previously. Had they done their homework they would have discovered that they were far from a success in that role. It cost that organisation dearly as they went broke. Yet remarkably the individual concerned landed another senior role in sport, until eventually they were found out again.
There is a saying in football that says “you’re not a real manager until you’ve been sacked.” Yet football is a bizarre industry. How many Managers are sacked and then rewarded with another job at another club? What other industry does that?
How many of the recruiting clubs do their homework and look at the impact this manager had at the club prior to being sacked? Did they bring through youth? Did they spend huge amounts of money on players at the end of their careers? What was their demeanour like around the club and in public? Were they good with the press?
Football has become renowned for its cliques. Managers signing players from preferred agents. There was even a time when the managers were only signing players from the same agency that represented them. Now with the Directors of Football making many of these decisions do such appointments need more scrutiny than they are receiving?
The lifespan of a manager in English football today is no more than on average three years at a club. This shows that the Manager is in fact not necessarily the most important role at the club. Most of these clubs have been around for over 100 years, players and managers now come and go but the club and the badge still remain, as does its importance to a community.
Take the team that this writer supports, Swindon Town. The club was founded in 1879. From the start of the 20th century up until the club’s centenary tear they had employed 12 Managers. Since 1979, in the next 45 years the club has had 32 managers and another 15 interim managers when one has left or been sacked. In almost half the time span there have been nearly three times as many coaches appointed. The average lifespan is 16 months.
While winning is important in sport, Managers today have to focus on so much more. Maybe that is the problem. Now in many cases the recruitment of players is taken away from them and left to a Technical Director or Director of Football. In many cases the manager will give the Technical director a list of positions he wants players for, he may then give him a wish list of the players he would like, and the Technical Director goes to work on trying to recruit the player.
This again seems a strange development. If you are going to work for someone or someone is going to work for you, it is vital that you are involved in that process. It is important for a long term working relationship. As a player you want to hear what the manager thinks of you as a player, your strengths and weaknesses, how they see you fitting into the team and what their goals are and the style of play they intend to adopt. This will undoubtedly impact your decision. Equally as a manager you want to see how the player reacts and work out if their demeanour and personality will indeed fit in with the rest of the team, and your plans.
Fans have witnessed clubs spend big money on players, but with that expenditure understandably comes expectation. many are well aware that simply spending money is no guarantee for success on or off the pitch. If the everyday man is going to shell out their hard-earned wages to go and watch their team, and that player is being paid ten times their annual salary they better perform.
This is where one of the big areas where disconnections between clubs and their community have arisen in the past 30 years. The fans feel distance between them and the players and many players have no real interest in the club, its fans, or the community it represents, despite the disingenuous kissing of the club badge. To many players this is just one other port of call in their career before they move on to something better.
When it comes to the playing side of the game a player that plays for themselves rather than the team is soon realised to be detrimental to the team as a whole. History has shown that you will not win with such people in your team. So they are left out, or moved on. Yet the same rules do not apply to administrative staff, even though the same situation occurs.
How many clubs actually sit down with their imported players and staff, and they can be from overseas or other parts of the country, and share the history of the club they are joining and its importance to that community in yesteryear? How many working in sports administration really know the history of the sport that they are responsible for? Some have no idea whatsoever, having witnessed one CEO ask an Olympic medallist and Hall of Fame inductee in a sport, what their involvement with the sport was!
There were 296 players from Football League clubs who were killed in the first world war. How many players joining Scottish club Heart of Midlothian are told that they lost the most players of any Scottish club, seven losing their lives. Or players joining Bradford City of the impact of not only the fire of 1985, but that they lost the most players of any club in World War 1 when nine gave their lives for the cause. These are important and poignant moments in a club’s history along with the famous victories, and they are the things that create an everlasting link to the community. This is the same crucial element in any job, you must know your audience and the product.
When signing players today there are companies that supply managers with data, they do background checks and trawl through their social media accounts before a player even talks to a club. So why is the same scrutiny not applied to those working inside the organisation?
There is a form of progression planning on the playing side as the coach knows the type of player they want and draws up a list. Do the Board do the same when it comes to key roles within the organisation?
It has been said that the key to a successfully run club or sporting organisation is having a good structure on which to build. A structure that will remain and not be tampered with no matter what. If this is in place then when the politics arise they will come and go, as will those driven purely by ego, but the core values of the club and the business and what they stand for will be secure.
However, to achieve that you need an involved and educated Board who are not looking at day-to-day or week-to week survival, but at long term outcomes, and who are individuals that can help guide the organisation to achieve them by virtue of their knowledge and expertise.
Many sports have promoted from within. Given the key roles to people who have had skin the game, but history has shown that only a very small percentage have managed to generate long term success. If sport is a business, how many of these people have the experience and knowledge to drive the business side and park the playing side for a period to enable them to make the best decisions for the long term interest?
So, If sport is truly a business is it time that sport looked more to those with business expertise rather than sporting knowledge? Is that the key to survival? As clearly at the present time, with many sports and clubs survival is the top of the agenda.
