One of the great things about sport was that it reflected life. Sometimes it was unfair, but you had to get on with it just the same. It never paid to dwell on those times. Equally sometimes luck went your way.
Was it the dawn of technology that has seen that change?
Sport introduced video technology with the aim of making sure that justice was done. That when a decision went against a team that should have gone in their favour, it was adjusted so that the correct outcome eventuated.
Video technology was there to eliminate the absolute howler.
Yet the system is failing across so many sports. Australia lost the most astounding Ashes Test Match against England because they had lost their video referral. Also because the umpire in question appeared to be intimidated by the situation of the game and froze. Opting to give a decision of “Not Out.”
In the World Cup final another decision went England’s way, with the overthrows that deflected off of Ben Stokes bat; albeit a rule many appeared unaware of. Yet New Zealand were robbed of victory.
Of course this was the way sport used to be. Umpires and referees made a call and all the players accepted it. Players were given ‘out’ when they were ‘not out’ and sometimes were given ‘not out’ when they should have been ‘out.’
So has video technology improved sport? Does sport truly need it? Or would we be better off going back to how things used to be?
Certainly the outcry in Australia would imply that we should abandon it. What was interesting was the Australian media’s reaction to the decision that cost them the match and possibly the Ashes, and the New Zealand press’s reaction to their World Cup loss. They were poles apart in the way they reported the events.
The trouble of course is that it is not really about sport, it is about the business of sport. Sport is no longer about sporting contests between great sporting rivals. It is, as we are constantly told a business. Yet some of the decisions made by those running sport would see them drummed out of the business world if they were to be judged on the same performance indicators!
Do those running sport really care about such decisions being wrong in a match? This is the question that many should be asking.
The moment there is a video referral in Cricket the cash registers start to ring, for that advertising slot is the most valuable in the match. The camera pans onto the scoreboard at the ground, every viewer at home watches, and every fan in the ground turns to the big screen, and before the decision is given the screen carries a sponsors’ logo. The eyeballs on that logo at that point in time is worth a lot of money to those in the business of sport. So the moment, rather than the decision, is the key to them.
It was twenty years ago that the cricket world was stunned by the news that players were being paid to throw international matches. It was the Indian media who broke the news in 2000, as it was many Indian bookmakers who were making the approaches to the top players, including former South African captain Hansie Cronje.
The furore that followed these accusations and subsequent revelations one would have thought would have resulted in the outlawing of Betting companies sponsoring sport. If that was too extreme – as Governments benefit from revenues from betting – then what punters could bet on would be heavily restricted. For example once a match has started, like a roulette wheel spinning, no more bets can be placed. Instead we have had a proliferation of betting companies and now the presence of betting companies around sport is greater than ever. Why? Again it comes down to business. Like the cigarette companies of the 1970’s and 80’s they have the money, so sport will happily take the money.
It was earlier this Summer that it was reported in England’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper that Women cricketers were now being targeted by certain individuals to influence events in International Cricket matches. Those approached immediately reported this to the International Cricket Council’s Anti Corruption Unit.
At the time Alex Marshall General Manager of Cricket’s Anti Corruption Unit told the Sunday Telegraph, “the interest of corrupters has risen with the increased popularity, televised games and betting volumes.”
There were concerns that the same unscrupulous people would target the FIFA Women’s World Cup, so FIFA to its credit took unprecedented steps to protect the integrity of their game.
To give you an idea as to how big a business this is UKL685million was traded on women’s cricket by Betfair in 2018. This is compared to UKL15million three years earlier! Betting is clearly a huge business and sport benefits from that betting.
Analysis into the threats to the integrity of sport has shown that a large television audience and significant liquidity in the betting markets, in matches featuring poorly remunerated players are the games that are most vulnerable.
Some sports are clearly set up to try and limit the games that are affected. Some are simply paying lip service to problems such as betting, as they do not want to bite the hand that feeds them. It is a vicious circle, sport, betting and the media. All need each other in what is the sporting business world.
It is frightening how the business side of sport affects the management of sport. It is not just related to the playing side of things or the outside influences.
On the 19th of August the Football Federation of Australia announced that “an independent review of the process by which the national teams are managed, including the decision-making processes and the way in which items are reported to the FFA Board” would be going ahead.
To be fair to the Chairman of the FFA Chris Nikou, he stated at the time that FFA “The decision of the Board to replace Alen Stajcic as the Matildas coach is not under review or subject to review. However, the process raised questions for the Board on the manner in which conduct, performance and information are addressed by FFA as an organisation.”
A three-member Independent Panel to be chaired by Diane Smith-Gander AO and featuring Rod McGeoch AO and Liz Ellis AO was tasked with carrying out the review. All are respected individuals with a history of involvement in Australian Sport.
Despite the fact that the decision to replace Alen Stajcic is not under review, one would have expected that he would be one of the key people that the panel would like to talk to, in order to hear his side of the way events panned out. This would enable them to hear both sides and form a balanced and informed opinion. One on which they can then make recommendations moving forward.
News broke yesterday that Alen Stajcic will not be allowed to be interviewed or make submissions to the independent review panel. It is understood, and has been reported that under the terms given to the panel they can only interview relevant FFA senior management and national team staff as well as review existing documentation, information and correspondence.
If those carrying out the review respected their reputations they would insist on being allowed to speak to Stajcic. If that request was refused they should resign from their position on the panel, as their ability to be objective has been obstructed.
Of course that is unlikely to happen as they would probably lose financially, and all have been part of the system, so know how it works.
Sport is business. Yet in the business of sport bad decisions are repeatedly made as well as mistakes, but it does not pay to dwell on them. Whereas in business you look to address those bad decisions and mistakes quickly.
Integrity is fast becoming an outdated word. If those tasked with running sport really cared about its integrity they would do what is right, which is review the whole video referral system and make sure that it worked the way it was supposed to and eliminated glaring errors, but at the same time did not kill the joy of being at a live event. They would take a good hard look at the influence betting now has on the sporting landscape and how that is affecting the integrity of results and performances. They would also make sure that if they opt to review internal operations that those carrying out that review are not restricted in what they can see and hear or whom they may talk to. That the final review has integrity.
Bussinesses and business-people who have integrity tend to survive in the long term. Those who lack integrity are like a comet. They rise quickly and shine brightly but fly too close to the sun, and in the end the heat destroys them. Maybe that is why the depiction of comets in popular Western culture was as harbingers of doom and as omens of world-altering change, and change not for the good!
