Sometimes the world of sport can be confusing.
To the majority sport is a pastime, an activity that they carry out on a regular basis for enjoyment, and not for money. To others sport is a business, where the chosen sport has become an occupation, a way of making money. Then there are those who will tell you that sport is entertainment, that more important than the result is the enjoyment watching it brings. However that entertainment factor has now become part of the “business of sport.”
What is confusing to many is if sport is a business why are very few sports run along the same lines and principles as a business? Why are so many sports reliant on subsidies from their Governments and other funding grants? If they are a business surely they should have to stand on their own two feet and survive in the competitive business world? This is why so many people become confused when analysing the world of professional sport, if it is a business then it should be making money and supporting itself.
Clearly many sports have not learned from the world of business, but have they learned from the entertainment business?
Above the door of the old Directors Guild of America Building in Los Angeles it used to say the following: “There are no bad actors, only bad directors.” In other words if a film bombed at the box office it was not the actors’ fault, the blame lay at the feet of the director. It is a clear case of the director taking responsibility for the film. Do we see such a willingness to accept responsibility in sport, remembering that sport is entertainment? Yes, coaches get fired when a team under performs, but they are the only ones where such responsibility seems to result in a loss of their job.
The movie business is now a colossal money spinner, but that wasn’t always the case.
The Academy Awards or “Oscars” have become one of the biggest events in Hollywood and are watched by movie fans the world over. They have become an institution, with viewing figures of 35-45 million worldwide. It seems hard to believe today that they very nearly folded in 1936. Having only commenced in 1929, this would have been a huge blow to the industry.
So what was the problem?
Membership to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (It was just Academy of the Arts then) was down. With membership down so too were the number of full paid staff; there was one staff member, described as “loyal and underpaid,” Margaret Herrick. With membership numbers having dropped there was no money in the coffers.
The problem was it was a Polyarchic organisation. In other words there were too many people who thought that they were in charge. At the time it was run predominantly by those in management at the various studios producing the movies. The studio system did not want the actors, writers or directors to have their own guilds and therefore find a voice of their own. They wanted to keep these people very much as ‘slaves’ to their organisations. Does this sound familiar to many sports in years gone by?
Meanwhile the actors, – led by future President of the United States Ronald Reagan – the writers, and directors were not going to be brushed aside. They knew that the studios were making huge sums of money off of their talents and so they were prepared to ask for a bigger slice of the pie. These three groups decided to target the Academy Awards and therefore prevent the Production studios using the event as a promotional tool for their movies.
The studios blamed the Academy for having failed them, when they had been unable to reduce wages when the economic crash happened in 1929, so they also withdrew from the Academy and took their financial support with them.
Those left at the Academy at that point in time were a group of individuals who were passionate about film, and about the industry; feel free to substitute “film” with your chosen sport at any time. So the Board members paid for the famous statuettes out of their own pocket to ensure that the event would continue. Their President at the time was Film Director Frank Capra, who admitted in his autobiography that when asked to stand, had the offer come six months earlier he would have declined. However he realised now that “serving self is small potatoes compared with the value of serving man.”
Capra and his dedicated board battled on until 1939 when finally the actors guild won their battle with management and returned en masse to the fold. As Capra wrote, “the Academy survived the idiotic – and abortive – attempt of management to use it as a stooge.” Yet not only did the Academy board keep the Academy Awards going they also re-organised it into a self-supporting institution; so that a similar situation would never occur again. They also made sure that it focussed solely on what it was set up to do, which was dedicate itself to cultural goals. It was and has been ever since an organisation of the film industry, by the film industry and for the film industry. It is very clear in its key role.
If sport is truly part of the entertainment industry there are a great number of lessons to be learned from this situation even though it happened close to 100 years ago.
For a start, if you do not look after your performers you run the risk of losing everything. As we have seen anyone can run a business through the good times, but the test of leadership is when the unexpected happens and problems arise, just as we have seen with the Covid pandemic. It is no good jumping up and down ranting, and blaming all and sundry, this is when a clear head is needed, a true leader. How many leaders in world sport today would work for free or invest their own money in the sport to keep a team, a competition or the sport going? Is their love the same as Capra and his cohorts?
It is soul-destroying to many fans to hear that despite office hours being cut and staff being furloughed many are only working the hours that they have been cut back to. Sure people will claim there are legal ramifications, but coaches will put in far more hours than those they are paid to. So too will many others, why? The reason is they care passionately about the sport, the team, the club.
What is interesting is if you look at individual clubs you still find such people [repared to work all hours for the cause. Volunteers who are at the club more hours than many people realise. That see something that needs doing and simply do it. They not only invest their time but many also invest financially year after year with little or no return. They do it for the love of the game and their club. So why are these same individuals who are not motivated by money not involved more at the higher levels of sport? What is it that changes people in sport from such behaviours once they become employed by their sport?
At the time vitally important to the survival of one of the entertainment industry’s biggest events was the restructure of the management of the academy to truly represent all involved, actors, directors, technicians et al. Equally important was the need to become a self-supporting institution.
Many businessmen will tell you that when you hit tough times the best decision to make for your business is to simply go back to what you core business is. If you are there to administer the game, stick to that. Pare back the business and focus on your key role, outsource the areas that are not your core business. In many sporting organisations that could be the staging of events. Can you afford to employ full time staff in this area, if you are only hosting a couple of events a year, or one every two years? Surely such an investment will benefit the organisation, having experts come in and run the event, rather than trying to have staff double up in unfamiliar roles, and the end result failing to live up to consumer expectations?
Difficult times call for hard decisions, and those who are experts in this area are warning sports of the need to change. They are predicting great pain for those who do not adapt.
It is interesting to note that the man after whom the FIFA World Cup was named, former President of FIFA, Jules Rimet was a man averse to change. He was it has been written very keen to “preserve the family” as long as he could. In fact it is written that he once said referring to his old committee members who did little except enjoy the perks of the job, that “a dead committee man has his use. He prevents unnecessary change.”
It is interesting to note that in the 1950’s there was a real shift in power in the movie industry. The same change came to sport much later, towards the end of the last century. In the 1950’s the shift saw the actor become the one with the control. Their name earned top billing rather than the directors; except possibly for Steven Spielberg in recent times. Suddenly they were earning four times as much as the director. The same is true in modern day sport where often the players earnings are far greater than their coach’s. The actors became associate producers, so rather than just being paid a salary, they wanted a cut of the profits too. We have seen football players wanting a cut if crowds or memberships go higher than an agreed number. We have seen players sign contracts which state if they are fit they cannot be dropped. Suddenly the actors had an entourage that accompanied them everywhere, publicists, their own script writers, photographers etc. Many sports stars today have a similar entourage.
As Hollywood found out the hard way, many actors did not know what was best for them. The quality of films that emerged in that era was reduced while the quantity increased as the more films made the more money the actors made. In some sports we are witnessing the same approach. The quality is being sacrificed, as players are being asked to perform more often. Some reap the financial rewards, many see others making the money off of their efforts. Sadly in boxing today World Champions rarely fight the number one contender, for fear their time at the top will be reduced. Their motivation is usually the money. Having finally reached the top they want to ‘cash in’ while they can. However the sign of a true champion is to beat all-comers.
In many sports change is not just going to be necessary, it is going to be essential. So it is vital that those who are members start asking the questions that need to be asked to carry their sport forward. Challenges need to be made if the current incumbents are not putting forward plans for those essential changes. The big question is will those members of clubs, clubs who are members of leagues or nations who are members of international organisations stand as one at this time, just like they did in Hollywood? Or will they leave it to those currently in charge to rely on the “dead” voters to not rock the boat?
If sport is not going to learn from best business practices will it learn from the entertainment industry?
Frank Capra’s movies have been described as “Goodwill Fantasies,” where his hero always had principles and honour, attributes that many of us wish to see in those around us. Whether such a character emerges in your sport you will have to wait and see. As we all know in club land there are many such people, but are there similar people where the sport needs them the most and at a time when they are needed most?
It seems apt and appropriate to finish with a Capra quote which should apply to administrators, in this case rather than “film-makers” substitute the word with ‘sports administrators.’ “My advice to young film-makers is this; don’t follow trends, start them!”
