Every sports fan knows that at the elite level sport needs television. It is the television deals that inject the finances to keep the game afloat at the highest level. Yet in many cases those funds do not filter down to the lower levels, yet create greater expectations for sponsors of clubs at lower levels.
As one sponsor quite rightly pointed out recently, he ‘is not a sponsor, he is a donor.’ He gives financial support to his local club because he loves the sport and the team, but he knows he is likely to see any return on his investment. He is one of a rare breed. Many sponsors want to see exposure for their company, and with little media coverage in terms of photography or live coverage it is becoming harder for local clubs to give sponsors what they want most.
To be fair some companies lack imagination in their marketing departments to use the athletes or teams in other ways to gain leverage in their key markets; but that is another issue.
Despite the problems facing sport in the semi-professional ranks, many sports are facing a crossroads at the highest level as television stations want to deliver non-stop excitement. We are seeing more and more “fast food sport.” Hi octane events played in smaller time frames in the hope of grabbing viewers and their short term attention span.
T20 Cricket was supposed to be just a bit of fun to break the monotony of the various one day and longer forms of the game. Yet when the crowds started clicking through the turnstiles it suddenly became more attractive as a product than every form of the game. When internationals were played they too were initially to be one-off events, and not given much credibility. In fact an early T20 cap was not recognised as true international representation. How the times have changed. Has it helped the game? Financially definitely, but technically?
Hockey too has joined the ‘fast food sport’ chain. The game has gone to bite-size quarters and they have been reduced to 15 minute terms. A move that the sport says was made to satisfy the International Olympic Committee’s request to make the sport more appealing. This coming about when no one would buy the television rights for the event when India failed to qualify for the 2008 Olympic Games.
With rolling interchange, and a game now only lasting an hour, played in fifteen minute intervals, players feel that they simply do not get enough game time now in matches. In many cases the most time a player spends on the pitch is 24minutes in that hour. One player has said that if these changes are here to stay there is no reason why teams cannot play two games in one day! How many athletes would make that comment? These guys want to play games. They train so hard to reach that goal so it makes perfect sense.
One sport that has a huge following, in fact is believed to be second to football is Badminton, yet this sport too faces similar problems. It used to be that individuals or teams could only score points when they had service. However games were taking too long to complete for television, so that was changed. Now a point is contested no matter who is serving.
The detrimental effect of this is that teams or individuals are now less willing to attack. The game has become more defensive, about not losing points rather than winning them.
The other similarity according to those close to these sports is that what the shortening of the games has done is see players spend less time on perfecting their techniques. Now with shorter games the emphasis is on different aspects in order to be successful, improvisation, fitness and stamina being key attributes.
T20 sees great improvisation skills from the batsmen, but the lack of skill amongst many bowlers has been exposed. Yet the same batsmen who thrive in the slog fest – with the freakish exception of David Warner – struggle to adapt to longer forms of the game as technically they are found wanting, their game is too loose.
There are interesting times ahead as most fans want to see those moments of sublime skill that can turn a match on its head. Yet frequently the confidence to execute the skill in that moment comes from the player concerned having exquisite technique. Look at any sport and think of a player who excites and who can change the course of a game on their own, and then compare their technique and the hours they spent developing that technique to others.
“Fast food sport” runs the risk of making up-and-coming players abandon that technique for other areas of so called development. It may be reaping rewards on the short term but will it stand the test of time?
Who is ultimately to blame, should key sports pay a heavy price for such changes? Television stations are a business and they need to attract viewers who in turn will attract sponsors. The International Olympic Committee, who are trying to keep the sports that feature in the Olympic Games alive and part of their quadrennial event? The sports administrators, who have to ensure its short term survival and global appeal to stay competitive, while vying with so many other sports who are desperate for not only the coverage, but the television dollars that come with it. They are torn between short term and long term survival. Some will argue that the coverage will lead to more participants, which is hopefully true. If that is the case though it is important that the emphasis on basic technical skill remains, as trends have a habit of changing.
