Just Tryin To Feed My Children

Building Soccer in the US

2009-06-24T09:07:00.001-07:00

Note: By an act of some devine being, the US National Team advanced in the Confederations Cup. Bust out your buggle horn as the US tries for more suprises this morning at 11:00 AM (PST) against world-number-one Spain.

Soccer is known as the world’s sport. It is easily the most popular pastime from Western Europe to Africa to South America and parts of Asia. And even though it’s the fastest growing sport among young Americans, the sport does not enjoy a competitive share of commercial success in the States. This is unfortunate because soccer is a great sport, rich in both tradition and athletic grace.

Part of has to do with the fact that the sport’s infrastructure and league organization is not nearly where it needs to be in order to compete with established institutions like the NFL or MLB. Moreover, the fact that games basically run for 90 minutes straight without any stoppages of play means that the opportunity for advertising and promotion falls far short of what is possible in sports like basketball or baseball. Because of all of this, there is simply not enough money to go around that would attract the top talent necessary to create real buzz around the sport.

But these targets all take time and are really part of the end-game. To make soccer more commercially viable, the sport just needs to increase its domestic presence. Getting more eyes on the sport should make people more amenable to it.

ESPN is doing its part, having just purchased the rights to televise a large number of La Liga games from GolTV next season. The deal is structured such that ESPN will air 114 matches on ESPN 360, 95 on ESPN Deportes and 20 on ESPN2. This is great news for existing soccer fans and for potential ones as well.

La Liga, Spain’s top soccer league, doesn’t have the cache of England’s Champions League but it is still a great league for the WWL to feature. Whereas strength and bullishness is more prized in the English version, there tends to be more creativity and artistry in Spanish soccer. Fans tend to find this style of play to be more exciting. There’s also the language affinity that the Spanish league will bring to potential viewer in the US. Finally, the addition of superstars Kaka and Christiano Ronaldo to the Spanish league adds fodder to the belief that ESPN’s move could help cultivate a fan base.

My hope is that this move will increase soccer’s fan base amongst Americans and thus be a boon to the future of professional soccer in the States. Really, I think the impediment to a full-fledged league is the lack of fans. Get the fans (ie the demand) in place and then we can focus on other issues, such as getting world class player talent and matching league calendars with those in Europe.

Slammin' Sammy Update

2009-06-23T13:37:00.000-07:00

Turns out there’s more pathetic news on the Sammy Sosa steroid front. Evidence has come to light suggesting that Sosa requested that the sleeves on his jerseys be tapered to show his increased size. Go back and take a look at some photos of Sosa from 2002-2004 and look for the elastic bands that were sowed into the sleeves. So not only was Sosa likely juicing, he wanted to show it off! He rubbed it in the faces of Chi-city dwellers and ball fans alike.

This type of custom tailoring is not altogether original. Jimmy Fox had his jersey sleeves cut short and so too did Ted Kluszewski of the Big Red Machine. Even Tiger Woods had the left sleeve of his polo shirts shortened to free up his swing. The difference with Sosa is that these other guys altered their attire so as to free up their bodies to perform. Big Klu cut off his sleeves because he couldn’t swing properly: "They [coaches] got pretty upset, but it was either that or change my swing — and I wasn't about to change my swing.” Football runningbacks and receivers have elastic on their jerseys but that’s done to make it harder for wanna-be tacklers to grab hold of something.

Sosa’s move, on the other hand, was outright vainglorious. His alterations weren’t done to make it easier to swing. Rather, he made them tighter so as to show off his growth. It was done with aesthetics in mind, not performance. I’d laugh if it weren’t so blatantly stupid.

Pricing Model Responds to Demands of Crowd

2009-06-18T11:02:00.001-07:00

The current economic conditions have put a damper on attendance at games and matches throughout all sports. Baseball, especially, has had a tougher time than most getting fans into seats, with ticket sales down at least 5 percent. But the San Francisco Giants organization is fighting this trend with a slick pricing strategy that is used primarily in the sale of airline tickets and hotel rooms.

Feeling that the League’s mandate to use StubHub as the primary ticket dispensary was hurting sales, the Giants began experimenting with a dynamic pricing model. For each home game, the Giants offer about 2,000 seats whose prices shift based on demand. Unlike other teams who peg prices at the beginning of the season which rarely change, the Giants’ model weighs factors such as weather, opponent profile and past ticket sales in setting prices. So a Saturday game against the Dodgers where Tim Lincecum pitches will cost more than a Tuesday day game against the Nationals.

The model has been successful. The Giants say they are sell about 20 percent more tickets in the dynamic pricing zone—which is located in the upper deck and three bleacher sections—than they did a year ago. The team is also averaging about 375 more fans over the same period as last year, although attendance is below last year’s full-season average.

From the fan’s perspective, there are positives and drawbacks. The benefit is that a fan can come by a cheaper than face-value ticket if he doesn’t mind seeing a non-blockbuster match-up. But the system could hurt season ticket holders in the future if one is able to buy a seat via the new model at a price lower than what was paid by the season ticket holder. Season ticket holders buy their seats at set prices at the beginning of the season. In the future, will season ticket holders get refunds if dynamic pricing sets prices lower than face value? The organization should be wary of how dynamic pricing could effect loyal customers who purchase vast quantities of seats each year.

Other teams are watching the Giants’ experience closely. Indeed, the organization is a vanguard in applying this model to ticket sales. If successful, it’s likely that other baseball teams, and teams across all sports, will adopt dynamic pricing in their ticket sale operations.

Surprised? Hardly

2009-06-17T14:25:00.001-07:00

Were you surprised when you tried to beat Joey Chestnut’s hot-dog eating record and failed? Were you surprised when Obama won the election? Were you surprised that the hot girl left you when you spat game like Tarzan? No? Then why the hell is anyone surprised that Sammy Sosa was juicing?

I’m sorry, but I’m fed up with all the steroid talk. Everyone is peddling eulogies, saying how this is such a shame, how it degrades Sosa’s legacy and how it undermines the game. People talk about how inspired they were by the summer of 1998 and how Sosa and McGuire provided a respite from the otherwise pedantic lives of their fans. Now that the truth is out, they don’t know if they can live anymore. Jeeeeeeeeeeeeesus. What sycophantic talk!

I could go on and on about how I think almost every single word that’s been spoken about steroids are misguided tropes filled with moral relativism completely lacking any modicum of context and perspective. If I did, however, I would give myself an aneurism. Wellllll, let’s tempt fate.

What’s so frustrating is that the debate among baseball enthusiasts rings, most unfortunately, like debates among politicians. All parties point fingers at others, each thinking that it is magically able to occupy the moral high-ground all by itself. Players blame the league, the league blames the players and the fans blame both.

It’s part and parcel with Democrats blaming Republicans for being overly ambitious in their war planning, the GOP shirking any responsibility because Democrats were being unpatriotic and the people blaming both because DC politicians can’t do anything. It’s like, Hellooooooo! Both parties voted for the war, and most all Americans wanted to kick some Middle Eastern tail. Everyone is to blame!

It’s relatively similar in baseball, especially with regards to the widespread applicability of blame. Except in baseball, it’s something like this: Pitching dominated baseball during the 1960s and 1970s. The league messed around with mound height, ball density, bat technology etc, all with the hope of balancing out defense and offense in the game. With the popularity of baseball struggling to compete with the ascendancy of the NFL, the need to liven up baseball was pressing. Home runs came in to solve this problem. “Chicks dig the long ball” is what we’re told, but so do Johnny, Billy and everyone else playing Little League baseball across the country. So players knew that power and home runs were what was going to get them that lucrative salary. Good lord, what are players supposed to think when Adam Dunn gets millions for his .225 average, 200 Ks and 40 HRs but David Eckstein (model baseball player) gets chickenshit? So home runs began flying all over the place and fans were happy and therefore Bud Selig and the league were happy.

So who cares if they took steroids? No one was complaining when Sosa and McGuire were belting home runs. It’s just so typical for people to get moral in hindsight. What, was no one suspicious? Did people not want to be? Were red flags not raised when the normally affable Sosa had near apoplexy after Rick Reilly challenged his arrogance by informing him that there was a testing facility 10 minutes down the road and that if he really wanted to quell the rumors why not go piss in a cup? Then, when the guy stops hitting dongs, he gets caught with a corked bat. Hmmm, what year was that? Oh, 2003? The year he tested positive for steroids? This is just way too obvious.

People need to accept the fact that steroids were, and still are, a part of baseball. In fact, they’re probably more prevalent in sports than many people think. How else has the average O-lineman in football gained 75 pounds, increased his bench-pressing ability, yet still manages to run a 4.8 40-yd dash? That wasn’t happening 20 years ago. Wow, just wait until 60-minutes breaks this one.

The steroid era does not need to have a big tainting effect on the game’s legacy. If you set aside your predilections, the last 15 years of baseball have been some of its most entertaining. No one discounts the achievements of Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson for having pitched in the Dead Ball Era. We’re going through the same thing now. Get your panties out of a twist, and enjoy the fact that the game is more offensively minded.

But hey, don’t get me wrong. I love a good pitchers duel. But the last time I saw one, every goddamn tech-start up, entrepreneur wanna-be, venture capitalist never-will-be was too wrapped up in their Crackberry to soak in and appreciate the subtle intricacies of the game of baseball. Instead, it was only when Barry Bonds was pelting balls into the Bay that these college-nerd drop outs took their thumbs off their QWERTY keyboards to stand up and cheer. The game has changed because the fans have changed. Baseball is no longer the slow, cerebral, thinking man’s game that made it popular at the turn of the century. Fans don’t want to see a perfectly executed relay, much less a well-timed pickoff move. They want to see balls flying out of the park as if they were North Korean missiles.

I think I feel an aneurism coming on.

From The Crowd

2009-06-15T13:24:00.000-07:00

Any true, hardcore sports fan appreciates good trash talking. When done right it enhances the experience for friends and hopefully it jeers the player in the crosshairs.

Last fall, while sitting in the right field bleachers as a Washington Nationals game, we called out Elijah Dukes for his sub-par play and propensity to miss the baseball with his bat. We pissed him off, he flipped us off and then proceeded to can a routine fly-ball. Dude deserved it, he’s a punk. But we didn’t curse, didn’t cross any lines and kept it, well, R-rated yes, but at least not NC-17.

Where am I going with this?

While good trash talk can be all fun and games, sometimes fans take it over the line. Like the Rams fan at the Niner game last year who I saw toss his Bud at a Niner fan but pretty much missed due to his inebriation and spilled it, instead, on a little girl. Punches ensued, security arrived, and though it’s darkly entertaining, it’s unnecessary.

A new service being peddled around sports stadiums is the ability to text security in order to alert them to unruly fans who may be taking things a bit too far. So when you finally get tired of the drunk bum behind you who’s been spitting on you as he tries to curse the ref, you can solve the problem discreetly, without confrontation.

The service is offered in 29 of 32 NFL stadiums, and dozens of MLB, NHL, and NBA venues. This past week, I received an email from the SF Giants informing me that they are going to begin offering the service themselves. It’s called the “Text-to-Security” program and is being billed as a fan enhancing tactic.

And on its face, it is. If someone is being a true dick, they should be tossed. No one likes the guy uninformed, ignorant jackass that’s too stupid, drunk and unathletic to realize that a third-to-first pick-off move is not a balk. So when he spews out his bullshit you can get the jerk removed.

Nevertheless, in a sense, it smacks of tattling and narcing. Fans shouldn’t have to protect themselves in the first place, nor should they be put in the position of having to rat on fans, no matter how stupid they’re acting. The onus shouldn’t be on the fan to police the stands. That’s what the ushers are for! They’re the ones who should be making sure that fans don’t get out of line. Still, it’s a good thing that stadiums and management are recognizing that while energy should exist at events, games and matches don’t have to have the same atmosphere as a British pub after their soccer team was beaten by the German nationals.

A brief news update in the politics of sports—

2009-04-01T21:42:00.000-07:00

One of sports’ great anomalies is lack of uniformity in the application of antitrust legislation. Baseball is the only sport—and business for that matter—exempt from Congress’s blanket of trust-busting. Other sports do not enjoy such protection.

This time it’s college football that’s been caught on lawmakers’ radars. Senator Orin Hatch (R.-UT) is plotting a potential antitrust investigation into the NCAA’s Bowl Championship Series. He is planning hearings, too. Alleging that the current system “leaves nearly half of all teams…at a competitive disadvantage,” the investigation would look into strength of schedule disparities and other factors that go into the controversial computer ranking system.

Perhaps he’s grandstanding. More likely, he's for real--after all, every fan of college football hates the system and greatly prefers a playoff model. Or maybe he’s just still bitter about the fact that his states undefeated record wasn’t good enough for a spot in the ‘ship.

The Slide of Paul Revere

2009-03-04T14:43:00.001-08:00

The Slide of Paul Revere

[Grantland Rice]

Listen, fanatics, and you shall hear
Of the midnight slide of Paul Revere;
How he scored from first on an outfield drive
By a dashing spring and a headlong dive—
‘Twas the greatest play pulled off that year.

Now the home of poets and potted beans,
Of Emersonian way and means
In baseball epic has oft been sung
Since the days of Criger and old Cy Young;
But not even fleet, deer-footed Bay
Could have pulled off any such fancy play
As the slide of P. Revere, which won
The famous battle of Lexington.

The Yanks and the British were booked that trip
In a scrap for the New World championship;
But the British landed a bit too late,
So the game didn’t open till half past eight,
And Paul Revere was dreaming away
When the umpire issued his call for play.

On, on they fought, ‘neath the Boston moon,
As the British figured, “Not yet, but soon;”
For the odds were against the Yanks that night,
With Paul Revere blocked away from the fight
And the grandstand gathering groaned in woe,
While a sad wail bubbled from Rooter’s Row.

But wait! Hist! Hearken! And likewise hark!
What means that galloping near the park?
What means that cry of a man dead sore?
“Am I too late? Say what’s the score?”
And echo answered both far and near,
As the rooters shouted: “There’s Paul Revere!”

O how sweetly that moon did shine
When P. Revere took the coaching line!
He woke up the grandstand from its trance
And made the bleachers get up and dance;
He joshed the British with robust shout
Until they booted the ball about.
He whooped and he clamored all over the lot,
Till the score was tied in a Gordian knot.

Now, in this part of the “Dope Recooked”
Are the facts which history overlooked—
How Paul Revere came to bat that night
And suddenly ended the long-drawn fight;
How he singled to center and then straightaway
Dashed on to second like Harry Bay;
Kept traveling, with the spped of a bird,
Till he whizzed like a meteor, rounding third.
“Hold back, you lobster!” but all in vain
The coaches shouted in tones of pain;
For Paul kept on with a swinging stride,
And he hit the ground when they hollered:
“Slide!”

Spectacular players may come and go
In the hurry of Time’s swift ebb and flow;
But never again will there be one
Like the first American “hit and run.”
And as long as the old game lasts you’ll hear
Of the midnight slide of P. Revere.

_________________________________________

We read this poem for my Politics and Law of Sports class. Written around the turn of the twenitieth century, Rice’s poem joined an array of other popular culture movements that looked to affix close bonds between baseball and American iconography. All such works were part of an effort to elevate baseball through patriotism which was a boon to establishing baseball as America’s national pastime.

What Is the Greatest Sound In Sports?

2009-02-04T15:48:00.001-08:00

I debate this in my mind constantly. I know, I know, really geeky right? But seriously, let me know what you think. Here's my top 5:

1. The rattling of a golf ball in the hole after you've sunk a 20-footer.
2. The pop of a 90 MPH fastball as it smack the raw-hide of a catcher's glove.
3. The crunch that emanates from the collective crash between a middle-linebacker and a wide-receiver as he streaks across the middle.
4. The swoosh of a basketball as it falls through the mesh net. (Does a chain-link net sound better?)
5. The roar of 43 NASCAR stock cars as they start their engines at the beginning of a race.

Do you agree? Think I'm way off? Am I missing others? Let me know what sounds in sports are akin to the strings in Beethoven’s Fifth.

Electronic Arts' Market Strategies

2009-02-04T15:47:00.001-08:00

So the economy is still hurting and companies across the board are looking for the best strategies possible to ensure stability and viability. To be sure, the sports industry has not dodged the economic bullet. But one company provides a lesson for how to navigate these testy times.

Electronic Arts, a titan in the sports videogame market, recently reported a third quarter net loss of $641 million, or $2 per share. This compares to a $33 million loss for the same quarter a year earlier. Citing poor holiday sales, the maker of Madden, FIFA Soccer and Tiger Woods Golf has released considerably more conservative forecast projections.

But despite these poor numbers, EA shares rose 6.1% in after-hours trading the other day. How could the share price rise in the face of such crummy numbers? For starters, the company has been transparent and forthright regarding their losses. So investors were not shocked by the poor numbers—they expected them.

So this accounts for why the stock did not tank upon the earnings’ release. But why then did the share value actually increase? It turns out that EA has been proactive and vocal about its plans to regroup and recharge. EA has made the decision to tighten its belt by focusing on their most successful products and extracting maximum value from their best brands. Thus the decision has been made to delay work on niche products such as “The Sims 3” and to transfer focus to their more popular games such as the Madden franchise. Furthermore, EA plans on cutting 1,100 jobs and closing twelve facilities.

So investors were calmed and even encouraged by EA’s comprehensive and robust war plan to get the company back to posting strong profits. Indeed, the gaming company forecasts per share earnings to fall between a five-cent loss and a 40 cent profit. When compared to this years earnings drop off of $3.29 for this fiscal year, that’s quite an improvement. EA’s plan to pare back on niche products and to focus on aggressive marketing for their best products position’s them nicely to weather the storm.

Baseball as a Civil Religion

2009-01-25T16:47:00.001-08:00

The important distinction is that baseball is a civil religion and not a "religion". Thus it is not an ecumenical religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Buddhism. In “Civil Religion in America,” Robert Bellah posits the idea that “most Americans share common religious characteristics expressed through civil religious beliefs, symbols, and rituals that provide a religious dimension to the entirety of American life.”[i] Civil religions have neither gods nor sacred texts but they do have institutions which aid and abet their effects. They possess religious overtones as they live deep in peoples’ souls and elicit a visceral emotional connection.

They present qualities that its follower’s value and create a spirited community.
In the same way that religions have institutions, so too does baseball. If institutionalized religion has cathedrals and synagogues, then baseball has stadiums. Walking through the tunnels of a stadium is like walking through the crypt of a church. Stepping out of a tunnel and facing the open field is then analogous to entering the sanctuary. Even baseball jargon is religious in tone and form. In the stands you here cries of “you gotta believe!” and strategies that require “sacrifice.” When the game is close fans are encouraged to have “faith” in such “life and death” scenarios. Larry Merchant, a sports analyst for HBO, once said that the World Series was treated by fans “as though it were a solemn high mass.”[ii]

The emotions felt by athletes and fans work to inspire religious feelings as well. When Robert Novak goes to watch his beloved Dodgers he notices several ways in which baseball creates and inspires a civil religion:

By the asceticism and dedication of preparation; by a sense of respect for the
mysteries of one’s own body and soul, and for powers not in one’s own
control; by a sense of awe for the place and time of competition; by a sense
of fate; by a felt sense of comradeship and destiny; by a sense of
participation in the rhythms and tide of nature itself.[iii]

All of these emotions and effects are present in baseball but could easily be found in religion. The companionship of crowds yields congregational sentiments. The sense of fate breeds respect for what will come and helps us cope with events when things go sour. The rituals of baseball—do not step on the foul line, take exactly two practice swings, lick your fingers before every pitch—are not unlike the rituals found in religion.

A famous sports saying goes “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” What follows from this is that in losing there is a sense or element of death. To lose is to die. But this is symbolic just as baptism and communion in church are symbolic. In each ritual the participant dies, symbolically, and then is reborn, symbolically. The same is true in baseball. A player loses a game or strikes out three time and dies, symbolically. But the next day he is born again with a chance at redemption. As long as the churchgoer or player cedes himself to the symbolism and does not just walk through the motions, the effects of the rituals can be impacting.

Some are cynical and find it aggrandizing to elevate sports to a semi-religious status. They are more humanistic and fail to see—or refuse to see—how a stadium could bear resemblance to a church. But then again, what religion does not have its skeptics, its nonbelievers? “Any religion worthy of the name thrives on irreverence, skepticism and anticlericalism. A religion without skeptics is like a bosom never noticed.”[iv] Indeed, Novak welcomes their challenges as their dispositions validate baseball’s religious nature.

Baseball is also religious in that its followers share common histories and pass shared experiences and memories down through generations. Robert Elias’ A Fit for a Fractured Society, quotes Stephen Riess who said “the national pastime…supplied some of the symbols, myths and legends society needed to bind its members together.”[v] Shared beliefs create communal bonds and also inspire reverence for the subject. A young child listening to his father’s experience seeing Jackie Robinson play or Barry Bonds slug home runs can have a very impressionable effect. That these memories can be passed down through generations shows the sport’s transcendentally religious nature. Sharing memories and stories ensures that the civil religion persists and stays vibrant.

Unlike much of the world, we lack the thousands of years of evolving society that has placed art, and music and opera at the summit of societal importance. We have musical talents but nothing on the order of Beethoven or Mozart. America has some great literature but most rankings put Shakespeare, Milton and others at the top. The reason is that Europe has had thousands of years of societal struggle—we have had just over 250. Alas, sports are our civilizing agents.[vi] They better us by bringing us together and they inform our hearts and souls through the values that they teach. Baseball is America’s universal art form and our civil religion.

It is very easy to gloss over sports. So ubiquitous in our society, they often fade into the background as scores scroll across the bottom of television screens. We are inundated with sports to the point that they may even seem to have a dulling effect. But to rest there would be a serious injustice. As the French author Jacques Barzun once wrote, “Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball.”[vii] What began as a simple game played on the Elysian Fields in New Jersey has blossomed into so much more.

[i] Robert Bellah, “Civil Religion in America,” Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Winter 1967, Vol. 96, No. 1, 5.
[ii] Larry Merchant, quoted in Will, 24.
[iii] Novak, 18.
[iv] Novak, 23.
[v] Stephen Reis, quoted in Robert Elias, A Fit for a Fractured Society: Baseball and the American Dream,(Armonk, New York: Sharpe, M.e., Inc., 2001), 10.
[vi] Novak, 27.
[vii] Jacques Barzun, God's Country and Mine: A Declaration of Love Spiced with a Few Harsh Words, (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1954) 159.

Why We Have Come To Love Sport & Why That Is A Good Thing

2009-01-09T18:55:00.000-08:00

...a continuation of the previous post...

But these lines of thinking fall short of reality and reveal a serious misperception. One refutation has its roots in historical change. The other lies in the nature of the human and American spirit. In terms of the first refutation, simply put, it is no longer 1836 nor is it 1890. We are a vastly different country now due to natural societal changes that have put Puritan and Victorian modes of living on the back burner. Though baseball has its nascent roots in the latter quarter of the nineteenth-century, the sport really did not flourish until the first quarter of the twentieth. By this time, America was more tolerant of sport and had even become an advocate for its benefits.[i] And though baseball is American, the influx of immigrants from Europe in the early 1900s made the country more Catholic and more Jewish and more diverse. These groups brought with them new notions of play that have given the concept various intellectual traditions. They themselves did not create an environment accepting of play—indeed it was a mixture with shifting American trends—but the two blended together and acted together to create a space for sport in the minds of many former unbelievers.

Ultimately, to discount play and sport is to deny a fundamental part of the human condition. After all, the fundamental essence of the human spirit is play. As Michael Novak so appropriately explains:

The basic reality of all human life is play, games, sport; these are the
realities from which the basic metaphors for all that is important in the rest
of life are drawn. Work, politics, and history are the illusionary,
misleading, false world. Being, beauty, truth, excellence, transcendence—these
words, grown in the soil of play, wither in the sand of work…Play belongs to the
Kingdom of Ends, work to the Kingdom of Means. Barbarians play in order to
work; the civilized work in order to play.[ii]

To be sure, work has its utility. The individual learns strong lessons and society reaps the benefits of the individual's work. But in some sense, work is a fabrication; a necessary function that works to impel society forward. The same goes for politics. But play and sport is different. It is hard to defend intellectually and even harder to put in words, but we know that play is in the "Kingdom of Ends" because in all of us burns the desire to play. If given the choice, most (it should be all) would choose play over work. Sport is not a distraction from work; work is a distraction from play.

In separating myth and reality, we find that work goes with the former and play with the latter. Work comes to us out of necessity. We must do work to provide food, to discover better health treatments, and to write laws that create peaceful society. Indeed, work is supported by the age old myth of that the fundamental purpose of humans is too improve the world. But is that all that we are about? Is our sole function to discover new medicines, invent new technology, create complex financial instruments, and improve our ability to build cities and all of its institutions? This is not to say that progress is a bad thing—to be sure, far from it. Of course it should be noted that we have made great strides in becoming more egalitarian as a society, and our work to make the world safer and more just are surely noble pursuits. But despite all of our work, the never-ending toils of life abide. Death persists, murder and crime continues, and the Earth maintains its orbit around the sun.

Thus play deserves greater attention and respect. We engage in too much of it for it to be overlooked and discredited. It necessitates our study because in sport and play we find the values “grown in its soil”: being, beauty, truth, excellence, transcendence. Work, friends, society and history will eventually pass us by. But the aforementioned qualities will never cease. They will forever maintain their value and utility. These qualities are reality. The study of and the participation in sport is imperative because sport works to better ourselves and reveals to us the important qualities of a good and rigorous life. Again, this is not to say that we should abandon work and progress. Instead, we can look to sport for the qualities that aid and inform our work and relationships—but we should not deny that these qualities are illuminated most brightly in sport.

[i] Nemec et al., 87.
[ii]Michael Novak, The Joy of Sports: End Zones, Bases, Baskets, Balls and the Consecration of the American Spirit, (New York: Basic Books Inc., 1976), xxi.

The Roots of American Disdain of Sport

2009-01-08T12:54:00.000-08:00

Many people firmly believe that sport does not deserve a moments thought nor any form of dedicated study. Indeed, many share a passionate disdain for sport—and baseball in particular—as a distraction from the important things in life. Surely three hours in the library, plowing the fields, or engaging in civic activism is time better spent than watching a ball game. Surely conversation should be more concerned with politics and fine art than the World Series or the designated hitter. Surely conversation centered on Plato, or Joyce is more rewarding and builds more character than a debate over who will win the NL West or who should be MVP. As a journalist once said, “to love sports is to love the lowest common denominator, to be lower-class, adolescent, patriotic in a corny way.” I dissent, respectfully.

Nevertheless, if we are to assert that baseball does indeed breed national character and that it is inherently American, then we must do our due diligence in exploring why so many pass over sport as being a side-car, a distraction. After all, America's roots in the Puritan work ethic in some ways necessitate an opposition to sports. For the most part, as America was being built and was growing, her citizens did not play—they worked. When Alexis de Tocqueville traveled to America he was somewhat intrigued by American values of work. He noted that Americans did not play, had no real sports, teams or leagues. He found that Americans centered their lives on work not leisure.

Play for play's sake was frowned upon during de Tocqueville's visit and continued throughout the 19th century. The Puritan and Victorian values that were en mode at the time were particularly antithetical to sports and play. These ethics and principles have led us to seriously undervalue sports. Back then sports were not only a distraction from work but led to individual and societal moral degradation.

Baseball Is America

2008-12-12T12:17:00.000-08:00

In many ways, baseball, much more so than basketball and football, is a sport whose character most closely resembles the American spirit and the Anglo-Saxon Protestant myth of our nation’s beginnings. It is a thinking man’s game, cerebral in every way imaginable. Moreover, out of the Enlightenment came our respect for reason and the idea that the proof of things rests in our ability to observe, measure, count and quantify them. In this regard, baseball satisfies this passion one-hundred times over—all sports pale in comparison to baseball when it comes to statistics. There are runs to count, hitting percentages to compute, steals to total and hits to tally. The game is exceedingly orderly and when combined with its cerebral undertones it satisfies the American appreciation for enlightened reason.

Baseball, like America, has a high regard for the individual and his achievements. Baseball puts each player in the spotlight at a single time. Standing alone in the chalked box, the batter has only himself and all of his instinct and experience in making the decision to swing or not. If he strikes out he is chastised. It he belts one over the fence he is revered. Indeed, the story is the same on defense. Tradition puts fielders where they play and each man has his distinct position or territory. When the ball is hit between second and third base it is the shortstop—not the second basemen or the outfielder—that must play the ball. Each player’s position has its traditional sovereignty. Just like countries, when defenders invade one another’s space trouble is bound to ensue.

Unlike baseball, football requires a supremely close interaction of players. The linemen need to block in order for the quarterback to throw or for the running-back to run. In this sense, basketball and football is corporate—it depends on the fluid and unitary movement of several athletes. Baseball is associational. As Michael Novak asserts, “baseball is a Lockean game, a kind of contract theory in ritual for a set of atomic individuals who assent to patterns of limited cooperation in their mutual interest.” Yes, there is a team baseball. But it is the amalgamation of distinctly individual efforts that achieve the team goal.

Nevertheless, while baseball elevates and accentuates individual achievement, there are elements of justness and equality that likewise show American values of the same elements. Though baseball teams have managers and captains and players are compensated at different levels, the importance of ‘team’ remains high.

The viability of communal strength rests in baseball’s intrinsic balances of power. Here too, we see the innate undercurrents of Americanism running and weaving through the sport of baseball. Baseball is to games what “the Federalist Papers are to books: reasoned, judiciously balanced, incorporating segments of violence and collision in a larger plan of rationality, absolutely dependent on an interiorization of public rules.” Like the balance between a judge and the accused, there is a similar balance of power between a pitcher and a hitter, and between a runner and an umpire. Even the field itself is balanced: the distance between the pitchers slab and home plate, the height of fences, the length and weight of the bat. Slight changes to any of these things could fundamentally shift the balance and outcome of events.

Finally, baseball can be said to resemble a form of checks and balances—much like the design of our federal government. It requires a bit of poetic license but, in a sense, batters step up to the plate one by one and are like unitary executive; the defense, acting together like the legislature, forms a check on the batters, their executive counterparts; the umpires lay down their judgments like the judiciary checking both the batters and the defense. The analogies are far from exact. But they do work to show that the principles of balance at work in our system of government, of which we are so fond, exist in baseball as well.

Quote of the Week: Dicky V

2008-12-11T06:41:00.001-08:00

If you could choose another sport for Dick Vitale to call, what would it be? Football? Eh, probably not. Baseball? Definitely not! Though I can't imagine the guy not doing college basketball, perhaps he'd be most suited to call a boxing match. I could see, no wait, hear that in my head.

But it turns out Vitale wants none of that. In another life, he said he'd want to announce tennis. Tennis?

"Tennis. I would change the complexion of tennis broadcasting. It'd be a hoot. They wouldn't know what hit him," Dick said with the requisite enthusiasm that could only emanate from his vocal chords.

Tennis? Haha, are you kidding me?

Fantasy (Reality) Sports-- Test Case in UK Soccer

2008-12-03T13:18:00.000-08:00

Branching out, researching and learning about other sports is one of my favorite aspects of writing this blog. Soccer has been particularly interesting to learn about—from league structures, to marketing strategies and from player transactions to fan culture.

This is a great idea out of the UK’s Ebbsfleet United fans. First, imagine a team that needs to raise capital. Now imagine a group of fans frustrated with management and the team’s direction. Seizing these sentiments, Will Brooks, a former advertising executive, set up the website MyFootballClub.co.uk. He created a trust to raise money to buy a team that would allow investors to take part in all of the team’s decisions, from player acquisitions to jersey design.

Successful? Brooks’ fund raised $400,000 dollars on the first day and now has approximately 31,000 members/owners. This past February the members voted to purchase Ebbsflleet for just over $1,000,000. What was once fantasy is now a fabled story as the team that once struggled just won the equivalent of a minor league championship.

The team has a one investor, one vote principle. So as long as you pay the sixty dollar annual fee you too can have a say in the club’s operations. In fact, the members voted on the team’s website to sell striker John Akinde for a quarter million.

Sure there are potential hiccups. Should the coach or the fans/owners/non-experts be making the day to day decisions? But while there are weekly votes, most fans are acquiescing and are ceding most authority to the coach. Nevertheless, this experiment in fan ownership is fascinating. In an age of mass consumerism many fans feel like just another face in the crowd, another guy to be pitched to. But this creates the closest relationship one can have with his team. Fans/owners of Ebbsfleet have expressed a true family feeling. The team has gained serious recognition and is attracting marketers and advertisers enthralled with the concept.

It remains to be seen, however, if this concept could ever be replicated in other sports—let alone work with teams in larger more lucrative leagues. The answer is probably not but I could see this concept making its way to minor league baseball or the Canadian Football League.

Some Good News from Sports Retailers

2008-12-02T07:45:00.000-08:00

During down times it’s always nice to get some good news. Before this Black Friday, most signs pointed to weak retail performance which would have left stores in the red. Well, they’re not quite black yet but retail sales experienced a 3% gain over last year continuing the upward trend. Moreover, it turns out that sports retailers performed particularly well.

The online stores for both the NFL and the NBA posted record increases as compared to last year. The NBAStore.com and its New York City outpost had a combined sales increase of 38%. Their best selling item? Chris Paul jersey. Record sales for NFLShop.com made Black Friday their third highest grossing day ever. Jets sales, aided by Brett Favre, had sales up almost 400% and Giants sales were just about half that. Even the out of season MLB brought in 25% more in sales this season.

What contributed to these gains? For one, shoppers who have been sitting on their wallets and cash-stuffed mattresses finally opened them up and came out looking bargains. Secondly, the latter part of the previous sentence probably accounts for most of the gains. Clever and strategic bargain packaging yielded high volume sales. Discounts, two-for-ones, and other bundling were all at work on Friday.

Bottom Line: It’s a simple but important to remember sales strategy—even if your price is lower, so long as you sell a lot of it you can still post robust sales.

Identity First, Then Branding

2008-11-25T10:05:00.000-08:00

The obvious goal in the marketing of an athlete is to ultimately create a brand. Michael Jordan is the most obvious example and Tiger Woods is close on his heals. But despite this relatively universal objective, very few athletes actually achieve it. I think the problem is that sometimes we are overly focused on the end result and, as a result, we overlook the necessary but smaller steps that lead to eventual success. In this case, before we can get to the point of brand creation we need to discover and foster a robust identity for the athlete.

An athlete’s marketing and PR plan should look to create a universally recognizable identity that favors maximizing reach and awareness. A clear and well crafted message helps to define the athlete’s identity. His/her identity could be grounded in personality, demographics, life story/background, or the social causes the athlete stands behind.

Once the message has been established it should be disseminated through all forms of media and marketing tactics. This means partnering with sponsors, charities and businesses that go beyond the playing arena. It also entails maximizing outreach beyond the traditional media platforms. Go after TV and print media for sure, but also make sure to use the internet and blogs in an attempt to reach new audiences. Then use these opportunities to highlight the athlete’s messages and identity. Make sure to emphasize the athlete’s goals and beliefs that go past sports while still mentioning the athlete’s impact on the game in which he/she participates. The more an athlete goes beyond sports, the more likely it is that he/she will become a household name.

Thus, don’t start out and get caught up in strictly branding issues. Build up to it. A strong identity that reaches the far and wide will make the creation of a brand that much easier.

The Future of Sports Viewing Technology

2008-11-24T11:32:00.000-08:00

I love High-Def. When I watch a game that’s not in HD I have this urge to phone a FCC specialist lawyer to right the injustice. But when I watch in HD and see the individual blades of grass on the baseball field, the area codes on the eye-black of football players or the spraying of divots on a golf course, I wonder: How can this get any better!? In 50 years, will HD look like what broadcasts of the 1950’s look like today? At what point will we reach the point of diminishing returns as it relates to sports viewing technology.

According to the industry’s scientists and engineers, we’re not there yet. The NFL is spearheading efforts to yield the next level of innovation—games in 3-D. Next week, select audiences in Los Angles, New York and Boston will be shown the matchup between the Chargers and Raiders in 3-D theaters. According to today’s WSJ, 3ality Digital LLC will shoot the game and will feed their footage to satellites. The satellite technology is being handled by Thomson SA’s Technicolor Digital Cinema and they will downlink 3ality’s footage to the three theatres. Real D 3D will carry the football across the goal-line by powering the theaters’ 3D displays.

The NFL and the three partnered companies are excited to see the improvements made to their technology over the past few years. In 2004, 3ality filmed the Super Bowl and the results of that filming has led to continued research and development—the biggest of which is the ability to perform live broadcasting.

It is important to note that this technology is a ways off in terms of making it into living rooms across the country. This is still just a “proof of concept,” said Howard Katz, the NFL’s Senior VP of broadcasting and media operations. The purpose of next week’s event “let people get excited about [the concept].” Either way, it’s still fun to peer into what the future may have in store.

Ticket Pricing Strategies

2008-11-21T13:30:00.000-08:00

With the current economic conditions hurting everyone under the sun, sports teams are scrambling to figure out the best ways to keep butts in seats.

The New York Knicks have decided to start selling discounted tickets at COSCO. Select seats will be sold at a 40% discount. So, while you’re out picking up a 1364 oz. jar of mayonnaise and a package of 672 rolls of toilet paper you can pick just a pair of seats in the 300 level at a pretty good bargain.

Is this a good strategy? In my opinion, it’s not. Sure, the team gets exposure to potential customers in an unlikely place and the spread of the message is wide. Nevertheless, I don’t think offering a flat discount is the best way to stop the hemoraghing of fans from a team’s stadium. First of all, people will begin to interpret what was once a value product for something that is discounted. The inherent perception will be that since the cost is discounted, the product must be too. Furthermore, people may become used to the discount and will be less than pleased when the team tries to raise prices. Cutting consumer costs by 40% sounds great but an increase of the same size is less than palatable all fans. Thus, it’s a short-term strategy that in the long-run may turn sour—especially if the Knicks can’t turn around their franchise.

A better idea might be to just put a freeze on ticket prices. This is exactly what the Boston Red Sox have done and other teams across all sports, including NCAA, are following suit.

But an even better idea would be to attach “value added” item to the current price of a ticket. For instance, the Knicks could freeze ticket prices but offer certain “All You Can Eat” sections. Or create a package deal such as a “Family Knight Out” where the team sells four tickets plus drinks and hot dogs for a certain deal. Minor league baseball teams survive on these sorts of gimmicks and strategies.

The bottom line is that you don’t want to do anything that might degrade the value of your team’s product. Discounting tickets might work today, but in a few months it’ll be hard to raise prices. Teams would be better off think of ways to implement “value added” strategies that at least give the perception to fans that their getting their money’s worth in these tough economic times.

Cause Related Marketing Works

2008-11-20T09:34:00.001-08:00

Businesses and brands constantly search for the most effective means by which to market their products. What messaging should be employed? How can you leverage the position of an influential messenger, such as an athlete, into something even more powerful and effectual? One way is cause-related marketing—the best example of which in the sports world has to be Lance Armstrong. As a recent study carried out jointly by Cone and the Duke University Fuqua School of Business verified, cause-related marketing has the power to increase sales significantly.

The study involved 182 participants and evaluated their experiences reading a regional magazine in which they were exposed to either a generic or cause-related corporate advertisement for several focus brands. The participants were then taken to a simulated convenience store which “sold” various products, including the four focus brands. With real money in hand, the study’s authors tracked the purchasing behavior of the participants.

The results revealed:

· 74% increase in actual purchase for a shampoo brand when associated with a cause (47% of participants who saw the cause-related message chose the brand while only 27% of those who saw the generic corporate advertisement chose the brand)
· 28% increase in actual purchase for a toothpaste brand when associated with a cause (64% of participants who saw the cause message chose the target brand vs. 50% who viewed the generic corporate advertisement)

The study found, through the participants’ qualitative responses, that the type of issue, the type of non-profit backing the issue, as well as the type of product affected the decisions of the participants. Results of the study also found that 84% want to select their own cause, 83% say personal relevance is critical, 80% think the specific nonprofit associated with the campaign matters, and 77% say practical incentives for involvement, such as saving money or time, are important.

Though this study dealt with the marketing of consumer staples, there no reason why this would not apply to sports marketing. The best and most persuadable campaigns should focus on causes that are generally universally relevant, such as illnesses like cancer or issues of education. They should also have a legitimate and trustworthy non-profit backing them and should give incentives to the customer.

More Hurt From the Economic Environment

2008-11-19T13:29:00.001-08:00

This from the NY Times:

“The L.P.G.A. will be down two to three tournaments next year and $4 million to $5 million in prize money. Its major concern now is sponsorship renewal and negotiating expanded television contracts for 2010. The Sports Business Daily reported this week that only 5 of the 24 events scheduled in the United States and Canada had contracts with title sponsors beyond next year.”

The PGA is a bit better off, but not by much. They did, after all, have a falling out with GM last week and the car-maker will be eliminating a sizeable chunk of their backing.

The NFL's Expansion Abroad

2008-11-18T11:28:00.000-08:00

I’ve seen several reports recently hinting at the possibility of the NFL expanding to England. Wouldn’t that be something? What would they call it? Soccer?

With the recent success of the revised NFL International Series, the prospect of an expansion team playing in London is not outside the realm of possibility. Commissioner Roger Goodell was quoted as saying, “it would be a great thing for the league. If the response keeps continuing this way, that's a realistic possibility.”

And so far, the response has been great. More than 83,000 fans turned out at Wembley Stadium to watch the 37-32 victory by the New Orleans Saints over the San Diego Chargers. Furthermore, the first batch of 45,000 tickets released in May sold out in 90 minutes, and a second batch of 15,000 went off the market in 30 minutes when they were put on sale in June. Interest in American Football has increased, particularly in England, and the Guardian Newspaper has even begun to cover the NFL season regularly. Should such fan interest remain strong over the next two years—the NFL has committed to two more games at this point—then an expansion team will be even more likely.

Such a decision would necessitate scheduling changes but NFL owners have begun discussing the option of cutting the number of pre-season games from five to three. This would free up plans to expand the length of the regular season and would allow for the logistics of playing on the other side of the Atlantic.

But the larger point here is the nascent success of the NFL’s expansion. The league launched the “NFL International Series” in 2005 as a way to expand and introduce the NFL brand to new markets around the world. The International Series basically works to raise the profile of the league by showcasing competitive regular season games—in the past, the NFL hosted “friendly matches” abroad that were about as competitive as the Pro Bowl.

The first game of the International Series occurred in 2005 at the Estadio Aztecs in Mexico City and pitted the 49ers against the Cardinals. The record crowd of 103,000 signaled the potential of an expanded NFL. In 2006, the Series moved to London and will continue to host a game per year through 2010. 2008 will also witness the first regular season game played in Canada when the Bills take on the Dolphins on December 7th.

Addendum— More NFL in London would mean more access to the kind of honest commentary and writing that only the Brits can provide. This from the Guardian: “When the NFL wants to advertise its parity, it should present the Chicago Bears centre stage. On the verge of becoming a top, top team when they reached the 2007 Super Bowl, now they are distinctly average on offense, average on defense, average on special teams and, yep, average on coaching. Just how the socialist NFL likes it.” HA! I’ll take this over John Clayton any day.

British Open and BCS on ESPN?

2008-11-17T18:10:00.000-08:00

General media consolidation hit its zenith after Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Though a few years behind, we may be seeing the harbingers of a similar dynamic taking hold in the realm of sports media. For years, coverage of major sporting events has been covered by CBS, NBC and Fox. ESPN began challenging the major players in the sports industry by introducing 24/7 sports news. Now they’re really starting to flex their muscles.

The first rep comes following the news of Turner Sports officially withdrawing from their bid to renew its rights to golf’s British Open—one the Tour’s four major tournaments. Such a move would put an end to over 50 years of consecutive broadcasting on Turner’s ABC channel. This move all but clears the way for ESPN to come in and pick up exclusive rights to covering the tournament across the pond. ESPN has been showing early-round play for the last several years, but the new deal would see ESPN shelling out $25 million per year for the next seven years to put all four rounds on cable TV.

ESPN is launching an even more impressive bid to secure the rights to all of the BCS college football games, including the national championship game. If the move is successful, it would be the first time that an entire championship “series” was not broadcast, at least partially, on over-the-air networks. Though ESPN’s offer is significantly larger than the one Fox is currently tendering, Fox still has time to accept BCS’s rate-hike demand. BCS is requiring of Fox a 50% increase to a $125 million per year but Fox is holding at a 25% raise. Despite these facts, Sports Business Daily says it’s unlikely that Fox will budge. Thus though we may get more games in HD, there will be less viewers and less demeaning BCS talk from ESPN’s talking heads.

More Credit Crunch Induced Sponsor Pull-Outs

2008-11-07T12:52:00.000-08:00

A while back I wrote that sponsor pullouts, induced by the financial crisis would hit the PGA Tour the hardest of all US-based sports. It makes sense considering all of the financial services firms and banks who make up substantial portion of the Tour’s funding family. However, while watching some recent Champions League matches I noticed the changes on many teams’ uniforms. It hit me that—in Europe and England in particular— the credit crunch will heavily affect sponsorship deals in soccer as well.

There is question, for instance, as to what will happen with the fate of Manchester United’s main sponsor AIG after the insurance company was nationalized in mid-September. United is in the middle of a 4 year 56.5 million pound sponsorship deal and is dependent on these funds for its operations. Although it should be said that if AIG backs out, there would certainly be a queue of sponsors willing to back –all be it at a much lower price.

But others are worse off. West Ham lost their sponsor when XL Leisure Group went bankrupt. In fact, when West Ham had a game just after XL dissolved, the team played with patches covering the company’s logo. And then there is West Bromwich Albion. The team was recently elevated to the Premiership this season but they failed to find a sponsor and played their first few games with a blank shirt.

In normal times, a jersey sponsorship is a soccer team’s largest source of revenue. But these are obviously no longer normal times. Jersey sponsorship revenue dropped to 67 million pounds from 75 million just a year ago—the first time ever that this number has fallen.

The Auspicious Redskins

2008-11-03T14:15:00.001-08:00

We often look to the heavens or to something supernatural to prognasticate future events. Sometimes we just need to watch a football game. Tonight’s Monday Night Football matchup between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Washington Redskins may not have fans putting their cheers behind each team for conventional reasons. Instead, fans may fall along political lines with Democrats rooting for the Steelers and Republicans supporting the Redskins. Americans will head to the polls tomorrow to elect a new president but we may have the results to the election before the booths even open. If you’re into superstition or freak coincidences then you’ll love this one.

There’s this crazy pattern in the NFL which holds that the results of the last home game played by the Washington Redskins can predict presidential election results. The pattern extends back before the Redskins were even a team! The way it works is if the Redskins win, then the incumbent party maintains control of the Executive. If the Redskins lose, then the out-of-power party takes back the White House. Let’s look at the history.

On October 30, 2000, the Redskins were defeated by the Tennessee Titans in a MNF battle. The close, back and forth game foreshadowed a close and controversial presidential campaign which ultimately saw George W. Bush regain control of the presidency for the GOP.

Back in 1996, Washington trounced the Colts at home, 31-16. This dominating performance augured the incumbent Clinton’s trouncing of the Senator of Viagra’s Bob Dole.

On the 1st of November, 1992, the Skins lost to the New York Giants, presaging Bush 41’s defeat to Bill Clinton. Washington lost a home game, and so did the Republicans.

On November 6, 1988, the Redskins narrowly defeated the New Orleans Saints by only three points. The outcome once again predicted the election of the incumbent party. This time it was Bush 41 who benefited from this crazy trend.

I could go on and on and bore you to death. Or I could just say that this trend continues back with the 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964, 1960, 1956, 1952, 1948, 1944, 1940 elections. If you look at the 1936 season, the Redskins weren’t even in Washington. Back then, the future Skins were the Boston Redskins but they too won their last home game before the election and low and behold, FDR won his second term over GOP nominee Alf Landon of Kansas. Unfortunately I must concede that this absolutely insane trend ended in 2004 when the Redskins lost but Bush 43 remained president. But still, the pattern is 17 for 18 which puts it at a 94.4% success rate. I personally don’t give this any serious weight. It can obviously be chalked up to a random correlation of factors. What are the chances though? Nevertheless, it gives election-obsessed voters just one more thing to fret about before tomorrow. Go vote!

A Lukewarm Congratulations on the World Series

2008-11-03T09:56:00.000-08:00

So, congratulations to the Phillies on their World Series Victory. Like Crash Davis from Bull Durham, I too believe that there ought to be a constitutional amendment against the designated hitter so I was glad to see the Phillies and the National League take back the title. It was also exciting to see Brad Lidge stay perfect throughout the season and Jimmi Rollins is one of my favorite players. But enough with the good news. My prediction that this would be poorly watched Series turned out to be correct. In fact, the 2008 World Series was the lowest rated and least watched Fall Classic ever.

The five game duel between the Phillies and the Rays averaged an 8.4 rating and 13.6 million viewers. Compared to last year’s Boston/Colorado Series, this is a 21% drop in rating from 10.6 and a 22% drop in viewers from 17.1 million. This is an unfortunate trend for MLB which came about following the memorable campaign of the 2004 Boston Red Sox, whose four game sweep of the St. Louis Cardinals drew the highest ratings of the decade. Since then, ratings have dropped 47% and the last four Series were the lowest rated in history.

This downward trend can be further illuminated when the Fall Classic’s performance is compared to the other major sporting events of the year. The Phillies/Rays series (8.4) underperformed the Daytona 500 (10.2), the Bowl Championship Series (9.5), the Final Four (9.4), the NBA Finals (9.3), the Belmont Stakes (9.0), the Kentucky Derby (8.9), and the final round of the Master’s (8.6). Obviously one-day events, such as the horse races or the Daytona 500, have a greater likelihood of attracting more viewers than multi-day events, but take note of the strength of the Final Four or BCS.

To be sure, the rain delays hindered the performance of the Series. So did the fact that it was comprised of two small market teams. You can be sure that had the Dodgers and Red Sox prevailed in the LCS the ratings would have been much higher. Furthermore, the decision to broadcast games so that they could be watched at post-work hours on the West Coast despite the fact that the Series did not contain a team West of the Mississippi worked to hurt viewership in the markets that would have been more interested in the Series. This, coupled with rain delays, caused 4 out of 5 games to end past midnight. The one bright spot is that the deciding game 5 continuation of Wednesday night brought the highest rated game of the MLB season (11.9). Although MLB can probably have Barack Obama’s infomercial to thank for the lead-in.

What Am I On? I'm On My Bike

2008-10-31T07:50:00.000-07:00

Lance Armstrong is one of my favorite characters in sports. I had the pleasure of seeing him back in 2003 as he peddled the streets of Paris sipping champagne wearing the maillot jaune. In terms of dominating one’s sport at its highest level, Lance’s only competition is Tiger Woods. In terms of being an absolute inspiration, Lance has few competitors. For those of you who haven’t read his book, It’s Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life, definitely check it out. Lance also dishes out some great quotes. One of my favorites was in response to doping allegations: “Everyone wants to know what I’m on. What am I on? I’m on my back, busting my ass six hours a day. What are you on?” Shot down with a 12-gauge.

Now, after a two year hiatus, Lance is returning to race in the Tour. I’m sure he’s going to try to win—he probably will—but he’s also returning to raise even more awareness for the Lance Armstrong Foundation and LiveStrong. So far he’s been quite successful. A recent survey of nearly 500 marketing executives found that Armstrong topped the list of both celebrities and athletes whose actions and causes were the most influential.

To be sure, Lance is on of the movers and shakers in the sports industry. He comes in at 15th in Businessweek’s most recent Power 100 which ranks the most powerful people in sports. So his return to the Tour is thus being well received by many in the sports marketing and branding world. Companies such as 24 Hour Fitness, FRS energy drinks, Oakley and Nike are certainly excited to have Lance back. According to Sports Illustrated, Armstrong pulled in between $17-20 million in endorsements in 2005.

The key to Lance’s marketing success is the personal connection he makes with the public. His story, his success and the causes he works for produce an overwhelmingly positive image that companies and, more importantly, the public find attractive. As Lance returns to the Tour next summer, he will be in a position to take his brand and cause global. He will likely try and partner up and collaborate with global companies and initiative promoting similar cause agendas. The French may not be excited to have him back, but I and many others are definitely excited to see Lance race for his eighth Tour victory.

Arbitrage in the NBA--New Trend?

2008-10-28T21:38:00.000-07:00

Greg Easterbrook over at ESPN.com made an interesting economic observation about a recent trade(?) just struck in the NBA. New trend?

The idea at work here is arbitrage: whereby a person makes an arrangement of similar deals between two imbalanced markets with the profit being the difference between the two market prices. In this instance, New Orleans basically sold (for cash) first round draft pick Darrell Arthur to the Portland Trail Blazers just a short time after selecting him. Hours later Portland sent (sold for cash) Arthur to the Rockets in Houston. Then, a mere few hours later, Houston traded Arthur to the Memphis Grizzlies.

According to the New Orleans Times Picayune, Portland gave the Hornets about $3 million for Arthur. So the Trail Blazers' part of the transaction -- buying
Arthur's rights from the Hornets for $3 million, then almost immediately later
selling Arthur's rights to Houston -- would have made sense only if Huston paid
more than $3 million. That in turn means New Orleans failed to get top dollar,
because Houston was willing to pay more for Arthur than Portland was. Note:
Though it's normal for NBA teams to sell draft picks or rights to players, the
league always insists on announcing that the pick or player has been traded for
"cash considerations." In what way do "cash considerations" differ from "cash"?

The “Note” is particularly revealing. In European soccer, players are bought, sold and even loaned out in exchange for players and most often cash. Teams pay “transfer fees” to complete the transaction. The NBA isn’t quite so harsh on the words. The PR work on the part of the NBA is well-structured in this instance. I’ll be interested to see how this develops.

NASCAR Gets "Sweetened"

2008-10-28T12:20:00.000-07:00

We often like to think that our entertainment, especially sports, is an escape from everyday life. We like to think that sports exists in a world of its own, protected from market forces and even worse—politics. But the truth is that these things do influence sports, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. I’ll let you decide where the following example should fall.

I was doing some work a couple of weeks ago which required me to sift through all 400+ pages of the financial bailout bill passed in early October. As we know, the original bill failed to pass in the House and it was sent over to the Senate where it proceeded to be nailed with “sweeteners” and other swine meat in hopes that it would pass on the second go-around. One “sweetener” that caught my eye will extend a tax rule for two years classifying racecar tracks and other motorsports facilities as “amusement parks and other entertainment complexes.”

Huh? I guess it’s amusing to drink Budweiser and watch cars go in circles hoping for a big crash. But last time I checked, NASCAR was a sport. It turns out that the “amusement park” classification allows track to write off their capital investments over a seven year period as opposed to fifteen years that would have been required due to an IRS inquiry into motorsport investment practices. This distinction will have the effect of reducing a track or facilities overall tax bill once their investments have been written off. Technically this is not a tax break but will provide an incentive for motorsports companies to invest in new projects and facilities. NASCAR executives in particular were happy with this development who are eyeing track improvements and expansions in the coming years.

So why add this “sweetener” to the second version of the bill? Interestingly, a separate bill aimed at instituting this classification was sponsored in the House a few months before by Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA, and co-sponsored by Rep. Robin Hayes, R-NC. This bill, however, failed to get legs and puttered out. Now, Thompson voted against the original bailout but then flipped and voted for the bailout the second time. Hayes voted against twice. It is unclear whether Thompson flipped because the Senate added this “sweetener.”

This is an interesting case study for many reasons. One, it shows the ugly political underbelly of getting legislation through Congress. What could have been a pure bill focused on the bailout itself was subsequently muddled with add-ons unrelated to the essence of the bill. But it also reveals the governments continued relationship with sport and makes clear that sport business as well as entertainment.

World Series 2008

2008-10-23T08:13:00.000-07:00

Last night was the first game of the 2008 World Series between the Philadelphia Phillies and the Tampa Bay Rays. It was a good start to what hopefully will be a dynamic series. Hamels outdueled Kazmir in a solid performance but it will be interesting to see if Philly can draw the same sort of effort out of the rest of their staff.

It will also be interesting to see what kind of viewership ratings that the series draws. Many are speculating that since the Phillies haven’t been to the Series in over 25 years, and the Rays have never been, that there will be less than stellar ratings. To be sure, TV executives would have preferred the Red Sox to have made it due to the larger national media market that such a series would have drawn. As MLB.com reported, Boston’s taking the ALCS to a seventh game delivered the highest rating—7.9 US Household rating—of any game of the 2008 regular and postseason, and, shown on TBS, it was the highest rating ever for a cable-broadcast game. But Boston is no longer around.

Sure, underdog stories are nice. It’s fun to ride the bandwagon and it’s been fun watching Rays fans experience a feeling that they certainly have never felt before. But the likelihood of the series drawing record numbers looks small. However, should the Rays and Phillies take the series the distance and make a drama out of it all bets are off. Rating histories show that viewership grows as a series progresses. As tension builds, more fans become drawn to the drama. When the Marlins won back in 1997 they were a relatively unknown team—indeed they had only been around since 1993. Yet that series earned a respectable 16.7 rating due to the fact that game seven drew more than twice the number of viewers as game one.

An aside—I have recently begun work on a major research project looking into Congress’ and the Court’s special treatment of MLB as it relates to antitrust issues. I am hoping that out of this study I will be able to present a unique view of baseball’s affect on American society as a national pastime. If anyone has any thoughts or book suggestions they are more than welcome!

Bonds' Saga Continues & Its Larger Impact on MLB

2008-10-17T10:36:00.000-07:00

Barry Bonds. Ahhh yes, Barry Bonds. I remember him. Do you? For most, (but not me and most San Franciscans) Bonds’ absence from the game is warmly welcomed. Sure, Bonds was a lightning rod in the game and he was less than welcoming to reporters. But regardless, weren’t people surprised, if not put off, by the refusal of any team to even consider signing him? After all, he most likely would have proven to be a more than serviceable DH in the AL, if not the best.

Since Bonds’ agent Jeff Borris ceased efforts to find a suitor around the All-Star Break, the MLB Players Association has been investigating the league’s treatment of Bonds as a free agent. Just yesterday, the MLBPA said that it has found evidence that teams and their owners colluded against Bonds to prevent him from being signed. However, the player’s union struck an agreement with the Bud Selig’s office to delay the filing of any grievances.

Bonds, MLB’s home run king, has found no interested teams since becoming a free agent following the close of the 2007 season despite his interest to continue playing. Michael Weiner, the General Counsel for the MLBPA, said that their investigation found numerous signs that teams had acted in concert. But his public statements have remained fairly ambiguous due to the possibility of his needing to testify should the issue enter into arbitration.

“Our investigation revealed a violation of the Basic Agreement. It’s a violation of the Basic Agreement related to Barry Bonds and free agency,” Weiner said. The supposed violation would be a breach of Article XX (e) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Specifically, “Players shall not act in concert with other players and clubs shall not act in concert with other clubs.”

Should this case go to arbitration, and should it find any collusion, the MLBPA and Bonds could be entitled to a hefty settlement. Indeed, Bonds’ situation has historical precedent. The MLBPA won similar cases back in the late 1980’s that resulted in Owner’s Management agreeing to a $280 million payment and that future acts would result in triple damages.

But the larger issue here is twofold. One is potential the legal ramification that could result. The rules on this specific case seem well defined, but baseball’s legal structure can provide for confusing and counter-intuitive proceedings. Indeed, with its anti-trust exemptions MLB is immune from many of the business practice laws that govern other industries. How this case plays out could lead to some tinkering or rethinking of baseball’s legal status. Second is the obvious treatment (mistreatment?) of one of the game’s greatest players. It would be a shame if Bonds’ career went the way of Pete Rose. Haven’t we learned our lesson there? Despite your feelings towards Bonds personally, the fact of the matter is that there were dozens of players using performance enhancing drugs and that fact should preclude Bonds from taking the fall for all guilty parties. Baseball should be careful in painting a black veil over twenty years of its history.

Follow this link to see some of my Barry Bonds photos.

Who Will Face the Brunt of Sponsorship "Pull-Outs"?

2008-10-15T13:15:00.000-07:00

While Bernanke, Paulson, Talking Heads et. all have been thinking about policies to solve the current financial crisis, I’ve been thinking a lot about how all this is going to affect sports. One of the sports industry’s biggest sources of revenue is sponsorships. We see this fact manifested in signage at stadiums, brands of shoes of feet, and types of drinks in hand. All sports depend on sponsors but who will be hit the hardest?

Darren Rovell, who pens the SportsBiz blog, says that without question it will be the PGA Tour who suffers most—and I agree. They will face the brunt of the sponsor “pull-out.”

Partly due to its squeaky clean image, but also due to the demographic which follows the game, golf has been able to attract the likes of Accenture, AT&T, KPMG etc. as sponsors. They’ve also, and now sadly ironically, been able to sign the likes of Citigroup and Wachovia as promoters. Citi, who is in dire financial straights, may pull the plug on their decision to back the Presidents Cup and the Wachovia event will be turned over to Wells Fargo. How companies such as FBR, Northern Trust, MasterCard, Zurich, Morgan Stanley, Barclay’s, Deutsche Bank—all major tournament sponsors—react to the current financial struggles will prove profoundly important for the Tour.

The PGA is probably paying particularly close attention to the Royal Bank of Scotland. Over the past week, the bank has seen more than 60% of its market value vanish. Just the other day, RBS was rescued by the British Government and if the bank uses some of those funds to continue sponsoring in the sports world there may be some discontented Members of Parliament. Losing RBS would prove damaging. RBS is the “Official” bank of the PGA of America, one of the USGA’s four sponsors, sponsor of this year’s Ryder Cup, and currently sponsors three of the four Major Tournaments on the PGA Tour. They also advertise incessantly during event broadcasts.

Now, the PGA Tour is fairly stable financially. But it will be interesting to see what kind of long term impact these landscape changes will have. Perhaps, for a short time at least, we’ll go back to the “good old days” and see tournaments named after players (Bing Crosby Pro-Am) instead of corporations (AT&T Pro-Am).

Real Clear Sports

2008-10-14T08:42:00.000-07:00

One of my “go-to” sites for political commentary and news is RealClearPolitics.com. Recently, I discovered a new section on the site called RealClearSports—basically a sports section that is modeled after the political portion that aggregates a bunch of different articles. Add both to your reader. Today, they had a light and entertaining piece on the sports world’s weirdest mascots. It’s clever and funny. Personally, I have never been a huge fan of mascots. Androgynous creatures, jumping and frolicking around, in an attempt to get the crowd going never did it for me. A sweet 6-4-3 always got me out of my seat faster than a pelvic thrust from the Giants’ Lou Seal. Whatever you disposition, here are RealClearSports’ top 10 weirdest mascots.

10- Big Red – Western Kentucky Hilltoppers
9- Steely McBeam – Pittsburgh Steelers
8- Phillie Phanatic - Philadelphia Phillies
7- Stomper – Oakland Athletics
6- Burnie – Miami Heat
5- Mad Ant – Fort Wayne Mad Ants (NBDL)
4- Zippy the Kangaroo - Akron Zips
3- Sammy the Slug - UC Santa Cruz Banana Slugs
2- Otto the Orange - Syracuse University
1- Standford Tree - Stanford University

Check out the full article here.

And is it just me, or is anyone else surprised that these things haven’t been sold to sponsors or other advertisers. Perhaps there is some force out there maintaining their ‘mascot-ing’ integrity. Seems to me that with so many dumb mascots out there, selling a mascot to a corporate sponsor may not be a bad idea—indeed, it could be a good opportunity to hit the younger demographic market as they seem to be the only ones into these mascots. Then again, you might wind up with the ‘Kragen Autoparts Spark-Plug’ named Pluggie. That’d certainly be worse than Sammy the Slug.

In other mascot news, the Golden State Warriors have given Thunder his pink slip. Here is Ray Ratto’s sad, yet touching, obituary. Who will be the mascot for the 2008-09 campaign? Ideas?

Ali and the Modern Sports Era

2008-10-12T19:11:00.000-07:00

One of the best things about living in DC is the ease of access to a plethora of great monuments and museums. Yesterday, I went to the Newseum, which navigates the history and importance of journalism and news reporting in the US. It’s a great museum; tons of information presented in a sleek yet comprehensible fashion all housed in a cool building.

One of my favorite galleries focused on sports journalism. The exhibit traced the evolution of sports journalism and the effects that emerging technologies have had on how we receive our sports news. The display also featured case studies of particularly important moments and personalities in sports history. One of the best focused on Muhammad Ali. As anyone who has ever read about him knows, Ali was a loud, in your face, confident (arrogant?) man who had plenty of personality to spare.

He was also a man whose life was centered around controversy. This was not just the result of the less than popular political stances that he took. It was also because Ali represented a new kind of athlete. Sure, there were sports personalities that came before him—Ruth, Gehrig, Jack Johnson etc—but Ali was markedly different. Ali was unapologetic in his image of himself and never held back when it came to talking trash. Thus, the way in which the press treated him was revealing with regards to how the country felt and reacted to Ali. The establishment favored a quieter, more reserved athlete and preferred to focus on the team and its struggles in the vacuum of the diamond or ring. The new school, however, appreciated how sports and an athlete’s emotion could relate to and comment on current events such as Vietnam and the Civil Rights Movement. How you felt about him was a litmus test to see if you were part of the old-school—the establishment—or the new school: those who appreciated and saw what Ali had to offer. Indeed, Howard Cosell came to represent the new school.

Moreover, Ali came about at the crux of the 20th century modern sports era. This allowed him to take advantage of new technology and the new reporters that came with it as a way to craft his public image. Effectively, Ali shepherded in the concept of focusing on the individual and his story, not just the amalgam of a team’s collective efforts—although this certainly continued.

Where are we now, in 2008, in terms of where sports journalism sits? Certainly technologies such as HDTV and web 2.0 have ushered in exciting ways to report on and digest sports news. But the trend that Ali started—the rise of individual personalities—is still sloping upwards, as evidenced by the ever-popular athlete-as-sponsor model. I wonder if the tipping point is just on the horizon.

AEHPhotography: Sports Shots and other Photos

2008-10-08T12:17:00.000-07:00

In addition to being a student, thinker, and blogger, I also dabble in photography. It is one of my bigger passions and it’s a great hobby. Indeed, sports lends itself quite well to photography as it provides for dynamic action, and can be a great challenge for any photographer.

Here is a link to the sports section of my photo website. And, for those of you who are interested in my other photos—which include shots of San Francisco, Egypt, Jordan, and Africa—here is a link to my main page from which you can poke at my various galleries. Please enjoy, and all comments are welcome.

Video of the Week: Sapp Your Right Foot in Sapp Your Right Foot Out

2008-10-08T11:48:00.000-07:00

It’s been a while since I’ve posted a great sports video but after seeing a clip of Warren Sapp on Dancing With The Stars, I felt obligated to throw it up. It’s hilarious. Sapp’s got a personality larger than his post-playing days gut and despite his horizontal growth, he maintains a nimbleness on the dance floor that would be the envy of a Russian ballerina. Also, noticed how he’s stunned when he actually gets good reviews. Uproarious! Here’s to hoping he wins. I wonder if he packs dip in his dancing shoes as he did in his cleats when he was still manhandling ball carriers?

Check out the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y3bcQN3FvA

As an aside, I'm amazed at the success of this show, especially in resurecting the profile of numerous athletes. Sapp is far from the first to participate. Past dancers have included Floyd Mayweather, Evander Holyfield, Laila Ali, Helio Castronevez, Jerry Rice and Emmett Smith, who one the thing two years ago. It's turned out to be quite the marketing tool. Who would have thought? This reality TV, turned game show/contest phenomenon is incredible.

Baseball Attendance and Economics 101

2008-10-06T11:33:00.001-07:00

I read a report recently noting the fact that attendance at baseball games rose in 2007 and that the same trend is holding for this season. All of this, of course, is occurring in the midst of the inverse pushes of a declining economy and increasing ticket prices. Is it surprising to think that more people are heading to the ballpark despite the economic downturn?

Classic Economics 101 would not say despite—it would declare ‘because.’ An application of the theory of opportunity cost would yield the explanation that in “bad times,” when people are making less money, their time becomes cheaper. That is, you are more able to afford to spend three hours at the ballpark because three hours in the office is less valuable. Conversely, when things are “good” ones time becomes more valuable and therefore the cost of spending time at the park rises. Moreover, despite

I myself always take “theory” with a grain of salt. This is partly because theory is usually developed in a vacuum and also because baseball fans probably don’t work out theory in their heads to the degree that economists do. Still this is interesting. I think another reason attendance could rise in times of stress is that entertainment provides escapism. For instance, movie attendance skyrocketed during WWII. The same, perhaps, hold with sports. All of this goes to show why, no matter how much or how little money is in American pockets, people always turn out at the ballpark.

Financial Mess Seepage

2008-10-03T13:21:00.001-07:00

So the financial mess is spewing all over the place. Despite this fact, I had hoped the sports industry would be shielded from the shrapnel. Unfortunately it’s beginning to seep onto “Gridiron Street.”

General Motors recently announced that it will not air a primetime TV ad during the Super Bowl in 2009. GM has been rocked by the financial turmoil as their stock price went from a high of $43.13 in October of 2007 to a close of $9.03 yesterday. So, under pressure from rising manufacturing and materials costs, and decreasing sales, GM is looking for ways to cut costs as part of its restructuring plan.

Despite this decision, GM will remain a major sponsor of the NFL and expects to air ads during the Super Bowl’s pre and post-game shows. A GM spokeswoman said, “We’re in the midst of cost cutting. We’re scrutinizing all of our programs and all of our media spending.” Not buying a primetime slot will save the auto maker a cool $3 million. Last year, GM ran two 30-second spots for their hybrid and Tahoe SUV. GM ads were also noticeably absent Emmy Awards and won’t be appearing during the broadcast of the Academy Awards.

What’s interesting here is that, oftentimes, when a company is struggling media and advertising are the first expenditures to get cut. This makes some sense because you would probably want to protect workers, plant space, product investment etc. etc. Thus, cutting “non-essential” expenditures like advertising seems wise. But is it really?

Ads are signals to the public of what the company is doing. A good add can show consumers that the company is creative, up to good things, and is still making a quality product. Ads are also one of the more public aspects of a business. If a company ceases its marketing outreach it could indicate that something is amiss. Add to that the fact that companies under normal circumstance spend only around 4-5% of sales on advertising and it appears to be a minimal expenditure worth maintaining, especially during times of hardship.

The Diamond and The Street

2008-10-01T20:04:00.000-07:00

Readers: I plan on making a concerted effort to post more. I’m currently working full time in Washington DC this semester and it’s been more of a time-suck than I thought: to save on exaggerations, it’s been a pretty intense time. I’ll be posting more frequently and even want to try to link some sports topics with political themes.

The current proposal to “bailout Wall Street” (which was always a stupid and un-sellable way to phrase it) includes some precedent setting aspects. One of these is the idea to put caps on executive compensation. I know what informs the idea: Stan O’Neal, former CEO of Merrill Lynch, puling down $161.5 million in exit-pay after reporting a $2.24 billion loss, six times its forecast and the biggest quarterly loss in the company's 93-year history does seem odd, and many other cases of the same likeness. But it’s telling of the situation we’re in to be having that type of government control on the table.

What if applied that logic to sports? A-Rod makes $28 million a year, and the average baseball player made $3.15 million. It’s even higher in basketball. Some people thinks it’s insane for athletes to be making what they do. But I say, ‘Hey, these guys are the best of the best; they work all year to tune their bodies to performance machines. Then there’s the entertainment and escapism value. Plus look at the revenue an A-Rod or a LeBron bring in.’ Still, I see the debate.

Let’s go a step further and make it more akin to Stan O’Neil type compensation. A-Rod performs and pretty well deserves his paycheck. But Carl Pavano? Pavano made $39.95 million for 26 starts over 4 years. Like O’Neal’s reign over Merrill, Pavano drove performance downward and did hardly anything to increase the value of his team. Unlike in football, where contracts are far from guaranteed, when baseball players sign the line they’re salary is all but assured—even if they get injured. This partly speaks to the power of the players union in the MLB and the weakness in its gridiron counterpart. But does the societal argument hold? Is it unfair, unnerving, or perplexing? Should something be done about it? It’s not as if Congress hasn’t involved itself in baseball’s business before.

Here are other stupid and even funny examples of baseball contracts:
- L.A. rewarded Darren Dreifort with this deal in the winter of 2000 -- despite a 39-45 career record with a 4.28 ERA. Dreifort responded with one full season -- as a reliever, in '04 -- nine wins, 15 losses, one save, a 4.64 ERA, several trips to the DL and an early retirement.
- As a free-agent, Colorado signed Danny Neagle to a five-year $51.5 million deal. He had a 5.57 ERA through the first three years of this deal before surgery knocked him out of the '04 campaign. The Rockies cut him when he was caught, zipper-down, with a $40 prostitute.
-Houston’s Charlie Kerfeld asked for $110,037.37, matching his number 37 jersey, to pitch in 1987. He also required 37 boxes of orange Jell-O in the deal. But Kerfeld, who was caught eating ribs in the dugout that season, battled weight and injury problems and was sent down to the minors

There are plenty more.

More Than Just An Athlete: Tiger Woods (Part 8)

2008-09-29T21:00:00.000-07:00

Interestingly, the escalating dominance that sports figures have in the cultural and especially economic areas of our society has resulted in decreased power when it comes to their political impact.[i] Jackie Robinson’s actions led to a greater acceptance of the Civil Rights Movement and Muhammad Ali’s charged words certainly had effects on the anti-war movement against Vietnam. But modern day examples such as Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods make hardly any social waves. Some even charge that their apolitical ways are in some ways inspired by their loyalty to their corporate sponsors.[ii]

The increasing importance of sports figures in US society is somewhat of a modern day phenomenon. Originally, sports served more individualistic purposes, as it aspired to create a healthy mind and a strong body. Gradually, it came to serve great social objectives as sports instilled values of teamwork and self-sacrifice for the achievement of greater ends. Sports also served as a vehicle to create young boy soldiers, instilling rigorous physical exercise and combining it with like-minded values. Sports, and the competition that came with it, was a playful demonstration of battlefield conflict. But that relationship has seemingly switched directions.[iii] No longer do we look towards war heroes like Audy Murphy to find “true American values” of courage and hard work. Today, we find those values in athletes.

As Yu notes, “Athletic teamplay and character traits such as self-sacrifice, acceptance of one’s role, and courage in the face of adversity are no longer coded behaviors that predict success on the battlefield but the clichéd tropes of television sports programs that have conquered American life.” In a pessimistic, but somewhat realistic way, sport has become a business. With multi-billion dollar television rights being signed to the ever-inflating prices of tickets to cover the cost of ever-increasing player salaries and endorsements, sports for sports sake seems a bit lost. Indeed, this is where criticisms of Woods’ silence on social issues comes into play: Woods is silent because he is protecting his endorsements. But who can blame him? After Woods signed his 37 million-dollar contract with Nike, the company launched an advertising campaign featuring their new star. The TV and print ads centered on golf’s exclusivity and its less than stellar racial past. Tiger, glaring into the camera, said, “There are still courses in the United States that I am not allowed to play because of the color of my skin. Are you ready for me world?” The ads were popular but they also incited much controversy and criticism. As a result, Tiger retreated back to the driving range and away from the public spotlight.

The public spotlight can be a hot and burning place. Never before has the media been so attune to the lives of athletes. Partly a voracious need for a juicy story, the media seems to almost search out stories of scandal and moral degradation. The murder trials of OJ Simpson and other football players and the greediness of basketball players were all signs of the apparent declining moral character of our nation’s athletes. But such behavior is hardly new. Ty Cobb, an infamous racist and rude man, only attracted headlines describing his baseball skills and not his moral character. Babe Ruth was known for his towering home runs, not his deviant sexual escapades. Journalists turned a blind eye to such behavior because sportsmanship only mattered when it was on the field of play. Today, that has dramatically changed. Yu takes this dichotomy further: “What the spotlight’s glare on athletics revealed was not just the moral defect of sports stars but also the fact that Americans wanted them to be heroes in the way that were not required fifty years before.” This distinction helps to illuminate the public’s ardent desire to see Tiger Woods as a mover and shaker for social causes. We have come to expect more out our sports heroes: much more. We want them to be more than the best at shooting a basketball or swinging a golf club. We want them to be exemplary citizens of our society and to speak up when the world is wrong. In a way, we have taken an athlete, Tiger Woods, and are trying to make him into a modern day Gandhi.

Is this even fair? Tiger Woods is a golfer and that is the choice he has made for himself. Surely we can extend to him the benefits of autonomy and self-determination? But on the flip-side, can you really blame all the attention Woods is receiving, especially considering the almost ludicrous sums of money that are being poured into the sports and entertainment industries? Whether Tiger likes it or not he occupies a large space in the public realm. He is a public figure, but is he a public object? Can we make him be what we want him to be? Is that right?

Luckily for us, in the case of Tiger Woods we are likely to have our cake and eat it too. In all likelihood, by the end of his career, Woods will go down in history as golf’s greatest ever; or at least until another Tiger, perhaps next time a Lion, comes along and wows our sports driven minds. Tiger will continue to win tournaments and break records and many will rejoice in sitting back a simply watch while he paints masterpieces on the golf course. For those who want more out of Tiger, they are likely to be pleased too; though they may need to wait a bit longer than those simply wanting to see Woods hoist trophies. Despite all the criticism that Tiger receives he is doing the game a world of good. He may be the only “African-American” on the PGA Tour today, but it would only be fair to take Woods at his word when he says that such things take time and that he plans to focus more on such issues once he leaves the golf course.

[i] Leonard Steinborn and Barbara Diggs-Brown, By the Color of Our Skin: The Illusion of Integration and the Reality of Race (New York: Dutton, 1999) 168.
[ii] William H. Rhoden, Forty Million Dollar Slaves: The Rise, Fall, and Redemption of the Black Athlete, (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2007) 221.
[iii] Yu, 338.

More Than Just An Athlete: Tiger Woods (Part 7)

2008-09-25T18:22:00.000-07:00

The attempt to see “all” of Tiger was a valiant attempt at open-minded multiculturalism. But the clumsiness of his classification and its failure to truly capture all of who Tiger is “resulted from both the flawed conception of cultural and racial origins…and an inability to leave behind an obsession with the idea that race is a biological category represented by individuals.” Thus even though Woods is a self-described “Cablinasian,” (CAucasian + BLack + INdian + ASIAN) he is reduced from his whole identity to his darkest ancestry—black.[1] “Cablinasian” gained very little traction in the press because it served to describe Woods and only Woods. As our racial history has shown, we like things simple and categorical, and thus Woods is most conveniently described as an African-American. Even today, though categorizations based on race have been effectively attacked, the new theories of culture are still rooted in the historical groundings of biological and race based classifications of yesteryear. So while Woods was heralded as ushering in a new age of multiculturalism, the ensuing analysis of his mixed racial heritage was not fully divorced from nineteenth-century conceptions of race.[2] Nevertheless, the overarching theme is that Woods reveals the central stupidity of racial politics in America: the discrepancy between the rigid way we talk about race and the fluid realities of who we increasingly are.

When Woods went on the Oprah Winfrey Show and described himself as “Cablinasian,” many did not know what to make of it. People had never heard such a description used before and maybe for simplicity’s sake they labeled him black. Or perhaps there were elements of racial ignorance and lingering “one drop rule” logic that sent Tiger’s multiculturalism on the path to blackness. But there also existed “a seemingly positive desire to paint Tiger in a darker shade, a pulling for Tiger to be a heroic black man who would save America from its racist past.”[3] In a 1995 Sports Illustrated article, Rick Reilly first hit on Tiger being labeled a “Great Black Hope” which he drew out of Tiger’s childhood appearances on television shows such as The Mike Douglas Show and That’s Incredible.[4] By the time Tiger turned pro, other were pondering “Who can he [Tiger] be? Pick a name. Arthur Ashe. Jackie Robinson. Colin Powell.”[5]

The way in which Tiger Woods was received by mass media and other black leaders reveals our post-Civil Rights Era train of thought with regard to smoothing out racial differences. Woods exposes our insatiable need for a “Great Black Hope” and our delirious confidence that one man, through sheer individual talent and will, can redeem us from our sullied racial past. Sports Illustrated’s Jaime Diaz expressed this hope, writing, “African-American heritage would make a victory in the tournament [The Masters], in which no black was invited to play until 1975 and where every caddie was black until ’83, a transcendent accomplishment.”[6] The hope here is clear: that the action of one man would change the way people look at race. Have we? Perhaps. Is it because of Woods? That is more difficult to discern.

But it is easy to see the insatiable hope that many had to make Tiger into an African-American liberator. Indeed, the application of being a “Great Black Hope” put Woods in a long line of black sports heroes who have ascended into God-like status as they transcended racial barriers to fulfill the expectations of many and redeem US society from its ugly past. Starting with Jack Johnson of the early 19th century, to Joe Louis, Jackie Robinson of the mid-20th century, and on to OJ Simpson and Arthur Ashe and now Tiger Woods, journalists and writers have romanticized that one individual could right the pasts wrongs.[7] These tales have thus shaped the way we view individual blacks and the greater movement towards a society where race is supposed to matter less and less. Of course, the entry and ascendancy of Woods to the top of a formerly segregated game should not be devalued. Indeed, it is a special and great accomplishment. But the idea that a single martyr could help a nation overcome a negative past in some ways induces us to forget, or simply take solace in looking past, all of the institutional and structural causes and effects of racism that continue to exist in our society.

[1] Kamiya, “Cablinasian Like Me”
[2] Clarence Page, “A credit to his races” Transcript from NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, aired May 1, 1997.
[3] Yu, 332.
[4] Rick Reilly, “Goodness Gracious, He’s a Great Ball of Fire,” Sports Illustrated, (March 27, 1995).
[5] Leigh Montville, “On the Job Training,” Sports Illustrated, (September 9, 1996).
[6] Jaime Diaz, “One for the Ages,” Sports Illustrated, (April 7, 1997).
[7] David Owen, “The Chosen One,” New Yorker August 21 and 28, 2000, 117

More Than Just An Athlete: Tiger Woods (Part 6)

2008-09-17T20:50:00.000-07:00

When Woods announced his intention to drop his amateur status and turn professional he became a media sensation. TV and print media dedicated page after page to Woods’ life, his potential impact on the sport and whether he could live up to the hype of a 37 million dollar contract from Nike. His race was also the topic of much conversation and analysis. As a child with a black father and an Asian mother, Woods appeared to be a multicultural angel sent from heaven to open minds and bring multiculturalism and racial understanding to a sport previously reserved for America’s white upper-class. As Henry Yu notes, “A multicolored Tiger in hues of black and yellow would forever change the complexion of golf, attracting American inner-city children to the game in the same way Michael Jordan had done for basketball.”[1]

Yet the calculus employed by many journalists to describe Woods’ ethnic breakdown was highly revealing and harkened back to earlier conceptions of how the US has unnervingly tried to classify people on the basis of race. In math-like fashion, the Los Angeles Times computed Woods’ “rich ethnic background,” by combining “a quarter Native American, a quarter Chinese and half African-American,” father with a “half Thai, a quarter Chinese, and a quarter white mother.” Such racial calculus rings alarmingly similar to previous court ruling such as Plessey v. Ferguson whereby such rulings looked to classify citizens by compartmentalizing their racial breakdowns. Thinking in the 19th and early 20th centuries led people that through blood and heritage one could break another’s identity into precise fractions. This line of thinking led to the “one drop rule,” which stated that a single drop of black blood classified a person as black and that no amount of white blood could overpower the black blood.[2] Thus, even though Woods is technically more Asian than black, modern society has decided that he is African-American. This somewhat misleading classification had roots in many areas, ranging from pure racial ignorance to black leaders that wanted to define Woods as black in order to profit from what would soon turn into a large amount of social clout and capital.

Thus the confusion over Woods’ true racial complexion reveals that old notions of race still have streams running through our society. Bewilderment also evolved from labor migration from the 19th century and how the concept of culture began to eclipse classical concepts of racial classification.[3] In many ways we still hold onto the classificatory method of racial categorization. But this has been somewhat overcome by the rise of sociology which has placed greater importance on culture in describing differences in human behavior. Blatant and somewhat stereotypical examples of sociological classification would be descriptions such as, “He is humble and subservient because he is Asian,” or “She is loud and obnoxious because of her American roots.” But Woods, with his jumbled and hard-to-define race and culture, throws racial and cultural classification into a helter-skelter whirlwind that works to show how such classifications, despite their universal usage, have come to signify less and less about a person. For instance, the notion that Tiger spends a quarter of the week acting “black” another quarter “white” and the other half “Asian” is simply preposterous. What Woods enforces is that racial and cultural classifications are fictional and meaningless. But just because this may be so does not mean that such classifications will simply vanish.[4]

[1] Henry Yu, “Tiger Woods at the Center of History: Looking Back at the Twentieth Century through the Lenses of Race, Sports, and Mass Consumption,” in John Bloom and Michael Willard eds., Sports Matters: Race, Recreation and Culture, (New York: New York University Press: 2002) 325.
[2] Virginia Dominguez, White By Definition: Social Classification in Creole Louisiana (New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1986) 26
[3] Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker, The Many Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic (Boston: Beacon Press, 2000) 94.
[4] Yu, 329.

More Than Just An Athlete: Tiger Woods (Part 5)

2008-09-08T19:30:00.000-07:00

Just because Woods is not the most vocal voice when it comes to social issues is hardly an indication that he does not want to affect change. In fact, Tiger has addressed publicly the issues of race in golf, the participation of minority youth in the growing game and how he sees himself fitting in to each of these issues. Tiger does not deny his almost godly position in our society. But he also does not see much success in sacrificing his golfing career to make sudden and radical changes to golf’s racial landscape. Responding to the question of why there are not more blacks on Tour, Tiger noted that:

One, it takes time, and two, it’s all about building a bigger base. Like
I’ve said, it’s a pyramid effect. So the bigger the base, the better
chance you have of having somebody make it and that takes time because golf
wasn’t always that popular. I remember when I was in high school, golf was
a wussy sport. You weren’t cool if you played it. That stereotype is
changing, it’s evolving and more kids are trying out for golf teams. It
takes time.[1]

To be sure, though he may not speak out as much as some would like, Woods is doing quite a lot to increase the size of golf’s base and to change the golfer’s stereotype. In 1996, with the help of his father, Tiger founded the Tiger Woods Foundation. The main focus of the foundation is to provide disadvantaged youth the chance to become better people through golf clinics, grant programs, and college scholarships. Woods also created the Tiger Woods Learning Center which opened in 2006 in Anaheim, California. The Center is a 35,000 square foot educational center with its goal being “to get students thinking about the role education plays in their futures.”[2] The Center provides thousands of underprivileged students annual access to courses in math, science, technology and language arts. Tiger has also partnered with and donated millions of dollars to Te First Tee , which is the PGA Tour’s initiative to give inner-city and disadvantaged youth the chance to get involved in the game. “It’s about helping the next generation have a better future. I will be a leader for everybody,” Woods said when speaking of his philanthropic ventures.[3]

Woods’ charitable contributions are greater than any other player on Tour and they have had measurable effects. It is estimated that in the past ten years, the number of golfers in America has risen approximately thirty-percent to thirty-five million golfers. In that same time, the number of African-American golfers has more than doubled to an estimated 820,000. Moreover, in 1996 there were only 100 junior golf programs in the US. Now there are over 700. While it might be an exaggeration to say that Woods is responsible for each new golfer and each new program, it would be safe to say that Tiger’s leadership has played a substantial role in golf’s proliferation. In response to a reporter’s question on how Tiger saw his social work developing, he likened himself to the great Arthur Ashe:

Some people remember Arthur Ashe because he was a tennis player. But there
are some people all around the world who don’t know that he won Wimbledon but
remember what kind of social impact he made, what kind of leader he was.
That’s the role I want to play. ‘Yeah,’ people might say, ‘he was a good golfer
at one point. You know, he won some tournaments here and there. But
what he did socially had a real impact.’[4]

As this quote makes clear, Tiger wants his legacy not to be built around his golfing achievements, but by his greater societal contributions. Tiger has said that this is a long process and that for now he is still focused on golf and becoming the game’s greatest player. But considering how involved he currently is in “building a bigger base” and giving youth opportunities all in the midst of focusing on golf with the idea of expanding his social influence once he has left the game, one can only expect that Ali and Ashe-like efforts and effects are only in the not-so-distant future.

Tiger Woods’ influence on the game of golf has been profound, and it is only likely to become more so. He has wowed the golfing world with his skill and determination to become perhaps the game’s greatest player. Furthermore, despite calls from critics to be more outspoken, Tiger has done much to extend the game to those whom it may never have reached through selfless charitable ventures. Certainly, most would have to agree that Woods’ impact on the game has been resoundingly positive. Yet, despite all that Woods has done for the game he remains a remarkable example beyond being a great golfer and a generous philanthropist. In many ways, the story of Tiger Woods goes past the game, the tournaments he has won and the records he has broken. A more nuanced analysis can help explain and illuminate some of America’s social transformations in the twentieth-century.

[1] Woods, quoted in Corrigan, “Dawn of the Tiger”
[2] Information found at TWLC.org (Tiger Woods Learning Center website)
[3] Woods, quoted in Smith, “Tiger on Course for Billionaire Status”
[4] Woods, quoted in Wayne Coffey, “Decade of Tiger: 10 Years Ago, Tiger Woods Changed the Face of Golf at Augusta National,” Daily News (New York), (April 1, 2007)

More Than Just An Athlete: Tiger Woods (Part 4)

2008-09-03T15:12:00.000-07:00

As we have seen, golf’s history as an open and accepting sport towards blacks and other minorities is sullied. But Tiger has seemingly overcome any lasting obstacles and enjoys a life on Tour that has not been heavily mired by controversy. But this is not how it was when Tiger was growing up or just starting out on Tour. Though some people criticize Tiger today for being an “uncle Tom” and for being out of touch with his race, the truth is that Tiger dealt with issues of race throughout his life and it continues to be an important issue for him. In Charles Barkley’s book Who’s Afraid of A Large Black Man?, Woods talks about his early exposure to the issues of race. He describes how on his first day of kindergarten he was tied to a tree and spray-painted with the N-word on him by a group of sixth-graders.[1] He also discusses his feelings about being raised in two different cultures and how that has shaped his views on multiculturalism and the need to take a more open-minded approach to such issues. He notes how he was treated disrespectfully by other players at junior tournaments and how he endured boos and heckles at a few of his first PGA events. His father Earl remembers the difficulty he had in finding a course that would let him and his son play on which often resulted in many backyard practice sessions. All things considered, it would be easy for Woods to harbor strong feelings of animosity and perhaps for him to speak out stridently and complain. But like Sifford and Elder who came before him, Tiger has persevered and let his game speak for himself.

Much of Tiger’s approach towards race can be traced back to his father Earl. Since birth, Earl prepared Tiger to mentally withstand any and all adversity and distractions that he would eventually face in life. This took the form of stories on the Civil Rights movement and Earl’s practice of throwing bottle caps at Tiger while he was working on his swing.[2] As he grew up, Woods took every racist comment, every invidious denial in stride as he maintained focused on his life goal—to become the greatest golfer in the world and thereby opening up the game and the gates of country clubs to all ethnicities. Note the formation and sequence of this goal. Becoming the greatest golfer comes first, and then comes the social work. This is not because he does not care, or chooses to place sports above social causes. It is because the social work takes time and Tiger feels that his social impact can only be abetted by the fact that he will be the world’s greatest golfer.[3] Contrary to his critics’ attacks, Tiger remains quite attune to his race. The following excerpt from Barkley’s book, Who’s Afraid of A Large Black Man?, in which Tiger’s description of his 1997 Masters victory goes from celebratory to seriously somber, poignantly illuminates some of Tiger’s thoughts on race:

So, there’s this closing ceremony. You go on the putting green, where it
takes place, and I look up and they’re all there in their white outfits.
The cooks, the staff, attendants, everybody. They’re all black. Each
one of them came out onto the balcony and watched it. I look back and I
start getting choked up just thinking about it. They touched me in a real
powerful way. I started thinking about everything these people had faced
in life, all the ugliness and all the prejudice and all the obstacles they had
to deal with. I’ve seen what they struggle with and I feel so bad. I was
thinking that they could have a lot of bitterness and feel ‘Why him? Why not
me?’ But they didn’t. They don’t. It was very impactful, man…They touched me
more than they will ever know. Ever.[4]

It is quite evident that Tiger is indeed in touch with his race, the struggles that others have gone through, and the struggles that still exist in the racial fabric of our society.

While many criticize Woods for not projecting a stronger voice, others see his silence as an indication that he truly is transcending race. Tiger plays golf, and plays it quite well. He wants to be known as the world’s greatest golfer and wants his game to speak for himself. The fact that he does not speak out more is most likely due to a “horse-blinder” mentality that directs his focus predominately towards golf. And because he does not grandstand and make a fuss out of racial issues is probably a big reason why he has been accepted by a predominately traditional, conservative, wealthy and white golfing demographic.[5] As Greg Garber once wrote in an article for ESPN, “In the end, Woods has served as an example of racial harmony simply by being himself.”[6] Tiger is charming, respectful, intelligent and calm. If Tiger went into the press room after a round and sounded off like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton he certainly would have been received and perceived in a very different light. But more than anything else, his spectacular play has spoken for itself which has silenced many of those harboring racist sentiment. Tiger knows he is part of a culture that is slow to change and he has tailored his social agenda accordingly.

[1] Doug Smith, “Tiger on course for Billionaire Status, But Lags in Coaxing Blacks Onto Pro Tours,” 23 September 2007, (21 March 2008)
[2] Ibid
[3] Corrigan, “Dawn of the Tiger”
[4] Charles Barkley, Who’s Afraid of a Large Black Man? (New York: Penguin Press, 2005) 232.
[5] Gary Kamiya, “Cablinasian Like Me: Tiger Woods’ Rejection of Orthodox Racial Classifications,” 30 April 1997, (21 March 2008)
[6] Greg Garber, quoted in Scoop Jackson, “Now Its Time for Tiger to Fulfill Father’s Prophecy,” ESPN.com, 10 January 2008, (29 March 2008)

More Than Just An Athlete: Tiger Woods (part 3)

2008-09-01T09:00:00.000-07:00

When Tiger Woods won the Masters in 1997 by an unprecedented twelve strokes, the golfing world hailed him as golf’s new messiah. It was his first major tournament and not only had Tiger decimated the field, he posted 18-under par, the lowest score ever in Masters history. It had been almost two decades since the days of Palmer and Nicklaus and golf was seemingly welcoming its savior. Lee Elder, who watched Woods put on the Green Jacket with tears in his eyes, claimed that “After this, no one will turn their heads when a black man walks to the first tee.”[1]

With his towering drives and energetic fist pumps, Tiger was revitalizing a sport that had fallen into the stereotypes of boredom and old-fashioned curmudgeons. Indeed, in the eleven years since Woods captured his first tournament, his impact on the game has been unparalleled. No one has dominated the sport to the degree that Tiger has. He is the youngest player to achieve the career Grand Slam, and the youngest and fastest to win 50 tournaments on Tour. Woods has held the number one position in the world rankings for the most consecutive weeks and for the greatest total number of weeks. He has been awarded PGA Player of the Year a record nine times, the Byron Nelson Award for lowest adjusted scoring average a record eight times, and has tied Jack Nicklaus's record of leading the money list in eight different seasons. He has been named Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year four times, a record he shares with Lance Armstrong. He is also the only person to be named Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of the Year more than once.[2] Other achievements and broken records would take the rest of this paper to list. To be sure, Woods is towering over the game in unprecedented fashion.

His supremacy has changed how other players play and the way many view the game of golf. Dominant golfers have always been powerful but Tiger has certainly raised the bar. Others on Tour note that, often, they are simply playing for second place. Woods has forced others to change their approach to the game with renewed dedication and vigor. Before Woods, golf was a sport that could be played with a beer-gut and a hotdog induced waistline. But when Tiger won the Players Championship in 1999, where he beat Davis Love III by four shots, Love said “He has proven to me that I have to get stronger.”[3] Now, following in Tiger’s footsteps, Tour pros are dedicating themselves to rigorous exercise routines and the athleticism on Tour has certainly risen. In the same way that Ben Hogan invented practice in golf, Tiger has essentially introduced exercise regimens to golf. The power game that Woods has brought to the sport has induced an effect called “Tiger Proofing” whereby golf courses are being lengthened to reign in both Woods and other long hitters. For instance, when Woods won the Masters in 1997 the course measured 6,925 yards. Today, the course measures 7,445 yards after yearly altering and lengthening. Tiger’s mere presence on the course has raised the bar in golf. He has made others better. That is a sign of not only true excellence but of revolutionizing power. Ernie Els, the world’s number three golfer, remarked that “The standard of play on Tour the last three years has definitely increased [because of Tiger]. The whole standard of the Tour has really risen.”[4]

Tiger’s dominance and impact on Tour is remarkable and certainly praiseworthy. Indeed, there is a legitimate case to be made that Tiger will go down as golf’s greatest player ever. Nevertheless, many hail Tiger for a different reason. Such people view Tiger more as a cause for social change than as a record breaker. Because of Woods’ minority status they see him as taking up the work of black golf leaders such as Charlie Sifford and Lee Elder. Indeed, there is something significant in the fact that Woods, as a minority, has been accepted by the golfing community and it is interesting to explore why.

[1] Lee Elder, quoted in James Corrigan, “Dawn of the Tiger,” The Independent (London), (April 2, 2007), 51.
[2] All stats and records found on Tiger Woods profile at PGATour.com
[3] Love, quoted in Jerry Potter, “In All Facets of the Game, Tiger Leads the Way,” USA Today, (January 8, 2004)
[4] Els, quoted in Potter, “In All Facets of the Game”

What's In a Name?

2008-09-01T08:50:00.001-07:00

I’ve always been slightly skeptical about the pedestal that the NCAA places the student-athlete model on. They go out of their way to protect players from corporate sponsors and have incredibly strict rules regarding recruiting. Yet at the same time the NCAA rakes in billions from their own sponsorships and TV deals and the college recruiting game often finds itself in the darker shades of the grey area. The desire to keep college athletics from being a business seems genuine but also a bit naïve.

CBS Sports is thus wading in murky waters over their decision to allow fans to draft actual players from any Division 1 team in college fantasy football. In the past, the NCAA has steadfastly protected its athletes’ names and genuine likenesses. NCAA spokesman Chuck Wynne expressed concern “about the use of athletes’ names and how it impacts their eligibility.” But CBS stands by its decision as it will add increased realism and will improve fans’ overall experiences when they can draft an actual player instead of “Michigan RB 1.” It will be interesting to see how this plays out. A court ruling this past June found that MLB does not possess exclusive rights to players’ names and stats. This precedent obviously strengthens CBS’s stance.

To me, CBS’s move is hardly surprising. As companies look to deliver increasingly realistic and interactive products one could see this idea coming. Personally I have little issues with it. After all, the major sports magazines are running wild with pre-season analysis of college teams which certainly contain athletes’ names. It seems to me that Division 1 lost the model of the true student-athlete when games began being shown on TV and sponsors and marketers came pouring in. Perhaps the only true student-athletes are to be found at the Division 3 level where no athletic scholarships are awarded and athletes miss games to take exams.

The New Sirius XM Radio: Good News For Sports Fans

2008-08-31T08:44:00.000-07:00

Mergers don’t always have to resemble an episode of The Hills with Carl Icahn starring instead of Lauren Conrad. Often mergers benefit the companies and its customers. Such success could have been found in the recently approved acquisition of XM Radio by Sirius.

Since satellite radio took off in 2001 the two rivals have battled back and forth to be the leader in sports radio programming. But due to licensing agreements the sports audience was split: XM landed exclusive rights to MLB, PGA and Sirius had broadcasting rights to NASCAR, the NFL and the NBA. Add to that the fact that both companies used different transmission technologies meaning that customers had their hands forced and you get one divided customer base. Sports fans were frustrated that they couldn’t switch back and forth between the gridiron and the diamond.

Sirius looked to solve these issues with their $3.3 billion dollar acquisition of XM. But the deal was almost struck down by federal regulators. Consumer advocates and traditional radio stations contended that the merger amounted to a monopoly. Ultimately it took the FCC sixteen months and a narrow 3-2 vote to approve the deal and pave the way to a technology that will deliver sports content with greater continuity.

In the fall the new company will offer an array of attractive packages that will certainly be an improvement over the days of old. Fans will be able to choose one of three options: a new “Best of Both Worlds” option that combines each companies programming for $16.99 per month, an à la carte menu that allows users to choose 50 channels from Sirius/XM for $6.99 per month, or users can keep either the old XM or Sirius lineups for $12.95 per month. Now fans will have much more freedom in selecting their programming.

But not all is in the clear. Because of the acquisition Sirius now carries $3.4 billion in corporate debt. They also are facing increasing assaults from new technologies such as the iPhone and streaming radio stations found online. Nevertheless, this merger should give consumers greater control and choice over their programming. This usually turns out to be a good thing.

More Than Just an Athlete: Tiger Woods (Part 2)

2008-08-26T17:34:00.000-07:00

This is the second installment of a mini series on Tiger Woods. If you have yet to read part one you can find that here.

Before delving too deep into Tiger and what he has meant to the game, it would be prudent and necessary to look at the history of African-Americans in golf. Ever since the game crossed the Atlantic from Scotland in the late 19th century, golf has existed primarily within the exclusive domain of white America. Until the PGA dropped its color barriers in 1962, golf was surrounded by impenetrable walls of race and classist exclusivity. Furthermore, it was not until the early 1990’s that most private country clubs began opening their doors to blacks. Yet despite the seemingly insurmountable obstacles faced by blacks, they hardly stopped many from enjoying the game. Indeed, there is a rich history of blacks in golf. It is a history of a great number of black golfers who overcame racial prejudice to assimilate the game for themselves. From their efforts, a special and unique heritage of blacks in golf would emerge.

Despite shoddy historical golfing records, there is ample evidence to consider George Franklin Grant to be the first African-American golfer in the United States. It is not known exactly when Grant took up the game, but records from his daughter Frances indicate that she caddied for him during the mid-1880s.[1] Though Grant is known as America’s first black golfer, he is more famous for one of the game’s greatest inventions: the golf tee. In 1899, Grant was given patent number 638,920 for his invention that moved the game in a modern direction.[2]

Golf grew in popularity rapidly amongst whites but it was slow to catch on with post Civil War African-Americans. Indeed, it seems that from the very outset, White America would not welcome blacks on their golf courses. When the U.S. Open was set to be played at Shinnecock Hills Golf Club on Long Island, white golfers came close to a boycott. They were acting out against the idea of competing against John Shippen, and African-American, and Oscar Bunn, a full-blooded Shinnecock Indian. Eventually, when the US Golfing Association threatened to hold the tournament with just Shippen and Bunn, the white players relented and reluctantly played.[3] By this time, blacks were enjoying the game with the same fervor as whites. But in the years following World War I, xenophobic and racist sentiment, combined with Jim Crow laws and socio-economic realities saw blacks excluded from nearly all municipal golf courses and private country clubs.[4]

Reacting to the joint restrictions of the USGA and all-white country clubs, Robert Hawkins, a golf enthusiast from Massachusetts, founded the United Golf Association Tour to foster competition among black amateurs and professionals.[5] The UGA was golf’s equivalent to baseball’s Negro Leagues and the Tour was a resounding success in the black golfing community. The UGA sponsored events throughout the summers, culminating with their major championship equivalent, the Negro National Open. Known affectionately in those days as the “Chittlin’ Circuit,” the UGA was home to golfers such as Teddy Rhodes, Pete Brown, Charlie Sifford and Lee Elder. “It launched my career. Without the UGA, I never would have played competitive golf,” said Pete Brown, who won the National Negro Open four times and would later go on the capture two victories on the PGA Tour.[6] Brown described the Tour as “a good time. It was not dog-eat-dog thing.” Indeed the UGA was a community, born out of racial times to provide blacks their own opportunity to enjoy the game they loved.

Charlie Sifford was certainly one of the Tour’s most popular stars. He was fun-loving and outstanding at golf, winning the Negro Open five consecutive times from 1952-56. Sifford ultimately bridged two eras by becoming the first black golfer on the PGA Tour. Sifford lobbied long and hard for over nine years before getting his Approved Tournament Player’s card in 1961 and full PGA Tour Membership in 1964. Sifford was courageous and a pioneer. He persevered through hecklers and death-threats to become the first black to win a PGA event—the Hartford Open in 1967.[7] Indeed, Sifford’s actions opened up the game for blacks due to his insistence that he be treated equally and fairly. Eight years after Sifford’s first victory, Lee Elder became the first African-American to tee it up at the Masters in 1975, the same year that Tiger Woods was born. Indeed, our pas is not as distant as we sometimes make it to be. The story of blacks in golf is a history rich in community, perseverance and courage. Indeed, men like Sifford and Elder did much of the foundational work that would allow Tiger to build an empire.

[1] Venita Robinson, “African American Culture and Physical Skill Development Programs: The Effect on Golf After Tiger Woods,” Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 33, No. 6, (July, 2003) 807.
[2] Ibid, 811.
[3] __ “Teeing Off: The History of Blacks in Golf,” Black Enterprise, (September 1, 1994)
[4] __ “Tiger Woods Cards a Bogey,” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 37 (Autumn, 2002) 60.
[5] __ “Remembering the old UGA Tour—All Black United Golf Association,” Black Enterprise, (September 1, 1997)
[6] Pete Brown, quoted in “Remembering the old UGA Tour”
[7] Ron Sirack, “Charlie Sifford to be the First Black Voted Into the World Golf Hall of Fame,” 14 June 2003, (4 May 2008)

Not an Inch to Spare

2008-08-26T17:08:00.000-07:00

A while back I wrote about sponsorships across different sports. I made the claim that NASCAR is probably the most excessive when it comes to selling signage and ad space for sponsors. Well I now stand corrected. I ran across the Czech Extraliga hockey team, HC Slavia Praha. While NASCAR gets hits with criticism for selling space on everything from car hoods to the infield grass, HC Slavia has taken the sponsorship model to a whole new level.

Not only have they sold space on the ice itself, they’ve also begun opening up signage on the ring-side glass to sponsors. The team has over 75 official sponsors and there is not an inch of wasted space anywhere. Sure it’s cluttered, sure it’s ridiculous. Hopefully it won’t get to that point here anytime soon, but the idea of selling glass space is an idea not yet seen in the United States. It’s a new inventory space that could be taken up by the NHL or even other sports (logos on a backboard or on the field goal netting perhaps). My only concern is that such signage on the glass is somewhat obtrusive to spectators and might be even more so on a television broadcast.

More Than Just An Athlete: Tiger Woods (Part 1)

2008-08-21T13:51:00.000-07:00

Over the next several days, I'll be posting portions of a longer article that I wrote on Tiger Woods. The article breaks up nicely into segments which will give the series continuity. The posts will look at the history of blacks in a stereotypically white game, and will of course discuss Woods' accomplishments on and off the golf course and how he has changed the game of golf. But in a larger sense, the article looks to tackle questions that go beyond sport and into issues of how our society looks at and handles race and the expectations we have of our heroes. I hope you'll enjoy it.

As Tiger Woods capped off a third win in as many years at the U.S. Amateur, Woods began the transition from a ‘golfing’ name to a ‘household’ name. Though he had yet to even join the PGA Tour ranks, he already had signed a thirty-seven million dollar contract with Nike. Other endorsements flew at his door constantly. The media was hailing him as a “Great Black Hope” as they expected Woods to tear down the racial walls that continued to haunt the Tour and private country clubs around the country. Tiger’s father, Earl, was his biggest supporter and believer. In the winter of 1996, Earl offered this prediction: “Tiger will do more than any other man in history to change the course of humanity…I don’t know exactly what form this will take. But he is the Chosen One. He’ll have the power to impact nations. Not people. Nations. The world is just getting a taste of his power.”[1] This endorsement may not have been worth thirty-seven-million dollars, but it helped to capture to an extraordinary degree the hopes and dreams that many had for Woods on the brink of his professional career.

Indeed, Woods’ career so far has been almost indescribably successful. He has been on top of the money leader’s list for seven of the past nine years. At only 32 he has amassed a total of 64 wins, an average of 5.2 per year, and with thirteen major championships under his belt he is seriously threatening Jack Nicklaus’ record of eighteen. Yet Tiger’s success as a golfer does not stop with broken records or overflowing trophy cases. In many ways, Woods has transcended the game of golf. As an African-American (although this description is misleading and complex as will be pointed out later) he has shattered many of golf’s racial barriers to entry. More blacks have taken up the game than ever before. A study compiled by the National Golf Federation found that in 1996 an estimated 360,000 African-Americans were playing golf. By 2007, they found that that number had eclipsed 820,000. Indeed, Tiger’s impact has been felt far and wide.

Nevertheless, there exists another line of thought that approaches doubt with regard to Woods’ career. This perspective looks beyond Tiger’s accomplishments on the course to a more complex and nuanced take on Woods and his role not simply as a golfer but as a social leader. Adherents to this point of view criticize Tiger for not being more outspoken on social issues, especially those involving race. They point out that, despite all that Woods has done for the game, he remains the only African-American on the PGA Tour.

Tiger Woods may well go down in history as the game’s greatest golfer. But what is more remarkable and illuminating is how Woods has been received, subsequently handled, and finally embraced by the golfing world. It is a complex story of racial definitions and societal transformations. This paper will address the multi-faceted interpretations of Woods as a golfer; exactly what impact has he had on a historically white sport? Is this impact on the whole more positive or negative? It will also explore Woods beyond golf by addressing the widespread confusion over his race when he entered the sport, the meaning of Woods being heralded as a “great black hope,” and how Tiger’s career is a reflection of the increasing importance of the entertainment and leisure industries.

[1] Earl Woods, as quoted in, Gary Smith, “The Chosen One,” Sports Illustrated (December 23, 1996)

Lightning Strikes Twice

2008-08-21T13:49:00.001-07:00

So I’ve been out of town the last few days and as such haven’t had the chance to blog as I would have liked. But I’m back now and am happy to post a new video, even though it’s a little late.

Like most everyone I’m sure, I’m loving watching the Olympics. It’s inspirational yet humbling, and patriotic yet at the same time is a chance to celebrate with the world over. My favorite events are the track and field competitions. Sheer athleticism shines brightest here, in my opinion, and shown brightest in the men’s 100M and 200M where Usain Bolt took both races in world record fashion. He actually reminded me of Secretariat in the 1973 Belmont Stakes. This man is a beast, an absolute specimen in fact. I thought Michael Phelps was impressive but Bolt is just ridiculous.

Watch this video of him taking the 100M and the 200M. (you may have to download the free plug-in). Enjoy!

Agents Speak About Olympians' Marketability

2008-08-13T15:59:00.001-07:00

Darren Rovell, author of a great blog called Sports Biz, conducted an interview with Evan Morgenstein, the sports agent for Dara Torres, Nastia Liukin and Jason Lezak. The two discussed the business of sports in the context of the Olympics. Its focus on the future marketability of Olympians is what really drew me to post about it as it follows nicely with my post on former Olympians forking for their own slice of the endorsement pie. Here is the link to the full interview. Below are parts of the interview that I found particularly interesting.

Darren: She scored a 16.9 on the uneven bars today that was the highest score of anyone in any event. Mary Lou Retton is always that bar that 10 on the vault in 1984. What type of breakout performance do you really need to last beyond the normal 4 to 6 months that Olympians have before we start thinking about football season, and World Series and everything else?

Evan: Well it's funny, I look at Nastia as someone, sort of how I look at Magic Johnson and basketball, he redefined the position and I look as Nastia as someone that can redefine being a gymnast in the United States. Because of how she does what she does, the number of medals she can win, and the fact that she really has a pre-disposition to wanna go out there and do a lot of things for a lot of people.

Darren: Dara Torres, she's got the silver medal from her relay, she'll be in the 50-meter free that's her event this weekend. She's a 41 year old wonder child if you can say that, has deals with Toyota and Speedo, a book deal, reported $3M for two books. Does she have to win gold in order to really really cash in?

Evan: Not even a little bit. The fact that a 41-year-old mom showed up at the Olympics and is kicking the young kids butts? I mean, I love it. I get emails every single day from women in the 30-plus category who are dying to know Dara Torres. She's starting a revolution, she's going to be someone you never see and have an impact on that group of people before. And she is going to take this for the next 20 years and do some great things for women.

Darren: Is it just the U.S. market? Alot of people say coming to China -- maybe China falls after the Olympics in terms of where it is in this frenzied business height. But if she wins gold in the 50-meter free, does she have a chance to do stuff worldwide not only in the U.S. but here?

Evan: Well I hate to say this, but Americans aren't the only people getting old, so I think she's got opportunities all over the world.
-------
And here are a couple questions from Rovell’s interview with Michael Phelps’ agent Peter Carlisle.

Darren: Over time, what could [Phelps' efforts] be worth in between that seven and eight [gold medals]?

Peter: Well, I think he becomes a legend, if he gets to seven or eight. At that point, you've got to extrapolate the value out over the years and obviously you're talking hundreds of millions.

Darren: The percentage increase in terms of the deals. Some of his deals are up after these games. How does that change some things?

Peter: Annually, I would say that you're essentially doubling income annually. But again, the interesting thing will be if he's able to do the incredible, the value that will play out over the years. Some of those deals obviously will become longer term deals.

Collectivism vs. Individualism: Olympics Provide Insight

2008-08-13T15:26:00.000-07:00

Sport is an integral part of societies all over the world. What's so great and interesting about this relationship is that oftentimes we can use sport as an opportunity to make observations about the world around us. Sport can indicate changing trends in society and can enable comparisons to be made between different societies. The Olympics in China have provided great insight into China as a country and a people.

One of my favorite writers, David Brooks, used the occasion of the Olympics as a means to comment on China and to compare its collectivist mentality to the individualistic mentality of the United States. Here is a link to that article. Below are some key graphs and some observations.

The ceremony drew from China’s long history, but surely the most striking features were the images of thousands of Chinese moving as one — drumming as one, dancing as one, sprinting on precise formations without ever stumbling or colliding. We’ve seen displays of mass conformity before, but this was collectivism of the present — a high-tech vision of the harmonious society performed in the context of China’s miraculous growth.

The rise of China isn’t only an economic event. It’s a cultural one. The ideal of a harmonious collective may turn out to be as attractive as the ideal of the American Dream.

If Asia’s success reopens the debate between individualism and collectivism (which seemed closed after the cold war), then it’s unlikely that the forces of individualism will sweep the field or even gain an edge.

I definitely noticed the collectivist mindset when I spent a month in China back in 2005 when they were ramping up efforts to prepare for the games. Everyone was doing their part in a collective effort to make these games the best ever—not only was that their goal, they seemed to know that it would happen. The confidence was impressive. Maybe it’s the nature of living in an authoritarian environment, but the Chinese certainly seemed to subjugate their own self-interests for the interests of the nation. When I visited a school in the early morning all of the children were outside singing the national anthem (which is hugely nationalistic and actually kind of brutal) loud and proud—and collectively. At my school, you couldn’t say the pledge of allegiance without an atheist expressing his displeasure with our nation’s choice of words. China may have atheists, but the nation’s unity, and thus its success, takes priority.

Brooks is brilliant and there’s not much to add to what he has written. Indeed, it is spot on in my opinion. A successful person in the US is likely to attribute his accomplishments to his own hard work and commitment to his goals whereas a Chinese person will point to collective efforts and a commitment to goals in their societal context. For these reasons collectivist societies tend to be more self-deprecating that individualistic ones. We can see this play out in the Olympics where the US tends to excel in individual events while China often performs better in team events. By and large, we in the West have been brought up to think that, in general, success comes from the individual’s hard-work and his dedication to capitalism. But as Brooks asserts, “The opening ceremony in Beijing was a statement in that conversation. It was part of China’s assertion that development doesn’t come only through Western, liberal means, but also through Eastern and collective ones.”

Retired Olympians Making Money Too

2008-08-12T14:31:00.000-07:00

For better or worse, the days of the Olympics being about amateurs and sport-for-the-sake-of-sport are over (for a great account of this shift read Rome 1960: The Olympics That Changed the World by David Maraniss). Today the Olympics is a huge money maker, both for advertisers and, increasingly so, for the athletes themselves. Octagon, a major sports management agency, represents numerous Olympians such as Michael Phelps and Natalie Coughlin and works with them to line up lucrative marketing strategies. But it’s not just current Olympians who are cashing in on their athletic superiority—former Olympians are getting their slice of the endorsement pie too. Stephanie Clifford, of the online version of the NY Times, has a good article outlining this trend.

Endorsement and sponsorship money flow at the Olympics largely due to the fact that the games draw a worldwide audience (1 billion peopled watched the opening ceremony) giving sponsors a wide reach and high sound of voice. So whether it is at corporate sponsored meet-and-greets or arranged meetings by an athlete’s agent, the Olympics offer numerous opportunities to spark a relationship. Of course, for former athletes, this process is cyclical and peaks every four years as advertisers take advantage of showcasing certain athletes while their sport is on the minds of many. But in some cases, partnerships forged at the games can turn into long term relationships.

By and large, using former athletes in marketing and endorsement deals gives advertisers a way to tap into the nostalgia that a former Olympian can offer. Putting up an ad showcasing Mark Spitz’ record of seven gold medals not only conjures up nostalgic excitement, it also draws attention to, and puts into historical context, Michael Phelps’ own current attempt to break Spitz’ record. Older athletes can sign on to endorse products whose market demographics match that of the athlete. Fifty-eight year old Spitz and 46-year old Nadia Comaneci are both sponsors for Botox, whose target market aligns closely with the two athletes.

The Origins of Modern Sport Pt. 3

2008-08-11T16:33:00.001-07:00

This is the final installment in my series on the origins of modern sport in the United States. If you need to catch up, you can find part 1 here, and part 2 here. I hope you've enjoyed the series and remember, all comments are welcome!

Though the backing of the Protestant Church and the upper class added a great impetus, “modern” sport never would have taken off without the support of the middle and working classes. Many advancements in society abetted the growth of sports. Chiefly, improvements in communications and transportation made sports more accessible. Trains and steamboats traveling longer distances made it easier to gather in cities and news and results of sporting events could be communicated effortlessly, especially with the invention of the telegraph. Mass production of watches made scheduling and advertising sporting events possible. Furthermore, the proliferation of the daily newspaper and other specialty sports sheets made results of competitions more-widely known than ever before.[1] All of these advancements made sports more accessible and welcoming to all in American society.

But the transformations were not limited to technological advancements. New conditions in the workplace led to a different mindset, especially amongst the working class. The decline of artisanship gave way to the factory system where work processes were broken down into ever-smaller tasks. The factory, becoming more and more concerned with efficiency, employed strict guidelines and rules. Changes in the white-collar world mirrored those in the blue-collared one.[2] Once seen as an ideal apprenticeship for sons of the upper class to ride their way to professional life, the breaking down of work operations and the invention of the typewriter resulted in the replacement of male clerks with female ones.[3]

One of the working class’ favorite sporting indulgences was prizefighting. Nowhere else in sporting trends, not in basketball nor cricket, can the counterculture against Victorian ideals be so clearly visible. No sport is more vicious, crass, or unrestrained. Early on, prizefighting eschewed rules for entertainment and shock value. Rounds lacked time limits and the bell only rang once a fighter was downed by fists or gave up. Unrestrained rules led to unrestrained audiences. The fights attracted hustlers, ruffians, drunks and thieves. Drinking and gambling were both permitted. Gambling, especially, inverted Victorian morals of money and success.[4] Whereas Victorians viewed the accumulation of money as the result of hard work and self-sacrifice, the wheeling-and-dealing nature of gambling stood entirely opposed such ideals. The never-ending exchange of money after lost and won bets signaled the fact that audiences enjoyed money for the momentary thrill instead of the Victorian method of life-long accumulation of wealth as a sign of hard work. Betting only took guts, not a hard-work ethic.

The ring was also a chance to praise manliness. The ideal Victorian man worked hard, restrained himself and sacrificed himself for the family. But as the household moved away from an economically productive unit into a more feminized arena meant for raising a family, opportunities to prove one’s manhood became fewer and farther between. In the same way that wealthy men escaped to their single-sex country clubs, working and middle class men found refuge in saloons and other enclaves of prizefighting society. Rader describes this dynamic particularly well when he asserts:

In gender-segregated leisure activities, they exhibited toughness, physical
prowess, and generosity. To these men, the prizefighter, with his immense
strength, muscular body and swift, decisive answers, represented and appealing
alternative to the effeminate, self-effacing Victorian ideal of manhood.[5]

Disenchanted with their place in American industry, many turned away from Victorian self-restraint and moderation. Sports and other leisure activities often bestowed more fun, fulfillment and social belonging than did their work. Advertisers picked up on this growing trend and offered products that would deliver “the good life.” Salesmen flew in the face of Victorian thrift and prudence and encouraged people to “buy now and pay later,” and to “live in the moment.”[6]
Americans underwent dramatic and profound change at the turn of the 20th century. The changing landscape of the economy, along with many technological advancements, precipitated much of the change that we see in the public’s opinion towards sports and physical exertion. But despite the institutional changes we cannot neglect the underlying changes in the American psyche. Well healed after the Civil War, and riding high on the confidence of the successes of the Industrial Revolution, many Americans yearned for greater freedom of activity and conscious. Self-assured and prideful of such successes perhaps inclined more and more Americans be more adventurous, adopt a greater penchant for risk, and shed any guilt over various forms of self-indulgence.

[1] Mrozek, 52.
[2] Benjamin Rader, American Ways, (Dallas: Harcourt Publishers, 2001) 191.
[3] Ibid, 27.
[4] Rader, Sports: From the Age of Folk Games to the Age of Televised Sports, 43.
[5] Ibid, 44.
[6] Quotes from R.W. Fox and T.J.J Lears, eds., The Culture of Consumption, (New York: Pantheon, 1983), 32.

Happy Monday!

2008-08-11T16:04:00.000-07:00

Sometimes it feels like we take things too seriously—school, job, relationships, life! Even though it’s a Monday, I’m in a great mood and thought I’d link to some great sports photos. True, they have nothing to do with the business of sports. But they’ll definitely put a smile on your face.

Check some out here, and here.

Happy Monday!

Video of the Week: U-S-A! U-S-A!

2008-08-11T10:34:00.001-07:00

So the Olympics began this past Friday. It’s been truly exciting stuff so far. Barring any overly oppressive Beijing smog or panda attacks I think these games should be a success and will turn into quite the coming out party for China. The thing I love so much about the Olympics is that you not only get excited about the world coming together to engage in hard-fought sport but you get to root all-out for your country. These events are bigger than the Mets-Yankees or Giants-Dodgers rivalries. This is hardcore country on country action—and the nationalist in me couldn’t love it more.

Last night’s coverage provided a great “U-S-A” moment when the French found a size 12 foot in their mouth after the US swim team came back in literally the last 5 meters to snatch the gold in the 400M freestyle relay. Before the race, French anchor-man Alain Bernard was quoted in a French publication as saying: “The Americans? We will smash them. That’s what we came here for.” Oh really? You don’t say? All fired up, the US team swam their hearts out and upset the favored French team as Jason Lezak hit the wall before Bernard. The race was so fast the US set a new world record by over four seconds!

This is the stuff we live for. Watch the video of the week here!

The Origins of Modern Sport Pt. 2

2008-08-06T14:40:00.000-07:00

The following post is the second part of a three part series examining the origins of modern sport in the United States. If you haven’t read Pt. 1 you can do so here. Enjoy!

The Protestant Church was not the only realm of society that began to buck Victorian modes of life during the latter half of the 19th century. The wealth developed by the Industrial Revolution and the rise to dominance of large corporations had the effect of creating a larger and revitalized upper class. As a result, sport became an arena where the nouveau riche could exercise their wealth in a manner contradictory to the ideals of Victorian America. No longer did the rules of self-restraint and humble solitude apply. The upper class bucked values of frugality once revered by Victorians and indulged in attending sporting events available only to the superrich. As historian Benjamin Rader notes, “Expensive sports promoted their consciousness as an elite social group and varnished them with a vehicle of self-advertisement.”[1] Such indulgences and behavior would have been considered deplorable no more than twenty years earlier. But armed with wealth and political and social connections, the newly ascended upper class refused to abide by what they considered to be an outmoded form of living.[2]

The nouveau riche looked to distinguish themselves from the masses by associating with and following sports only accessible to those with the necessary means. Sports that merely required a simple field and ball were too ruffian for the “parvenu” who started off looking upon sports like baseball and soccer with a particular classist disdain. Instead, the upper class patronized sports like thoroughbred horse racing, golf, tennis, yachting, track and field, and polo. Each of these sports dictated the use of large and lavish grounds, lots of free time, expensive equipment and, oftentimes, travel to far away venues.[3]

One of the more indispensable tools employed by the new upper class was the proliferation of private country clubs. Though the country’s first club, the New York Athletic Club founded in 1866, began with modest ambitions, it slowly morphed into an arena of exclusivity whose doors only opened for the highest in the social strata.[4] Though exercise and athletics were offered at the clubs, they had their greatest value in being leisure spots where the rich and famous could socialize and use the networks to gain access to other, more exclusive clubs. This type of idle leisure and excessive indulgence clashed heavily with Victorian ideals of active work and moderation. But America was becoming increasingly less reliant on production and evermore so on materialism and consumption.[5]

Similar in purpose to the urban athletic clubs were country clubs. Here, especially around Philadelphia, the sport of cricket became quite popular. Not only were the clubs expensive to join, but the time required to play the game restricted membership from the ordinary working class.[6] Though the socializing at clubs stood antithetical to Victorian values, cricket was not a valueless game. While winning or losing hardly mattered, playing with proper etiquette, grace and style were the games fundamental values. As Rader notes, “The country clubs of the rich eased the process by which the wealthy shed lingering Victorian suspicions of play-for-play’s-sake.”[7] In the privacy of country retreats, members could lounge and relax without as great a fear of public exposure. Moreover, the rich began to feel less and less inclined to justify play, and simply started to enjoy it inutility. Men-only clubs also afforded men to socialize amongst themselves in an effort to regain the masculinity lost during the Victorian period. Personal freedom was enjoyed in a guilt-free environment where pleasure-for-pleasure’s-sake reigned.

[1][1] Benjamin Rader, American Sports: From the Age of Folk Games to the Age of Televised Sports, (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2004) 73.
[2] Mrozek, 127.
[3] Rader, 68.
[4] Ibid, 76.
[5] Torstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, (New York: B.W. Huebsch, 1919), 167.
[6] Rader, 80.
[7] Ibid, 81.

Talk About An Incentive

2008-08-06T10:23:00.000-07:00

For the second Summer Games in a row, Michael Phelps stands to take home a $1 million dollar prize from Speedo should he tie Mark Spitz’s Olympic record of seven gold medals set back in 1972. It’s a pretty cool incentive package much like those given to NFL players.

This year prize is the same, but the source of the money isn’t. At Athens in 2004, Speedo was able to insure the prize policy such that had Phelps won seven gold medals (he ended up with six) the swimsuit maker only would have had to shell out $300K. But given Phelps’ continued utter dominance Speedo couldn’t find an agency willing to issue a policy!

Said Speedo’s VP of marketing Craig Brommers, “Unfortunately, due to Michael's performance at the Melbourne World Championships and the probability that he might reach that million dollar bonus, Speedo was unable to secure insurance this time around.”

This is awesome. Insurance companies take deals like this all the time. But with Phelps, no insurance company sees a reasonable upside to propping the bonus. As part of the deal, Phelps will wear a different Speedo swimsuit for each race.

My prediction: as long as Phelps shaves that Fu Man Chu before diving in the pool at the Water Cube (sickest stadium ever!), he’ll take seven gold medals. He’s good, but he can’t afford that drag.

A-Rod Looks to Expand His Brand

2008-08-05T17:04:00.001-07:00

I recently stumbled upon an article that follows up nicely to my post on the relatively small amount of endorsement money that baseball players bring in. In that post, I brought up the case of Alex Rodriguez and how even though he’s the game’s best player, his $6 million in endorsements pales in comparison to golf’s best player Tiger Woods, who rakes in over $100 per year. It now appears that Rodriguez is stepping up his efforts to attract new and bigger endorsement deals.

About two weeks ago, Rodriguez signed with the William Morris Agency. Scott Boras will still represent Rodriguez in contract negotiations but William Morris will be handling over his marketing and brand management strategies. A-Rod is one of sports’ best-paid athletes ($275 million over 10 years) but his $6 million in endorsements trails far behind other athletes of equal stature (and I’ve read that a more accurate number for A-Rod hovers around $2 million due to Speed Stick, Pepsi, Kraft, and Topps dropping him).

Why is A-Rod doing this? The “Us-Weekly” answer would be to patch up his public image which took a beating during his very public divorce proceedings that included rumors of infidelity involving Madonna. This could be part of the equation but it certainly isn’t all of it. William Morris, who represents a few athletes such as Dwayne Wade and Vince Young, has been around since 1898 and is better known for their talent and literary management. A-Rod’s selection of a firm that has ties in and beyond the sports industry is noteworthy. It shows the growing trend of athletes and the major agencies that are managing them that they see the potential for an athlete’s brand to go beyond sports and into general life. Just look at Tiger Woods: he endorses more non-sports products than sports products.

A-Rod even seems to admit as much:

Partnering with William Morris will enable me to broaden the scope of my career
in creative and innovative ways. I'm excited to see what we'll be able to
accomplish together, both domestically and abroad.

Lon Rosen, a vice president at William Morris, hinted at the expanding scope and long-term nature of Rodriguez’s future brand. Apparently, Rodriguez has “asked us to look for opportunities with corporations which will last for many, many years,” Rosen said. "He is very focused on his life after baseball.”

For the time being, A-Rod is still a baseball player. Barring injury, he is well on pace to break Barry Bonds’ home-run record. But while A-Rod is keeping a steady eye on the ball, he’s also keeping a watchful eye on his future.

The Origins of Modern Sport Pt. 1

2008-08-04T20:55:00.000-07:00

The following will be the first in a series of posts (approximately 4) outlining and examining the origins of modern sport in the United States. The series is taken from a longer article that I wrote, which is why it has been broken up into parts.

In 1842, Christopher Lilly and Thomas McCoy punched, pummeled and pulverized one another for over 150 minutes before the bell rang. Had McCoy not fallen over dead, drowning in his own blood, the bell would not have rung and the two most certainly would have continued fighting. The prevailing Victorian mindset that held the nation would have been horrified at such an event. Championing values of self-restraint and pious hard work, Victorian ideology was particularly antithetical to sports. Though Victorian folk aspired to have these values take root in America, other forces countered them.

As the country stood poised to enter a new millennia and profit from the new wealth created by the Industrial Revolution, many Americans saw their fellow man as ill-equipped for the years to come. Many felt that Americans, particularly men, had become sissified and had lost their “manliness.” An especially strong outcry came from various denominations of the American Protestant Church who began preaching a strain of religiosity called “muscular Christianity” around the late 1800’s. The movement was due to a reaction against the churches in the antebellum and Victorian periods that fostered poor health as they viewed exercise as an immoral waste of time. Muscular Christians felt that their church was becoming overly tolerant of effeminacy and physical weakness, especially in light of a growing disproportion of female to male members[1]. Alleged one “muscular Christian,” even the church clergy looked sickly to the point of ineffectiveness:

He [the pastor] is in this condition through neglect of exercise, improper
eating, etc. The saints must have stronger and more enduring bodies than they
have to bear the burdens and heat of the day that soul-winning and earning their
daily bread and butter cast upon their shoulders.[2]

The reaction to the apparent demise of manliness in the church sparked a movement that began to acknowledge and even encourage physical activity as a means to character-building and re-invigorating the church.

Many leaders in American society around the turn of the century adopted the “muscular” ecumenicalism as a means to thwart the enfeebling effects of urban and post-industrial life. Among such converts were the likes of Josiah Strong, G. Stanley Hall and even President Teddy Roosevelt. Each believed that a strenuous religion would prepare men to succeed in the “strenuous life” that was the early 20th century.[3] To be sure, of all the organizations looking to bridge religion with physical activity and ensure preparation for the “strenuous life,” the YMCA had the greatest influence.

The first YMCA to spring up in America was in Boston in 1851. Soon after, other cities followed suit, and by 1860 there were more than 250 YMCAs.[4] Consistent with the ideals of the “strenuous life,” the YMCA espoused and looked to instill values of vigorous action, physical hardness and the rejection of many genteel controls. These values stood diametrically opposed to those of the Victorian age. Central to the YMCAs goals was physical exercise. The idea behind this goal was that strengthening the body physically would enhance its capacity for spiritual and moral good. As the YMCA made gains in popularity, it expanded its services from improvised affairs to organized gyms with exercise machines and other sports equipment.[5]

The YMCA even invented two sports: volleyball and basketball. Basketball, developed in 1891 by the Reverend James Naismith, was an indoor substitute for football. Volleyball, in turn, was a substitute for basketball, which was more physical and harder to play than volleyball.[6] The sports stressed teamwork, hard physical exertion, determination, sacrifice, and sociability; all things associated with “muscular Christianity” and not Victorian America.

As Clifford Putney astutely stresses; “Freeing the body from the prejudices of the past was a significant accomplishment for the YMCA, which had worked since the late 1860s to break down the barrier between religion and sport.”[7] Indeed, the reform movement in American Protestant churches succeeded in making religion compatible with sport, as well as the larger accomplishment of revitalizing many Americans to engage the “strenuous life” that would have engulfed them had the prevailing Victorian ideals persisted.

[1] Donald Mrozek, Sport and American Mentality, 1880-1910, (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1983), 39.
[2] Clifford Putney, Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant America, 1880-1920, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), 54.
[3] Ibid, 57.
[4] Ibid, 65.
[5] Ibid, 67.
[6] Chris Armstrong, “College Sports: Prodigal Son of Muscular Christianity,” Christian History and Biography, http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2003/aug15/html, posted August 15 2003, (Accessed February 22 2008).
[7] Putney, 72.

Video of the Week: No. 4 Pencils are Ridiculous!

2008-08-04T11:00:00.000-07:00

This week’s video installment does not depict actual athletic prowess. But it is hilarious, and it showcases the world’s greatest athlete and perhaps one of its best comedians. Everything Will Ferrell touches is comedic genius, including his acceptance of Tiger Woods' ESPY. Ferrell is an inspiration. He taught us how to chug as Frank The Tank, set the bar for journalistic objectivity as Ron Burgundy, and shows us how to treat ones' sponsors here as Tiger Woods. The video also serves as a fun and humorous segue to a multi-post series on Tiger Woods which I will begin posting later in the week.

So until the Tiger Woods series launches, enjoy the Video of the Week here!

---

Here’s another great clip of Will Ferrell on golf. Truly great stuff.

The Endorsement Game

2008-07-31T16:01:00.000-07:00

If you haven’t done it yet, check out SI’s Fortunate 50, which breaks down athletes’ earnings (salary or winnings) and endorsements and totals them to find the richest athletes. Tiger Woods has been number one since SI began keeping track 5 years ago and has brought in a whopping 100 million dollars two-years running—most of it due to endorsements. Surprising? Not really.

What is surprising, however, is the performance of baseball players on the list—especially the dearth of endorsement money that major leaguers take in. There are ten baseball players in the top but their spots are earned because of high salaries rather than endorsement deals and four of those ten are paid by the deep pockets of the Steinbrenner family. Alex Rodriguez, arguably the game’s best player, took in only $6 million and Derek Jeter, arguably the face of baseball, took in $8 million. Why is it that the top endorsement earners come predominantly from golf (Tiger and Phil Mickelson are 1 and 2), basketball (LBJ is third with $28 million), and NASCAR (Dale Earnhardt Jr. raked in $22 million and Jeff Gordon $15 million)? After all, baseball is America’s game—indeed it’s our national pastime. Can baseball players not sell a product? Is this an early warning sign of baseball’s dwindling popularity?

While MLB could certainly stand to improve its own marketing strategy, I think the discrepancies are due to the fact that sports like golf, basketball and NASCAR naturally lend themselves to successful endorsement campaigns. Golf is an affluent sport and there are an endless number of expensive golf gadgets and non-golfing products such as cars that match golf’s fan-base. Furthermore, it’s a relatively pure and drama-free sport so it’s low risk and doesn’t scare off potential sponsors. Plus, I can’t imagine Randy Johnson being the face of Buick, let alone KPMG.

The basketball industry, in my opinion, is successful because it has been able to market its products in a way that has transcended the basketball court and has landed in people’s everyday lives. For instance, you won’t see a kid walking through the classroom halls in a pair of baseball spikes but you will see Nike Air Jordan’s all over the place. Indeed, basketball is probably the king at making its players endorsement rich. Even Carmelo Anthony, who should be product poison after his most recent antics, pulls down $9.5 million and hasn’t lost an endorsement yet. For some reason, basketball has been able to maintain high endorsement levels despite a constant struggle with player behavior and the league’s image.

And then there’s NASCAR—our country’s most popular sport. Have you ever seen one of those vehicles, or their driving suits? Have you ever heard a driver speak in an interview? Talk about sponsor heaven!

I’m not saying that baseball should paint sponsor logos all over their uniforms. But baseball is behind in the endorsement game. For me, baseball needs to define more clearly who it is. Getting more creative and reaching out to sponsors that connect with baseball’s fan base will only serve to help them. Other sports—whether you like them or not—seem to have distinct and definable identities. It’s not an identity crisis for baseball, per se; but it could stand to do some soul searching.

An Inauspicious Start Indeed

2008-07-31T10:58:00.000-07:00

This exchange is simply too good to be true. I love everything about it: the honesty, the passion, the stupidity (from both sides).

It's still just a "hand-shake" trade but it looks like Ron Artest, of Palace Arena fame, will be bringing his right-hook and ball stealing skills to Yao Ming and the Houston Rockets. But Yao, generally soft-spoken for a man of his size, had some strong (read priceless) opinions on the deal:

For some reason, I like (Artest). Because in the games we play against him, I
hate him. We worry about the new attitude to the team. We are adding talent to
the team and we need that, but building team chemistry is important. This is not
bad. I don't mean he is not welcome to Houston. But a new player always needs
some time. There’s worry. Obviously,yes. We will think about it, of
course. Hopefully, he’s not fighting anymore and going after a guy in the
stands. I haven’t talked to Ron yet, so it’s hard to say. I have to find a
way to talk to him and see what we can do as a basketball team. He has a
history. But we know he is a physical player. He is a good player. He really can
help us. And Ron is on a contract year, too.

OK. So Yao is merely expressing reasonable reservations about bringing in a large and rather belligerent personality to his city. Artest didn’t quite see it that way. Here’s his eloquent and deeply intellectual response:

I understand what Yao said, but I’m still ghetto. That’s not going to change.
I’m never going to change my culture. Yao has played with a lot of black
players, but I don’t think he’s ever played with a black player that really
represents his culture as much as I represent my culture. Once Yao Ming gets to
know me, he’ll understand what I’m about. If you go back to the brawl,
that’s a culture issue right there. Somebody was disrespecting me, so he’s got
to understand where I’m coming from. People that know me know that Ron Artest
never changed.

Sounds like a match made in heaven!

Don't Let Pac Bell Become the Tropicana Field of 2005

2008-07-30T16:56:00.000-07:00

In baseball streaks are usually good. Players try to amass hit-streaks and teams try to run up win-streaks. As an organization, the SF Giants would love to continue their streak of attracting over 3 million attendees in a season—a feat they have accomplished each year since Pac Bell Park opened in 2000. But this year that streak is at risk.

If ticket sales continue at their current pace, the team will sell around 2.8 million tickets. That would not make Russ Stanley, Managing Vice President of Ticket Sales and Client Relations, a very happy man. “Unless we do 3 million we’re upset about it,” Stanley said in an interview with Eric Young of the SF Business Times. To keep the streak alive, and to spur ticket sales “We’ve got to be a lot more creative than we did before,” says Stanley.

This year, the Giants have thought outside the box in marketing tickets. Early in the season, the organization made a deal with Chevron to package a gas card and four tickets to a game for 75 bucks. More than 12,000 tickets have been sold thanks to this marketing idea. Player performance has also become linked to the marketing strategy. For every batter that Tim “The Freak” Lincecum mows down on the road, the Giants will subtract one dollar from the ticket price of his next start for seats in the bleachers and upper deck.

The most interesting strategy that the team has been playing with is dynamic pricing. The team has already switched their online ticket sales system to Stubhub.com, which for the first time allows fans to sell their tickets at below face value in an effort to boost ticket sales. But dynamic pricing would take the concept even further. Right now ticket prices are fixed, with differences arising only because of seat location. Dynamic pricing allows for tickets sold by the Giants to move up and down in price as demand fluctuates. For instance, if the Giants are playing well and the Dodgers come into town for a weekend series, ticket prices would increase to match demand. Conversely, if the Pirates come for a mid-week series, dynamic pricing would force ticket prices down and hopefully increase demand so the team could fill their pockets with revenue from seats that would otherwise be empty. It’s the same strategy employed to sell airline tickets and to book hotel rooms. However, it’s new to sports. The team is currently studying exactly how to role out the plan and, if they do, it would go into effect in the next couple seasons.

Ticket sales are vital for a team’s viability. According to an estimate in Forbes Magazine, of the $197 million in 2007 sales for the Giants, $90 million was due to ticket sales. Without a big attraction like the All-Star Game, a playoff ready team, or a living-legend like Barry Bonds, the team will indeed be tested to reach the desired goal of 3 million fans. If they fail that test, the Giants may need to get even more creative in marketing the team. Broadening the reach of their brand with more sponsors and corporate promotions could be the ticket.

The Perfect 5-Hour Sales Call

2008-07-30T14:51:00.000-07:00

As an aspiring business man and lover of the game of golf I, for one, hope to make many business deals on the course. I can hardly imagine a job better than one that involves going to great golf courses with great people and doing good business. Plus, I just can’t wait to say “Great shot Bruce! Now how about investing $20 mil in my company!?”

A joint Sports Illustrated-CNN article does a good job outlining several guidelines for doing business on the course. You can check it out if you want, but here are some of the best rules to follow (my comments in italics):

-Don't Sandbag or Tank It
It's the most common question: to win, or not to win? The answer is: play to your ability, fair and square. Gauge the personality of your partner and determine how intense he or she is about the game. Don’t dupe your playing partner. If you dupe him on the golf course, you may the type to try and dupe him in business.
-Patience is a Virtue
Don't discuss business before the 5th hole or after the 15th hole. Like golf itself, you're in this for the long haul. I guess the point here is not to seem like you’re forcing the issue. You’re out of the office for a reason: to get to know the person in a non-formal setting. Therefore, don’t present your idea in a traditionally formal manner. Weave it in there effortlessly. When your playing partner comes up short on the par-3, let him know that if Callaway had used your metals he would have been pin-high-stiff!
-Focus on Results
And by results, we don't mean score. Before the round, think about what you hope to get out of the day, outlining your goals and how you plan to meet them. It's a vital component to business golf, as key to good performance as a pre-shot routine. Treat the “five-hour sales call” the same as usual but with appropriate modifications. You aren’t out there to completely screw around. You have goals so outline them and make sure to achieve them by the end of the day.
-Right Time, Right Place
This would be my only addition to an already good list. Timing is everything. You don’t want to abruptly make your proposal right after a bad shot. Instead, hit him up for his business after he hits the green in two on the 600 yard par far. Bruce is probably going to be less excited about shelling out a few million if you solicit him just after his Titleist strikes a tree branch and falls right into the lake. If you do, Bruce might impale you with his 7-iron.

---

But in all seriousness, the golf course can be a great place to do business and learn about existing/possible business partners. The theme of all these rules is to remember that even though you’re playing a game, you’re still performing, still making a business pitch. There’s a famous saying that “Sports builds character.” This is true, but I’ve always felt the following should be equally famous: “Sports reveals character.” And really, there’s none better than golf. A round of golf can provide insight into someone’s decision making skills (how do they go about choosing a club?), risk tolerance (do they go for the green in two over water) and integrity (do they follow the rules of the game?). Do enough good business on the course and maybe you’ll be able to put down that club membership on the company’s expense account.

Video of the Week: Beauty Comes In All Shapes and Sizes... Except Here

2008-07-28T10:46:00.001-07:00

This is the first installment in this blog’s “Video of the Week” series. Each Monday, I will post a usually hilarious, but always amazing, sports clip. And what better way to christen the series and set it off on the right foot than by honoring Sir Charles Barkley.

For many golfers, watching Charles Barkley swing a club has similar effects to catching a glimpse of Medusa—one sighting might forever poison your mechanics and send you careening into Shanks-Ville. But people aren’t drawn into watching Sir Charles’ swing because of its beauty. Indeed, the former All-Star-basketball-player-turned-Pro-Am-hustler draws stares because he possesses quite possibly the worst golf swing in the history of the game. When you see him on the tee it’s like driving past a ninety-six car pileup on the other side of the highway—you just have to rubber-neck. In a recent Pro-Am in Lake Tahoe, where double bogey is the max you can score on a hole, Barkley took double on 41-54 holes in the Stableford format (a good shooting percentage in basketball but certainly not golf). But to his credit, Charles is always having fun on the course and enjoys entertaining sympathetic fans.

Take a slow-mo look for yourself here. Also, watch other celebs and golf instructors discuss Charles’ helpless technique.

And here’s a clip of Tiger Woods, who arguably does possess the world’s most beautiful swing, imitating and analyzing Sir Charles’ flailing swing.

No More Clydesdales?!? Say It Ain't So!

2008-07-24T15:35:00.001-07:00

We’re all familiar with Budweiser’s ads. You know, the ones with the Clydesdales playing football? Or if you’re really good, we can throw it back to 1995 and the “Bud-weis-er” frog commercials. Unfortunately, we may be seeing less and less of those beautiful beasts. The recent sale of Anheuser-Busch to Belgium-based InBev could have effects on advertising and marketing that could reach all corners of the American sports industry. It’s a big buy for InBev. The $52 billion deal unites the maker of Budweiser and Michelob with the producer of Stella Artois, Bass and Brahma. The two companies would have had over $36 billion in yearly sales using 2007 figures, making it the world’s largest brewing company.

According to Nielson Media research and the SportsBusiness Journal, A-B is the country’s number one sports advertising and sponsorship spender. They spent $218 million in 2007 alone. The A-B brand has sponsorships in the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, NASCAR and the PGA Tour. Consequently, teams and leagues have come to depend on A-B for much of their promotional and advertising revenue. Though A-B shareholders may be happy with the $70 per share deal, it turns out that the sale has fomented some concern among American sports marketing executives.

With the A-B board no longer calling their own shots, many sports marketers predict that the American company will ultimately have to cut ad spending to keep in line with InBev’s cost and price cutting post-merger strategy. Tom Pirko, a consulting executive at Bevmark who has consulted for both firms, anticipates as much as a 33% cut in A-B’s sports marketing spending. As the new team works on debt and cost reduction, Pirko says “It’s [Advertising] all going to decline severely.” But it won’t happen overnight “because they have to make things look good here. It’s a lot easier to cut an ad budget than to close a brewery.”

However, others are not so sure that the merger will truly alter the sports marketing landscape in a negative way. For one, sports sponsorships are often long term deals which carry conditions that make them hard to break or modify. Also, A-B spends an additional $300 million a year on marketing outside the US, a market that InBev could stand to gain ground in. Moreover, there seems to be no real reason why A-B and InBev couldn’t just combine forces and continue as usual. After all, InBev’s strategy appears to be to let A-B function with relative sovereignty due to A-B’s long-standing and deeply rooted advertising tradition in the US. It thus seems unlikely that InBev would significantly slash something that has been successful for so long. So expect ad spending to decline slightly, but not dramatically so. Finally, the deal could open up opportunities for other US-based breweries to fill in the gaps should A-B cut spending. It could allow companies such as Sam Adams or Coors to step up and position themselves as the new All-American beer. Increased spending from such companies would probably level out whatever could be lost from cuts by A-B.

But of course none of this will do anything to bring down the price of beer at a game. I’d almost rather brew beer out of my own spit than spend $8.75 on a domestic brew.

Bat + Pine Tar = Frickin' Tyrade

2008-07-24T10:02:00.000-07:00

Today marks the 25th anniversary of one of the greatest flip-outs in baseball history. Lou Piniella has had some special moments. And no one can forget Phil Wellman, Double A manage in the Braves' organization, get so creative he’s now a candidate to choreograph the next Chris Brown video. But the top award must go to George Brett. On this day back in 1983, Brett mixed a deadly concoction of pine tar and hickory and added a bit too much power than umpire Tim McClelland cared to stand for. The result: the best sports tirade ever! Judge for yourself here.

But at least Brett has been able to look back on the incident lightly. Now supporting his post-baseball income as a spokesman for Ben Gay, Brett quipped that had the Pine Tar Incident never happened “then I'd only be known for hemorrhoids.” Agreed, George.

Oh and don’t forget to check out those uniforms too. Jesus.

MLB All-Star Game Is Big Opportunity for Marketers

2008-07-23T13:57:00.000-07:00

Major League Baseball’s All-Star Game is gaining on the Superbowl. No, not in terms of explosive tackles á la Pete Rose, when he absolutely leveled Ray Fosse in the 1970 match-up and ended the poor man’s career. For better or worse, such intensity has left the mid-summer Classic. Instead, it is in the realm of advertising where the All-Star game is making ground. Last weeks game attracted approximately 14.5 million viewers, making it the most watched AL-NL matchup since 2002. That, combined with Fox’s year long campaign to highlight the historic nature of the venue—Yankee stadium, the House that Ruth Built, will close after this season—made this a mouth watering opportunity for advertisers.

Live events with big followings are always major vehicles for advertisers to showcase their brands. With seventy ad slots available, companies such as MasterCard, Chevrolet, Pepsi, and Bank of America shelled out an average of 15% to 20% more for ads this year than for last years match-up in San Francisco. A 30-second spot fetched around $550,000, up from $425,000 yielding an approximate total of $38,500,000. Add to that the $100 million spent on promotions such as seat cushions, parades and a Bon Jovi concert in Central Park, and you have a Patton like marketing assault.

The growth can be attributed to the “scale, history and tradition” of the event, said MLB head of business development Tim Brosnam. “New York is one of the largest cities in the world, has the biggest TV market and Yankee Stadium has one of the largest capacities.”

Sports purists often complain that too much commercialization hurts the intrinsic sporting value of the event. They say it shifts the focus from the realm of sport and relegates it to the jurisdiction of simple entertainment. Perhaps, but this year’s midsummer classic delivered entertainment and good baseball. Fans were treated to the feel-good story of Josh Hamilton who turned the Home Run Derby into a record breaking spectacle. The next night, not to be outdone, both the NL and AL teamed duked it out in an exciting 15 inning duel. Baseball’s purists may not have been thrilled, but you can be sure the advertisers were.

WELCOME!!!

2008-07-22T15:09:00.000-07:00

Welcome, welcome, welcome! Glad to have you here (imagine that’s being said by Harry Caray). Perhaps you came here on purpose or perhaps by complete accident, but now that you’re here I hope you’ll enjoy what you find.

What I hope to do with this blog is create a place where sports enthusiasts can talk, laugh and argue about sports. But as opposed to concentrating on the day’s headlines and discussing standings, strategy and Jason Giambi’s mustache—the AP already takes care of that—I plan on going in a somewhat different direction.

If you travel back to mid-19th century America, sport as we know it today did not exist. Ideas of competition and physical exercise as a way to improve the body did not mesh with the social fabric of the Victorian mode that held the country. By the turn of the century that had changed. With the Industrial Revolution came new values that complemented those of sport. As a result, sport began to grow in popularity and became largely a 20th century phenomenon. Many events, such as the rise of the leisure class to vast advancements in technology, have abetted sport’s continual growth throughout the past 100 years.

With this blog, I hope to explore how sport has become more and more intertwined with American society. In many ways, one cannot be talked about without the other. Sport was the backdrop to the growing conflict with Germany in the late 1930s when Joe Louis felled Max Schmeling in 1938. And sport was present during the Civil Rights Era when Jackie Robinson integrated baseball. Even today, the controversy of steroids in sports has meaning and implication far beyond the playing field. This blog will examine current events and, while noting and paying respect to the past, flesh out an understanding of an age-old question: does society lead sport or, with its captivating grip over many of us, does sport lead society?

With its increasingly strong grip, sport has grown into a $250 billion per year industry in the US alone. In hopes of answering our central question I will also be posting on topics relevant to sports business—from corporate marketing to player imaging and branding. This does not mean that I won’t be noting my favorite sports quotes (Shaq and Bobby Knight supply finer material than an Italian silk weaver) or that I won’t post hilarious sports videos (wait until you see Sir Charles Barkley swing a golf club!). However, it does mean that I hope to bring something new to the table, something that has been racking my brain for quite some time. I hope you will join me in discussing some of these issues. Most of all, I hope you enjoy what’s here! Welcome!