Much Needed Progress...

Meet the new face of the Boston Bruins marketing department (credit Kukla's Korner for the find):



For more on the ad campaign, and the efforts being made by the Bruins this summer, check out the Boston Globe's take (here).

For hockey fans everywhere, despite your allegiances, seeing key teams like the the Bruins and the Chicago Blackhawks returning to respectability and past glories has to be a welcome sight. Following the 2004/2005 lockout season, the National Hockey League has been too dependent upon the 6 Canadian franchises financially supporting the league. With serious recession problems in Detroit, a gradual rebuilding phase in Colorado, and the constant legal battles and ownership issues plaguing some of the league newer and more Southern entries, the league is in desperate need for strong, traditional hockey markets such as Boston, New York, and Chicago to meet their potential.

On the ice Boston and Chicago have made huge strides in the last two years; off the ice, Boston now follows Chicago's lead in making the game more available, more accessible, and more fan-friendly in their business approach, a promising sign of things to come...

10 Seconds or Less...

An interesting entry from Steven D. Levitt of Freakonomics fame, over at the bestselling book's blog (here). Levitt examines the progression and evolution of the 100 metre men's sprint, noting the relatively slow rate of improvement over the past 40+ years.

As Levitt notes:

Last week, the sprinter Usain Bolt ran 100 meters in 9.58 seconds, shattering the existing world record. For his feat, Bolt may just be named athlete of the year.

In some ways, what is more remarkable than Bolt’s feat is how slow the improvement has been in the 100-meter dash.

Back in 1968, Jim Hines became the first person to break the 10-second barrier, finishing the race in 9.95 seconds. In 1991, Carl Lewis got the world record down to 9.86 seconds. In 1999, Maurice Green ran 9.79 seconds. Asafa Powell ran 9.72 in 2008.

Thus, between 1968 and today, the world record time had improved by 3.7 percent, or less than 0.1 percent per year.

This is in spite of the fact that there have surely been technological advances in tracks and shoes, as well as expanding knowledge of weight training and fitness. The world’s population has increased substantially, as have nutrition levels, especially in developing countries.

The biggest puzzle to me is not how remarkable Usain Bolt is, but rather why it’s been so hard to get people to sprint faster.

Given the controversy in swimming and the technological advances "undermining" the integrity of the sport, it's surprising how slowly sprinting has developed by comparison. Advances in footwear, running surfaces, sportswear, training practices and diets haven't created the same progression as in other sports, making Bolt's accomplishments that much more incredible.

Is Bolt testing human potential? Or merely providing a catalyst for further improvement and an indication of things to come?

Something to Watch Next Year...

YouTube joining F1? It would appear as though...

The online video-sharing website's co-founder and Chief Executive, Chad Hurley, has officially confirmed an involvement with next season's F1 new boys Team US F1.

The key area worth following?

"Getting in on the ground floor of a project of this size and scope is a tremendous opportunity, and I look forward to helping shape the US F1 vision and corporate strategy for years to come," Hurley tells Autosport.com.

"I see tremendous potential for all sports to integrate more media, more social connections, connect with the fans and build a fan base. And that's exactly what I hope to bring to US F1, bringing my experience and perhaps my opinions of how we could go about that."

Formula One is an undoubted success worldwide, with a particularly avid following in Europe. However, traditionally open-wheel racing has struggled in America, and F1 has historically trailed NASCAR racing, and more-Americana events such as Indianapolis, rather than waking up Sunday mornings to follow European races.

Will a new American team change that? Unlikely. However, increasing exposure, making greater use of online multimedia and better promoting the sport to new American fans, may have a lasting impact on the sport, if Hurley et al. succeed.

Certainly worth keeping an eye on in the years to come...

A New Look...

Hockey Canada today unveiled their new uniforms for the upcoming 2010 Vancouver Olympics, in response to a crackdown on jersey and equipment regulations by the International Olympic Committee, the Vancouver organizers, and a minor disagreement between Hockey Canada and the Canadian Olympic Committee.




The controversy over Team Canada's uniforms came of regulations limiting the allowable size and dimensions of governing body and manufacturer logos on Olympic competition-wear. The previous jerseys featured Hockey Canada's iconic logo prominently on the chest, an infringement of Olympic rules for which the COC had to apply for an exception. Having secured such protection from the regulations in previous Olympic years, Hockey Canada had originally approached the 2010 Games hoping to continue to market Canadian hockey using their logo, and reap the same financial rewards as in previous years from Hockey Canada shirt sales.

Instead, the COC refused to file the application, resulting in a dispute between the two governing bodies, and the need for Hockey Canada to design and have approved a new shirt for the men's and women's teams to wear this winter.

Behind all of the regulations and disputes within this story has been the underlining efforts of the IOC and VANOC to curtail ambush marketing, and prevent organizations such as Hockey Canada (as well as manufacturers like Nike or adidas) from gaining undue commercial benefits through unofficial Olympic involvement. Those watching last summer's Beijing Games may have noticed that a number of prominent organizations and countries had altered or missing logos from their uniforms, most notable the Argentine football team.



Hopefully the shirt design revealed today will appease Olympic organizers and those fearing ambush marketing, whilst also providing Hockey Canada the funding and added marketing that Olympic participation has traditionally provided.

Of course, the biggest contributor to Hockey Canada's revenues this year will likely be as a result of on-ice success, something 33 million fans North of the 49th will be anxiously hoping for...

Coming soon...

Earlier this week I had the pleasure of playing a round of golf with a Corporate Accounts Manager of a rather prominent and headline-grabbing National Hockey League team, during which we were able to talk rather in depth about his experiences with the team, his impression of the league and pro sports, and the impact being felt by the current recession.

What struck me most from our conversation, however, was not the state of the league or his views on player personnel issues, but rather was his assessment of the biggest hurdles he and his colleagues face daily in the their jobs. It was not the credit crunch and tightening budgets restricting sales. It was not his team's recent on-ice struggles and the impact losing has had on attracting corporate customers. It was the systematic mismanagement of sport, not through malice or ill-intent or corruption, or any of the stories you often read in the news, but simply through not knowing how to run a sports organization in today's world, and not listening to the people doing the work and making the operation tick.

As he described his situation, it struck me how easily a successful and respected organization such as his, could be improved and advanced through some fairly simple changes. Let alone what could be done to improve the situations of chronically poorly-managed organizations or businesses, who are befallen by the same problems.

Simple measures, such as opening communications between the sales and marketing teams to assess what legitimately drives and inspires sales, facilitating greater decision-making and autonomy amongst sales executives to better meet the needs and demands of real or potential customers, and above all opening the lines of communication between employees and management, may seem easy or obvious suggestions, and yet sport continues to be run in such a way that proposals like these can and must be made.

The current generation of sport managers, in which I include myself, are a unique breed. We will, for all intents and purposes, bridge a gap in the sporting world between employees and managers who ushered sport into the professional era, and the upcoming generation of social-networking, Google and Wikipedia-informed, multimedia engrossed teenagers, whose interest in professional sport wanes despite the ever-expanding and all-encompassing access to sport. However, our era, Generation Y sport managers, will serve as more than stop-gap before the next generation steps in.

Our generation is the first to enjoy benefits of the internet, of sports television networks, of social-networking and mobile phones, of 24 hour access to sport, and the world of professional sport, informing our view of sports and understanding of the business behind the games. The sports landscape as we know it is as a business - that has been our reality, that has been our understanding, and now that should be our direction.

How many professional sports organizations use social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter as more than an opportunity to link fans and display pictures or highlight videos. How many seek to use these resources to build their fanbases, or to provide added value for current fans?

How many sports organizations' websites offer more than player rosters, team news, merchandise and ticket sales, and downloadable content? How many organizations actively interact with their online visitors, track their comings and goings, and proactively seek to attract new visitors, as well as increase traffic from existing readers?

Particularly in difficult financial and economic times such as these, it is integral for the future success of professional sports that we better adapt to the times, and don't content ourselves with the progression from amateurly-managed sports, to today's professionalized system overseen by the previous generation. New ideas must be embraced, new methods and practices sought and adopted, and greater integration between old school and new school developed, in order to usher sport into the next phase of its development.

A new wave is coming...

Sport in the Globalized World...

An interesting piece from BBC Sport came out this week, looking at the impact of globalization on English football, and the influx of foreign players into the Premier League (as compared to the former First Division, circa 1989-90).

Where the Premier League's players come from
By Ollie Williams

In the past two decades, the composition of England's top-flight teams has changed dramatically.

At the start of the 1989-90 season, leading clubs like Arsenal and Manchester United boasted just one or two regular first-team players who were born outside the United Kingdom.

Now, Premier League teams have, on average, 13 foreign-born stars within their ranks.

Use the interactive world map above to explore the birthplaces of players in all the current Premier League squads, and compare them with the same teams' players from the start of the 1989-90 season - then find out more about each team below.

Twenty years ago, defending champions Arsenal had just two players born outside the UK on their books: Icelandic midfielder Sigurdur Jonsson and Irish forward Niall Quinn.

Jonsson made barely a handful of appearances before leaving Highbury in 1992, while Quinn was soon to sign for Manchester City.

Liverpool, eventual title-winners that season, had an unusually large number of foreign-born players in their 1989-90 squad.

Kenny Dalglish's side featured five players born outside the UK: John Barnes (Jamaica), Bruce Grobbelaar (South Africa), Glenn Hysen (Sweden), Jan Molby (Denmark) and Steve Staunton (Republic of Ireland).

But they were the exception. Teams were far more likely to boast just one or two players born outside the UK and, in many cases (such as Manchester City's David Oldfield and Chelsea's Tony Dorigo), those players were British nationals who happened to have been born abroad.

Two decades ago, the teams making up this year's Premier League could only boast 12 players born outside the Commonwealth between them.

Twenty years later, more than half of the Premier League's clubs could field an entire starting line-up of foreign-born players.

Liverpool now have just three UK-born first-team stars in Jamie Carragher, Steven Gerrard and Glen Johnson, with other British talents like Jay Spearing making only occasional European appearances to date.

Anfield is home to 20 foreign-born players with a strong first-team claim, while Arsenal can boast 23, as opposed to four Brits, all aged under 21.

Teams recently promoted to the top flight have the fewest foreign-born players in their first-team squads - Burnley have seven, Wolves have eight, as do Stoke, who gained promotion a year earlier, while Birmingham have nine.

West Ham are also at the lower end of the spectrum, with nine foreign-born players, but at the time of writing this still comprised almost half of the 21 first-team players at Gianfranco Zola's disposal.

Follow the link to see analyses of each of the Premier League's twenty teams, and the changes in squad formation and player origin over the last two decades. Interesting reading for anyone curious about the impact, both positive and negative, of the globalization of sport.

Where the Premier League's players come from

Here's one to watch...

IOC to consider new Olympic sports Thursday

I'm not sure how far under the radar this story has been flying the past couple of weeks, but given the legal battles in Canada over the exclusion of female ski jumpers for the 2010 Vancouver Games, I'm sure a lot of sports, a lot of lobby groups, and a lot of fans will be watching the IOC's decision over what (if any) new sports to include for the 2012 London Summer Games.

The International Olympic Committee executive board will meet in Berlin on Thursday to consider a range of changes put forward by the 26 summer Olympic sports federations.

The board will also recommend two sports for inclusion in the 2016 Olympics, with golf and rugby sevens the favourites in a group that also includes baseball, softball, karate, squash and roller sports.

The 15-member board must weigh the demands against its stated goals of gender equality and universality - the opportunity for all nations to compete with a realistic chance of winning medals - while keeping within a limit of 10,500 athletes.

The most dramatic change for 2012 would be the introduction of women's classes in boxing, currently the only summer Olympic sport exclusively for men.

A number of major international sports currently are not in the Olympics, including three which have serious roots in Britain and could arguably make a case for inclusion (or reinstatement) in the London Games - rugby, cricket, and, to a lesser extent, golf. However, do such sports have a solid enough footing internationally (beyond the known powerhouses of the sports) to be considered for the Games? Logistically, organizationally, and financially, would the involvement of any of the three be a viable entry for the 2012 Games?

The IOC have some interesting decisions ahead not only in the coming days, but also the coming years, as the professionalization of sport expands and captures more and more sports, and provides added sophistication, globalization, and market value to different sports. Is a 50m sprint in freestyle swimming a comparable option for organizers to rugby sevens? Is roller-hockey an Olympic sport in the eyes of the majority? With the rapid expansion of the X-Games, and of action sports in general, will we see more extreme sports enter the Olympics in the coming years?

Certainly worth keeping an eye on...

UPDATE: A couple of early favourites have emerged in the race for 2016. Tiger at the Olympics?

Why?

With Tiger Woods' win at the Buick Open last weekend, the golf world bid goodbye to one of its longest running and most popular tournaments.

On the surface, Buick ending its association and sponsorship with the event seems well-reasoned. With the US automaker, as part of General Motors, now funded by the American government, the company took the decision to cease its patronage of the PGA Tour, deeming it an unwise expense given the brand's financial losses and dependence on public funds.

However, Buick's decision raises an important question for sport managers: if sponsoring an event such as the Buick Open is no more than an expense for businesses, an investment that cannot be justified to American tax payers, then why do companies sponsor sports at all?

Was Buick's investment nothing more than an expense to GM? And if so, why? Sponsorship is no longer about merely providing financial support for events or properties - with the money committed by organizations, it must be a leverageable marketing opportunity as well, capable of providing a return on investment. So the question is, if Buick was unable to gain any market benefits from hosting and sponsoring the Buick Open, and couldn't continue their association with the event and the Tour, then why?

Quick Hits...

After a brief vacation, and a week away from the sports world, a couple of brief items of note to kick things off again.

First, Real Madrid and Brand Ronaldo tackled Canada this past week, taking on MLS side Toronto FC as part if their pre-season preparations. The mercurial Portuguese, however, for all his talents, left a lasting impression with some in Toronto which should be of some concern to his management if he is to match the standard set by Brand Beckham.

Real superstars light up Toronto

The best bit, from an athlete branding perspective...

In a sense, he's the first soccer megastar who seems born of America's celebrity culture.

I mean, he vacations in Los Angeles, people. Los Angeles is a parking lot with a mayor. Leaving Portugal for Los Angeles sounds like probation, not recreation.

It wasn't always like this. Any mental picture of Pele or Eusebio or Bobby Charlton includes not only their play, but their ability to engage the world away from the pitch.

The two great icons preceding Ronaldo, Zinedine Zidane and David Beckham, were chalk and cheese in most ways. But they shared that gentlemanly streak, that sense of stewardship over the game. People cared about them and they made efforts to show that they cared back.

Despite being the most hounded athlete alive, Beckham still talks directly to people when addressing them. He seems incapable of walking by a kid holding out a jersey without stopping. Say what you like, but the guy is pure class.

Secondly, the curse of EA Sports' NHL cover boys has continued, this year with the news that Chicago Blackhawks rising star Patrick Kane has been charged with attacking and robbing a Buffalo-area cab driver. Given the hype surrounding the game and the new improvements made, this will hardly be the summer news EA Sports or the Blackhawks will have been hoping for.

Blackhawks Forward Patrick Kane Arrested in Buffalo

Lawyer says Blackhawks star Patrick Kane's charges overblown


Finally, Tiger Woods is officially back to his winning ways, after back to back wins at the Buick and Bridgestone invitationals. The ramifications of Buick's withdrawal from the PGA Tour and sports sponsorship, though, is perhaps the bigger, and at the same time more overlooked news to come of Tiger's recent hot streak. More to follow...

The commercialization of the counter-culture?

I heard an interesting interview this weekend with skateboarder Ryan Sheckler from the X-Games, talking about the attention and criticism some action sports athletes have been getting from the media, fans, and extreme sports purists over sponsorship money and media attention, calling into question the motives and interests of the athletes.

Now this morning, I come across two videos worth checking out...

Here

and

Here

We're currently witnessing the rapid expansion and commercialization of one of the fastest growing areas of sport today, going against many of its early ideals and virtues dating back to the original rise of skateboarding in California.

By and large, I think this progression has been handled exceptionally well; the move from extreme, niche sports, towards more popular, mainstream, action sports has been an important one, and given the professionalism with which events like the X-Games are currently run, and the globalized attention and interest, such advancements were inevitable.

What interests me, however, will be the next step for sports such as motocross and skateboarding and BMX. Action sports have filled a gap in the market, and met consumer demand by growing, as well as through innovation and creativity. But are these sports and events prepared to take on the more established professional sports? Do they need to? For teenagers coming up today, the X-Games are as much a part of their sporting history as the 'big four' pro sports leagues in North America. This is the first generation with such consciousness of these events, and the ramifications should be worth following...