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?