Is exposure everything for sports to survive?
- Aug 5, 2011
Hi and welcome to the first of what will hopefully be many of our blogs putting the sporting world to rights and commenting on events experience near and far. Being a relative virgin to the blogging world you will have to forgive me for what may be a bit of a 'bumbling' first edition!
First off the bat it seems worthwhile mentioning the just completed Open Championship at The Royal St. Georges, Sandwich, Kent. A fantastic spectacle for any British sports fan - not just those of a golfing inclination. Currently we are pretty successful in a sport that offers incredible exposure worldwide. When I say 'we' I am of course referring to the British Isles, and yes,of course, I am referring to our very own; Luke Donald, Lee Westwood and Rory McLlroy - occupying the top 3 positions in world Golf. It is names such as these that really offer the exposure sport thrives on, at a time when many of our Olympic and Paralympic sports are lacking such exposure. Golf has recently benefited from icons such as Donald, Westwood and McLlroy and the active promotion that comes with their worldwide 'brand'. You can now add recent Open Champion Darren Clarke to the ever lengthening list of world famous British golf champions. This type of succes leaves me wondering how we would compare worldwide if other, less exposed sports, had the backing or the worldwide prominence that Golf and other top sports have?
Darren Clarke Celebrated Winning The Open 2011 in front of a final day audience of 6.1 million.
You only have to look at the obvious benefits exposure and financial backing can give to a sport. Football is the clearest (and possibly the laziest) example of this with the influx of foreign investment since the introduction of the 'Premier League'. With more players from across the globe playing in the league every year, TV and sponsorship deals have offered millions of pounds to clubs (a suggested £45 million per year to premier league clubs is paid in TV rights) who could never have imagined having so much money at the turn of the 1990's. Football has always been an incredibly popular game, and is often referred to as the 'National Game'. As a habitual football fan myself, I must admit I always see Football as one of this nations most popular sports. But I often think back to when I first started going to games (which was the beginning of my borderline obsession with following a particular team, wherever I may be based across the country) and the reason my interest had developed was potentially due to the amount of football on view. As a primary school child, aged 8, I can remember watching England lose in the semi finals of 'Euro 96'. It wasn't the losing that is massively engraved into my memory, but the enjoyment of that summer of football - and the amount of air time it must have received. In context, if all an 8 year old remembers of that year, was England playing football on TV - the sport/event must have been promoted very well (I am basing this on the fact that most childhood memories are based on playing sport or watching cartoons).
Increased TV Exposure = Increased Participation?
I suppose what I am getting at here is this; if a perceptively 'less attractive' or 'less popular' sport were broadcast with such ferocity would we all be interested enough to watch it? Would viewing numbers and participation rates rise accordingly? It is a question that does not seem to have a direct answer, however if you study reports such as Sport England's Active people survey, you will indeed notice increases in participation of sports. Tennis during the Wimbledon Championships is a good example. During the period when the Championships are held, participation rates generally see an increase. This can be rationalised when you look at this years viewing figures, such as the 8.8 million that watched Andy Murray beat Ivan Ljubicic(24th June) and the figures suggesting that the BBC now air over 900 hours of footage during the tournament. You may argue that tennis has a tradition and the Championships often provide the motivation many require to pick up their racket, but these issues certainly get you thinking...
London 2012 - Will it create the legacy hoped for?
A lot of sports receive little or no exposure on TV until the time of the Olympic Games comes around, and then suddenly, and we are all guilty of this, we become the worlds biggest Athletics fans. As a current employee of Sportworks, our expertise lies within management and delivery of what are known as 'tier two Olympic & Paralympic events'. These are the events where you often see little or no spectator involvement - in comparison you do often have huge competitor numbers! We have recently managed events for British Shooting and are currently contracted to manage the Shooting ISSF World Cup at the Royal Artillery Barracks in London, April 2012. The event will be huge, however, traditionally spectator numbers are minimal at these types of events. Sports such as shooting have sold out for the Olympic Games next year, although, this is likely to be because people are keen to say that "they were there" when the Olympics came to London. But would these sports get the same interest if they were constantly being exposed to us?
Athletics is a better example. It has a moderate following and decent participation rates, but there is very little money involved if you are an athlete. Your only hope is that you can gain enough sponsorship to get you through to the next Olympics, and your chance to show yourself to the world. However, I may be wrong here, when the Olympics are on TV - the 100 meter final or the 4x100 meter relay are viewed by millions of people in the UK (In 2008 the 100m final was the 4th most popluar sporting event, in viewing figure terms, in the world). Why are we not watching these events throughout the year? I can guarantee without figures to back me up, that the majority of people who will be watching the 100 metre final at London 2012 will not be watching the next time these athletes compete at Crystal Palace (after the Games). If the regular exposure was similar to that of Golf and Football, maybe we would have a greater number of 'stars' and therefore idols to inspire a new generation to compete.
As an organisation, Sportworks has huge experience working with the 'less mainstream' Olympic sports and see on a regular basis the commitment and endeavour the athletes have to have to reach the pinnacle of their sport - too often, with little recognition. I'm not suggesting we suddenly decide to broadcast Archery on BBC1 every time there is a World Cup (Sportworks are currently managing the up-coming Para-Archery Olympic Qualifier at Stoke Mandeville Stadium on 5-9 of September and the IPC Shooting Event also at Stoke Mandeville Stadium, 27th August to 1st Sep 2011) however I am suggesting we maybe give a little bit more thought as to how we can promote the 'smaller' sports and give them the recognition they deserve - because, you can rest assured, we will all be supporting them and wanting the athletes to bring home golds come 2012!!
making sport work for you...
