Cincy goes big for All-Star spotlight Sports Media: Death of a merger BMW takes VIP cue from Masters How Bama, CLC rolled to $100M extension Breaking Ground: New opportunities Gardens take root Red Wings free up space for amenities People: Executive transactions OneTwoSee to provide X1 tech content U.S. Olympic Museum in fundraising mode
SBJ/January 21-27, 2013/OpinionPrint All
Research, you may say, why would I care about that? We posed that very question.
In December, at the Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand’s annual conference in Sydney, one of us was asked to give a three-minute speech on a topic of choice, knowing that one of Australia’s top practitioners would respond to our critique. Since we both were there, we huddled and created a potentially provocative topic: Why isn’t the academic sport management community (and its scholarly research output) more relevant to the sports industry?
To paraphrase a familiar movie line, we wanted to provoke discussion by essentially saying, “Research? We don’t need no stinking research.”
That’s not to say there aren’t exceptions. UEFA, Europe’s most important soccer league, has a robust grant program (entering its fourth edition) that encourages scholars to generate new initiatives in European football research. And the NFL, America’s largest sporting league, has enjoyed a long-standing relationship with Stanford University professor George Foster to facilitate their in-house executive education.
But unlike what we see with the medical profession or via business CEOs, where published research in publications like the New England Journal of Medicine or Harvard Business Review are snapped up by active practitioners, sports industry executives seem comfortable believing only active practitioners can articulate anything worth knowing about the sports business. This seems unfortunate particularly since numerous university researchers are working on cutting-edge developments in sports, many tied to former professionals (who now happen to teach).
It’s important recognizing this academic-practitioner divide in sports management is notable despite massive growth on both fronts over the past decade. This gap, probably driven by trust and performance, is real.
The growth in sport management programs has matched industry growth in the past decade.
Photo by:GABRIELA Z. PEREZ
Sports organizations now seek out trained professionals — former athletes or not — who have specific and specialized skills in areas like sponsorship, finance, human resources, marketing and operations.
So, why the gap relative to research?
There are clearly examples of strong interaction between research and practice. But, the culture of sports and academics in North America is a long way from other disciplines and fields in terms of synergy or integrating with each other.
So, why aren’t more practitioners reading Sport Marketing Quarterly or the Journal of Sport Management? Is it because the academics who write papers for these journals have made their work so hard to understand (or so nuanced in what was researched) that the average practitioner can’t see any value? Is the writing so dense that the key points are obscured?
Or, is the issue a communications one? Is it too expensive or time-consuming to find and read articles in journals like the International Journal of Sport Finance or the European Sport Management Quarterly? Are the articles too slow to hit print?
Or are we — the professors — actually the problem? Are we so focused on case studies, concepts and guest lecturers in our classes that we fail to properly convey the value that exists in our literature to our students in professional programs? In our experiences, we provide our thesis/honors students with a strong grounding and background in the literature, but students like that typically become professors. In our practitioner-focused classes, the peer-review stuff tends to take a back seat.
Perhaps a cultural shift in our field is needed if we’re to narrow this gap and continue to achieve reliable credibility.
Here’s an interesting case to illustrate: One of us is the former North American editor of a peer-reviewed journal designed specifically to link academics and industry around the topic of sponsorship. Then, despite four years of strong scholarship, good reviews, high levels of interest from submitting authors, a strong editorial board of global academics and practitioners, plus popular topics, the journal had to be partnered with another journal as readership and subscriptions were below sustainable levels.
So what to do? We suggested in Sydney that academic organizations look to create clearinghouses of academic experts or, at the very least, design a protocol whereby active research (or recently published work) can be placed in front of leading industry professionals. If the research is valid and shared in a nonthreatening way, we should see some traction.
But the alternative is what bothers us. What if we have an industry that doesn’t care about the research emanating from thousands of academic professionals? What if we have an industry that is so certain about itself that it purposely ignores the research done on its behalf?
It’s a scary thought and one we hope to change.
Rick Burton (email@example.com) is the David B. Falk Professor of Sport Management at Syracuse University. Norm O’Reilly (firstname.lastname@example.org) is professor of sport business at the University of Ottawa.
But rarely have we seen a fan uprising cause a league to respond. That’s why I watched closely when the Premier League got in the middle of a dispute over ticket prices after fans criticized high price points and called for a cap.
Here’s how the story got legs. Fans of Manchester City balked at the $99 (U.S.) price they were being asked to pay to attend an away game against Arsenal. Fans criticized the cost, which they thought was exorbitant, and the tickets were returned to Arsenal. Soon after, Premier League CEO Richard Scudamore may have irked a few teams when he backed the call for cheaper seats, going as far as saying, “I’m absolutely sure that will be dealt with and we’ll not see that again. There should be more affordable ticket prices at one end of the spectrum, and maybe the corporate seats and everything else get priced differently in order to afford that.”
But a day later, the league did a 180, issuing a statement that all but pushed the issue back to the teams and said all pricing was a local issue determined by the clubs. The story got wide pickup across the EPL, and the London Daily Mirror’s John Cross wrote that the pricing is “not just an Arsenal issue” but that it is “expensive being a football fan” and it is “getting out of hand.”
A couple of points on this: The EPL should have a stronger team business services division. Less than a year ago, the EPL set up an attendance and ticketing working group, and you wonder whether they will develop a more formalized, structured team services division, a la the NBA’s TMBO. I am sure the diverse ownership groups of the EPL that currently can’t agree on Financial Fair Play regulation and face more revenue demands than ever are not looking for any mechanisms capping their ticket revenue.
Longtime ticketing consultant Bill Sutton agreed, telling me that the league should “stay above the fray. While they are concerned with image and perception, they obviously don’t want to interfere in a free-market scenario.”
Another interesting point was Scudamore’s response when asked if the “working class” fans have been priced out of the league. He fully acknowledged the EPL has changed. “I can’t argue with the fact there has been a shift in the demographic of the audience,” he told BBC Radio 5’s Sportsweek. “But at 95 percent occupancy, and when you look at the number of females in the grounds, something like 23 percent, black and ethnic minorities, 11 percent — that’s up from a much smaller number 10 years ago. When you look at the under-16s that are in the ground, it’s a myth the entire Premier League audience is aging and white and male, so we must be doing something right.”
A couple of things here stand out: Where pricing seems to be an issue at the EPL at this time, there is far more emphasis on improving the fan experience and premium engagement in the U.S. That issue seems to be less of a concern at the EPL. Scudamore seems pleased with the levels of capacity and the diverse makeup of the EPL’s audience, as he should based on those facts. I get his desire to offer a sound bite on the concern over ticket prices, but I don’t believe EPL team owners would support any call for a cap on ticketing.
Brian Burke’s dismissal from MLSE was likely about a clash of personalities with new corporate owners.
Photo by:GETTY IMAGES
> T-BALL: Colleague Terry Lefton offers a smart analysis of the much talked-about deal between T-Mobile and MLB/MLBAM, that was valued by industry sources to be worth about $125 million over the three years. One agency veteran I talked to about the deal told me, “The big question is where is the exclusive content and how can it be used to drive business? Historically, MLB has been emphatic that they wanted to be carrier agnostic so they can have their content available to all fans. People will also be watching the collaborative relationship between BAM and MLB closely. If they can really execute, it may really work.” But he also noted the terms, “The three year term speaks to trepidation on both sides.” Sutton also noted the significance of the day to me by saying, “Don’t think T-Mobile would run the risk of a communication breakdown at a critical point in the game unless they were certain they could deliver, same for baseball in assuming the risk.”
Abraham D. Madkour can be reached at email@example.com.