by Bruce Cook
I haven’t posted anything for a while but it’s been a busy last month or so. Most recently I was at the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham (England, not Alabama. That would be ‘something completely different’).
While in Birmingham I heard a familiar challenge that plays something like “these big multi-sport events are great fun, but I don’t see evidence that they really make a difference in society. I don’t see any proof that people are more active as a result.” This view was coming from high-level people and more than ever it made me stop and wonder about my long-held belief that sport cures all.
We’ll, I’ve noodled this for a bit and let me tell you where I’ve landed. The case for scepticism is essentially saying that there is no visible and measurable direct connection between the major event investment and the sport participation or activity levels of the community/nation.
As much as many have tried, the truth is that very few major events have been able to prove in a quantifiable way that the investment has directly resulted in a significant uptick in physical activity and/or sport participation. There is anecdotal evidence but no hard proof.
This reminds me of an exercise I went through while managing sponsorship at one of Britain’s then biggest (and now most hated) bank’s. Being challenged by the Board to justify our multi-million pound (£) sponsorship budget, I was charged with developing an ROI model that would definitively tell us how our sponsorship investment translates to the bottom line.
After engaging the minds of our finest Economists and a few external agencies, I came to the conclusion that a truly comprehensive and accurate model could not be built. And even if it could be, the board would not accept it as legit. End of project. The truth is we don't know if advertising works either, but we keep seeing ads...
That’s kind of where we are here in the world of big multi-sport events. Those of us involved feel like this model works, but in the absence of a hard and true ROI model, we gather sceptics. But let's get real for a minute. Sometimes when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you just have to accept that it's a frickin duck!
But rather than get emotional, let's think about this logically.
For the health of society to improve and relieve some of the massive pressure on the health care system (including COVID), we need people to get more active. Often this comes through sport participation.
If we want people to get more active and play more sport, they need both motivation and opportunity.
Multi-sport events (Olympics, Commonwealth Games, etc) bring national interest beyond the sports fan. When you play under your country's flag, the media gets interested and more people pay attention... to many more sports than they typically do. We hear stories of ordinary people who found a new sport and an improved life. Why not me? Motivated.
In addition to the media exposure, sport governing bodies often use these events as platforms to develop and deliver new programmes, recruit new coaches and participants, improve facilities, and expand capacity. Opportunity.
Despite arguments that a few elite athletes do not cure the ills of society, if we don't have big events as the pinnacle of sport performance, governing bodies will not have ambitious targets to strive for which require them to establish the 'development' and 'pathway' programmes that really do reach the masses and positively impact the many ills of society.
If we can get more people more active, they will be more healthy - both physically and mentally - and this will relieve pressure on the health care system... and save it money. Will it save enough to justify the investment? I don't know. Economists can't even tell you that, but this sure looks like a duck to me.
Admittedly, what I've presented is an over-simplified formula, but the logic is sound. We have to be financially responsible in how we deliver these events (and the CGF has been a leader in this regard), but doubting the general concept smells of fear. Doing the right thing without hard quantifiable evidence is scary. It takes courage. I'm not suggesting anyone act irresponsibly, but after due diligence the real winners are those who go for it. Fortune favours the brave.
More importantly, my main point here is that it doesn't happen overnight. While we may see a temporary blip in increased activity levels over the next few months following the Commonwealth Games, the numbers will probably level out to a rate that is hard to distinguish from all the other initiatives going on. The Games alone do not change the world. The real impact will take years and generations to take hold, and there are many other pieces to the puzzle.
We always look for new participants as a measure of an event's impact, but what about the current participants who are inspired to stay in the sport a bit longer? or those that become motivated to get qualified as a coach? or those who were already on the books but now start volunteering more often at the local club?
or the guy who years from now tells the story of Eilish McColgan's amazing finish in the Birmingham '22 10,000 metres final and finds the video on YouTube and shares it with his granddaughter who is thinking about going to the athletics club for the first time? How do you measure that? You don't. You just clear the lump in your throat and smile with gratitude for those who years ago were bold enough to do what they knew felt right... even without the data.
Are big sports events a magic bullet? Of course not, but they sure can be magical. So let the Games begin! ...and begin...and begin...and begin...
If you like this stuff and want to read more, the best way is on my Substack where you can read all back issues and subscribe so you will be alerted to all future Cook Endeavour blogs. Read on!
Comments