|
By James Poole
If I had a pound for every time I’ve heard someone say ‘Squash deserves to be in the Olympics’, then I would be a rich man.
My opinion is that squash does not ‘deserve’ to be in the Olympics. Being an Olympic sport is a privilege, not a right; and acceptance into the Olympic family only comes if you put the work in, build the relationships and annoy as few people as possible along the way.
If we look back to 2005, to the IOC session in Singapore – Squash was never realistically going to get into the 2012 games. The effort was there emotionally in the form of the great Jahangir Khan, but was executed poorly in the form of a promotional video straight out of the 90’s and a PowerPoint that would make a child cringe.
The IOC itself originally coined the term ‘The Olympic Family’, and they are just that. A family. Meaning, they look out for their own, and to vote a new sport in to replace another would be as outrageous as swapping your own brother. The sad reality is that all sports are not created equal.
 Just imagine the outrage if IOC members voted Badminton out of the Olympics in exchange for Elephant Polo. A sport which doesn’t deliver large international TV audiences, and doesn’t have big established fan bases around the world, and doesn’t get much media coverage and doesn’t have a lot of money from sponsorship, but is slowly getting more popular. Yes, we are still talking about Elephant Polo … I think.
Comparing Squash to Elephant Polo perhaps isn’t the best analogy, but it does illustrate the point that squash still has a long way to go before obtaining Olympic status; and with the crucial 2009 IOC session in Copenhagen the sport doesn’t have a lot of time if it wants to make an Olympic debut at the 2016 games at the very earliest.
It is one thing to criticise though, and another to try and be constructive.
My view on the Olympics is that I would love to see squash at the 2016 games, but that we need to do a lot of things to get our house in order before that can happen. So, ‘what are these things?’ I hear you say. Well, for starters…
ONE - Get every major squash event Live on TV
Did you know a major European TV network broadcast to over 115 million homes offered to take the PSA Super Series Live on their channels two years ago? Unfortunately the previous administration thought it best not to rock the boat and risk damaging their agreement with Sky Sports?
One argument I have heard against Live TV is that it is too expensive to produce a live feed for international broadcast, and at around £20-30k per day, it’s perhaps not the cheapest thing in the world (The price does go down substantially when you have long term agreements with broadcasters for multiple events).
However, it is only through live broadcast agreements with major networks, which can take our product to large new audiences, that events will become feasible marketing platforms for major brands. As it currently stands, the vast majority of major squash events do not return good enough value for money for sponsors.
TWO - Develop the sport in new markets
We have seen many times in the past that less established sporting nations are prepared to devote large amounts of resources to stage new events and are usually more receptive to terrestrial TV coverage – the ultimate ambition of any sports event. The media interest in these countries is also usually higher than countries that already host lots of major sports events. For example, if you take the worlds top players to Croatia or to Mexico then that is a big deal. But if you take the same players to the USA or to the UK then you are not going to get the same level of exposure because the market is already saturated with numerous sports events.
THREE - Use team events to raise the profile of the sport and the players
I believe that team events have a major role to play in this respect. Ironically, the Olympics are a perfect example. The majority of people in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will never of heard of most of the athletes representing Great Britain; but because they are representing their country, it gives people watching on TV something to relate to as they have a team to cheer for.
I happened to watch the qualifying match for the semi finals of the Women’s Olympic hockey the other day, and although I had never heard of any of the players on either team, I wanted the GB girls to win at any cost and actually got quite excited when they beat New Zealand 2-1.
You can apply my oddly contrived and badly described theory to squash in that fans might support a few of the players on the tours, but If you have a team event it reaches that sense of national sporting pride which is inherent across the world; and that is - you want your team to win!
What I would ideally like to see is a similar structure to that of One Day International cricket, whereby you have one country playing host to a series with perhaps five different top quality venues, and another country which will come and play for a proportion of the commercial revenue generated from ticket sales, sponsorship and potentially even broadcast fees. The World Team Championships would still be the pinnacle of team squash, with a couple of similar major series’ throw in for good measure.
FOUR - Support for national federations and promoters
The World Squash Federation has a responsibility to its member nations to stimulate growth of the sport wherever possible, and that to me means taking a leading role in working with national federations and promoters to share best practice, organise regular workshops and networking events and also to produce a comprehensive set of marketing resources which are available to all members of the squash family.
There are of course many other points which I could write about and that are incredibly important such as grass roots programmes, referee development, making use of new technologies and creating a commercial framework for the sport…but the list goes on and on and on and on.
Our Olympic themed coverage is intended to stimulate conversation and debate, so any and all comments are welcome.
 |
