By Adam Paker

It was 20 years ago when the idea first came into my head. I was getting by in the City at the time but decided I really wanted to work in the sports industry. I got a lucky break soon after and have remained ever since in the exciting, crazy and occasionally disheartening world of sports.

Reflecting on this long involvement, what has changed over these 20 years? And what has remained constant, for better or for worse?

I will explore this over a series of articles, starting right here with a look into the world of women’s sport.

In 1999, Sepp Blatter memorably said: “the future of football is feminine,” but have the ensuing years really seen the blossoming of women’s sport that he and others predicted?

It is hard to shake off a gut feeling of dissatisfaction. As I look over two decades that promised so much in terms of women’s emancipation, many sports remain the preserve of men (how many women in motorsports or horse-racing could you name?). The media product that is served up to us daily is still heavily male-skewed. The pay gap remains stark in many sports, including ones with a strong women’s product such as golf. And as national and international think-tanks, such as Women in Sport and the Sydney Scoreboard regularly highlight, there is still a gaping dearth of women in senior leadership positions.

I feel this very keenly at a personal level. As the father of 2 daughters (with another hopefully on the way soon), I am acutely aware of all of the hurdles that society puts in front of girls and young women that may prevent them benefiting fully from sport.

When it comes to sport, boys still simply have it easier.

It’s not all doom and gloom though. Technically, standards of women’s sport have improved dramatically. I see this strikingly in team sports.

I was lucky enough to work on the 2003 FIFA Women’s World Cup in the U.S. It was a terrific event, but comparing footage from back then with the 2015 edition highlights an unmistakable and very welcome leap in quality.

That is hugely encouraging. So, too, has been the increased coverage of women’s sports and, in some sports at least, the closing of the gender pay gap. The parity in prize money awarded for male and female tennis Grand Slam winners – finally achieved in 2007– felt like a major and long overdue victory.

The last 20 years have produced many more female sporting icons. Whereas in the past the pantheon of sporting greats had a distinctly male bias, now the likes of Mia Hamm, Annika Sorenstam, the Williams sisters and Lindsey Vonn have taken up their rightful place among them, somewhat redressing the balance. And we should not ignore the achievements of trail-blazing women in sports administration such as Sarah Springman in triathlon or Stacey Allaster in tennis.

What of the future then? In the short term women’s sport must continue to receive funding, media coverage and career opportunity. Longer term, we have to acknowledge that women’s sport reflects wider gender inequalities that still exist in society as a whole. Perhaps through sport we can remind governments of the need to end such inequalities.

For all of the challenges though, I am upbeat. There is enough that we can look back on to feel encouraged that women’s sport could yet be on the verge of a golden age within the next 20, as long as we are all willing to put in the work.

About the contributor:

Adam Paker has been involved in the sports industry for 20 years, working with governing bodies, sponsors, leagues, clubs, volunteers and media groups across a variety of sports and events, including the FIFA World Cup and Commonwealth Games. He served as Chief Executive Officer of Commonwealth Games England from 2011 to 2014 and more recently as CEO of the Amateur Swimming Association (now Swim England).

By Steve Parish, Chairman of Crystal Palace Football Club.

This is not a political column. It isn’t an argument about ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain.’ It’s just that we are where we are: Britain is exiting the European Union and every industry should be preparing for what lies ahead. Football is no different. Do things right and the post-Brexit future will be a better one for our game.

At present, British EU membership has a huge impact on the composition of Premier League squads. Free movement means clubs can sign EU players without limits, but this leads to restrictions on talent from elsewhere while damaging the prospects of British players. Brexit represents our chance to address both.

I know other chairmen worry about immigration controls and not being able to sign so many Europeans but that misses the point. Brexit allows us to rewrite the rules on who we can recruit and how squads are made up. We can redraw the illogical ‘homegrown’ rule to ensure British kids are better served.

At least eight players in every 25-man Premier League squad must be ‘homegrown’ but because of the EU, ‘homegrown’ does not mean ‘British’. It comprises anyone trained at an English club academy for three years. So, you have the ludicrous situation of Cesc Fabregas or Asmir Begovic or Gylfi Sigurdsson being designated as ‘homegrown’ and effectively taking slots from UK players.

Strange rule: Crystal Palace’s Scottish defender James McArthur is classed as a ‘foreigner’ because he wasn’t trained in England.

Post-Brexit, we do what we like. We can redefine ‘homegrown’ to help the home nations. We should include not just English, but Scottish, Welsh and Irishmen because another nonsense of the system is that James McArthur is classed as a ‘foreigner’ in Crystal Palace’s squad because he wasn’t trained in England. Whereas Fabio Borini plays for Sunderland as a ‘homegrown’ player.

Premier League academies are populated with EU youngsters, who can come to England at any age, limiting even youth level places for British players and leading to squads becoming further removed from fanbases. We can stop this influx and fill academies with local players once again. What you see now — clubs poaching from European academies — would no longer be possible because Fifa regulations forbid foreign transfers before 18.

We can also shake up the work permit system. Presently, a non-EU footballer must play a certain percentage (depending on Fifa’s ranking) of their country’s internationals over a two-year period before you can sign them. Otherwise, you have to appeal and prove they are ‘special’, and the criteria include things such as paying a high transfer fee or offering a contract that puts them in your top bracket of earners, a system that’s encouraging clubs to pay over the odds.

Scrap it. Let’s have some clear rules. Any player to whom a club is willing to offer a Premier League contract should be eligible. Why would we give someone a contract if we didn’t think they were good enough? We’d get rid of so many anomalies.

Why can’t I buy more US players for example? We know Americans do well in the Premier League and yet it’s so difficult to buy an emerging MLS player if they’re not yet a national team regular, unless you offer over £8m to make it an ‘above average’ transfer fee, and put that player in your top 25% of earners, just to get the work permit points.

With different rules, clubs could buy more from the South American, African and Australasian markets. Luka Milivojevic, whom we signed from OIympiakos, has been brilliant but had a drawn-out process of waiting for a work permit because he isn’t from the ‘EU’, he’s Serbian. Ludicrous. We always struggled to get Mile Jedinak a work permit: he was captain of Australia. Meanwhile, Kelechi Iheanacho arrives as a teenager with a work permit to play for Manchester City because he did well at an under-17 tournament. Crazy.

With a different permit system, we’d create a much bigger market in which our clubs can buy talent. And if you create a bigger supply, you lower prices. That would reduce transfer costs and the money going out of British football.

It’s not that we’d end up buying more foreign players; we’d just buy them from different places. The 17 players in a Premier League squad who aren’t homegrown, whether from France or from South America, makes no odds.

It’s easy to highlight its faults, but no one can argue with the success of the Premier League. It’s a flagship brand which greatly benefits the country; around 37% of its revenue goes directly to the Exchequer mainly from a tax on player salaries. The difference between a post-Brexit Premier League and other industries is that the future is largely in our own hands. Being in the EU affects our competitiveness.

We can fill our academies with local players once again. Today, Fabregas, Begovic and Sigurdsson count as ‘homegrown’ players

When the league began you could get bargains, or at least pay the right prices for players, and a well-run club could rise. Now all 20 clubs are in the same small European market for players. The top six will always have enough money to buy whoever, but the rest of us face vastly inflated prices. it’s almost akin to a ‘Premier League tax’.

European clubs know our league is the richest. Riyad Mahrez left Le Havre for Leicester for £400,000 in 2014. Last summer we went to Le Havre to watch someone in a similar bracket, a promising young attacker, Lys Mousset, and he went to Bournemouth for £7.3m.

I have scouts who say: ‘That boy who went to Sunderland for £12m; you could have had him for £2m if you weren’t an English club. No chairman in Europe can be seen to be selling a player to the Premier League for much less than €10m. It’s got to the point where the best value last summer was counterintuitive: buying from another English club. Nathan Redmond for £10m, Victor Wanyama for £12.2m, for example.

We did some research, based on cost and how often a player appeared for their team and found buying a player from within England means paying a fee inflated by 38%, but buying from France involves paying 38% over value too. So, we’re at a stage where you pay as much of a premium for European talent as for British. Clubs in France and Belgium almost buy players to get them shop ready to sell to England.

We need to break free from this, expand our supply of talent while protecting our own. Simplify work permits, redraw quotas: we can do all this. The world loves our competition, the Premier League is a fantastic beacon of success for Britain. With Brexit, it can get even better.

 

Article originally published in The Times.

By James Draper (Founder and CEO, bidstack)

bidstack sponsored the back of Norwich City FC’s shirt, for the 2016/17 EFL Championship season – and I thought it would be worth highlighting the benefits it’s given us. All in all, I’d state it’s given us seven-figure tangible value.

Sponsoring Norwich City was the third step of our four-stage strategy of establishing our brand. I’ll come on to that in a minute.

So, first things first – why Norwich? Well, honestly? They came to us, via their charismatic Partnership Lead Ben Tunnell. He worked for a rival business to my previous employer, before heading home to Norwich – so, via our connection on Linkedin, he was aware of our updates – including our initial video.

We spoke about the opportunity internally, and knowing how the media world is setup (media Thursdays anyone?), we knew it would cause a stir in our market.

During the trip to Carrow Road we looked at all options and the back of the shirt package, and the financials surrounding that, started looking really rather reasonable. Especially considering it was going to give us 7+ months worth of exposure. From TV, matchday in-stadia, social media etc – for a five-figure sum, it made a lot of sense. Also, crucially, the ‘Canaries’ play in our brands yellow…!

As mentioned above, this was a logical ‘third step’ in our four-tier plan.

Step 1: create a stunning intro video that will enable us to grab the attention of the market we’re entering. Comedic, yet irrepressible – with strong brand cues.

Step 2: a preview video, showcasing our thought-processes. (this has lead to 5 x competitors emerging…).

Step 3: a power play. A platform that will give sustained brand reinforcement over our beta launch period.

Step 4: an announcement of a contract/partnership, that clearly establishes our company as a major player.

I’m delighted to say, this will be a forthcoming announcement.

A few stats worth mentioning. Following our announcement of Norwich City, we had over 10k+ sign-ups on our site. 1,000+ profile views on day one of the announcement. Plus, doors opened with every major agency and media owner.

Added to that, we had representatives from major F1, NFL, NBA, La Liga, Serie A teams (among others), chasing for a similar arrangement to that with Norwich City.

We are delighted that the activity also grabbed the attention from a number of now bidstack investors. Which we would never have reached without this platform. They were Norwich City fans…!

Working in a startup is hard. Low pay, little security for staff, a battle to establish yourselves in a competitive market – let alone carrying the weight of angel investors’ personal cash, on your shoulders. So, for staff and investor morale, it was also a hell of a coup.

Our website traffic across our beta was deep into five figures, and our soon to announce contract came off the back of our first three steps. It will make a lot of sense when you see it shortly.

Point being – the sponsorship worked for us. It makes little commercial sense for bidstack to continue into a second season, as all the initial benefits have had their time. But, for a new company, it’s been crucial in establishing ourselves.

I want to briefly say – we’ve become Norwich City fans here off the back of the sponsorship (not necessarily a good thing after a topsy-turvy season on the pitch…) – and have made some fantastic friendships along the way. Going to the Red Lion in Angel, to watch the Sky Sports covered games with the ‘Capital Canaries’ was a great way to unwind.

I’d encourage startups to broaden their marketing ambitions – and seriously consider team sponsorship as a B2B marketing platform.

Was our Norwich City sponsorship worth it? Oh yes – I’d say it’s given us at the very least an x10 ROI.