@Miguel_BOTB explains why football might be right to resist goal-line technology (The Independent, 17 April 2012).
His argument is that from a commercial point of view, a successful sport needs permanent giants - providing instant name-recognition for all but the most dedicated fans. In football, these giants are Real Madrid and Barcelona, Manchester United and a handful of other clubs. Despite (or perhaps because of) the public anger expressed by the managers of these clubs when officials decide against them, officials tend to have an unconscious tendency to give them benefit of the doubt. This unconscious bias reinforces the status quo, and thereby supports the commercial agenda of the sport. Whereas goal-line technology would remove this small element of advantage.
@Miguel_BOTB adds "Never really cared much for goal-line technology debate but it's funny to watch the lengths FIFA will go to avoid implementing it." In other words, it is the resistance to change that prompts a POSIWID enquiry - to understand FIFA's true motives for resisting a given innovation, we have to look very closely at what the current system actually does.
The conflict of interest here is between the casual fans (who usually support the well-known clubs) and the dedicated fans (who support a much wider range of smaller clubs and often despise the big clubs). The dedicated fans would support football willy-nilly, so it makes commercial sense to give priority to the interests of the casual fans.
Showing posts with label sport. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sport. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Why Do Sportsman Believe?
Reading an article possibly by Matthew Syed (Religion and sport: Do prayers help players? BBC News Magazine 28 May 2011). There is some evidence that religious belief boosts sporting performance, and there are many examples of strong religious faith at the top level of sport,
Atheists observe that the content of the religion doesn't seem to make much difference, and that the visible superstitions and obsessions of some players (former Kent and England wicket-keeper Alan Knott comes to my mind) appears to perform the same purpose.
The article notes that Jonathan Edwards, the triple jumper, abandoned his strong religious faith when he stopped competing. Obviously we can't generalize from one case, but it is a hint that his faith may have had no other purpose in his life.
Atheists observe that the content of the religion doesn't seem to make much difference, and that the visible superstitions and obsessions of some players (former Kent and England wicket-keeper Alan Knott comes to my mind) appears to perform the same purpose.
The article notes that Jonathan Edwards, the triple jumper, abandoned his strong religious faith when he stopped competing. Obviously we can't generalize from one case, but it is a hint that his faith may have had no other purpose in his life.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Are FA and LTA fit for purpose?
The Football Association has been branded "not fit for purpose" by former UK sports minister Richard Caborn. [BBC News, 5 July 2010]
I guess national sports organizations around the world are accustomed to criticism. In the UK, the two organizations that seem to be getting most of the criticism at the moment are the Football Association (FA) and the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA).
No doubt some of this criticism is triggered by particular sporting events, and British failure in these events. Mr Caborn may have long-standing concerns about the FA, but the best opportunity to air these concerns comes after England's exit from the 2010 World Cup, and the story is illustrated by a photo of some dejected English players. Similarly, although many people in the tennis world are constantly critical of the LTA, the poor showing of adult Englishmen at Wimbledon provides critics such as Pat Cash with an annual opportunity to attack LTA Chief Executive Roger Draper [BBC News 21 June 2007, Guardian 16 June 2010, LTA response 17 June 2010].
Which creates the impression that the purpose of these organizations is British success at the highest level of competition. The purpose of the FA is to win the World Cup; the purpose of the LTA is to win Wimbledon and the Davis Cup.
Meanwhile, many people believe that the real purpose of these organizations should be to encourage the sport at all levels. The FA should do more to improve youth football and the country's academy system; the LTA should be devoting more of its resources to supporting tennis in schools and parks. Hopefully this would create a larger pool of potential professional players, but it would also be a good thing to do for its own sake. The health of the population would be greatly improved if more children and adults engaged in regular recreational sport. This seems to be a much more important purpose for a national sports organization than worrying about the success of a small handful of highly paid professional sportsmen.
I guess national sports organizations around the world are accustomed to criticism. In the UK, the two organizations that seem to be getting most of the criticism at the moment are the Football Association (FA) and the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA).
No doubt some of this criticism is triggered by particular sporting events, and British failure in these events. Mr Caborn may have long-standing concerns about the FA, but the best opportunity to air these concerns comes after England's exit from the 2010 World Cup, and the story is illustrated by a photo of some dejected English players. Similarly, although many people in the tennis world are constantly critical of the LTA, the poor showing of adult Englishmen at Wimbledon provides critics such as Pat Cash with an annual opportunity to attack LTA Chief Executive Roger Draper [BBC News 21 June 2007, Guardian 16 June 2010, LTA response 17 June 2010].
Which creates the impression that the purpose of these organizations is British success at the highest level of competition. The purpose of the FA is to win the World Cup; the purpose of the LTA is to win Wimbledon and the Davis Cup.
Meanwhile, many people believe that the real purpose of these organizations should be to encourage the sport at all levels. The FA should do more to improve youth football and the country's academy system; the LTA should be devoting more of its resources to supporting tennis in schools and parks. Hopefully this would create a larger pool of potential professional players, but it would also be a good thing to do for its own sake. The health of the population would be greatly improved if more children and adults engaged in regular recreational sport. This seems to be a much more important purpose for a national sports organization than worrying about the success of a small handful of highly paid professional sportsmen.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
London Olympics 2012
If you thought the London Olympics had something to do with Media, Culture or Sport, the latest UK government reshuffle should put you right.
Tessa Jowell has been relieved of her ministerial duties for media, culture and sport, but continues to be responsible for the London Olympics. [BBC News, June 28th 2007].
So if the London Olympics is not a matter of media, culture and sport, what is its true purpose?
The location of the Olympics seems pretty irrelevant to television viewers. And it probably doesn't make all that much difference to the competitors, who are too busy training to pay much attention to their surroundings. The only people who seem to care about the location of the Olympics are the politicians, who seem to regard it as a matter of national ego. And of course the poor taxpayers of the unlucky city, who will be paying the bills for the next twenty years.
Olympics Grim Record (Guardian, November 2004)
Olympics are Costly, But Regeneration is Priceless (Observer, March 2007)
Tessa Jowell has been relieved of her ministerial duties for media, culture and sport, but continues to be responsible for the London Olympics. [BBC News, June 28th 2007].
So if the London Olympics is not a matter of media, culture and sport, what is its true purpose?
The location of the Olympics seems pretty irrelevant to television viewers. And it probably doesn't make all that much difference to the competitors, who are too busy training to pay much attention to their surroundings. The only people who seem to care about the location of the Olympics are the politicians, who seem to regard it as a matter of national ego. And of course the poor taxpayers of the unlucky city, who will be paying the bills for the next twenty years.
Olympics Grim Record (Guardian, November 2004)
Olympics are Costly, But Regeneration is Priceless (Observer, March 2007)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)