Should big associations support less profitable sports?

[alani123]

I was wondering what the sentiment on this matter is.

There are certain sports that in some countries never really attract only minor interest and are always outshined by the bigger sports in each respective country. For instance in Europe football is consistently the #1 sport in attendance and then there's basketball.

But there's also other competitive sports that have great athleticism like handball, volleyball, water polo and more

So if the big associations in Europe that make millions from football weren't funding a team for these league also in spite of not making money there, it's likely these leagues would collapse and there would be no incentives from regional organisations to feed their national teams either.

But maybe some of the bigger teams will want to save money or just cut costs and abandon minor sports, in spite of making millions in the big sports. How would that make you feel? Is this something you care about?

[Iranus]

Your statement that leagues for other sport will collapse if football team doesn't make profit is not entirely accurate. If you look at current European sport model, funding sources are far more diversified.

For multi sport club, you can look at Barcelona. Alongside football, they have section for handball, basketball, futsal and roller hockey. Contribution to the club's foundation are also generated from these team, in addition to salaries of professional player and coach.

However, if football club's board makes decision based purely on profit and loss then the section that are comparatively less profitable run the risk of being cut first.

Therefore these sport need to gradually move toward generating independent revenue stream, such as broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing, youth development, government or community funding.

[Smartprofit]

Major European associations are forced to support less popular sports. This isn't pure charity.🙋

Who sponsors the major European associations? Bookmakers and television channels... They have a vested interest in sporting events taking place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Otherwise, how can they maintain the interest of bettors and viewers?

For major European associations, supporting handball, water polo, volleyball, and so on isn't a whim, but a mechanism for building power and social capital. It's a complex symbiotic relationship between various organizations that ultimately maximizes their profits.💁

The downside of this approach is that less popular sports have no incentive to develop and become more popular.

[un_rank]

So if the big associations in Europe that make millions from football weren't funding a team for these league also in spite of not making money there, it's likely these leagues would collapse and there would be no incentives from regional organisations to feed their national teams either.

Investments follows the opportunity. The interest in football in Europe from the fans is what brings the money in - Sponsorships and brand deals come in cause there is already the attention, viewing rights creates more opportunities and brings in more money from within and outside that continent. Those big associations are there to make money from the sport and not the reason the sport is what it is today. If the money went out it will still be able to sustain itself.

If they chose to put more money in a sport that does not have as much attention then they are likely going to lose their money except it is done well. The USA has been trying for some years to build a football culture there (they call it soccer), it has been slow going cause they first have to build an interesting from a large number of the citizens and then grow the sport.

- Jay -

[blomen]

i have respect for every athlete who participates in any sport, but professional sports today require a whole different level of money, advertising, and management. major sports have become industries, and clubs have turned into companies. everyone is striving to be the best, but there’s also a huge amount of money involved behind the scenes.

as a result, these clubs may want to move away from sports that generate less revenue or result in losses. this is pretty common, especially since 99% of people follow only a few major sports.

[DanWalker]

I agree with you. I also noticed that, due to mounting economic tension on club, Barcelona has cut the budget for its basketball and other indoor sport section by 15 to 25%.
So, when football club face monetary hardship, these smaller sport are first to endure that brunt of cuts, so sad.
If funding were to be totally withdrawn then it would initiate massive failure at national and regional league level. Given that these sport yield negligible sponsorship revenue.

In my view, these European club are not simply business. They are social and cultural establishment, essential to artistic identity.
You know, the guiding ethos of clubs like Barcelona or Benfica is, Més que un club.
For ordinary fan, going to stadium isn't just about watching football on weekend. They also identify with club's handball or volleyball team as part of their own identity.
Therefore sustaining other sport using profit from football is not an act of charity in any way. It is intrinsic part of their heritage.

[Fiatless]

Businesses are established for profit-making. This is why they will only sponsor sports that could bring the necessary returns. Low-ranked sports in my country have been neglected by the government and corporate bodies because they bring low returns.

Suggesting that these major sports organisers channel a portion of their revenue to sponsor less competitive sports is worthwhile. To achieve this, the government would have to make laws to mandate them to do so. Their social corporate responsibility should be to help finance the development of other sports.

[Orpichukwu]

Businesses are established for profit-making. This is why they will only sponsor sports that could bring the necessary returns. Low-ranked sports in my country have been neglected by the government and corporate bodies because they bring low returns.

The government in our country is the worst body I have even seen supporting sports. Aside from the national team you can barely hear about them funding other sports which are not related to national.

Those teams and athletes always source for their own sponsor and I can also agree with smrtprofit in respect to TV channels being among people who sponsor all of this sport since they need to display it on both national and local level to keep the viewers entertained it’s a win-win for both but the sport and its team need to somehow source their self up to a level which will pick the interest of those bodies.

[Hispo]

I was wondering what the sentiment on this matter is.

There are certain sports that in some countries never really attract only minor interest and are always outshined by the bigger sports in each respective country. For instance in Europe football is consistently the #1 sport in attendance and then there's basketball.

But there's also other competitive sports that have great athleticism like handball, volleyball, water polo and more

So if the big associations in Europe that make millions from football weren't funding a team for these league also in spite of not making money there, it's likely these leagues would collapse and there would be no incentives from regional organisations to feed their national teams either.

But maybe some of the bigger teams will want to save money or just cut costs and abandon minor sports, in spite of making millions in the big sports. How would that make you feel? Is this something you care about?

I believe this is rather an issue of supply and demand, free market of sports.
It does not make sense for big associations to pour out money to small sports and disciplines if they have not much chance to recover their money.
Realistically, in order to those sports to receive more funding, first people need to show more support, one more support is on the table, then those associations will start to smell money and start to offer sponsorships and more financial support.

No association is in the business of sports in order to lose money, that is why they go the safeft way possible and support the most popular sports in their respective countries.

[Obim34]

Suggesting that these major sports organisers channel a portion of their revenue to sponsor less competitive sports is worthwhile. To achieve this, the government would have to make laws to mandate them to do so. Their social corporate responsibility should be to help finance the development of other sports.

How is the government a part to decide what major sport federations do with sponsoring less competitive sports or not? What kind of law will that be? It is never the government's problem, that is the reason why each sport has its own federation, and governs the affairs of the sport for growth.

But maybe some of the bigger teams will want to save money or just cut costs and abandon minor sports, in spite of making millions in the big sports. How would that make you feel? Is this something you care about?

Small growing sports are not entitled to receive support, the board would rather decide to invest than give out free funds. Whatever a team does is business with expectations of return, however, I do think it is so cool for small federations to receive aid and any possible boost from bigger teams.

[alegotardo]

But maybe some of the bigger teams will want to save money or just cut costs and abandon minor sports, in spite of making millions in the big sports. How would that make you feel? Is this something you care about?

My opinion is this a government’s job... first, they should direct more incentives toward these less popular sports to encourage and support young athletes. Even money from fees and tax collected from major football teams and events could be directed toward other sports.
And second, governments should create laws to require large companies to also support these sports, for example... for every $ 1k spent to football they would have to spend $ 100 to another sport or to organizations that fund them.
Even the fees collected from casinos could be redirected toward these sports.

But one thing is certain... everything revolves around money, so as long as there is no interest from companies in these sports, I believe they will hardly develop as much as football, for example, which is very profitable for many sectors.

One example is sports betting sites. Even if there is a law requiring them to list chess, for example, if there are no bettors for that sport, there will hardly be any development of it.

[henmark]

It all depends on the demand, to be honest. Any game or sport that is played in a region locally will only attract widespread support and attention from either the government-funded or private associations if there is a high demand for these games among the general public, because at the end of the day, the associations are only going to get something out of those sports if they get enough spectators that are willing to pay to watch the game, and if that's not the case, I'm afraid such games and sports would never get to the big stages.

There are a lot of sports and games played in every region, but they don't get any support from the government or even private associations because they know that they are not going to get any profits if they promote those games. Conducting local tournaments and competitions is a different thing, and that doesn't earn the associations any money since they won't be able to charge much money to locals to come and watch, and for that, the game has to become international, and there has to be interest for the game among every region, or at least enough countries so there can be competitions and stuff.

If a sport is only played within a specific region or a single country, it will only stay within that country.

[Sandra_hakeem]

Suggesting that these major sports organisers channel a portion of their revenue to sponsor less competitive sports is worthwhile. To achieve this, the government would have to make laws to mandate them to do so. Their social corporate responsibility should be to help finance the development of other sports.

How is the government a part to decide what major sport federations do with sponsoring less competitive sports or not? What kind of law will that be? It is never the government's problem, that is the reason why each sport has its own federation, and governs the affairs of the sport for growth.

I was also trying to make sense out of what the user you quoted wrote altogether. Any promotion at all centers on whether or not the public has a common interest, passion and whatnot. They all have governing bodies that controls and regulate their affairs so asking the government to step in and make somewhat, another regulation dumb.

The development of a sport needs a dual effort imo. If the viewers aren't there to watch, how can their finances grow?

I was wondering what the sentiment on this matter is.

So if the big associations in Europe that make millions from football weren't funding a team for these league also in spite of not making money there, it's likely these leagues would collapse and there would be no incentives from regional organisations to feed their national teams either.

It infact, has no sentiment attached. One needs to have the mindset and money of a capitalist to even think about this, let alone agree with you.

[Filicius]

Perhaps I am wrong, but the question should probably be restated in the light of the facts. The fact that at this time in many countries football has achieved not only such a great dominance over other sports, but also an interest and an ability to move masses like never before, does not mean that the rest of sports are suffering from it. There are probably many more people following handball, water polo or volleyball leagues today than twenty years ago, thanks to social networks and the greater interest in sport in general. In the past, not many people watched tennis matches, and today all children and young people see tennis players as role models.

That other sports have not been as successful in relative terms should not distract us from the fact that they have grown in absolute terms.

[samadam007]

The minor sports may need more support, but that doesn't mean they are completely dependent on football clubs. Every sports have their federation, sponsors, fans and different sources of funding….. so yeah they can survive on their own.

The popularity, how big and important that particular sport is differ from one country to another. Other countries too have major sports that pump a lot of money that is not football.

[sunsilk]

So if the big associations in Europe that make millions from football weren't funding a team for these league also in spite of not making money there, it's likely these leagues would collapse and there would be no incentives from regional organisations to feed their national teams either.

But maybe some of the bigger teams will want to save money or just cut costs and abandon minor sports, in spite of making millions in the big sports. How would that make you feel? Is this something you care about?

They won't collapse that easy, you don't know what a rich avid fan can do when they have seen that their sport is starting to die.

But instead of thinking about moving from here to there, it's better if the big associations are supporting the others to make it alive and have more support for these sports that has the potential to be a big contributor of the huge sports industry.

I've seen this in particular that there were organization which have chosen to stop supporting specific sports. Although that's not the end of those sports and there will always be new associations, organizations and players to come in even for the minor sports.

[SamReomo]

So if the big associations in Europe that make millions from football weren't funding a team for these league also in spite of not making money there, it's likely these leagues would collapse and there would be no incentives from regional organisations to feed their national teams either.

No, that might not be true at all, each sport has its own fan base and it'll keep on its own even if it's not funded by big associations. In Asia sports like Cricket play very important role for the fans and the associations make money from Cricket when it comes to the fan base. There're multiple such games with fan base and they'll keep getting funds overtime I guess so they'll be there if they don't receive funds from big associations that basically make money from Football.

[Rockstarguy]

Small sports teams or non-profitable organizations need the support of the big sports clubs because most of the players in the big sports clubs started from small clubs. If they are being neglected, it will be difficult to discover your young stars.

The fact that these small teams are full of good talent means that small sports teams really need support, because this is where players that are described as legends and stars begin. Less profitable sports are more concerned with building talent and not really with generating money.

[Crypto Library]

But maybe some of the bigger teams will want to save money or just cut costs and abandon minor sports, in spite of making millions in the big sports. How would that make you feel? Is this something you care about?

If we talk from a personal feeling, then support should be given to every sport so that that sport remains alive, which can carry the tradition of a region.

However, in this current capitalist world, the ultimate last position ends with the intention of generating revenue for every club or company. So here we see many big clubs with limited budgets. Actually, no one has a hand in this. Maybe if we were the owners of that club or company, we would have done the same thing?

For example, despite Kabaddi being the national game of our country, most of the big clubs or franchises are involved in football and cricket, while the game that our tradition revolves around is slowly disappearing. I don't know who can actually fix this here, because companies don't want to invest because it's not that famous.

[Sandra_hakeem]

Small sports teams or non-profitable organizations need the support of the big sports clubs because most of the players in the big sports clubs started from small clubs. If they are being neglected, it will be difficult to discover your young stars.

You have already stated the obvious right there. They have been getting the ultimate support which is the transition of players. Scouters for these big sport teams move around, watch and recommend whoever is fit for the job in the professional levels. When the contract is signed, as sometimes in millions, isn't that enough support?

The fact that these small teams are full of good talent means that small sports teams really need support, because this is where players that are described as legends and stars begin.

This is not even what OP was trying to discuss. Sports in general doesn't refer to football alone.

Less profitable sports are more concerned with building talent and not really with generating money.

I'm sorry, what??