Kevin Roberts on how the recession has helped sharpen the definition of what constitutes an Olympic sport.
Taken in isolation, the news that Domino's, the global pizza delivery brand, has just enjoyed its best ever sales figures in the UK, might raise little more than the briefest flicker of interest among the media and those with a passion for pepperoni.
Seen in a somewhat broader context however, it tends to confirm what economic and social observers have been saying ever since recession first bared its teeth. Staying In really is the new Going Out.
While generalising is always dangerous, the facts seem to suggest we’ve become more reluctant to spend on certain entertainment and leisure activities and that when we do, we’re trading down a little.
And while this may be bad news for restaurateurs, publicans and even cinema chains, it is clearly having a beneficial effect on some sectors, including home entertainment and specifically pay television.
When you can buy four months of top class live sport from around the globe, as well as recent movies and a world of other entertainment for less than the cost of taking a family of four to a single, second tier football match, cable and satellite TV subscription begins to look like the best bargain in around.
Certainly, the pay broadcasters seem to be confident that they can prosper in recession. That has to be why, in a competitive market, the English Premier League signed an enhanced deal with its domestic broadcasters.
Exclusive live sport is still the key lever of sales in the pay TV market and the last round of negotiations show that , even in recession, money can and will be found to buy the most commercially effective rights. All of which is great news for football, rugby and golf, three of the sports whose major properties look as though they will continue to attract significant rights investment.
So where does that leave the rest of sport? There has, always been a great divide between 'must-have' properties and those which had to pay or do creative deals just to get airtime. All the indications are that their situation is going to get more difficult and that the gap between the haves and have-nots will get bigger and bigger.
This is an issue which is sure to be on the minds of IOC members and other key members of the extended sports community when they meet in Denver this month’s for the Sportaccord convention. Among the topics for conversation is which sports may or may not be admitted (or re-admitted) to the Olympic Games programme in 2016.
Among the contenders is golf, a sport which enjoys massive television coverage and significant rights fee income.
Arguments over which sports should or should not be included in the Olympic Games take many and various forms. Among the most superficially compelling is whether achieving an Olympic Gold medal can realistically be considered the pinnacle of achievement in any given sport. The issue has always been whether, for example, a Wimbledon or US Open title in tennis means more than an Olympic Gold medal. If that’s the case, say the sceptics, the sport has no place in the Olympic Games.
These are arguments which can easily be directed at golf where winning a Major has always been viewed as the pinnacle for individuals and the Ryder Cup that for teams.
While these and other issues are likely to be bounced back and forth in meeting rooms and over the dining tables of Denver, in the current climate the financial argument may be more compelling.
Golf enjoys massive television exposure independently of the Olympic Games and receives significant rights revenue. Golf is both financially and culturally independent of the Olympic Games.
That said, Golf might well make a significant financial contribution to the games themselves. The prospect of Tiger Woods playing in the Olympics makes the Games a more attractive proposition to broadcasters and, logically, will likely have a positive impact on fees from major market broadcasters worldwide. But while this has to be a consideration, it cannot be the decisive factor.
It’s often said that the one thing which really defines the Olympic Games is that provide global media exposure for sports which would otherwise be more or less invisible except to devotees. Once again this is a sweeping generalisation but it is rooted in truth and the evidence is to be found in the balance sheets of many International Federations.
The share of Olympic revenues received by IFs can be the difference between solvency and bankruptcy. Even in less extreme cases, it makes a huge difference to IF's ability to fund and develop their sports around the world.
For those sports, like golf, which are likely to benefit from a recession-fuelled boom in home entertainment spending, the Olympic Games are a nice-to-have. For others, it is a matter of survival. These should be the issues which shape opinion among IOC members.
