Tag: sport

Big sports data – how tech is changing the playing field

The internet of things is dramatically changing the world of sports

“When you’re playing, it’s all about the winning but when you retire you realise there’s a lot more to the game,” says former cricketer Adam Gilchrist.

Gilchrist was speaking at an event organised by software giant SAP ahead of a Cricket World Cup quarter final at the Melbourne Cricket Ground yesterday.

SAP were using their sponsorship of the event to demonstrate their big data analytics capabilities and how they are applied to sports and the internet of things.

Like most industries, the sports world is being radically affected by digitalisation as new technologies change everything from coaching and player welfare through to stadium management and fans’ experience.

Enhancing the fan experience

Two days earlier rival Melbourne stadium Etihad in the city’s Docklands district showed off their new connected ground where spectators will get hi-definition video and internet services through a partnership between Telstra and Cisco.

While Etihad’s demonstration was specifically about ‘fan experience’, the use of the internet of things and pervasive wireless access in a stadium can range from paperless ticketing to managing the food and drink franchises.

In the United States, the leader in rolling out connected stadiums, venues are increasingly rolling out beacon technologies allowing spectators to order deliveries to their seats and push special offers during the game.

While neither of the two major Melbourne stadiums offer beacon services at present, the Cisco devices around the Etihad have the facility to add Bluetooth capabilities when the ground managements decide to roll them out.

Looking after players

Probably the greatest impact of technology in sport is with player welfare; while coaches and clubs have been enthusiastic adopters of video and tracking technologies for two decades, the rate of change is accelerating as wearable devices are changing game day tactics and how injuries are managed.

One of the companies leading this has been Melbourne business Catapult Sports which has been placing tracking devices on Australian Rules football players and other codes for a decade.

For coaches this data has been a boon as it’s allowed staff to monitor on field performance and tightly manage players’ health and fitness.

Professional sports in general have been early adopters of new technologies as a small increase in performance can have immediate and lucrative benefits on the field. Over the last thirty years clubs have adopted the latest in video and data technology to help coaches and players.

As the technology develops this adoption is accelerating, administrators are looking at placing tracking devices within the balls, goals and boundary lines to give even more information about what’s happening on the field.

Managing the data flow

The challenge for sports organisations, as with every other industry, is in managing all the data being generated.

In sports managing that data has a number of unique imperatives; gamblers getting access to sensitive data, broadcast rights holders wanting access to game statistics and stadium managers gathering their own data all raise challenges for administrators.

There’s also the question of who owns the data; the players themselves have a claim to their own personal performance data and there could potentially be conflicts when a competitor transfers between clubs.

As the sports industry explores the limits of what they can do with data, the world is changing for players, coaches, administrators and supporters.

Gilchrist’s observation that there’s a lot more to professional sports than just what happens on the field is going to become even more true as data science assumes an even greater role in the management of teams, clubs and stadiums.

Paul travelled to Melbourne as a guest of Cisco and SAP.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

Fighting the content wars

Developing original, unique content that stands out from the crowd will be a challenge for many marketers in coming years.

I’m moderating keynote Q and A’s at the ADMA Global Forum today. One clear message from the international speakers’ presentations is how original, unique content is one the key planks of a modern media strategy.

“Content will be king” says McKinsey’s Joshua Goff, a thought echoed by Weiden and Kennedy’s Husani Oakley.

During one of the breakout sessions, the AFL’s Sam Walch explained the sporting code’s strategy of using content to retain supporters and expand the sport.

The fascinating thing about this content strategy is how organisations are having to deal with gathering unique, compelling material.

For many businesses, getting customers to contribute material makes sense. Josh Goff showed how some businesses, even in the B2B space, were using user generated content to get a buzz happening around their sites.

Others are commissioning their own work with the AFL employing nearly fifty journalists to provide content.

What’s particularly interesting about the AFL is how this threatens broadcasters and the print media business models which increasingly rely on ‘events’ like sports. This is something I might explore on the blog over the next few days.

In the afternoon ADMA session Michael Bayle, formerly of ESPN, described how much of that content will be accessed on mobile devices. Interestingly ESPN has the greater share of mobile visitors for US Sunday football despite not owning the broadcast rights. This is both an opportunity and challenge for rights holders, sporting organisations and media disruptors.

The key take away from this morning’s ADMA sessions though is that we are going to be drowning in content marketing over the next couple of years. The challenge for those businesses engaging in those wars is to make themselves heard over the noise.

Similar posts:

The Olympian quest for control

The control freakery of the Olympics marks an organisation struggling with threats.

“Blogs or tweets must be in a first-person, diary-type format and should not be in the role of a journalist,” state the International Olympic Committee’s social media guidelines.

The London Olympics Committee betrays how their ignorance of how the Internet works with an unrealistic and unenforceable linking policy.

More worryingly, an army of ‘brand police’ are scouring Britain for renegade cake decorators or knitting clubs breaching Olympic copyrights. Council trading inspectors have been redeployed from their main role of protecting the community to guarding the sponsorship values of the IOC and the world’s biggest corporations.

All of this is about control – a country that bids to host the Olympics agrees to draconian rules and regulations on free speech and commerce. Athletes too find themselves subject to harsh, and sometimes arbitrary, controls.

The purpose of these controls is to enhance the commercial value of sponsorships – this is why only McDonalds can serve fries, except with fish, at Olympic venues and only Visa credit cards can be used to buy a souvenir t-shirt.

Like all major sporting organizations, the value of Olympic rights exploded with the growth of advertising and broadcasting rights from the 1960s onwards.

We’ve reached the logical end of that growth as broadcasters struggle under the load of funding massive rights payments and advertisers find campaigns based on what worked in the 1960s or 1980s have less resonance with the debt addled consumers of the 2010s.

None of this will stop the IOC and other sports administrators from enacting iron fisted controls on participants, sponsors, spectators and any one else they can bully, but their power is waning.

Just like the Soviet Union tried to control fax machines as their economy crumbled around them, the same thing is happening with the Olympics and other big ticket sports.

Top level sports administrators are very good at currying favours from the corporate Bourbons and political princelings who love to spend other people’s money to build their own egos which will allow the facade to continue for a few more years.

Eventually though the money will run out as shareholders question the value of billion dollar sponsorships coupled with executive gold passes to the VIP marquee and taxpayers will ask why governments have money to spend on stadiums or elite sports programs when their local school, hospital and police stations are being closed.

History shows that threatened leaders tighten controls when they are threatened. We can expect the next couple of Olympics to have even more draconian rules than London’s.

Similar posts:

Are the Olympics a curse for the host city?

Do the Olympics damage the hosting country’s businesses and economy?

With just over two months until the start of the London Olympics, the inevitable cold feet about the wisdom of the project have started. Vanity Fair details the convoluted bidding process while Business Insider gives the 32 reasons why they think the 2012 Olympics will be a disaster.

Conventional wisdom is the Olympics leaves the host city – and often the nation – in a collective emotional, if not economic, depression.

In the case of Athens it may even be an economic depression, although it would be drawing a long bow to suggest the 2004 Olympics are responsible for the economic predicament Greece finds itself in today.

But is true that the Olympics are “cursed”? Or is the truth more complex than that?

For cities hosting the Olympics, the core problem is the size of the event with the 2012 games expecting 10,000 athletes from 182 countries in over 300 competitions. The Olympics are several orders of magnitude bigger than any other comparable sporting event such as the FIFA World Cup.

Given the size, it’s not surprising host cities suffer an Olympic hangover – there is no way any country, even China, can sustain the frantic hyperactivity a host city goes through in the years of preparation.

China is a good example of an economy that didn’t suffer after the Olympics and the event was more a proclamation that the country had arrived as a global power.

This is common with successful Olympics – Spain in 1992, South Korea in 1988, Japan in 1960 and arguably Australia in 1956 – were all turning points for those countries and the games announced their new position in the world.

Australia though is an interesting case with the two Olymipcs they have hosted,while the 1956 Olympics did change Melbourne, and Australia’s, self image the story is different for the 2000 Sydney event.

In the run up to the 2000 Olympics Sydneysiders, like myself, were sceptical. The city couldn’t run a decent railway for crying out loud, so how could we expect to run a decent Olympic games?

All the scepticism vanished on the weekend of 20th August, 2000 when the blue line marking the marathon route appeared across the city. It was as if a switch had been flipped; the few remaining doubters skipped town and everyone else had a party.

The optimism in Sydney and Australia at the end of the games was clear; the country could pull off the world’s biggest event and the opportunities were boundless.

But Sydney and Australia squibbed it – rather than building on the Olympic success and the preceding decade of reform, the nation looked inwards, decided to invest in new kitchens and today the country is more dependent on mineral exports than any time since the 1850s gold rush.

Much of the blame for this can be put on Australia’s political establishment, specifically two men – Prime Minister John Howard and NSW Premier Bob Carr.

Both men were, or are, very effective tactical politicians who were good at winning elections but were by no means visionaries or nation builders was not their thing. So the opportunities presented to Australia in the early 2000s were squandered on Carr’s short term opportunism and Howard building his middle class welfare state.

There’s no reason why there should be an Olympic curse, for some cities it’s a timing issue. For Athens the economic cycle was against them while politics damaged the Olympics of the 1970s and 80s.

On the other hand for cities like Seoul, Tokyo and Barcelona the Olympics were a coming of age for a growing country.

The challenge for Boris Johnson and David Cameron is to translate London’s Olympics into building Britain’s confidence. While the economic tide seems to be against them, much of their political legacy will be judged against on how well they do.

Similar posts:

Television rights and clouds

The challenge technology brings to information hoarders.

The Australian Federal Court today handed down their appeal decision in the latest twist in the Optus TV Now copyright case where the National Rugby League claimed the telco’s online recording service breaches the sporting body’s copyright.

Reversing their colleagues earlier decision, the judges found the TV Now service does breach the League’s copyright.

The Court’s reasoning is because the service plays a part in creating a recording the copies cannot be considered an individual’s personal copy to be watched at a later time – therefore they aren’t protected under the personal use provisions of the Copyright Act.

It’s going to be interesting to see where the line is drawn that a computer program or cloud service is infringing copyright.

Could be that copying a video of a football game to Dropbox, Google Drive or Evernote is a copyright breach by those services?

Perhaps online back up services like Carbonite or iCloud could infringe copyright as they automate the copying process?

Even if Optus doesn’t appeal the case to the Australian High Court, the decision will almost eventually tested there by someone else.

Many of the spokespeople – along with and their apologists in the sports and business media – have argued this is about the law falling behind technology.

The court covered this in paragraphs 18 to 25 of the judgement linked above and the judges are quite clear the law was written to be technology neutral.

Calls now to “reform” copyright law in light of the TV Now and AFACT – iiNet cases to “bring the law up to technology” are disingenuous.

While there’s no doubt legislation could be tweaked, there’s the real threat any “reforms” driven by the pleading of the copyright industries and their tame journalist friends will result in more restrictions and damage the take up of modern technologies.

One can’t blame the rights holders for trying to maximise their income, they have to feed the remorseless hungry beast that is modern professional sport – although one wishes they didn’t keep bleating “think of the children” to justify their actions.

We’ve previously seen how sports organisations have felt threatened by every new technology and the profits these new tools have delivered them.

The latest wave of change is no different, although the glory days of sports rights may be another symptom of a changing economy and 1980s thinking.

Hopefully the sports organisations and rights holders won’t be allowed to kill the potential of the these technologies before new business models are allowed to evolve.

Similar posts:

The death of sport

Sports groups have always felt threatened by new technology.

In the 1960s, sports administrators refused TV replays of games because it would affect their revenue.

Sports broadcasting rights were invented.

In the 1970s, sports administrators resisted live TV coverage of games because it would affect their revenue.

Sports broadcasting rights became lucrative.

In the 1980s, sports administrators claimed TV viewers using video recorders would affect their revenue.

Sports broadcasting rights became more lucrative.

In the 1990s, sports administrators worried cable and satellite TV would affect their revenue.

Sports broadcasting rights soared.

In the 2000s, sports administrators warned the Internet would affect their revenue.

Sports broadcasting rights soared further.

In 2012, sports administrators shout that cloud computing services will affect their revenue…….

Photo courtesy of mzacha on SXC.hu

Similar posts: