amateur sports / marketing

In the world of "amateur sports", the concepts and practices of marketing have become centrally important. In the discourse which is promoted by government bureaucrats, professional sport administrators and politicians, the voluntary sport organization is about much more than the development of athletes. Rather, it is about selling sport to potential and existing customers. This requires informing these individuals and collectivities about what is on offer and, in the process, articulating and shaping needs (Morgan, 1992), i.e. marketing the sport. In large part the increased interest in marketing has been the result of a reduction in state funding for amateur sport organizations which have had to turn to the private sector for the shortfalls they are experiencing (Slack & Berrett, 1996). The growth in importance of marketing is evidenced by the number of organizations that now employ in-house marketing personnel or hold contracts with external marketing agencies. It is also evidenced by the increased amount of corporate support given to sport (more than $3.5 billion per year in North America - albeit a significant proportion on professional sport), the growth of sport marketing as a sub-disciplinary area in sport studies, and the emergence of organizations such as the Sport Marketing Council in Canada and the Institute for Sport Sponsorship in the UK.

The marketing of a sport to increase participation is an intuitively appealing and logical function for a voluntary sport organization. It is also consistent with the directives of mainstream management gurus who see marketing as concerned with serving the interests of potential and actual consumers by satisfying their needs. The basic tenet, whether it being selling chocolate bars or sport, is that an increase in consumption leads to an increase in satisfaction. The basis of this premise is that an 'exchange relationship' takes place where, in our situation, the voluntary sport organization provides the opportunity for an individual to participate in the sport and then he or she, in turn, provides loyalty to the organization through competing for them, paying membership fees, being involved in social activities and so forth. The concept of an exchange relationship implies that each individual is free to select the option they want in a free and open marketplace. It does not take account of the fact that structures such as socioeconomic status, gender, race, and geographical location can constrain an individual's ability to respond to the marketing initiative. As Alvesson and Willmott (1996, p.120) suggest, it presents an image of common sense voluntarism, ignores the asymmetrical relations of power in [marketing] relationships, and "provides a deceptively simple easy-to- understand formulation of the complexities of human interaction and neglects to discuss how structures of domination and exploitation shape and mediate relationships".

While few would deny that it is the responsibility of those working in voluntary sport organisations to promote and publicise their sport and, that this can be to the benefit of both the organisation and the participant, an excessive emphasis on marketing presents an image of the young athlete and potential athlete as commodities. For some organizations, they may be merely another membership fee to be added to the coffers or another name on the membership list which can be used to justify the funding of the sport by government agencies and corporate sponsors.

The marketing image that is presented to young potential athletes and their parents is consistent with marketing other products and services in that it is about constructing myths. Involvement in sport is presented as healthful recreation and, more than often, as providing the potential to achieve fame through athletic success. Such images tend to downplay the negative aspects of the activity such as drugs, injuries, eating disorders, and so forth. Also, they frequently focus on the objective criteria of winning and the pleasure that comes from such success as opposed to the more subjective satisfaction that can come from the aesthetics of performance and competing against oneself. The negative effects of such marketing can also include the reinforcement of gender stereotypes, the promotion of conformity, and an over emphasis on competitiveness.

Such concerns do not, however, appear to daunt the sporting establishment who have embraced marketing as the remedy to many of their financial ills. Such an emphasis can, no doubt, brings its rewards, but the commodification of athletes which the marketing emphasis brings does, as I have shown, have its shortcomings. While there are a number of convincing arguments for the use of marketing as an integral part of the operation of voluntary sport organizations, it is incumbent on those of us involved in the social sciences and interested in studying phenomenon such as the commercialization of sport to not accept at face value the technological rationality and efficiency of such changes. Rather, it is important for sport sociologists to develop a critique of these practices.