World Cup tournament structure is the key to its marketing, television and media clout

DURBAN, South Africa - With the final weekend of the 2010 FIFA World Cup now set with three days of lead-in hype having begun moments after Spain's 1-0 semifinal win over Germany here last night, it speaks to how the very structure of the tournament is among its greatest strengths.

Giving pace and flow to a month-long event is not an easy thing to do but that's exactly what the scheduling formula installed for 32 teams in 1998 does.

The first-round or Group stage allows the 32 qualifying nations three matches to prove their place among the top 16 teams in the world. Luck of the draw is the wild card of course and round-robin play theoretically tends to promote the good teams but as this year's World Cup has shown, it can also work as a great equalizer (single knockout would of course be a non-starter after two years of qualifying).

What the Group stage does is give the national soccer federations of the 32 countries involved their two-week payoff of massive television and media exposure for soccer. It also sets the stage for the storylines to come in the final two weeks.

The third week -- actually typically nine days -- spans two weekends and gives us the Round of 16 and quarter-finals. In that tight span, the media and fan focus narrows from the 32 countries of the Group stage to 16 to eight to four.

The fourth and final week is where it all comes together, of course, making the quarter-final round the big cut off. What makes losing in the quarter-finals such a bitter pill to swallow is how big a difference there is there between winning and losing. Losers go home. Winners advance to the final four, are guaranteed two matches and bask in the global media attention of the climax of the quadrennial tournament.

There's nothing like being World Cup champion; the winner truly gets the spoils. But there's also a sense of tidiness that comes from the ranking of #1 through #4 at the top of the chart of 32 qualifying nations.

It's the perfect Saturday-Sunday one-two punch ending to the world's greatest single sport event and it's part of what helps make it the television, media and marketing juggernaut it is.

www.TheSportMarket.biz
The Sport Market on TEAM 1040 and teamradio.ca
Saturdays 9 a.m. to 12 noon PT
Facebook.com/TheSportMarket and Twitter.com/TheSportMarket

Media criticism valid, but harsh judgements on Vancouver 2010 premature

There is no denying that mistakes have been made at the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games. Some big ones, too. Tragedy. Logistical problems. Breakdowns involving prototype ice resurfacing machines. Flawed -- and baffling -- planning around the outdoor Olympic cauldron.

Yet those visiting international media who waited only four days -- or less than a quarter of the 17-day event -- before slamming Vancouver 2010 with over-the-top hyperbole such as “Worst Games Ever” are either guilty of sticking their necks out way too far or irresponsible journalism.

Most professional journalists covering the business of sport editorialize in the right context and with proper background and comparative analysis. They don’t sensationalize.

Yet that's exactly what happened in the case of some foreign press headlines screaming about Vancouver 2010 -- after only the opening weekend -- in the most negative of terms.

The analogies are imperfect, but it’s akin to football reporters covering this year’s Super Bowl XLIV between New Orleans and Indianapolis using the first quarter results alone to declare the Saints performance the worst in Super Bowl history or those suggesting at the start of the second quarter of Super Bowl XXII that the Washington Redskins played a poor game against the Denver Broncos. History shows both the Saints and Redskins overcame 10-point deficits and were ultimately measured on the strength of their whole-game performance...as Super Bowl champions.

Even if some or even most of the international media criticism is valid, the hyperbole and "Worst Ever" tag is both unfair and inaccurate. But if the media criticism has been too harsh to be justified, the reaction of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Organizing Committee has been equally problematic -- especially on its handling of the outdoor cauldron issue, which has bordered on unfathomable.

VANOC would be doing itself a huge favour if only it acknowledged some of its mistakes and took the opportunity to remind everyone of its commitment to delivering a terrific Games for the athletes, paying customers and the international media and sponsors. It would likely gain more of the benefit of the doubt from the media if it did.

On the issue of the media reviews, the initial mistakes and disappointments can't be erased and their damage has been done...but let’s wait for the paint to dry on the canvas before fully judging the artwork.

Let American superstar snowboarder Shaun White and others do their extraordinary stuff. Let the natural environment of British Columbia speak for itself as a big plus of Vancouver as an Olympic host city. And let the biggest hockey tournament in our lifetimes -- played at the best hockey venue in the history of the Winter Games -- tell its story.

Those storylines should weigh in before any definitive judgements are applied to Vancouver 2010.

www.TheSportMarket.biz
The Sport Market on TEAM 1040 and teamradio.ca
Saturdays, 9 a.m. to 12 noon PT


For related video commentary click here.