When sports management or individual sportsmen accept sponsor resources, they constantly may be giving up on the business they are entitled to perform. Athletes who do accomplish in gaining sponsorship are beholden to stress from their sponsors which conflict with the athletes, managing bodies and nation’s best interests. Pressure to perform at high levels, round-the-clock media observation and the vast amounts of money at risk have added to the mental and sentimental toll. The cash-rich companies which do sponsor high relief sport at Olympic level tend both to back individual athletes rather than managing bodies and require corporate dedication of those athletes.
How much does funding affect the performance of individual sportsmen
Then there is also undue impact on the athlete. The sponsor has the rights to order him and determine the way the individual operates. Another dimension of influence happens when the need of a sponsor is more important than the dignity of the event itself. People are valued by the company they partner with. The individual is expected to be responsive to social concerns as well. Thus, they have to be concerned about co-working with a company that could damage them. A damage on the company is a damage on the individual. This creates more pressure on the individual. The athlete should not only be concerned about himself but also about the company. It goes the other way round also. There shouldn’t be any negative impact one either of the parties. Athletes will be expected to favor products, attend PR events and at all times manage and enhance the reputation of their sponsor. This should be hindering his performance on the field.
Another major concern is a rivalry. This leads to another sponsor banking on a conflicting individual. As far as the competition is healthy, there is no question, but if not it will end up nasty. There is competition among companies which in turn leads to competition among individuals. More companies would like to enter to capture the market, and it turns out to be a game for them. These are the levels at which funding can affect an individual.
Football, whilst probably not a sport eligible for public funding, is a classic example of where national coaches already have to mediate with clubs for player availability for friendly games (facing overlaying domestic seasons). At the same time, they also have to delay to sponsorship tours for cream advocacy and motivational speeches to company board members.
If money is received solely by athletes rather than managing bodies, all of a nation’s athletes do not prosper from the advanced facilities such as the sports center, available to the exclusive athletic team, that some athletes do. Funding focused on governing bodies could be used to organize these facilities for the use of youth and advancing squads rather than the very best simply being transmitted off to train only with those also sponsored by the companies. In team sports where team training time is already cut to a restricted window by club commitments, native terms, and athletes racing in different leagues around the world, the superiority of corporate funding course further strikes down the strength of Olympic teams to get trained together.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, the commercial backing of athletes is here to remain. There is no inference why athletes should not embrace sponsorship, they should exercise some care and think of the bigger picture before formalizing a compliance with a sponsor. There’s no denying it, the sporting world has never been so lit up and can never shy away from media attention now and sports personalities are bigger, brighter and way more branded with money angel deals than ever before.