The International Olympic Committee's plan to introduce golf and rugby sevens at the 2016 Olympics makes financial sense but the impact on younger audiences is far less certain. When the IOC launched its plan a few years back to take sports in and out of the Olympic program, the main aim was to give the Games a facelift as the average age of television viewers and spectators was steadily rising with younger fans moving away to other forms of sport and entertainment. Until 2005 no sport had ever been taken off the program since 1936, with more coming in to lift the total number at the world's biggest sporting event to 28. So when President Jacques Rogge announced in 2006 the number of core sports would drop to 26 for 2016 and 25 for 2020 with three spots up for grabs at every Games for new sports, the move was welcomed by federations around the world. Olympic inclusion automatically means more money for the sport from the IOC and state coffers, more global exposure and bigger broadcasting deals. In return the IOC can count on more lucrative deals themselves from sponsors and TV if they bring in a sport that carries extra financial weight. Target audience “We have no doubt that golf and rugby are very spectacular sports,” Rogge told Reuters in an interview on Friday. “There is no reason they would not participate in the trend – the augmentation by 20 percent of the TV ratings for the Games in general after Beijing – and in particular the major audience, this very crucial 12-24 age category, where we have seen a surge in audience after a slump of 10-14 years.” The IOC redistributes 92 percent of its marketing revenues that are estimated to top $5 billion for the 2010-2012 period, with broadcasting rights making up the lion's share of that. Golf certainly meets financial criteria, being arguably among the richest sports in the world, but is it also as popular among young people as karate or roller sports, two of the sports not shortlisted along with baseball, softball and squash? Some of the sports, who consider they have a bigger youth appeal than those selected, disagreed with the IOC choice. “I feel that it is a very negative message for those on the outside,” Karate international federation chief Antonio Espinos said after the shortlist was announced. “I don't see when on the horizon we might have this possibility. “I don't know how much more we can do, in terms of development of our sport, to convince the IOC,” he said of the sport which claims to have 100 million active athletes of all ages worldwide. Financial choice Sports marketing experts say the decision to shortlist golf and rugby makes financial sense. “I can understand the negativity that surrounds this decision,” Gareth Moore, International Sales Director at international research and consultancy firm Sport+Markt told Reuters. “But whilst rugby and golf have a stronger pull, they are also not fully global yet and can play a significant role in the uptake of these sports in new and emerging countries. “The commercial impact of the sports should not just be seen with negativity. “Ultimately, with the attraction of old and new target groups for these sports, they can help deliver strong revenues – revenues which the IOC can then redistribute to new emerging sports for the future,” said Moore. With the host of the 2016 Games still to be decided – Madrid, Tokyo, Chicago and Rio de Janeiro are bidding – and the 2014-2016 US broadcasting rights deal, which is the biggest IOC money-maker, still to be signed, the inclusion of these two sports should make the TV deal that much more lucrative. But whether the sports will add to a larger number of younger viewers remains to be seen.
