Episode 5: Where Will Sport Be in 20 Years?

Podcast
Written By Lara Chan-Baker
OTM_episode_04.png

Dr Michael Linley and Nicolas Evans dig into where sport might be going and what’s taking it there.

Listen and subscribe on:
Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Overcast | Pocket Casts | RSS

Despite our ever-increasing ability to measure the world around us in minute detail, predicting the future with total accuracy is impossible. But that's not to say we can't identify plausible scenarios for which we should prepare. So how do we do that in sport and what do those scenarios look like?

To break things down, host Professor Sam Robertson is joined first by Dr Michael Linley. A Senior Research Fellow at Victoria University and Managing Director at international advisory firm, Brand Capital, he is a scenarios planning expert who has helped governments, sports organisations, banks and airlines to anticipate and plan for the unknown.

Next up, Sam speaks with Nicolas Evans, the Head of Football Research & Standards at none other than FIFA. During his decade-long tenure, Nicolas has been integral to leading the organisation in all facets of innovation and future preparedness, not only at the elite level, but at amateur and grassroots levels as well.

Together, Sam, Michael and Nicolas discuss how sporting organisations can remain relevant into the future, what's driving the progression of sport, and whether it's headed in a direction that we can be happy with.

Want to dive deeper into this episode? Start here:

Full Episode Transcript

05. Where Will Sport Be in 20 Years?

Intro

[00:00:00] Sam Robertson (Host): In the words of Nobel Laureate Niels Bohr, "Predictions are hard, especially when they're about the future". Despite our ever-increasing ability to measure the world around us in minute detail, this statement has never been true or than what it is right now. Just look at FiveThirtyEight and the recent US presidential election.

[00:00:16] With hundreds of sports competing for participants and global market share, there's massive pressure to remain not only contemporarily relevant, but also future-focused. But who is driving the progression of sport? And is it headed in a direction that we're happy with? As with many industries, in sport, the almighty dollar tends to call the shots. Revenue from broadcasters, sponsors and fans has traditionally had the greatest influence on this direction. But disruptors can now be found everywhere, from venture capitalists and technology startups, to new markets such as esports, and, of course, even global pandemics. 

[00:00:51] Sport is of course much more than just financial bottom lines or fans through the turnstiles, though. What draws many people to sport in the first place is a chance to be part of pushing the boundaries of human capabilities. So what does the future hold in this regard? Could it be that breaking down silos and furthering collaboration across sports holds part of the answer to reaching these new heights? 

[00:01:12] I'm Sam Robertson, and this is One Track Mind.

(Musical Interlude) 

Interview One - Dr Michael Linley

[00:01:21] Sam Robertson (Host): Hello and welcome to One Track Mind, a podcast about the real issues, forces and innovations shaping the future of sport. I'm your host, Sam Robertson, and today we ask: where will sport be in 20 years? 

[00:01:34] My first guest is Dr. Michael Linley. Michael is a senior research fellow at Victoria University and the Managing Director at the international advisory firm Brand Capital. He holds an MBA in international business and has pursued further specialisation in development futures and scenario planning at Oxford University. Michael has led consulting assignments globally on portfolio analysis, decoding intangible assets, as well as futures territories identification for governments, cities, banks, and even airlines. He's worked with and researched a variety of sporting organisations and events, including the FIFA World Cup, the Rugby World Cup and the Commonwealth Games. Michael, thank you for joining me on the show. 

[00:02:13] Michael Linley: Thank you,Sam! Good to be here! 

[00:02:15] Sam Robertson (Host): Great. You sound nice and enthusiastic and ready to talk, which is great. (laughter)  Let's start with futures,  that was a very common thread through your bio there and I wanted to start with this concept of future scenarios, which we're seeing a lot more in organisations now and including sporting organisations. Now, a large part of your work has focused on future scenarios, these exercises have grown in popularity in many fields recently, as a way for preparing for what lies ahead on both the distant and not so distant horizon. Just for our listeners, can you explain a little bit what future scenarios are and why they are so valuable? 

[00:02:50] Michael Linley: Absolutely, thanks Sam. It has grown and it's probably not surprising that given the pandemic and the disruption and this sort of seemingly sudden disruption we've seen, people are now saying, well, how could we have planned better? Could we have seen this coming? And now how do we respond? So there's a lot of discussion now around futures planning and scenarios. Succinctly, what scenario planning and scenarios is about, is an idea of building up credible and plausible pictures of what could emerge ahead, either in the near and the longer term, and then working out how do we plan for our position in that world. It's a little different from what people often associate with, which is sort of futures or forecasting, in the idea of we're trying to predict the future. We're not. What scenarios is, is exactly that, building up a set of credible, potential futures, and then understanding how do we fit in, how do we compete in that world, if that emerges? 

[00:03:48] As you work through the process of working out how those various futures might emerge, you can say, we need to invest here and start now. But it also allows you to identify what the signals are, that shows how those futures might be emerging. And so you can know, you don't have to predict the future, but what you can do is track it really, really carefully.

[00:04:09] Sam Robertson (Host): Thanks for that. It's a nice succinct description of it. I'm sure a lot of listeners have heard of them, but a lot of them probably haven't. I think it's important to talk about some of these external forces that might be impacting sport over the next couple of decades and how they might shape or how that might fit into a future scenarios exercise.

[00:04:26] But before we do that, I'm interested in just picking up a little bit about your own experiences, just as an anecdote, an example from your own work where future scenarios has worked really well for a business. And maybe it's too soon to say in some of your examples, but have you got any examples you might be able to share with us?

[00:04:41] Michael Linley: Absolutely. Look, there's some really good work being done. And, I guess, what we've seen is that as you go through the process, one of the things that scenario planning is talked about is sense-making, and so often leaders need to feel a pressure to either predict the future and go for that, or get stuck in the present. They don't get the critical set of options available to them to say, look we don't know, let's work on a range of outcomes.

[00:05:09] You're right. There are some really good examples of work a lot of people have done. Melbourne as a city has gone through what we call Melbourne 4.0, which is looking at the potential futures of where Melbourne is and the forces at play. And that's a really useful place to start when you're doing any exercise. I've done it with number of clients, whether it's cities - did it with Cape Town and with banks and the airlines - is looking at the forces at play, and quite often, people in industry are quite familiar with PESTEL analysis. So that's political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental analysis of what are the trends and the long-term forces at play. And people are quite familiar with those. But I guess what scenario planning does is take those and then says, what are the consequences of this as these play out? 

[00:05:57] One of the remarkable things I've found working with clients is that if you give them an exercise that says, look, go back 15 years and under each of the PESTEL categories, what has been the big shifts over the last 15 years? I've given this to clients all over the world and every time we do it, you step back, you know, putting them on a board, putting them on the wall, everyone steps back, and it's remarkable how many of them are not a surprise. That the world actually shifts in, not predictable ways, but at least we could have seen them coming had we been looking more carefully. 

[00:06:29] And so, an example is working with a bank, one of the things that we see is what we talk about as the gig economy. So we're seeing a lot more people having to work part-time or casualisation of roles, we saw zero contract hours, we're seeing contract work, freelancing, all on the rise. Now for a bank, if I'm lending against a rising housing market where mortgages are bigger, credit interest is low, so people are taking large amounts of debt on board, but we've also got much more uncertainty in employment structures, that's territory we haven't been in before. So the question is, credit models and the risk models for bank lending on mortgages is really built around have you been in your job multiple years, is it a large organisation, is it nice and stable? We're happy to lend to you. Where you're a risk, we either price you out or we push you off to someone else. But if that's a fundamental shift in society, we need to get better at pricing risk. We need to get better at pricing mortgage risk and understanding how to do that, and then helping people manage their contract work. So then emerging scenario for a bank around a large pool of their asset portfolio, around mortgage lending, is identifying a long-term trend in society, and then recognising what can we actually do about it today so that we're positioned as this emerges, and inherent risk emerges in the portfolio, we can actually plan ahead and get smarter and compete for. 

[00:07:58] Sam Robertson (Host): I wanted to pick up on something you mentioned then around the fact that people could have seen what was coming 15 years ago if they had have been looking more carefully. And I find that quite interesting because we've already spoken on the show this season about the notion of people not having time in their jobs to explore new ideas, or even think for that matter, and contemplate and reflect. And I think that might be something to do with what you're saying now, particularly in sport, but no doubt it's not unique to sport whatsoever. In order for these scenario exercises to work so well, it also strikes me that it's going to require multiple stakeholders involved. And again, if people are involved in roles that don't allow that contemplation or that reflection, then they need to work with people that do have that time, or maybe that's external people, I'm not sure, but have you got a comment on the types of personalities, and maybe not just the types of roles, but the types of characteristics of people that you need to involve in these scenarios exercises?

[00:08:52] Michael Linley: Absolutely. You're right, that quite often we don't carve off the time for it. When you have planning days, whether it's a board level or an executive level planning day, much of the work is done before you even get there. Often it's a rubber stamp of how are we going to grow new territories or new markets based on what we know already in the past, rather than really critically looking forward, because it's hard to accept that what we've done in the past might not work and whether that's a reflection of our own leadership. 

[00:09:25] So the first thing you need in terms of people you involve in this, firstly you need a broad range of people to bring diverse perspectives and knowledge into the room. The second one is you critically need people with a very open mindset so that they're okay to challenge their own territories, their own expertise, and say this may not be even relevant  five, ten years from now. If my skillset isn't relevant or the area that I'm working in isn't relevant, I'm okay with that. We need to recognise we need to shift. So there's a real sort of trust in the process, that it's okay to say my area may not exist, but that's okay because we're really trying to work out how the organisation is going to exist going forward.

[00:10:06] It's also very worthwhile bringing in external parties, so suppliers and other stakeholders, to say how they're seeing their own environment shifting as well, the pressures on them, because we often get caught up in our own bubble and we sing to the choir. 

[00:10:21] Sam Robertson (Host): Yeah and again, I said it earlier, I don't think that's unique to sport and it's part of the human experience and the workforce in so many industries, I think. 

[00:10:28] Michael Linley: I think it's even more likely in sport, only because we're so passionate. People go into sport, either played it or love it, irrationally so, and we love sport because of that passion in sport. Fewer people are possibly passionate about, I really couldn't mention a category because no matter which one I mention I'll be disparaging to someone's life work and passion, but whether it's logistics or whether it's paper supplies, as my daughter might reference from The Office. Sport, it lends itself to passion and layers of tradition and heritage that we inherit and therefore, perhaps even less likely to critically assess where we're at or want to think about the challenge that it might face, and that it may not be in the same shape 15 years from now. 

[00:11:14] Sam Robertson (Host): Yeah, that's a very good point. And that is, again, maybe a differentiating factor for sport to many industries. 

[00:11:19] Michael Linley: Certainly from the sports I've worked with, that is one of the real challenges, is that passion. Often also, for the smaller sports, as soon as you fall off the top tier, is the resourcing available. Large corporates, you can put together a team of 15, 20 people and say, right, we're going to carve off a working group for a month and we're going to do this and work on that and pull together the time resource. And if it required, as soon as you get down to smaller sports, the availability of resources and people is very light on. 

[00:11:48]Sam Robertson (Host): It requires people obviously, but given its relatively low level of investment and resourcing compared to some things that organisations in sport chase, does that make it almost even more important for smaller and emerging sports to actually take that up?

[00:12:01] Michael Linley: It does because they've got less capacity to shift later. I mean, the usual thing we see, whether it's in banks or large corporates, is you can always sort buy your way out of trouble. You see Google and Apple acquiring other companies that come up with clever startup ideas that they didn't think of and say, well that looks quite good, we'll just buy the company. The smaller you are, you can't afford to make too many mistakes. You can't afford to get it too badly wrong, because there's less headroom for recovery. So they need to have a very good sense of what's emerging. And for them, quite a lot of the resourcing comes from the network. So working with suppliers and media partners and other stakeholders to try and bring that broad breadth and resourcing into this process. And it doesn't need to be onerous, but it does need to be rigorous. Perhaps that's a good distinction between the two. 

[00:12:52] Sam Robertson (Host): I just want to shift focus a little bit onto sport itself and some of the external forces that are undoubtedly going to be shaping sport in the future. You speak to people working in and around sport and there's some things that are very easy to predict in the short and maybe even the longer term future, for example, like the types of technology we might be using, but those external forces are another matter altogether. And you mentioned earlier on some of the things that have happened in 2020 and how they probably weren't foreshadowed or they weren't foreshadowed well, and they certainly weren't planned for particularly well either. Even prior to that, there was obviously a growing recognition of the impact of global warming, for example, and climate change from sporting organisations and sustainable habits and things like this. Do you have a view from your work and your experience on which external forces are going to most impact sport over the next couple of decades? In addition to, of course, the things we've already mentioned. 

[00:13:43] Michael Linley: Yeah, there are obviously some critical forces already at play.  A really good example of where we can look at the current state and we're not trying to predict the future because some of the factors are already known, so things like, the next generation of elite sport athletes have been born either today or in the last two, three years. 20 years from now, they'll be in their 20 to 25 year-old range. So if we look at the world they're being born into, and the influences that are happening on them in their youth, we have a much better idea of how they might emerge in an elite sport world. 

[00:14:15] I guess two of the structural shifts that are happening now is, one, we're seeing lower birth rates, particularly in the Western market, so aging population. So the idea that there's going to be this infinitely growing either fan base or participation base, 20 years from now, just isn't true. There's going to be more of a fight over fewer people for youth participation in sport - that's without the structural decline that we've already seen over the last 10, 15 years of participation in sport amongst school-aged children already. 

[00:14:48] Sam Robertson (Host): And consumers presumably, as well. 

[00:14:50] Michael Linley: And consumers, of course, because one of the great drivers of consumption of sport is 'I have played it at whatever amateur level, backyard through to some club grade level', is your affection for and association with that sport is bound into that. The fewer people playing structured sport, the fewer bolted on, locked in fans there are going to be. The less time you're then on media and awareness, again, that falls down. So there's some structural shifts already underway and it's not about predicting the future, we can look at the cohort being born today and saying what's the world they're growing up in and make some good assumptions about that going forward. 

[00:15:27] Even things like the pandemic, whilst it's been incredibly disruptive, we shut down a global travel industry, a scenario planning process would have looked at that, not from a pandemic perspective - although, I know that Austrade identified a pandemic as one of the risks to Australian trading seven or eight years ago, so they've looked forward, they headed on a sort of a high impact, low plausibility scale, or low likelihood scale - but if we'd looked at disruption of travel from a global warming perspective and saying, there's a movement already on saying let's not fly, let's only take trains. Now that tends to be European-based, Eurocentric, because they have a great train network and less requirement to fly. Australia's a little bit more isolated than that. You tend to have to get on a plane to go anywhere, even within the country. But if we'd taken that idea of saying, okay, so if there's a restriction on travel, not from the pandemic perspective, but from an environmental perspective and global warming impact perspective, we would have said, plausibly, well how do we cope in a low travel environment? How do we reshape our sport to be able to cope with that? Now we just take that same outcome and apply it under a pandemic. The cause of it we might've got wrong, but the planning of the scenario still plays out. 

[00:16:40] So that's where scenarios can be incredibly useful, because we might not pick exactly the reason why, but we have planned our response to the same outcome emerging. So, lower rates of participation in sport is going to continue in terms of structured sport, because we see the casualisation, pay to play has continued to rise. A generational shift will happen in the next 20 years is unlikely given the fact that we've continued to try to shift that dial back up again and it hasn't happened. We've got lower birth rates, we're going to have a smaller population and an ageing population. So the idea that we're going to grow large population basis whilst we're going to have fragmentation of sports across a whole series of different sports in the population range, we're going to have an incredibly tough fight for both participation and consumption of sport going forward amongst an ageing population.

[00:17:30] Sam Robertson (Host): Yeah and you talked a little bit earlier about the smaller organisations or the smallest sports having to be a little bit more resourceful and maybe even innovative to make sure they do compete. But I think that also relates to revenue, doesn't it?  The viability of many sports, in fact most sports, is well and truly tied to revenue. Obviously traditionally that's come from some of the things you mentioned then, not only things relating to fans like media broadcasts, ticket sales to matches, merchandise, partnerships, sponsorships as well. But of course that's changing as well and it's going to need to change for some of the reasons that you just mentioned then. We're seeing organisations now develop their own technology, invest into startups, even venture into esports, for example. What do you see as next? So these are main areas you see as driving revenue for the sports industry or are there other things that you're seeing in your work now that are also going to help to, particularly these smaller sports, be more viable or at least sustain themselves?

[00:18:21] Michael Linley: The revenue pathway for sports, and particularly the smaller sports, is going to be tough to navigate. But what we've got is, potentially, a more viable option for them. So if we step back and sort of look at the larger media landscape, the overall driver of media evaluations for sports has really been reach, so eyeballs on it. If we switch to a world where effective media buying is the preeminence or currency, which is I'll pay more provided my media message gets to the right person at the right time, then we start to get to a point where small sports can compete. So the things that might underpin a world that looks like that are over the top broadcasting, almost using the term narrow casting, which is we're really targeting an audience of one.

[00:19:10] So rather than using TV rights, whether there's a general 'we're buying volume of eyeballs and attention span over a period of time', what we want to know is as much as we know about that person as possible, and we know that through over the top broadcasting. Whether it's through social media, whether it's through the likes of Stan Sport, or whether it's through platforms like Amazon, Google, et cetera, if we can know who's at the other end of this more accurately then we can do a number of things. We can obviously create a tribe, no matter where they're located, to consume the sport. So our reach becomes not geographic, but tribal. We know more about them, but also we can start to target, programmatically, our messaging. So, the thing that we would really love to do is to be able to target the messaging to you. So if you're 15 years old and you're watching the same game as a 45-year-old, ideally we should have completely different ads sliced in there. And we can do that through over the top. What we'd want is a market where we can dynamically serve, but also price, different messages to different audiences.

[00:20:18] Now that exists in digital marketing - programmatic buying of content and serving of that to the audience, that platform now already exists. So what we're seeing is that likely that we, through over the top, be able to see that roll into broadcast media. Absolutely. This is one of the things where we look at the technology, the emergence, it's that William Gibson quote, the author, who said "The future's already here, it's just not evenly distributed". And so if we look around for where those clues are, things like if we look at a falling birth rate, if we look at disruptions to travel patterns. If we look at programmatic buying already exists in digital online content how do we get it into broadcast? And can we do that on a region by region, down to individual, down to if you're a Cubs fan versus a Detroit Tigers fan watching the same game, do I get different ads depending on the outcome of a foul ball or a third strike at the bottom of the seventh? Now, if you're a Cubs fan you might be elated, if you're a Tigers fan you might be disappointed, and I'm going to serve you slightly different, emotionally resonant advertisements and messages based on your emotional state, because I know which side of the game you're watching. That kind of programmatic buying increases the effectiveness of those campaigns and ultimately that's what the sponsors and the media companies are going to need to offer in terms of return for the advertisers. If they can offer that, then they've got a much more compelling proposition. And what that does is it then says, now we've got hockey, rugby lacrosse starting to compete on an effectiveness of messaging rather than sheerly eyeball competition.

[00:21:54] So, on one half of the scale we've got this incredibly likely outcome, which is so much more of the revenue, so much more of the attention gets skewed towards the top end, the tier one sports, the tier one competitions drag all the attention and there's very little left over. An undercurrent under that says, actually we can disrupt that and provided we identify our tribe and we're really good at connecting with them and serving the right content to the right people, we could sell our soul, not on sheer volume, but on effectiveness. Of our connections with our audiences. And if you do that, we might have a viable chance. 

[00:22:31] Sam Robertson (Host): I think that's fairly optimistic, that probably is the right word, for the smaller sports in particular. That it's something that they can control a little bit, that people aren't getting this perfectly right around the place. And if they bring in the right people to work with them, that it is something they can actually see some gains from. I liked how you talked about the tribe there as well, rather than the geographical location. I think if you'd look at the big sporting organisations and brands for that matter, globally, they do get that right, don't they already? They do get people to associate and feel as part of their tribe, irrespective of where they are on the globe. 

[00:23:02] Michael Linley: Absolutely. And I think that that's something, two other things we're seeing. So I love the fact you mentioned brand in there. I think what we're going to see is potentially more of the larger sports brands taking on, I guess, expanding the footprint. In the same way we see Marvel's cinematic universe, I think we might see the Manchester United universe expand. We've seen efforts at that. I think the Melbourne Football Club tried to tie it with the Melbourne Vixens some time back, to produce one sort of sporting umbrella, but I think we've seen some early days, the City Football Group.

[00:23:36] Sam Robertson (Host): Yeah. That's what comes to mind, isn't it? 

[00:23:38] Michael Linley: It's the one that comes to mind. And so this is exactly where that quote around the future is not evenly distributed but it is there, those signals looking at the things from a scenario lens and saying, is this likely, has it been tried, how can we learn from that, is exactly where we start to scope and start to look for, okay, if I was now a hockey club in Europe, who might I think about aligning myself with? Can I align myself with, perhaps if I was Dutch, you know, Ajax, or whether I might align myself with Bayern Munich if I was in Germany? And start to say actually does our future lie in tying up with premier clubs in football and NFL with baseball and start to try and build those associations, rather than trying to live as an independent club, and leverage the brand equity that they've got and the fan bases they've already got and tap into that. We've seen it with esports.

[00:24:29] We expect that that will continue because it's incredibly hard to build a brand from scratch, it's incredibly hard to maintain the resonance of your brand as the market fragments more. So what Marvel have done,  and we see this across the last sort of 15, 20 years of cinema, which is we've ended up, I think we're on remake number four or five of Spider-Man now. Why? Because it's so much easier to do a remake of an existing entity that people already have a backstory to and know about than start from scratch. So building a new brand is a hard yard. 

[00:25:01] There are players out there that you need to watch, however. So Red Bull do a great job of building their own properties. They say, I could spend X amount on sponsoring a sporting event, or I could build my own properties from scratch and take on board athletes to showcase our property. So again, it's not a single scenario of, oh it's all going this way down the media pathway and our sponsorship is going to come from here. It might be that companies like Red Bull or a fashion company or Vans don't sponsor anything, they do their own thing. They build from scratch and do their own events from scratch and that they build and dispose them depending on the mood of the audience that are their target group. So they can continue to roll a portfolio of events over time and refresh that events portfolio in a way that Olympic Games and Commonwealth Games can't possibly hope to mimic. 

[00:25:52] Sam Robertson (Host): Well, I wasn't sure we'd get a Spiderman reference in today's conversation, but you've managed to do that so thank you. Dr. Michael Linley, thank you so much for joining me on the show today. It's been a pleasure. 

[00:26:02] Michael Linley: Thank you, Sam. Appreciate the time.

(Musical Interlude) 

Interview Two - Nicolas Evans

[00:26:06] Sam Robertson (Host): Now for the perspective of someone deep in the trenches of sport day in, day out. Our next guest is Nicolas Evans. Nicolas is the Head of Football Research and Standards at FIFA, which is of course the governing body of the largest organised sport in the world, association football. 

[00:26:23] With two master's degrees under his belt, Nicolas has been on a long journey to bring both scientific concepts and an understanding of complex systems into the world of sport. FIFA are well-known for being leaders in sports innovation and Nicolas has played a key role in that during his tenure. A few recent examples include the successful testing and application of goal line technology, VAR, and multiple match analysis technologies, which are now being used across a number of competitions globally, including of course the FIFA Men's and Women's World Cups. 

[00:26:53] For all these reasons and more, it's a pleasure to have him here with us. Nicolas, thank you so much for taking the time. 

[00:26:58] Nicolas Evans: Thanks, pleasure being here. 

[00:26:59] Sam Robertson (Host): To start things off, I'd just like to talk a little bit about our title question, which is of course what sport looks like in 20 years. I think it's fairly apparent that most industries will be unrecognisable in 20 years from what they are now and that'll be for a variety of reasons. What is so unique or special about sport, in particular about football? 

[00:27:17] Nicolas Evans: I think sport is obviously ingrained in society, right? So it's a truly global phenomenon and I'd argue that it's part of people's identity. So I'm not particularly worried that it will sort of disappear or become unrecognisable. I'd actually go as far as saying in the specific case of football, if we think back 20 years, in the actual mechanics of how the game is played and how the rules are I don't think it's changed too much. And that's something that I hope in 20 years time, my kids, grandkids can just go to the park, throw their jumpers down and have a game of football as we know it today.

[00:27:50] But having said that, I think that football as a sort of extreme example of the sport, that has a massively global nature, which just means has a generally slower speed of evolution, just by the time it's reached all the ends of the world, all the corners of the world, the spread takes a longer time. That also means that I don't think we'll see as dramatic changes as sort of in technology where we're talking 12 to 18 months for a new evolution. So I think that football will be a lot slower in that, just also trying to get new technology, new rules, new concepts out to all the stakeholders takes time. Still today, there is a bit of a problem and really implementing this down to grassroots levels. I mean, don't forget we have several hundred million participants in our sport.

[00:28:38] The other point that I clearly want to make is that there is no crisis or there's no sort of fundamental need to change football and the same is true for many other sports. I think there's a strength in the heritage of association football, in the 17 laws that are still today guiding the game, date back to the mid-19th century and they've been closely protected.

[00:28:59] So I think, yes, evolution and change will inevitably happen, but will follow a sound assessment. It will be need-based, then it will also follow the flow of the society's change. So the special part to really address that, I think, is that people want sports to be part of their identity and they want to be able to shape it. So I think the difference to a lot of technologies is that it's not necessarily a manufacturer- or industry-led process that will determine what our cars will look like in 20 years. But there is this inherent conservativism that people would like to hang on to their beloved sport. And that that will have an impact on how it changes. 

[00:29:36] Sam Robertson (Host): You mentioned a little bit around the speed in which football does or does not adopt certain technologies there, and I know that you in your role, you get to see a lot of different sports. Do you feel, and again, I don't want you to necessarily point out different sports for being good or bad or indifferent here, but do you think football actually is that much slower than many other sports out there in terms of rolling this out?

[00:29:56] Nicolas Evans: I think that there's probably a difference in that with FIFA we're really looking at the entire footballing world. So we're looking at stakeholders, that's elite competitions, semi-elite, amateur, and then really grassroots. I think there's a careful assessment every time a change is made to make sure we don't disconnect the higher levels from the lower ones. So I think when we look at technologies that get brought in, they shouldn't fundamentally change the game, the way it's played, between the elite level and the lower level. Yes, I do believe that the sort of product that will be offered at an elite level might be a different one in terms of the means that we have to consume it, the means that we have as a fan to look at it and things like, you know, data that we're going to get from it. But I think the core game is going to stay understandable to the fan. 

[00:30:44] The difference with lots of other sports is just simply that there's a smaller number of stakeholders to deal with, either geographically, or let's say, as a closed league. If we look at the North American models, there's a much smaller set of stakeholders that you need to look at, so also a very different type of buy-in to get from it. So for me, it's by no means a negative, because one of the charms I think of football is this idea that I can go from a non-league, 8th-tier player to the World Cup in a matter of months or years, and I think that's something that we would never want to lose by creating a virtual glass ceiling between  the amateur and elite level. So it's just different models than some of the other sports that aren't as global. And therefore, for me, that pace is something somewhat intentional as well. 

[00:31:29] Sam Robertson (Host): You mentioned the breadth and the depth of participation in football, particularly and certainly globally, compared to most sports - moving from the future, coming right back into the short term now, the 2020 global pandemic has obviously created a lot of pressures for probably every organised sport on the planet. Now, you've been at FIFA for over a decade now, and no doubt you've also seen a lot of change over that time. What are some of the specific initiatives that FIFA are rolling out, or are planning to roll out, to ensure they're prepared for another pandemic or some other adverse event over the next couple of decades?

[00:32:01] Nicolas Evans: Let's not hope for another pandemic. Of course, I think we, first of all, have realised that virtually all stakeholders have been affected by this. This might have been a realisation that not too many had before. I think that there was a sense, or still is, that a lot of sports may be crisis resistant and this probably sort of drew things to a hold no one was expecting in this magnitude.

[00:32:23] What it has allowed us to do is potentially decelerate some of the discussions, maybe focus on actually understanding the basics and actually surviving rather than just striving for growth and change. So I think there can be a positive for me. It has helped  emphasise some of the initiatives that are in place anyway. I think you can probably best summarise it sort of as professionalising different aspects of the game. And that's not in any way a negative connotation, but really just to sort of apply sound principles and really tools that are available to develop the game. And I think there there's probably different areas.

[00:32:58] One is just simply institutionally recognising that there's a multitude of stakeholders. So we are in this complex environment. Now it's not just an organization that top-down decides how something is, but we have a very congested match calendar, which is true for many sports, which is becoming the biggest challenge. So you need to onboard a lot of the other professional football stakeholders, media, etc. We're on a sound financial base in football at FIFA and I think there are some meaningful development objectives here that this can be operationally brought forward. So I think from an institutional perspective, the change is well possible, and then leaping a bit more into the technical area where we work on, I think there's four specific areas that I can give a concrete example. 

[00:33:40] First and foremost, we're building a data ecosystem that we believe will be able to cope with a lot of these modern developments. So things like standardised formats that we can exchange player data that anyone who wants to, down to the amateur level, find out how far they've run in a game, that we can offer open standards, algorithms, that make that tech easier to get to. 

[00:34:05] Second point with that is that there's been a global development for the last six years to create what we call the 'FIFA Connect ID'. So this is really a harmonisation of player registration, but essentially means that you can relate any data that is collected for a player back to him or her, make that data available to the player. Creating a digital identifier, and that's probably the right word, that will allow the player to access data in their current source rather than having it dissipated. 

[00:34:33] The other two are probably what we'd call the democratisation efforts. So we're actually trying to really use the likes of artificial intelligence to try and bring down the cost and make this type of technology available to as many different stakeholders as possible. You know, talking amateur, maybe even grassroots. And, last but not least, is then the fan engagement side of things. How do we make the spectacle more interesting or how does data help the fan to better read the game? And I guess all of that, if you want to, as an individual pillar, could then be complemented by the whole fact that education is clearly something that's being pushed, lots of programs that are being put in place or that are already in place. And that includes referees, that includes coaches, players, but increasingly as well, the fans. So I know it might sound weird, but I'll come back to my term of professionalisation on all levels, even down to the fans. We're just trying to make sure that we can have a conversation that goes beyond the speculative basics and actually trying to bring in some of these insights at all levels of the games. And I believe that institutionally, and now technically as well, we're well set to do that. 

[00:35:39] Sam Robertson (Host): I was going to ask you a question on how you view, or how FIFA views itself, in terms of thought leadership on certain issues in sport, and obviously in particular football, but also in terms of technology uptake and new initiatives. And I think you've probably somewhat answered it in your response there, but is that how FIFA does see itself? Does it see itself as really leading the way in terms of sports? And if it does, how does it intend to keep itself at the forefront of that? Is it through collaboration with partners and other industries? I know they're very active in that space. 

[00:36:09] Nicolas Evans: FIFA is fortunate to be in a position that allows it to have such thought leadership or to choose to be such thought leadership. I think that's the big difference, that there are resources available, human resources, for one to actually engage in this type of conversation. So that's a massive privilege compared to a lot of other sports that don't have the luxury. So I think that's where I start off and saying then if you have this possibility, then it's a question of wanting to take it. And yes, I believe, as I just mentioned, this whole idea of education and thought leadership is one that we take very seriously and that we'd like to push forward.

[00:36:44] I think the core idea in a way is protectionist, to make sure, look, the game should stay what it is and we would like to be in charge of the narrative. For that we do need to make sure we don't miss fundamental changes. So that's just societal changes. You know, if people want to consume the game through different channels rather than typical television that we're aware of it. When teams were asking to use more and more wearables and collect this data, rather than ignore the problem and be a barrier to innovation it was about how we embrace it.

[00:37:13] And I think there is, for sure, a lot still to be done in how you can bring in this factual and data-driven decision-making, again, as part of the professionalisation at all levels, and then just transparent exchange. I think that's also something that, as you've mentioned, it needs to happen with industry. What products are out there that can genuinely help make the game better? At the same time we need academics, we need research institutes and test institutes that can check and balance it a bit and say, look, this actually isn't as good as you think it is, or technology is a lot further so you should actually be doing something else.

[00:37:48] So I think it's for us always this golden triangle of football stakeholders, industry, and research that should help move this forward in a checked and balanced way, while keeping the interests of football and the needs of the football industry and players at heart. 

[00:38:04]Sam Robertson (Host): Turning our attention back to the  question on hand,  around the next couple of decades, it seems from listening to you speak about the last couple of questions in particular, it's at least part of your mandate to really entrench scientific principles into the game of football. And outside looking in to FIFA, it looks like in particular, you've been successful at that with sports science, sports engineering, and obviously we've spoken about sports technology quite heavily already today. What do you see the skill sets that FIFA will, and indeed other sporting organisations, will need for future staff?

[00:38:34] Nicolas Evans: I think that the key word in this sense is specialisation. So, of course in a technological area, we're talking about things like data science or science. I think the same is true for pitch management, agronomists, architects working around stadiums, nutritionists. I think that there's not a single area of sport where specialisation isn't necessary. 

[00:38:54] For me the two core aspects that I would look at, the one I'd call, sort of advanced basics. You know, when I was applying for jobs 20 odd years ago, you put on your CV that I have Microsoft skills, I can do Excel, I can do Word. I don't think that's really up to date anymore, but you just need a lot more advanced basics. I think in technological suites, in terms of a lot of these tools, understanding social media. I'm not saying you have to be able to manage a Twitter account or something like that, but I think just understand the bigger context. 

[00:39:22] And then more importantly, as I say, the specialist knowledge. I would almost argue it doesn't particularly matter what the knowledge is. The very, very important part that shouldn't be missed is that that needs to be married with an understanding of the sports industry. So if you don't understand how a football player needs to train and prepare for a game, you can be the best data scientist, nutriologist, physical preparator, but you're not going to get the player to where he needs to be. So I think it's really this, the biggest challenge that we're going to see is to bring in specialists and to soften them up, if you like, to better understand the game or to take people who are in the game and to toughen them up in tech terms.

[00:40:01] So I don't think there is actually one simple way of answering that question, but it is really, we need to make sure that the specialist disciplines that are out there can best possibly be applied to sports and football, as you will very well know, just has a very different functioning logic and you can't just take one-to-one data scientists from a bank and put them in a football club and expect immediate results without that context being taken into consideration.

[00:40:27] So a lot of education efforts in this space will also exactly need to concentrate on what is it that makes the sports industry special? And how do you as a specialist make your specialty work in an environment that isn't necessarily yet very adept at listening to you? 

[00:40:46] Sam Robertson (Host): Yeah, I wonder whether that's a real challenge for sport. I certainly know it is in academia. For instance, the longer you go in your career, the more of a generalist you become. And I'd imagine that you've probably experienced that yourself in your career as well. So it's a real quandary in how those skillsets are retained and valued and still useful for someone as they go through their career. And obviously a lot of individuals start in a specialisation and go into management roles, but yeah, I think maybe that's something that's more of a comment about the sport rather than the career journey of people. 

[00:41:15] Nicolas Evans: Agreed. And I think for me, the question that you're trying to assess, of course things like data science, sports science, will inevitably become much more prevalent. And I think, you know, you're not going to be an assistant coach, first, second, third, without a better understanding of these data concepts. I think we're obviously going to see a more holistic approach to things like player training, I think that the player will get more involved. The point I'm just trying to make is that as a generalist, I don't think you will cut it if you start and come in, being a qualification of I was a former player or a former athlete in itself is not going to be sufficiently enough of a qualifier to get you into that position. On the other hand, just the important distinction at this stage is someone who's just purely a specialist and a very good specialist from an Ivy League university, in itself is not going to have an impact until they understand the context they work in.

[00:42:06] So yes, of course, I think it's clear that a lot of the career paths are going to be a lot more data-centric, but that's more in a sense that anything could be quantified. I think we have this discussion that eventually it will be good if we can actually get things like metabolic power or your player's power and a lot goes into that. Again, I've mentioned nutrition, sleep measurement, all of these elements. So I think in any field that you're going in, the whole idea of quantification, of being able to make sense of context, is going to be more important. But yes, for sure, I believe that the digital skills and data skills is something that will be on the rise, not as a negative, not as a threat, but that you can actually get insights even at a much lower level. And probably grassroots is a step too far, but who knows even there if you have the simple softwares that can sort of help you with formations and go forward, if you can have a simple video that allows you to look at the game. So I think there's a lot to be gained, a lot of rewards, from having this sort of technical skillset come through in the future.

[00:43:07] Sam Robertson (Host): I absolutely agree and I do spare a thought for these specialisations like biomechanics and skill acquisition that really haven't established themselves in almost any sport anymore, because, quite frankly, purely and simply there isn't a wage bill that can probably afford them. So I do spare a thought for them.

[00:43:24] Nicolas Evans: I do agree and I think obviously the biomechanists, the medical side is critical.  I think what a lot of people are trying to do, and you will never be able to replace the original, is that you're trying to find much easier proxies for it. So if I have an accelerometer in my iPhone today, or in my Android phone for that matter, I might already be getting some data that could help me without needing to go onto a force plate. Now, again, in my role as Head of Research, I'm not advocating that we skip any steps, but I think, again, it's this holistic view to say that probably the individual granularity of each data point becomes slightly less important if I have the bigger picture connected. So I think that yes, of course, there will always be a place, and especially at the elite level and in training and looking at injuries there will always be a need for that. But I do believe that there is probably, as I say, a slight vulgarisation of the data itself, as you get more and more a complete picture, the actual data point in itself becomes less critical. 

[00:44:23] Sam Robertson (Host): Nicolas, to wrap things up, what do you foresee as the key difference between sport today and sport in 20 years time? I mean, we've talked a lot about technology and skill sets of individuals, and the surge of data, which is not necessarily a sports-specific phenomenon, but what are the other differences or the key differences that we haven't touched on today that you might see in a couple of decades time? 

[00:44:43] Nicolas Evans: Yeah, I mean that's the crystal ball that we're all looking for. I think that the fundamental part of the sport itself, so how the activity happens, shouldn't particularly change. I think we will see at the elite level, as I say, more of a productisation, or they will become more distinct products that are probably really more geared towards an audience without really using the word entertainment. But I do think that a lot of this connected data will be used for a way to give people insights. 

[00:45:11] I think we've seen over the last 10 years, to take the football example, a normal evolution. Like, you know, a goalkeeper is becoming more of a team player rather than just being the guy at the back who stops the balls. And I think you will have evolutions like that in sport that you'll be able because of simpler access to technology, because just simply of evolution and players' own understanding of their wellbeing and training, that they will want to push their own limits. I think you will see the same specialisation and professionalisation on the pitch.

[00:45:41] So I think that will be less of this casual or things left down to chance. And therefore, I believe that, well, it's not going to be more predictable, I just think there will be less random surprises than we have today - at the elite level. I think at grassroots level, if anything, the participation will depend on the almost fun or entertainment factor. So again, we're obviously talking about competing with esports and gaming and these types of things. So as long as you can adjust the formats on the grassroots level, and I think football is a nice example where you can just literally go onto the street, kick a ball around, whether you play on one goal or two, I think you're always going to be flexible. 

[00:46:22] So I think a lot of sports that might require heavy infrastructure or that need a lot of buy-in, they are potentially going struggle. Or if you need to get 36 players together just to play a match, that's going to be harder. So I think as a pastime and social phenomenon, you're probably going to see these smaller groups or smaller sided games evolve just from a perspective of time and practicality.

[00:46:46] But I do think that, again, the key change that we'll see will just be there's going to be an education of all parties, including the spectators, and that will probably, while not take away the banter and the pub talk, probably take that to a level that's more informed. 

[00:47:02] Sam Robertson (Host): Yeah, I couldn't agree more and  you talked about the simplicity of football there, and I think basketball is a similar sport in that respect that it can be just done about anywhere on the street and I think that's one of its great properties. On that note, that's all we have time for. Thanks once again for joining me, Nicolas, it was a pleasure speaking to you. 

[00:47:18] Nicolas Evans: Same here, thank you very much.

(Musical Interlude) 

Final Thoughts

[00:47:26] Sam Robertson (Host): And now some final thoughts from me on today's question. Predicting the future with total accuracy is impossible, but it seems as though what's truly important - and actually possible - is identifying and preparing for a whole range of potential future scenarios. This takes immense planning and skill, but as we've learnt today, it can be done. 

[00:47:43] Organisations that simply follow the leader are destined to return suboptimal results, both on and off the field of competition. Or worse still, they leave themselves most vulnerable to ruin as the world around them moves on. 

[00:47:55] However, future planning is more than just an exercise for governing bodies and leagues. Universities need to teach content that is relevant to the jobs that students will have - some of which may not yet exist. This content should also cross disciplines and emphasise the importance of collaboration and innovation. Manufacturers need to develop products that are impactful and have a decent shelf life. And of course, if broadcasters don't continually find ways to make sport viewership entertaining, then people just won't tune in. 

[00:48:22] The great challenge, it appears, is to balance current viability with future relevance; two exercises that require very different modes of thinking and planning. For most organisations, this will require diverse roles and people - including some from outside of sport - as well as strong leadership and a willingness to take calculated risks, something many sports actively shy away from. The strongest organisations will be comfortable and secure in such an approach, with an openness to share and collaborate.

[00:48:48] There's little doubt that in just a couple of decades, there will be new sports, as well as new ways of participation and consumption. Ensuring that all of sport's many stakeholders benefit may not always be possible - most of the time, someone will miss out. To help guide our decisions, we need to be clear on what it is about our sport that we stand for and what we most want to emphasise. Entertainment? Inclusion? And of course, pushing the boundaries of human performance.

[00:49:12] I'm Sam Robertson and this has been One Track Mind. Join us next episode, where we'll be asking: Should sport contribute to society? 

Outro

[00:49:21] Lara Chan-Baker: One Track Mind is brought to you by Track and Victoria University. Our host is professor Sam Robertson and our producer is Lara Chan-Baker - that's me! 

[00:49:31] If you care about these issues as much as we do, please support us by subscribing, leaving a review on iTunes and recommending the show to a friend. It only takes a minute, but it makes all the difference. 

[00:49:42] If you want more where this came from, follow us on Twitter @trackvu, on Instagram @track.vu. or just head to trackvu.com. While you're there, why not sign up for our newsletter? It's a regular dose of sports science insights from our leading team of researchers, with links to further reading on each episode topic. 

[00:50:02] Thank you so much for listening to One Track Mind. We will see you soon.

(Music Fade Out) 

Lara Chan-Baker
Previous

Episode 6: Should Sport Contribute to Society?
Next

Decisions, Decisions