In New York -- the ticket law of supply and demand

If I can make it there
I'll make it anywhere
It's up to you, New York, New York.

Call it the law. It’s the most basic rule when it comes to selling tickets to sports events – (or any event) make sure the demand for tickets is greater than the supply of tickets. According to the latest census information estimated population of 21,961,994 as of 2007 for what is often referred to as the New York metropolitan area, often referred to as the Tri-State Area, is the most populous metropolitan area in the United States and is also one of the most populous in the world. There are two National Football League franchises located within the region. The two teams – the New York Giants and the New York Jets play their home games in New Jersey.

The two teams are scheduled to open the 2010 NFL season in new stadium that will have seating for 82,500 fans, including 10,000 club seats and approximately 200 luxury suites. It will be the second-largest stadium in the NFL, after FedExField outside Washington, D.C., currently the largest stadium in the league with a capacity of 91,704. However, the New Cowboys Stadium located in Arlington, Texas, which plans to have a capacity of 80,000, is planned to be expandable to 100,000 with additional end zone seating.

Before anyone gets too upset – the new stadium is going to cost at least $1.6 billion. Each team is expected to generate $170 million from the sale of their respective PSL seat allotment.

Tuesday the Jets announced how they plan on handling season ticket sales. The Jets August 26 announcement followed the Giants announcement made on June 26.

A cornerstone of both plans – personal seat licenses, great if you can sell them, even better if you have a finite number of tickets in a market as big as the Giants and Jets are trying to sell their tickets too.

And for those who want to understand what a PSL is (OK it’s really a cash grab) here’s how the Giants “tried” to tell their fans on how and what PSL’s are: A PSL is a Personal Seat License. A Personal Seat License is a one-time payment for permanent control of a Giants home game seat. The purchase guarantees the owner’s right to purchase a season ticket as long as the Giants play in the new stadium. It also provides the purchaser with control of successorship of the tickets, a benefit now only available for direct family members. The PSL stays active on the condition that the season tickets are purchased annually.

You don’t have to read between the lines to appreciate how the Giants handled their late June PSL ticket drive announcement: Giants Stadium LLC on June 26 unveiled some details of the Personal Seat License program for New York Giants season ticket holders in the new stadium that opens in 2010. The so-called PSLs, are one-time payments that guarantee the purchaser associated rights to purchase Giants season tickets, will be part of the purchase price for every stadium seat in the new building. PSL prices range from $1,000 to $20,000. Ninety percent of the seats in the upper bowl will have $1,000 PSLs. Fewer than 5,000 seats, in a building which will have a capacity of 82,500, will be at the highest price. The Giants have attached a PSL price to every seat in they have in their ticket inventory.

John Mara said the decision to employ PSLs came after an exhaustive examination of all the financing options for the $1.6 billion stadium, now under construction in New Jersey.

“We have spent months exploring our various options regarding the financing of the construction of the new stadium,” said Mara, “Given construction costs and NFL and lender requirements for paying down our debt, and after much thought and analysis, we decided this PSL program is necessary. All the net proceeds from the sale of PSLs will be used to fund construction of the new stadium.”

Steve Tisch also acknowledged the difficulty of the PSL decision.

“It’s both an emotional and complicated process to establish the price structure in a new building that has an evolving manifest,” said Tisch.

The Jets made their PSL announcement Tuesday and while it could still be found on the teams’ website Wednesday – you needed a compass to do so. Funny how less than 24 hours after making the announcement – the Jets did their best to hide the news. And yes the Giants have long played hide and seek with their June 26 announcement.

New York Jets chairman and CEO Woody Johnson at a news conference Tuesday unveiled seating options for New Jets Stadium opening in 2010. The plan includes no Personal Seat Licenses (PSLs) on all 27,000 seats in the upper bowl, an auction that will give every fan the opportunity to bid on membership in the Coaches Club for access to the 2,000 best seats in the house, and the option for all PSL owners to finance their purchase over five years.

"Our goal with the New Jets Stadium is to create the best home field in football and provide a range of seating options," Johnson said at the news conference, held in the New Stadium Suites Sales Center located in the 50 Club at the Meadowlands.

"We listened to our fans in designing this plan. That is why we decided to have no PSLs in the entire upper bowl — including those on the 50-yard line."

The 2,000 Coaches Club seats, located between the 40-yard lines behind the Jets bench, will be sold exclusively through an auction to be held this fall. The auction will be open first to current season ticket holders, then to waitlist members, depending on availability.

"A seat in the Coaches Club," Johnson said, "is the closest thing to having a spot on the roster."

Of the remaining seats, those in the lower bowl and the mezzanine will have PSLs varying in price from $4,000 to $20,000, and those seats in the East and West Clubs and the Great Hall Club will have PSLs ranging from $5,000 to $25,000.

The Jets have also developed an optional financing plan. After a 20 percent deposit due upon purchase, PSL owners may pay in installments over five years.

Each seating option has its benefits according to the Jets release:

Upper Bowl — Clear view of high-definition scoreboards; wider concourses; cupholders at every seat; more concession stands; more restrooms.

Lower Bowl/Mezzanine — Reserved parking; more legroom; cupholders at every seat; wider tread area between rows for easier seat access and more comfortable viewing; option of purchasing tickets to certain other events and concerts (subject to terms and availability)

East/West Clubs and Great Hall Club — Reserved parking

with dedicated access; private member-only entry into the stadium; private, enclosed, heated concourse; upscale cuisine offerings; exclusive access to one of two luxurious climate-controlled lounges with comfortable seating and flat-panel TVs; wider, cushioned seats with cupholders; seats designed by premier restaurant and hotel architect David Rockwell.

Coaches Club — All of the above club amenities plus on-field patio behind the home bench for exclusive field access; 20,000-square-foot football lounge; all food and non-alcoholic beverages included in season-ticket price; guaranteed right to purchase two seats per account for a Jets Super Bowl game; live viewing access of the head coach's postgame news conference; view of Jets players' hallway through a glass-enclosed hallway.

Aside from the auction, the sale of seats in the new stadium of the other Club Member PSLs will follow in the winter. The remainder of the seats, including the seats with no PSLs, will be available in the spring of 2009.

The 2,000 Coaches Club seats, located between the 40-yard lines behind the Jets bench, will be sold exclusively through an auction to be held this fall. The auction will be open first to current season ticket holders, then to waitlist members, depending on availability.

Of the remaining seats, those in the lower bowl and the mezzanine will have PSLs varying in price from $4,000 to $20,000, and those seats in the East and West Clubs and the Great Hall Club will have PSLs ranging from $5,000 to $25,000.

The Jets have also developed an optional financing plan. After a 20 percent deposit due upon purchase, PSL owners may pay in installments over five years.

Each seating option has its benefits:

Upper Bowl — Clear view of high-definition scoreboards; wider concourses; cupholders at every seat; more concession stands; more restrooms.

Lower Bowl/Mezzanine — Reserved parking; more legroom; cupholders at every seat; wider tread area between rows for easier seat access and more comfortable viewing; option of purchasing tickets to certain other events and concerts (subject to terms and availability)

East/West Clubs and Great Hall Club — Reserved parking will use a priority system based first on seniority, according to Jets box office records, then on seat location. "That way," Johnson said, "our most loyal fans will always be at the front of the line."

Waitlist members will have the opportunity to purchase seats after season tickets holders. Depending on availability, season ticket holders will be able to upgrade to a Club Member PSL or to a PSL in the lower bowl or mezzanine end zone, or may purchase a seat that requires no PSL in the best available location.

The Jets' owner, who was accompanied at the news conference by club executive vice presidents Matt Higgins and Thad Sheely, also emphasized the other benefits available to all fans attending games, such as a new rail line to the stadium, wider traffic lanes, better tailgating and concerts on the plaza.

But Johnson's highest priorities have been to bring all Jets fans a new home stadium — the first in franchise history — and designed with them in mind according to the Jets release, and to give every current season ticket holder who wants to purchase seats in the new stadium the opportunity to do so.

"My goal with the New Jets Stadium is to create the best home field in football," he said. "In 2010 that goal will be realized when all Jets fans can say, 'Finally, we're the home team.' "

Following the Coaches Club PSL auction in the fall, the sale of the other Club Member PSLs will follow in the winter. The remainder of the seats, including the seats with no PSLs, will be available in the spring of 2009.

There is one major difference between the two plans and a unique twist to the Jets plan and will create a buzz in the sports industry.

The Giants will charge a fee for every seat in the new stadium. The Jets won’t be levying a fee on the 27,000 seats in the stadium’s upper level. The Giants have priced PSL’s at $1,000 each for upper level seats for their home games.

The Jets are taking 2,000 seats and are calling them “Coaches Club” seats. Asked what these seats will represent to Jets fans, Johnson suggested "A seat in the Coaches Club, is the closest thing to having a spot on the roster."

The Jets “Coaches Club” seats are located between the 40 yard lines, will offer parking, unlimited food and beverage and….field access directly behind the Jets bench. How will these seats be sold – via an auction. A one time price as the high as the auction forces the price to go up too.

Does this make sense – YES!! There are a finite number of tickets available for Jets and Giants fans. There is a population in excess of 22 million in the Greater New York area. 22 million people, 82,000 available tickets – it makes perfect sense to auction off a limited number of the tickets.

Needles to say – not everyone in the region is thrilled with the PSL plan. There is nothing like charging sports fans for the right to buy tickets that upsets voters more and when voters are upset – politicians’ sense there’s an opportunity.

"What the Jets are doing is different than the Giants," New Jersey Assemblyman Anthony Chiappone told the Associated Press. "They are leaving 27,000 seats PSL-free. A large portion of the stadium fan base will be able to buy seats without having to purchase a PSL."

Fan’s needless to say wasn’t greeted with welcome arms by football fans in the tri-state area.

"Unfortunately, I won't be able to stay in section 228 because it looks like it will be $7,500 for the PSL and $400 for the game," Dr. Michael Stein told New York Newsday, a pediatrician from Hauppauge. "I think that's unreasonable for anybody. I don't care who you are. So I'll just move to the upper deck so I can keep my seven seats."

But Dr. Stein was quick to add: "My reaction was happiness that there was actually an option without PSLs," he said.

Ira Lieberfarb of Staten Island agreed. "Overall, I think it was the fairest thing possible," said Lieberfarb, whose family has owned season tickets since 1972.

Steve Kern of Boonton Township, N.J., who organized a rally Saturday at the Meadowlands protesting the introduction of PSLs, said Tuesday's announcement was a mixed bag.

"The good news was that there are no PSLs in the upper deck," Kern said. "Supposedly the revenue they're generating [$370 million in PSLs] is the same as the Giants, which means that the remaining PSLs are all increased in cost to make up for not having PSLs in the upper deck."

As far as Jets owner Woody Johnson is concerned – he’s offering football fans an opportunity that can’t be passed up – the right to pay to buy tickets.

"I don't think there's anything, including Super Bowl III, that matches what the impact that this has," he said. "With the team, with in Florham Park, you've done everything you can do to put a winning team on the field. We want to go as far as we can go. In many ways, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to buy these seats."

The New York Times Richard Sandomir pointed out: one aspect of the Jets’ plan is clearly superior to the Giants’. The Jets said that they would do their own P.S.L. financing and hold interest rates (for terms of up to five years) to the high single digits. The Giants are routing fans looking for financing to Wachovia, where the interest rate will be based on individual creditworthiness. The Giants never intended to absorb some of the interest costs to assist their fans. But John Mara, the Giants’ co-owner, said recently of the bank, “We’ve hammered at them to be reasonable.”

Let’s clear up a few issues – is it ethical for sport franchises to sell PSL’s. Not only is it reasonable – its good business

What choice do longtime Giant and Jets fans really have? None, it’s spend the money or spend your Sunday’s watching games on TV (where yours truly will be). The only really unhappy sports fans are team owners who can’t sell PSL’s.

Remember there are a finite number of tickets and more people interested in buying tickets than there are available tickets. It is the law of supply and demand, Big Apple style and as the Chairman of the Board once sang:

If I can make it there
I'll make it anywhere
It's up to you, New York, New York.

For Sports Business News this is Howard Bloom. Sources cited and used in this Insider Report: The New York Times, New York Newsday and the Associated Press

The LPGA’s English only policy – good business or racist?

The LPGA Tour sent a message to its membership Tuesday that will be heard around the world. As first reported by Golf Week a leading industry trade publication the Ladies Professional Golf Association effective immediately will demand that any aspiring young ladies who want to play women’s professional golf at the highest (and most lucrative) level be able to speak English. And any women who currently play on the LPGA Tour have two years to learn how to converse in English or force being banned by the LPGA. The questions that beg to be asked include:

Is the decision a good or bad business decision?
Will the decision become a public nightmare for the LPGA?
And if the decision is to be deemed a bad decision is it bad enough to be linked to racism

The LPGA notice also read, in part according to Canada’s Globe and Mail: as a follow-up to the communications we have shared with the membership this year, the LPGA has adopted a policy on effective communication in English. Under this policy, all members must demonstrate that they can communicate in English in the following areas of our business: interaction with amateurs during tournament pro-ams, media interviews, and winner acceptance speeches, including thanking sponsors, fans, and volunteers."

Dealing with the specter of linking the LPGA’s thought process to racism – no way. It may one day be considered one of the worst choices a sports governing body have ever made (and that would be a stretch) but the LPGA decision has nothing whatsoever to do with racism.

Speaking the Bouchard-Taylor commission hearings in Quebec City dedicated to letting Quebecers vent on the accommodation of minorities lawyer Guy Bertrand used Montréal Canadiens captain Saku Koivu as an example of how Quebec is forced to make "unacceptable" linguistic accommodations that threaten French.

When called to speak in front of fans at the Bell Centre, Koivu speaks English, even though Quebec's Bill 101 enshrines the right of Quebecers to be spoken to in French, Bertrand said.

Bertrand’s political feelings aside – the suggestion the captain of the Montreal Canadiens speak French merits serious debate not because it may or may not cross close to Quebec bill, but because more than 80 percent of Quebec’s population speaks French. It may not be illegal but it’s not exactly ‘right’ for one of the key spokespeople for a leading French Canadian business to not be able to converse in the language an overwhelming percentage of Les Canadiens home based fans speak.

But does the same rationale hold true for the LPGA?

There are 121 international players on the LPGA Tour from 26 countries on tour; 45 are South Koreans. Sixteen of the top-20 current money earners were born outside of the United States. Eight of those women are South Korean followed by two Swedes, two Australians, a Mexican, a Norwegian, a Brazilian and a Taiwanese.

According to Golf Week it was at a mandatory South Korean player meeting on August 20 at the Safeway Classic, the tour informed its largest international contingent that beginning in 2009, all players who have been on tour for two years must pass an oral evaluation of their English skills. Failure would result in a suspended membership.

“Hopefully what we’re talking about is something that will not happen,” said Libba Galloway, the tour’s deputy commissioner, of possible suspensions. “If it does, we wouldn’t just say, ‘Come back next year.’ What we would do is work with them on where they fell short, provide them the resources they need, the tutoring . . . and when we feel like they need to be evaluated again, we would evaluate.”

Galloway said the policy takes effect immediately, but the “measurement time will be at the end of 2009.”

Hilary Lunke, president of the Player Executive Committee, told Golf Week she believes “much of this initiative stems from the importance of being able to entertain pro-am partners. Players already are fined if the LPGA receives complaints from their pro-am partners. Now the tour is taking it one step further.

“The bottom line is, we don’t have a job if we don’t entertain,” Lunke said. “In my mind, that’s as big a part of the job as shooting under par.”

Se Ri Pak one of the LPGA’s leading players (and a South Korean) made it clear to Golf Week that while she supported the sprit of the policy she believed fines and not suspension of playing privileges where in order.

“The LPGA could come out and say they only want 10 Koreans, but they’re not,” Park said. “A lot of Korean players think they are being targeted, but it’s just because there are so many of them.”

Seon-Hwa Lee, a two-time winner in 2008, thinks everyone “can do a simple interview.” She works with an English tutor in the winter and plans to brush up for the evaluation. Her ability to answer questions without the help of a translator has improved immensely during her short time on tour.

“The economy is bad, and we are losing sponsors,” she said. “Everybody understands.”

Kate Peters, executive director of the LPGA State Farm Classic, supported the news. “This is an American tour. It is important for sponsors to be able to interact with players and have a positive experience.”

Peters’ comments are at best insensitive. To suggest the LPGA is an “American Tour” does a complete disservice to two of the LPGA’s marquee events – the British and Canadian LPGA tour stops. There are also important LPGA events in Singapore, Mexico, France, South Korea and Japan. At the very least Kate Peters needs a geography lesson, made a statement that is politically incorrect and just isn’t the right thing to say.

"We saw it today for the first time," Rick Desrochers, the Royal Canadian Golf Association's managing director of championships, said of the policy yesterday. "We read it in the press first and almost concurrently got something from the Tour. We run a tournament [the CN Canadian Women's Open]. You would have thought that'd have given tournament operators a heads-up.

"I suppose their intention is right," Desrochers continued. "They're trying to help players. But the area is so sensitive. They're saying that unless you speak our language, we won't let you participate in our game."
Canada’s LPGA Tour stop had been called one of the four women’s majors for many years before losing the designation a few years ago. Two weeks ago 48 of the top 50 ranked LPGA players where in Ottawa for the Canadian LPGA event, an event that raised over $1 million for a local children’s hospital and is one of the biggest paydays on the LPGA Tour. Desrochers comments suggest at the very least the LPGA did a terrible job of communicating their message to their membership – an embarrassing job.

"I am of a strong belief that, yes, we need to learn to communicate," Canadian Lorie Kane, a 12-year tour veteran, told The Canadian Press on Tuesday. "But whether or not you can communicate shouldn't determine whether or not you have a card on the LPGA Tour."

Galloway told Golf Week the LPGA decision had nothing to do with sponsors and said interest in the tour has never been stronger.

“This should be a priority in their professional development just the way working on their short game is a priority,” Galloway said. “We just wanted to be clear about our expectations.”

There will be fallout from the LPGA decision but not as much as there should be. The bottom line – golf as a spectator sport remains a “man’s world”. When a LPGA event comes to a city the event is well supported. But do golf fans travel to attend LPGA events – forget about that. Given a choice golf fans (and virtually all sports fans) will attend a PGA event over an LPGA event – 100 percent of the time!!

Was it a good business decision – that remains to be seen but of this there is no doubt whatsoever – if this is an example as to how the LPGA handles a major announcement the LPGA needs some serious help. Consider this – the LPGA leaked their release to Golf Week – they didn’t post the release on their website. The LPGA had to know there would be a strong reaction and to not attempt to control their message, to run and hide suggests at the end of the day the LPGA is running and hiding. Shame, shame, shame – a real public relations nightmare for the LPGA.

For Sports Business News this is Howard Bloom. Sources cited in this Insider Report: Golf Week and The Globe and Mail

The 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics – this is the end my friends

What the Chinese called a hundred year odyssey ended Sunday evening in Beijing when the 29th Olympiad the 2008 Summer Olympic Games reached their conclusion. Sports Business News asked one very important question in the days immediately preceding the Beijing Games – will the first ever Olympic Games being held in China be called the best ever Games. The answer now is what it was then – NEVER, NEVER, NEVER.

When it comes to facilities Beijing receives a gold medal. When it comes to execution of events Beijing receives a gold medal. When it comes to the lasting legacy the Games will leave – the Chinese may one day be wise to remember this not so old quaint Chinese Proverb "be careful what you wish for, lest it come true". China’s totalitarian communist government who for so long wished and dreamed the world would be their oyster if only the International Olympic Committee would award China the right to host an Olympic Games now have to face the reality of what happens when the door opens. It will not happen today, it will not happen tomorrow, next week, next year or maybe not even in the next decade. But as sure as the Olympic flame was extinguished Sunday in Beijing – the Chinese people one day will realize democracy – now that they’ve tasted freedom.

Over the last few days there have been a number of remarkable events that have taken place in Beijing and China . These moments in time have everything to do with the real lasting legacy the Beijing Games will have on the Chinese people, the world and if there is justice the International Olympic Committee and their major sponsors.

Wednesday The New York Times and the world media reported that two women displaced by the Games of the 29th Olympiad where sentenced to a year in a prison labor camp. As the Times put it; Wu Dianyuan and Wang Xiuying became the most recent examples of people punished for submitting applications to protest. A few would-be demonstrators have simply disappeared, at least for the duration of the Games, squelching already diminished hopes that the influx of foreigners and the prestige of holding the Games would push China ’s leaders to relax their tight grip on political expression.

“Can you imagine two old ladies in their 70s being re-educated through labor?” asked Li Xuehui, Ms. Wu’s son, who said the police told the two women that their sentence might remain in suspension if they stayed at home and stopped asking for permission to protest.

“I feel very sad and angry because we’re only asking for the basic right of living and it’s been six years, but nobody will do anything to help,” Mr. Li told The New York Times.

In the months leading up to the Games suggestions China’s totalitarian communist government would allow some free thought during the Games welcomed the news that protest zones would be set up for those who wished to ‘express’ their feelings about China during the Games.

“In order to ensure smooth traffic flow, a nice environment and good social order, we will invite these participants to hold their demonstrations in designated places,” Liu Shaowu, the security director for Beijing’s Olympic organizing committee, said at a news conference before the Games. He described the creation of three so-called protest zones and suggested that a simple application process would provide Chinese citizens an avenue for free expression; a right that has long been enshrined in China ’s Constitution but in reality is rarely granted.

“For Chinese petitioners, if their protest applications were approved, it would lead to a chain reaction of others seeking to voice their problems as well,” Mr. Li told The New York Times before the Games.

In what must have been a remarkable compliment to Chinese understanding – more than 75 (but less than 80) groups applied for permits. What makes this so ‘interesting’ all 75 to 80 groups thought better of following through with their planned protests.

Officials say that they received 77 protest applications but that nearly all of them were dropped after the complaints were “properly addressed by relevant authorities or departments through consultations.”

At a news conference on Wednesday, Wang Wei, the vice president of Beijing ’s Olympic organizing committee, was asked about the lack of protests. He said it showed the system was working. “I’m glad to hear that over 70 protest issues have been solved through consultation, dialogue,” he said. “This is a part of Chinese culture.”

But human rights advocates say that instead of pointing the way toward a more open society, the Olympics have put China ’s political controls on display.

“Given this moment when the international spotlight is shining on China, when so much of the international media are in Beijing, it’s unfathomable why the authorities are intensifying social control,” said Sharon Hom, the executive director of Human Rights in China in a New York Times report. “The truth is they’re sending a clear and disturbing message, one they’re not even trying to hide, which is we’re not even interested in hearing dissenting voices.”

The “lack” of planned protests and protestors didn’t stop six Americans from being arrested late last week and then being sentenced to 10-day prison terms as guests of the Chinese people.

According to various media reports: activists from the New York-based Students for a Free Tibet said Friday that they had no information about four other protesters who were detained early Thursday during a protest near National Stadium, also known as the Bird’s Nest. The four are two Americans, a German and a Briton.

Extrajudicial detentions, a common punishment for Chinese dissidents, are rarely handed out to foreigners, who are often deported almost immediately after being taken into custody.

Members of Students for a Free Tibet have staged eight protests involving 55 people since the Olympics began on Aug. 8. Human rights advocates speculated that the government might be seeking to deter those contemplating similar activities in the Games’ final days.

J. Alexander Hamilton, a spokesman for the American Embassy in Beijing , said United States officials were working with Chinese authorities to gain more information about the detainees. “Our policy is to encourage the Chinese government to respect free expression and freedom of religion, which are protected by law,” he said.

According to The New York Times: On Friday, students for a Free Tibet declared that its Olympics campaign had succeeded and that it was winding down. In characteristically stealthy fashion, the announcement was made by two members who summoned reporters to a street corner with 20 minutes’ notice.

The members, Alice Speller and Ginger Cassady, said that even though the protests had been fleeting and witnessed by only a few Chinese, they had helped highlight the issue in the foreign media.

“ China is trying to show the world this face, that they are a modern, progressive country, but that really isn’t the truth,” said Ms. Speller, a law student from Britain in a New York Times report. “The real face is one that denies freedom of expression, and that denies it brutally and violently when it can.”

United States Ambassador to China Clark T. Randt Jr. said in a statement released Sunday that the Beijing government should demonstrate respect for human rights and free speech.

U.S. officials, he said, are "disappointed that China has not used the occasion of the Olympics to demonstrate greater tolerance and openness."

China is home to 1.3 billion people – nearly a quarter of the world’s population. What’s a few displaced Chinese when you have the chance to host an Olympic Games?

The Washington Post reported that Cheng Linpeng, 34, formerly a fish farmer, found a job at a construction company in the capital, working on a residential building. But that project was shut down in July because of worries about dust and air pollution ahead of the Games.

"Because of the Olympics, we are not allowed to do our jobs anymore. The whole place was shut down, and we don't know when we'll be able to go back," Cheng said. What’s the loss of one’s livelihood in terms of cleaner air?

And those empty seats at Olympic events – pity if Linpeng and his now unemployed friends wanted to attend at Olympic event – the thought never crossed their minds.

"Would we be allowed?" Cheng asked, explaining that migrant workers are considered second-class citizens in Beijing . "The place is not so big, and it wouldn't be able to hold everyone who wants to come. We are not qualified."

As for the lack of protests – what role if any could the International Olympic Committee have played? Did the Lords of the Rings hope and pray the Games of the 29th Olympiad where free of protests?

The IOC "has "completely mishandled the human-rights issues in these Games," said Minky Worden, a spokesperson for Human Rights Watch in a Philadelphia Inquirer report.

The China Daily noted that the move to set aside the protest zones "is in line with Beijing 's promises to the International Olympic Committee to adhere to the Olympic traditions, such as free expression outside the sporting venues."

"It must be the most cynical interpretation of the freedom to protest - that you follow the rules, apply five days in advance, then are turned away or put under house arrest or worse," Worden said in a telephone interview, adding that most Chinese applicants were aware of the potential risks.

"How desperate do you have to be to file a protest that would result in likely detention?" Worden said.

Dreamers dream big dreams. When Beijing was awarded the Games of the 29th Olympiad on Friday July 13, 2001 (who ever suggested Friday the 13th was a bad day) the Chinese assured the world by the day the Games opened on August 8, 2008 Human Rights would be a bedrock of China’s society. Needless to say that hasn’t happened, but…..it takes many years to really create lasting change.

"They'll keep most of the things in place—certainly the harassment of the dissidents—and we won't see any kind of greater move towards liberalization or opening up or anything like that," Adam Segal, senior fellow for China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations predicted in a Business Week report. "Did this change China 's view in the world? Is this a turning point? No. It will just reinforce your sense of a party that's completely insecure and lacking a great deal of confidence."

Cheng Li, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told Business Week he believes the government's successful staging of the Games will be a boost to reformers. "I believe the Olympics [will] make China more open, more transparent, more tolerant, and more confident," says Li, who predicts progress on human rights and media freedom. "The Chinese government has become more confident because of a successful Olympics—that helps the liberal wing of the leaders…they will argue that we should not be so scared of the international media and international integration and also to a certain extent openness or transparency," he says.

Progress won't happen quickly, cautions Li. But he told Business Week he believes the Games will spur reform over the medium term. "Probably it will take another 5 to 10 years," says Li. "But who will win the battle is quite clear."

Which of course comes back to the earlier issue raised – it isn’t a matter of if but when China ’s totalitarian communist government are toppled. That will be the true lasting legacy of the Games of the 29th Olympiad that will be what the Games be remembered for – the day China’s totalitarian communist government opened Pandora’s Box.

For Sports Business News this is Howard Bloom. Sources cited and used in this Insider Report: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer and Business Week.

With the 2008 Beijing Olympics winding down three of the key marketing/athlete endorsement issues are the selling of Michael Phelps, the endorsement potential of Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt and the impact ramifications against the Chinese women’s gymnastics team. It would be against the IOC and the Chinese Gymnastics Federation if the investigation proves the Chinese Women’s Gymnastics team used underage athletes and the team is stripped of their gold medals.

Michael Phelps mania shows no sign of subsiding. Friday, Joyce Julius & Associates released another report looking at the value Phelps exposure has meant to Phelps sponsors.

Phelps’ eight-night gold medal run at the Beijing Olympics saw brands associated with the swimmer amass a combined $19 million of in-broadcast exposure value during NBC’s primetime telecasts, and another $5.1 million of exposure value stemming from articles appearing during the same time span in print publications and on the Internet.

According to research conducted by Joyce Julius & Associates, Inc. — which specializes in measuring the impact of sponsorships across all forms of media — Nike, Speedo and Visa logos combined for 12 minutes, 41 seconds (12:41) of on-screen time exclusively from apparel worn by Phelps during NBC’s coverage, beginning Saturday, August 9, and running through his final gold medal triumph on Saturday, August 16. One way Joyce Julius determines exposure value is by comparing the in-broadcast time the brands garner to the estimated cost of a commercial spot during the telecasts.

A warm-up jacket worn by Phelps during each of his medal ceremonies accounted for all of Nike’s time with the swimmer, as the familiar swoosh was monitored for 8:19, leading to an exposure value of $12.5 million.

Speedo logos on Phelps’ warm-up jacket, swim cap and bodysuit and a hat landed the brand 4:19 of airtime and $6.5 million. Meanwhile, Olympic restrictions prevented Phelps from wearing Visa logos; however, NBC’s highlight montages of the swimmer’s career did produce a smattering of in-broadcast exposure for his sponsor.

During the eight days Phelps competed, his sponsors also enjoyed a media surge ranging beyond the event broadcasts. For example, Speedo benefited from press coverage surrounding a performance bounce they established with the swimmer, as text mentions of the brand and Phelps together appeared within nearly 600 print articles and 3,500 stories monitored on the Internet. This coverage alone provided Speedo with an additional $3.5 million of exposure value.
Phelps dominated the first week of the Beijing Games but its clear the marketing star from week two has Usain “Lightening” Bolt. Bolt won gold medals in both the 100M and 200M sprint track and field running events setting a world record in both events. Friday, Bolt was a member of Jamaica’s 4x100 Olympic gold medal rely sprint team. Bolt and the Jamaicans’ set a world record.

The Beijing medal count – Phelps eight gold medals and seven world records. Bolt three gold medals and three world records. Phelps a swimmer, Bolts a sprinter. The major difference Phelps will have limited event exposure during the next quadrennial (the four year period leading to the 2012 London Games) while Bolt will run next week in Germany. It’s a night and day difference when it comes to which athlete will get to showcase his skills on their chosen athletic field.

And for Bolt the differences between being a track and field athlete and Phelps being a swimmer become apparent next week. Phelps will be back in the USA; Bolt will be looking at earning gold bars running in Germany.

The 22-year-old sprinter is to compete at the Weltklasse meet in Zurich next week, where he can collect a kilogram of gold and prize money worth a combined US$93,000 or more than J$6 million if he breaks his 100-meter world record of 9.69 seconds.

Organizers are offering a US$50,000 record bonus on top of US$16,000 for winning a race.
A Swiss bank sponsor has promised the gold bars.

Bolt will then head to Switzerland to run the 200 metres at the September 2 Athletissima meet in Lausanne, where he can net another gold bar worth around US$27,000 if he improves on his newly minted 19.30 seconds mark.

By dominating the Olympic sprint events with devastating ease, Bolt has quickly become the new darling of international meet organizers. Aside from increased bonuses, he can also expect to receive significantly higher appearance fees of up to US$30,000.

The next time Phelps gets to showcase his ability as a swimmer will be at the 2009 World Aquatic Championships next summer in Rome. As far as NBC is concerned – they’ll continue their commitment to being the network that showcases everything that is Michael Phelps.

On the heels of the most memorable Olympic swimming competition in history, in which Michael Phelps won an unprecedented eight gold medals, NBC Sports, in cooperation with USA Swimming, today announced an agreement for the most significant U.S. television package in the history of the sport. NBC Sports and Universal Sports will broadcast the 2009 World Swimming Championships from Rome and the 2009 USA Swimming National Championships (which will serve to qualify the U.S. team for the 2009 Worlds), as well as the National Championships in 2010 and 2011. The agreement is the first major announcement for the sport of swimming since the remarkable Beijing Olympic swimming competition that saw 20 new world records in the 32 morning finals. NBC already holds the broadcast rights to the 2012 U.S. Olympics Swimming Trials and 2012 London Olympic Games. The announcement was made today by Dick Ebersol, Chairman, NBC Universal Sports & Olympics and Chuck Wielgus, Executive Director, USA Swimming.

Michael Phelps, who has long stated a goal of getting more exposure for the sport of swimming, said: "I've said for a long time that my most important goal was to leave swimming better than I found it and this move to network coverage on NBC of our major championships is a dream come true and a big step in that direction."

Phelps has stated his intention to continue with competitive swimming through the 2012 London Olympics. When asked about swimming at the 2009 World Championships, he said, "My mom has told me that I better make the [2009 U.S. World Championships team], because she wants to go to Rome. I have the pressure from the mom, so I guess we have to get back into it and make that happen."

NBC Dick Ebersol, Chairman, NBC Universal Sports & Olympics said: "The whole world watched as Michael Phelps took his sport to a new level and introduced a generation of fans to swimming through his extraordinary achievements. His accomplishments transcend sports and, are in fact, a cultural phenomenon. We're greatly looking forward to following the next chapter in his career."

Chuck Wielgus, Executive Director, USA Swimming Added: "We're thrilled with our evolving partnership with NBC. Having NBC broadcast the 2009 FINA World Championships is a huge step forward for our sport."

NBC will broadcast weekend coverage from Rome on July 26 and Aug. 1-2, 2009 and will also air mid-week coverage on the newly-launched Universal Sports digital channel.

Led by its live primetime swimming coverage, NBC averaged 30.0 million average viewers, 13 percent ahead of Athens in 2004, through the first eight days of the Beijing Games as Michael Phelps' quest for eight gold medals captivated America. Phelps' achievements transcend his sport, inspiring his hometown Baltimore Ravens to broadcast his record-breaking race in Ravens Stadium following their preseason game, and attracting members of the U.S. Olympic basketball team to his races in the Water Cube on the Olympic Green in Beijing.

As for Bolt – The Manchester Guardian reported that Bolt, is starting to reap the commercial benefits of his Beijing triumph, with an approach from UK cable company Virgin Media to be the face of its superfast broadband service.

Virgin Media, which is set to launch a 50Mb broadband product it claims will be more than twice as fast as rivals, is considering calling the product "Boltband".

Ashley Stockwell, the head of Virgin Media's marketing operation, said the company had approached Bolt to become the face of its new high-speed web service.

"Our new 50Mb service will deliver even faster lightning broadband speeds, which is why we feel that Usain will be the perfect ambassador for our campaign," Stockwell added.

Earlier this week The (Portland) Oregonian reported that: Bolt, Chinese diver Guo Jing Jing, American gymnast Shawn Johnson and 16-year-old Aussie swimmer Cate Campbell have made the largest leap in good media buzz over the past week of the Olympic Games, according to one media tracking and analysis firm.

The firm also finds Nike benefited from its "ambush" marketing strategy, though less so as the Games have progressed.

Austin, Tex.-based Global Language Monitor uses proprietary software to measure how certain names appear on websites and print media in relation to other words over time. For the Olympics, it has measured both brand names and athlete names. It attempts to assign a qualitative measure, too, based on whether the name appears in major media or not, company president Paul JJ Payack said.

Throughout the games, Michael Phelps has ranked the No. 1 athlete. But as of Aug.18, the new No. 2 is Lin Miaoke, the Chinese girl who lip-synced during the Opening Ceremonies. She displaced Chinese basketball star Yao Ming, now No. 3.

Since GLM's last measurement, taken the third week of July, 100-meter gold medalist Bolt has jumped five spots to No. 4 on GLM's chart. That was before Bolt won today's 200-meter race.
The 41-year-old U.S. swimmer Dara Torres moved up three spots to No. 5. Multiple medalist Johnson jumped six spots to No. 9 and Campbell 11 spots to No. 12.

Those rankings have to please Speedo (which sponsors Phelps), Reebok (Ming), Puma (Bolt), Li Ning (Guo) and adidas (Johnson).

Athletes whose buzz has declined dramatically include Chinese hurdler Liu Xiang (Nike), U.S. sprinter Tyson Gay (adidas), British marathoner Paula Radcliffe (Nike), Aussie swimmer Grant Hackett (Speedo) and Sanya Richards (Nike) and U.S. Jeremy Wariner (adidas), both 400-meter athletes from the U.S. Wariner has not raced in his final.

In its brand rankings on Aug. 13, Nike ranked No. 5, above official Olympic sponsors Samsung, Panasonic and Coca-Cola (Nike's fellow Wieden+Kennedy client). Nike is not an official Olympics sponsor but instead advertises through athletes and commercials, events and signs surrounding the Games.

Since then, Nike has slipped to No. 9. That's still "impressive," Payack said, considering it didn't spend the reported $80 million that adidas did to be an official outfitter of the Games. Lenovo is the surprise No. 1, he said.

As hot as Bolt has been on the track and potentially down the road in the corporate marketplace one place that has been less than appreciative of Bolt’s efforts are in the offices of International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge. Bolt brought an infectious spirit to Beijing’s Olympic Track events. He smiled, danced – in short he loved and lived every moment he raced (and won) at the Beijing Games. Bolt’s ‘spirit in the night’ didn’t impress Rogge after Bolt won the men’s 100M earlier in the week

Rogge called on the young sprinter to treat his opponents with more respect and not to go over the top with his celebrations.

"I have no problem with him doing a show," Rogge said in an interview with international news agency reporters.

"I think he should show more respect for his competitors and shake hands, give a tap on the shoulder to the other ones immediately after the finish and not make gestures like the one he made in the 100 metres."

While Rogge was ‘critical’ of Bolt he offered little on the ‘controversy’ surrounding Michael Phelps win by a 100th of a second in last Saturday’s 100M men’s butterfly. Earlier this week The New York Times Jere Longman reported that before Phelps left Beijing Wednesday he visited the Omega Pavilion in Beijing. Omega one of the IOC’s TOP (12 major world-wide sponsors) and one of Phelps major sponsors did their Beijing corporate entertaining at their Omega Pavilion in Beijing.

Omega as Longman pointed out is not only the official timekeeper of the Beijing Games. It is also one of Phelps's corporate sponsors, an arrangement that appears to be a conflict of interest.
The most visible athlete at these Games (in question if you look at the impact Bolt has had had in week two) is getting a paycheck from the same company whose equipment decides the outcome of Phelps's events.

Most of the time, such a relationship probably would not draw much attention or concern. The Olympic timing system is a seemingly fail-safe, objective determination of the order of finish. Unlike figure skating and gymnastics, there are no subjective votes made by judges in swimming.

But Phelps as Longman pointed out was involved in a disputed race last Saturday, and Omega has declined to release underwater video images showing conclusively that Phelps won the 100-meter butterfly by a hundredth of a second over Milorad Cavic of Serbia.

Whether it has anything to hide or not, Omega is needlessly leaving its own reputation — and Phelps's — vulnerable to suspicion, sports ethicists and historians said.

"Here we are in the situation in which the finish is questionable and the ultimate judge of truth is refusing to make public information that 'may' be nothing short of catastrophic for Phelps,
Omega, Phelps's other sponsors and the Americans in general, who certainly do not want their wonder boy's amazing feat tarnished," David Malloy, a sports ethicist at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, said in an e-mail message.

He added: "This issue may end up being very damaging to Phelps, Omega and the USA Sadly, it could have been avoided with careful thought and basic ethical advice."

Shortly after Saturday's disputed race, Alina Ivanescu, a spokeswoman for Omega, told The New York Times that the company would soon forward the video images to the news media. Later Saturday, though, Ivanescu sent an e-mail message, saying that swimming's world governing body, known as FINA, decided not to release any timekeeping images to the news media.

"It is not up to us to decide," Ivanescu said Wednesday. "It's our job to provide the results. FINA decides what can be published or not. FINA said it was a no go."

Omega, which has timed Olympic events since 1932, uses four digital cameras as a backup to its electronic timing system. Images from track events have routinely been released by Omega.
Christophe Berthaud, Omega's Olympic manager, said that there was no human intervention in the determining of race results and that there was "absolutely no doubt" that Phelps won.

"Omega provides the most accurate and reliable measurement system in the world," Berthaud said in an e-mail message. "The professionalism and independence of its teams are recognized by the highest authorities of sport."

Cornel Marculescu, executive director of FINA, could not be reached Wednesday. On Sunday, he told The New York Times that it was FINA's policy not to release race images. He also noted that Serbian officials had seen the images and had withdrawn their protest of the butterfly race, satisfied that Phelps had indeed won.

"We are not going to distribute footage," Marculescu said. "Everything is good. What are you going to do with the footage? See what the Serbians already saw? It is clarified for us beyond any doubt."

The International Olympic Committee said Wednesday it would not press FINA or Omega to release the images.

"The result of the race as declared by the federation is final and the IOC has no reason to question it," said Giselle Davies, a spokeswoman for the IOC

Phelps was not made available for an interview. His agent, Peter Carlisle of Octagon, said he had no plans to ask for the release of the images. "That sort of stuff is an issue that FINA deals with," he said. "We don't get involved with what happens in the pool like that."

Carlisle said he did not see a conflict in Phelps's arrangement with Omega. "I don't see how the company decides the outcome of a race," he added in the New York Times report.

One issue is clear – both Phelps and Bolt have emerged from the Beijing Games as marketing machines something most of their fellow Olympians won’t get to enjoy.

"Only a very few will make it. They will do so by being great in the next few years, working in the media," said Peter Walshe, global brands director at marketing researcher Millward Brown in a Reuters report.

"These athletes need to have an additional hook, a story, pursuit, or career that transcends their Olympic glory," said David Clarke, from the USC's Sports Business Institute.

"The Olympics may well be a door opener to the future but success relies on offering something distinctive ... Just being an Olympian is no guarantee," said Walshe.

Both Phelps and Bolt have that hook. They’re both young. They’ll both compete at the 2012 London Games. They both love the camera and the camera clearly loves them. Phelps has the advantage of being an American, the first athlete to win eight gold medals in a single Olympic Games and has won more career gold medals than any other Olympian.

Athletically Bolt competes more often, as a sprinter he has a higher athletic profile but being from Jamaica isn’t an advantage. Ask Donovan Bailey who won both the men’s 100M and was part of Canada’s gold medal winning men’s 4x100 relay team how he feels 12 years after Michael Johnson won the men’s 200M and 400M at the 1996 Atlanta Games. Johnson the American earned tens of millions of dollars more than Bailey did after both men won gold in Olympic sprint events.

Bolt has to accept that American companies are going to invest in American athletes. Both athletes will earn tens of millions of dollars (if not hundreds of millions of dollars) from their Beijing success but the bigger winner will be Phelps – that’s the bottom line.

For Sports Business News this is Howard Bloom. Sources cited and used in this Insider Report: Reuters, The New York Times, The Manchester Guardian and The Oregonian