By John Considine
For those who were interested, last month America’s Cup produced one of the most remarkable comebacks in sporting history. Oracle Team USA recovered from an 8-1 deficit to win the competition 9-8. It seemed few knew about it and few cared. The event sparked an editorial in the Financial Times and a couple of letters to the editor. The editorial raised questions about the future popularity of the competition. It questioned the approach of Larry Ellison to increase the costs of the yacht race to a point were only a handful of competitors are possible. Some of the letters to the editor opposed this view and pointed out the improved TV spectacle. There was also support for the editor's view in the letters.
As winner of the previous America’s Cup, Larry Ellison decided the terms of the current competition. For example, he decided where the competition would be held and on what terms. The Financial Times claim his decision to opt for a high-cost model damaged competition, reduced the number of countries with a competing yacht, and diminished the overall popularity of the competition. The FT pointed out that the America's Cup was known as the 100 Guinea Cup in 1851 but is now a £100m race.
The 2013 event was not the spectacular success it was forecast to be. Bloomberg Sportfolio carried an informative piece on the San Francisco event (here). A 2010 report claimed that the event would generate a windfall of $1.4bn for the city, generate 900 jobs and rejuvenate the bay area. The optimism of the report proved misplaced. The number of competing team dropped to 4 from the estimated 15. The $100m promised by organisers to redevelop piers and boathouses was not forthcoming. The city’s taxpayers will have to pick up at least $22m of those costs.
The rules of the America’s Cup vests the winner of the competition with huge power over the next event. As winner of the 2013 event Larry Ellison has that power. With that power comes responsibility to the future of the competition. It will be interesting to see how he decides.
The 2013 event was not the spectacular success it was forecast to be. Bloomberg Sportfolio carried an informative piece on the San Francisco event (here). A 2010 report claimed that the event would generate a windfall of $1.4bn for the city, generate 900 jobs and rejuvenate the bay area. The optimism of the report proved misplaced. The number of competing team dropped to 4 from the estimated 15. The $100m promised by organisers to redevelop piers and boathouses was not forthcoming. The city’s taxpayers will have to pick up at least $22m of those costs.
The rules of the America’s Cup vests the winner of the competition with huge power over the next event. As winner of the 2013 event Larry Ellison has that power. With that power comes responsibility to the future of the competition. It will be interesting to see how he decides.
RSS Feed
