The Brunswick World Team Challenge tournament, featuring a full field, was undoubtedly a huge success for the ABC and the principal sponsors. However, several issues concerning this tournament are open to criticism.
How successful would this tournament be if brackets were not permitted? What effect does it have on the tournament, other than perhaps increase the entries?
I have often praised the spirit of team play that this tournament has restored to the game. However, in the "gray area" surrounding numerous bowlers who have manipulated and exploited these games for monetary gain—namely the brackets—it has become increasingly questionable regarding the motives of many players. The brackets have become a great motivational source for the majority of teams. This does not exclude TEAM USA, a group that has been automatically seeded into the competition.
The Brunswick World Team Challenge, it seems, was created to restore the team philosophy into the game, a segment of our sport in league play that has gradually dwindled to an alarming extent. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon at the Brunswick World Team Challenge to see a member of a team that has already won the game, throw a temper tantrum because a 10-pin stood up that may have cost him a few bucks in the brackets.
I, among many other bowling writers around the country, am perplexed by the position taken by ABC/WIBC officials regarding brackets. For umpteen years, ABC has frowned on gambling in the game; yet, it has become a magnet, a lure, and an unlawful scheme to lure bowlers into tournaments all over the country. Not only does ABC condone it—it actually encourages it.
Brackets have become widespread, infiltrated into leagues and have unquestionably reduced league activity for bowlers who complain of league fees, yet ignore the high costs of brackets and pots. Is it legal, as some ABC officials declare it to be? Perhaps in Nevada, but how would it fare in any area where gambling is illegal? Several years ago, undercover police raided and confiscated all the brackets money and sent the operator to jail. Does this sound legal? Brackets are rackets, and running the Brunswick World Team Challenge with brackets would be an interesting challenge.
Brackets, calcuttas, and booking in organized fashion, flashing hundreds and thousands of dollars as if an auction was being held, seems unimaginable.
While it is understandable that money is essential for financial success, it is apparent that this ABC production was offered to the highest bidders for television exposure. In the formative years of this outstanding tournament, numerous bowling manufacturers sponsored anywhere from three to 10 teams. Ebonite, Columbia, Turbo 2-N-1 Grips, and Storm Products, to name a few, all sponsored more than a few teams.
I, among many other bowling writers around the country, am perplexed by the position taken by ABC/WIBC officials regarding brackets.
Despite the fact that the title sponsorship was changed to the Brunswick World Team Challenge, several manufacturers continued to sponsor teams from different areas of the country until 1997, at which time all logos on shirts were banned on television, except those of Brunswick, Lind Shoes, and Pro Sports Systems.
With all due respect to the officials of ABC, all manufacturers were offered various options to partake in the following licensing/advertising programs for 1997:
• $50,000 — Companies involved receive on commercial on every telecast (27 in 1996-97) and the right to have their logo appear on players’ uniforms during telecasts.
• $25,000 — Strictly for the rights to have logos appear on players’ uniforms during telecasts. There will be an additional $1,000 per player per telecast each time the logo appears on a telecast, up to an additional $25,000. The maximum cost would be $50,000 but would include no commercials.
Seemingly, ABC and WIBC officials sold the rights to three manufacturers for television exposure, but in doing so, placed some manufacturers in an untenable and precarious position.
In Sports Marketing, staff writer Ian Murphy recently quoted the following statement from Steve Ryan, president and CEO of Strike Ten Entertainment, the marketing subsidiary of the industry cooperative corporation, Bowling Inc.: "It’s time that the entire industry comes together to form a central marketing company. Bowling is clearly a sport that’s diverse and independent, but the industry realizes that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We’re going to create national marketing platforms and a new paradigm for bowling."
My interpretation of Mr. Ryan’s statement is that the bowling industry must band together as one. My interpretation of the action taken by officials of the Brunswick World Team Challenge seems to be one of a power play designed to monopolize the tournament and dissuade competitors.
Is it prudent for any marketing directory to lay out $50,000 for the right to display a logo on a televised bowling show whose title sponsor bears his competitor’s name? Does it make any sense for companies like Columbia, AMF, Faball, Storm, Track, or any other bowling ball manufacturer to partake in this program?
Considering the circumstances, why would any of the above-mentioned commit themselves to such an extent? Can you imagine Ebonite, the two-time champions of the tournament, bowling on television with their sponsor’s logos? Assuming the company paid the licensing fees of $50,000, how would this sound: Ebonite wins the Brunswick World Team Challenge!
With all due respect, the Brunswick Corporation supported this tournament in its early years and may deserve its lofty position as title sponsor. However, it shouldn’t be incumbent upon other manufacturers to lay out huge sums of money to a tournament bearing its competitors name.
In addition, the World Team Challenge on Prime Network cannot be compared to the PBA on ABC-TV or ESPN. Prime has limited viewership, the bowling is not shown in prime time, and it hardly has the impact of the PBA.
Incentives are offered by various manufacturers for exposure on television. Officials of this tournament point out that none of this money is contributed to defray the costs of television production, a position that was taken by PBA prior to its registration fee program for television. However, PBA players are individual businessmen and rely solely on their personal accomplishments for a livelihood. Any comparison between PBA and the Brunswick World Team Challenge in this respect is absurd.
At any rate, the cost of participation in the licensing/advertising plan hardly seems commensurate with the value received, considering all the aforementioned facts.