squashblog is 2

It only seems like yesterday that squashblog popped into the world, kicking and screaming at the low profile of the sport.

It's aims were lofty. Much was expected as it toddled around tournaments, griped at governing bodies and wailed for (media) attention.

But how have things changed in those two years? ...

Great players have retired, young prodigies have emerged, initiatives have been announced, courts have open and (mostly) closed.

You can read about all that here and at greater length elsewhere.

But squashblog was created with a different perspective: to look behind the headlines and give independent, objective comment about the wider state of the game - and provide a platform for you to respond.

It seems a good time then to look back and see how the sport has changed over the past two years. A useful way of doing this is to use the categories that I have used since the creation of the site (at the top of the page). Let me know if I'm off the ball!:

The pros
Actually this first one isn't a category I refer to in this site at all, but it is right that they are mentioned first. Many of the improvements noted below wouldn't have happened without the positive attitudes, professionalism, hard work and commitment of the majority of the top pros.

Squash is blessed with, on the whole, a decent, commited crop of professional sportsmen and women who appear to take genuine interest in the development of the wider game as a whole. The rewards for professionals are relatively modest compared with others sports. To the credit of most of those on the professional circuit, they don't appear to bemoan this fact, and get on with representing squash with a dignity and respect for each other that puts other sports to shame.

Media coverage
Very little has changed in the mass media in the UK: squash rarely merits a story in any of the British national dailies (there has however been some excellent coverage in local press) and I can't remember the last time it was on terrestrial TV. Web streaming has advanced, but is not yet ubiquitously accessible. Websites have come and gone: the emergence of Squash 360 appeared to invigorate the landscape, but ceased all too quickly. Squash Site, which provides the only reliable day-to-day news service for all professional events, has struggled due to the ongoing politics that sadly seem to dog squash.

Elsewhere in the world media coverage appears to be on the increase: the success over the past couple of years of Egyptian players has raised the profile even higher in the country, and coverage in India and Pakistan and the far-east (such as Malaysia) is stronger than in Europe. The US - the market that promoters would really like to crack - has had strong regional coverage but little national attention.

Men's game
Anyone who has watched professional squash for more than a few years will have witnessed the change in speed of the game - more attacking play has been great for spectators can only help the game where it's image is concerned. But the velocity of the men's game over the past 24 months has increased such that some feel the soul of the game is being lost (the debate here seems to be heading the same way as 20/20 v test match cricket). PAR scoring has obviously been a factor, but it is difficult to argue that the squash has become less exciting because of it.

Who would have predicted the dominance of the Egyptian trio of Shabana, Ashour and now Darwish two years ago? The fact that the top ten players have been representative of so many different countries is great for the global appeal of the sport, but it would be great to see a rivalry emerge a la Nicol/Power. I thought Ashour/Willstrop would fill this gap ... perhaps this year.

The PSA tour is expanding, with events in new locations and more money coming in. However, the trajectory and stability which seemed to have been established at the top of the organisation before Christmas will need re-assessment after the shock departure of Richard Graham.

Women's game
Though seemingly the better ran of the professional tours, I can't help but think there is an element of resting on laurels. It would be great to see some bigger events in the UK and US, but is there demand?

WISPA has a 'great product'; Nicol David is a great ambassador for the sport, and a great role model for younger players. Like the PSA tour, the plurality of nations represented at the top of the game should be a great draw for promoters.

Almost two years ago to the day I wrote an article that suggested that the level of competition at the top of the women's game might not have been what it was. Have things moved on?

The Malaysian star has indeed become the dominant force, and the Grinham sisters (while swapping places in the world rankings) are now considered beatable by lesser-ranked players. There are flashes of resurgence (Grainger, Atkinson) or hints that new heights are about to be scaled (Duncalf, Abdel Kawy), but no-one looks like challenging David early in 2009.

Again, a good old rivalry in the top five would shake things up.

Governing bodies
Where to start. Apparent lack of direction at the WSF, a resignation at the top, the Olympic campaign seeming to be without co-ordination and professionalism. Progress towards getting its house in order appears to have been made around the time of the October's World Open, but the organisation will be primarily be judged over the next year by what happens at the Copenhagen vote.

The election of Richard Graham by the PSA looked to have given a clear signal that marketing, promotion and media coverage - all things that squash has been historically not done well - were to be addressed. How will his departure have a bearing on the way these key areas?

New initiatives and events have been announced or planned, many at the instigation of new Chairman Ziad Al-Turki. The investment and enthusiasm that Al-Turki is bringing is being welcomed by all in the game, but it will take two years before we will be able to judge whether this investment has endowed professional men's squash with a stronger footing to grow in the medium and long term.

Most of the money flowing into the men's game is coming from the Middle East, which (along with Egypt) has pulled the epicentre of squash away from Europe over the time this site has been up and running. The development of professional squash in regions or countries that display a greater enthusiasm for the sport is welcomed and should help to bring different perspectives and ideas to the game.

But the money coming in from the 'top' has to be matched by increased participation, whether in playing or spectating. Photos from some big-money events in the Middle East, for instance, often show rather empty stands. Also, it would be sad if money only made squash inaccessible to women in certain countries, again whether playing (as an amateur or professional) or watching.

Squashblog hasn't fired many words at national bodies since it started, and it is perhaps a little unfair to suggest that the WSF, PSA and WISPA can do everything alone - especially with their budgets. We hope to look at the performance of these in 2009.

Provision
I've tried to keep a regular eye on court closures - and the occasional opening! - where they make the local press. Great to see local activists fighting to retain squash courts in their area, but all too often they lose out to the gym developers.

The proposed facility at the University of Sussex is probably the most positive story in this area to come out of the UK recently - let's hope the facility sees the light of day. The closure of the historic Lambs club in London brought an end to an era; if the loss of the Lambs had any positive knock-on effect locally, it was in bringing home to many the fact that the capital is losing courts at demoralising rate - and motivating them into saving the courts that are left (Sobell, Finsbury).

Some countries are going in a different direction. Egypt - on the back of the success of its pros - is building more and more courts to satisfy demand.

Participation
This is a difficult one to judge without accurate statistics from national governing bodies. There have been a number of great initiatives aimed particularly at young people over the past couple of years, with the Mini-Squash programme for kids in the UK, and multiple schemes in the US - often allied to social programmes aimed at keeping teenagers off the streets.

Olympics
So much has been said on this site and elsewhere. Some people had better be working very hard behind the scenes!

Click on the Olympics link at the top of the page ...

Technology
Trials and tests have continued, with radar guns, instant replays, electronic scoring and other bits and pieces making an appearance. Great to see promoters and organisers getting innovative, and it would be nice to see some of these become benchmarks for future tournaments - there were no instant replays on the big screens at the Worlds, for instance.

It's time to get serious. Developments in filming squash for TV have certainly brought better coverage, but the advances have been incremental. There simply are not enough media players out there, competing to provide the best coverage, which in turn will drive up quality.

We'll be following closely the degree to which the 'TV issue' is a factor in the latter stages of the Olympic campaign later this year. Here's hoping it's not the deal-breaker: let's not kid ourselves - televising squash has not been cracked.

Marketing
Announcements by England Squash and the PSA that they are to employ professional consultancies to help with their marketing and public relations is a step in the right direction. This hitherto neglected area is key to competing in sports marketplace, and we look forward to seeing the results.

Perhaps less visible advances with the WISPA tour. As I keep reading in the squash press, they have a 'great product' - let's see some bolder initiatives marketing that product in 2009.

Image
The PSA in particular has done a lot in this area over the past couple of years, one example being a nice promo from Pro-Active TV suggesting the urban possibilities of settings, clothing and music. There is a lot of mileage in this, and it would be interesting to see this take on squash's image perhaps coupled with an initiative for youngsters.

Squash clubs - at least in the UK - still set the tone where image is concerned. Though not the yuppie playgrounds they might have been in the 1980s, a perception, at least, still exists that squash is cocooned in bubble of exclusivity - at least in the south of England. This image is even stronger in the US, where the ghost of Gordon Gekko still haunts city club courts.

Real or not, this idea of squash has to be dispelled if participation is to increase and more courts are not to be refurbished to make way for subscription-based 'health clubs'.

Prize money
Money from the Middle East now out-muscles anything that can be offered in Europe or the US. $3 million is reputedly on offer across the men's tour this year, a large increase on where things were five years ago.

The women's tour prize fund has grown hugely in the past 5-6 years, and it is a strong reflection on the running of the organisation that the sponsors keep stumping up bigger purses.

What looms over all this, of course - and with Bear Sterns going to the wall there has already been one big squash event casualty - is the impact the credit crunch/recession might have on sponsor's marketing budgets.

Partnerships and sponsorship
Some initiatives have already been mentioned above under marketing, image etc. Also worth considering that players have their own individual sponsors, but I would hazard a guess that the figures do not remotely approach tennis player sums, and I would doubt that these would be affected by the financial situation unless a player was sponsored by a small manufacturer that went bust.

As I've written on this site at length in the past, squash has rather a flirtatious relationship with the finance industry when it comes to sponsorship. In the US JP Morgan can find the money for the current Tournament of Champions, but I cannot remember the last time an City of London company put a penny up for an event.

Why can't squash court :) those big earners who regularly play the game?

I asked these questions nearly two years ago; with changing economic times, look out for an update here on this topic soon ...

Popularity
Like judging participation, this is a very hard one to call. In those developing countries (see below) and those countries that have had particular success at a professional level (such as Egypt), squash seems to be growing in popularity.

It is in the 'traditional' squash-playing countries that there appears to be a decline: England (or the UK as a whole - you can't play if there aren't any courts!), Australia (doubts about the commitment to the game from top-level sports administrators), and Pakistan (fewer youngsters coming through).

France, a country not previously renowned for its squash prowess, has had significant success in the professional game (Lincou and Gaultier) and this seems to have filtered through to swell grass-roots participation. Whether these two things are related is difficult to tell, but the French pros do receive more media coverage in their country than, say, the English players do in the UK.

Developing countries
By developing countries I mean countries that are developing where squash is concerned - into this category I have written articles mainly about the US and India.

Does Malaysia qualify as a developing squash nation? They've got the best women in the world, and the strength in depth of the professional men has really come on over the pas year or so. Having recently visited the country it appears to be another racket sport that has taken hold amongst the population - following on from badminton which is extremely popular.

Juniors
We've not followed the junior scene with a huge amount of scrutiny over the past two years. What we have observed can be summarised thus: Egypt rose as England weakened.

Officiation
Some interesting initiatives/experiments, often using technology as described above. There is surely scope for improving or expanding the tools that the officials have at their disposal - where other sports are taking the lead, squash may be able to learn lessons.

What appears to have changed over the past couple of years or so - and the move to PAR scoring has something to do with this - is the number of contested points or player-official conflicts. This was noted by IOC officials as something that squash must improve on, and progress seems to have ben made.

Credit must also go to what appears to be a very small group of officials who travel the world refereeing/marking professional squash events. I would guess that the remuneration is small, but most games I have seem have been officiated to a very high standard.

Disagree? How will things have moved on in another two years?

Have your say below ...

Read more ...

"Squash makes a better world"? Hmm ...

The December 2008 edition of International Squash Magazine dropped through my letter box last week. With great photos but little beyond a narrative view of what's happened recently in the squash world, I rarely give it much more than a cursory glance.

But an article featured on the front cover - 'Saudi Arabia - Wbere Squash Makes a Better World' - had me turning straight to page 9.

I could see the point of the piece, but some of it sat rather uncomfortably ...

The article, written by Richard Eaton, concerns the current development of the game in Saudi, and focuses in particular on the Saudi International, which Eaton writes was:

"... created with the twin aim of transforming the lot of the professional player and of altering perceptions of Saudi Arabia".

The article goes on:

"The tournament began to have a long-term public relations effect for Saudi Arabia. Players and people who came to Saudi told family and friends about it. Players were taken to museums to understand something about the country's history. The tournament hosted a traditional night. And last year some players stayed on after the tournament enjoying the nearby resort, the great weather and the lovely hospitality".

No doubt all this is true, but there is something uncomfortable about reading of "great weather" and "lovely hospitality" (which journalists and others have very much enjoyed), when the country is frequently cited as having an appaling human rights record.

Describing the fact that squash players were "paying to play" in Saudi as "horrific" is a particularly poor choice of words - there are plenty of other, very real, horrors happening every day in the country.

The ethical questions hanging over all this are similar to those that occupied many column inches in the run-up and during the Beijing Olympics: large and tricky issues, which it would be interesting to know the governing bodies' positions on.

Eaton's heart is clearly in the right place, but on this topic I think it pays to choose words very carefully: it's not only squash that seems to be getting a good deal.

December 2008 edition of International Squash Magazine
Human rights in Saudi Arabia

PS - When was the last women's professional squash tournament in Saudi Arabia?

Read more ...

PSA revamp tour for 2010

A while back I wrote an article about the decline of professional squash events in Australia (the country has not staged a major tournament for the past 17 years).

So good news earlier this week, as the PSA's new Chief Exec revealed in an exclusive interview with the Telegraph some of his ambitious plans for the men's tour over the next few years: top-level squash appears to be heading back there ...

The exciting development seeks to align the structure of the PSA world tour by 2010 to something akin to grand-prix format of the Master's series in tennis or F1 motor racing, with the biggest-money events all contributing to the 'race' that will culminate in a Finals event at the end of the season.

The Super Series has offered something similar over the years (though a kind of race-within-a-tour), but what distinguishes the new venture appears to be the higher-profile of the tournaments together with a higher proportion of PSA ranking points linked to performance in each of the top events. The 'final' would therefore prevent a bigger prize and incentive to aim at throughout the season. It would also mean that players would move between tournaments within a region, cutting out unnecessary plane journeys.

Mr Graham explained about the structure:

"Rather than it risking being a shoot-out, where players simply get prize money for winning, I hope we can structure it so that it had some relevance as to who would prevail at the end of the season".

From 2010, the calendar will have 10 distinguishable top-tier tournaments, while prize money will be offer at least $3 million over the year.

Plans are afoot to stage a tournament on Australia's Gold Coast, which would be a welcome step to re-igniting the public's interest in squash in the country and maybe sneaking some back page column inches (apparently they like their sport over there).

The programme also announced that a tournament would be staged in Namibia for the first time. It is yet to be decided whether the British Open will be included in the list.

Mr Graham has set the PSA a target for the PSA to "secure two major events by the end of 2008", and it appears that this goal has been achieved. Great to see explicit, measurable targets being used to develop the game for once - though I'd like to see more detail soon about how exactly the tour in 2010 will distinguish itself from the Super Series competition that has run with a degree of success for 16 years.

Australia & Namibia Declare Intent To Host PSA World Tour Events In 2010

Read more ...

Why 'the Wimbledon of squash'?

As it's Wimbledon fortnight, I've dug out an old article that argues why squash shouldn't align itself with tennis' traditions.

Disagree? Have your say ...

Read the article

Left: Photo copyright - AELTC

Read more ...

May tournaments bring Egyptian stars to UK

With Amr Shabana and Ramy Ashour trading blows around the world in the biggest finals on the PSA Tour, it's been a while since we saw either of them in the UK.

That's about to change in May, with two of the most prestigious men's events being held in Britain.

First up is the prestigious Dunlop British Open (8th-12th May), where Frenchman Greg Gaultier is defending the title ...

The self-styled "Wimbledon of squash" (a moniker I have questioned in the past) will this year be held at the ECHO Arena in Liverpool, as part of the city's European Capital of Culture celebrations.

The British assault on the title will be without 2006 winner Nick Matthew, with the Sheffield man struggling to return after a shoulder injury, though James Willstrop will hope to continue a good run of form in challenging the top French and Egyptian players.

The pick of the first round draws appears to be number 2 seed Ramy Ashour v rising English prospect Alister Walker. Walker recently scored his biggest win, against Gaultier in the Canary Wharf Classic, and seems to raise his game against the top players.

I'm also looking forward to seeing the new venue, and how the event is building towards regaining its status.

The Atco Super Series Finals 2008 will follow the BO by returning to Broadgate Arena in London on 19th-23rd May after moving temporarily last year to Manchester.

Egyptian prodigy Ashour won the event last year at his first attempt, and this year will be joined by Shabana, Greg Gaultier, David Palmer, James Willstrop, Thierry Lincou and Wael El Hindi in the tournament.

The Super Series Finals are contested by the top 8 players who have achieved the best results in the following events around the world over the previous year:

Below: a video of Thierry Lincou from the French TV channel Stade 2 made at the Super Series in 2006.

- Pace Canadian Classic
- Infor Windy City Open
- Bear Stearns Tournament of Champions
- Sheihka Al Saad Kuwait Open
- Qatar Classic (06)
- Dunlop British Open
- US Open
- Saudi International
- Qatar Classic (07)
- Cathay Pacific Hong Kong Open
- Endurance Bermuda World Open

Tickets for both events can be purchased through the iSPORTgroup by clicking here.

Dunlop British Open - Liverpool 2008
Atco Super Series Finals 2008

Read more ...

Ramy finally confirms for British Open

Rumours that Ramy Ashour would skip the British Open after missing last year's event have proved unfounded.

The Egyptian world number 2 was confirmed in a mailout on Friday from the organisers, iSPORTmedia ...

British crowds have had few chances to see the 20 year-old from Cairo on these shores, but Ashour's statement in the email suggests he is looking forward to playing the BO and the Super Series Finals in Broadgate, London:

"English crowds have always given me a lot of support, and having not played in England since winning the ATCO Super Series Finals last August, I'm really looking forward to playing two back-to-back events".

The strongest line-up for the British Open for a number of years includes World number 1 and World Champion Amr Shabana, fellow Egyptian Karim Darwish, the Frenchmen Gregory Gaultier and Thierry Lincou, Aussie David Palmer and England hopes Nick Matthew and James Willstrop.

2008 British Open

Read more ...

UK calendar fills up but I don't like Mondays

2008 is shaping up into a veritable tournament-fest for squash fans in Britain, with four big events scheduled to attract the world's best players.

After a slightly worrying 2007 in the UK, where the Super Series was rescued in the nick of time and the British Open wobbled back to its feet, the coming 12 months look set to bring the sport back to Blighty with a vengence.

But why are the British Open finals being held on a Monday?

The final matches were held on a Monday last year, and there have been a number of other tournaments where the climax of a competition has fallen outside of a weekend - last year's English Open, for instance, finished on a Tuesday ...

I can only think that it is the availability of venues that means that events can't be scheduled to finish at the weekend. This can't be good for the average working spectator, who would struggle to attend a Monday final if it is not held in their home town.

That small gripe aside, the British squash fan can look forward to the following during 2008:

Canary Wharf Classic (London)
Super Series Finals (London)
British Open (Liverpool)
World Open (Manchester - both men and women)

The geographical spread of these events is also important in bringing the game to a wider audience, as is the return of the Super Series to Broadgate - as I've said a number of time before, harnessing the financial muscle that only London can bring is crucial to the sport again dropping a firm anchor in the UK.

However, it's a shame that although WISPA's finest will be there for the BO and the World Open, there is no big women-only affair to match Canary Wharf of the Super Series.

While fans of the men's game will get to see the likes of Shabana and Ashour, it is only rarely that spectators in Britain get to appreciate the skills of Nicol David and Natalie Grinham.

How about a women's Super Series for Broadgate?

Canary Wharf Classic
Super Series Finals
British Open
World Open

Read more ...

Shabana attacks WSF over Olympic dithering

Amr Shabana has attacked the World Squash Federation for being slow in organising its campaign for squash's inclusion in the Olympic games.

He also criticised the organisation's marketing in general, noting the movement of the sport's epicentre towards the Middle East and the subsequent neglect of former squash powerbases such as Europe ...

In an interview with the Gulf Times, the Egyptian world number one pulled no punches as he bemoaned the face that he is unable to appear on the biggest stage.

Squash just missed out on inclusion for London 2012, and now hopes rest on it being included in the 2016 games. Shabana himeself has been reconciled to accepting that he will never appear in an Olympic event:

"There was a time when I was very eager to compete at the Olympics. But now since those hopes have been dashed I don’t worry about it any more."

He also sees the recent big-money tournaments in the Middle East as the benchmark for other countries to follow:

"The healthy competition in increasing the prize money between organisers of tournaments in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait is of great help to the hardworking players."

It wasn't mentioned in the article whether Shabana spoke for the other PSA players, but it would be interesting to hear whether the PSA players' reps think that Amr's criticism is valid.

Shabana slams world body - Gulf Times

Read more ...

Resurgent British Open - but where's Ramy?

It was heartening to read in International Squash magazine Jonah Barrington's enthusiastic endorsement of what he sees as a new "British circuit" emerging (extracts of which are reprinted here).

His comments related to the busy autumn and winter schedule of squash events currently being promoted in the UK. Britain's most successful squash player also commented on the history of the British Open, and how he felt that, with the kind of backing that it is currently being promised, should soon again regain its proud status as the "Wimbledon of squash" - the most prestigious tournament on the tour.

However, around the time I was reading Barrington's comments, the news also broke that Ramy Ashour - currently the hottest ticket in world squash - had decided not to play in next months' British Open in Manchester.

How does Ashour's non-appearance sit with Barrington's vision of the event's status?

Why the "Wimbledon of squash"?

I've linked these two stories because they are maybe more related than they first appear. Firstly, I've always found the British Open's claim to greatness through the moniker "the Wimbledon of squash" a strange one, for three reasons:

1. The phrase is bandied around in relation to more than one thing. I have read it used to describe the British Open in order to emphasise its history and prestigiousness. I've also seen it used to describe (hitherto) squash's most important venue in the UK, the now sadly closed Lambs club in London. This multiple use is confusing, and lessens the phrase each time it is (mis?)applied.

2. The Wimbledon Tennis Championships have been around for a long time - since 1877, in fact. Squash's British Open has been in existence since 1922 (for women - interestingly, for sport, the women's tournament has been around for longer than the men's) and 1930 (for men).

However the difference is more significant than in the time the respective events have existed. The great tennis tournament has been held at its landmark venue for the majority of those years, with all the history, drama and memories bound up with the players' and spectators' knowledge of what the "Wimbldeon experience" is - from queuing in the rain to strawberries and cream to "Henman Hill". The tournament is even named after a place (unlike the other tennis Grand Slams), and it is this sense of a sporting venue being special for two weeks of the year that makes for such a great experience.

The British Open doesn't have this enigmatic claim, as it has moved over the years from city to city, venue to venue. The sense of occassion is simply not the same when a tournament is not rooted in the traditions of place.

3. Wimbledon is a tennis tournament, and squash maybe does itself a disservice by defining itself through its relation to another sport.

My argument is not that the British Open has not been (to date) the most important event in world squash. The records books show that it has. It is that the term "the Wimbledon of squash" is a misnomer. Barrington's enthusiasm for the event and his hopes for it to regain its previous hights will be shared by many squash fans (and players), but the degree to which it is possible is open to question, given the sport's decline over the past couple of decades.

Given the fact that the event has struggled over the past few years to attract a lead sponsor, one could argue that the British Open has long ago lost any claim it had to be the revered crown in the professional game. The World Open far out-muscles it in terms of prize money (this year the British Open musters $78,000 for the men's draw, compared to the World Open's $175,000), and it is clear that with the investment in the World title, together with hefty Middle East sponsorship from the likes of Ziad Al-Turki, has meant that the top players are beginning to look elsewhere for ranking points and a sizeable pay day.

The Open without the best player

Which brings me to Ashour's decision not to play in this year's competition at the National Squash Centre in Manchester. The tournament's failure to attract this year's top player (Ashour may not yet be the world number one, but it only seems like a matter of time) has received surprisingly little coverage in the squash media, maybe because the young Egyptian's decision may not have been entirely his own: "My manager recommended I didn’t play. It is not good for points. I need to concentrate on other events and watch the points."

I don't think that the British Open needs to boast the highest prize money of any event on the PSA or WISPA tours to retain a sense of its prestige. But it does require a level of sponsorship somewhere in the region of the big events in Qatar, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia in order for promoters to attract the top players.

What seems certain is that without comparable prize money and the ranking points that come with it, more players are likely to withdraw to keep fresh for more lucrative tournaments. History, it seems, may no longer be as important as it was.

But while history (and wanting to be part of an event that has a grand history) will always be important to some, so is change. Perhaps those of use who are well aware of the British Open's past should spend less time trading the tournament on its former glories and take a braver step into the future.

Paul Waters' internationalSPORTgroup clearly have the enthusiasm and a sense of vision that hopefully will tranlsate into the resurgence of the event that Barrington and many of those who love squash crave. The British Open is important to squash as, to an extent, it is its history.

The solution for how this braver step can be taken should thefore a question for the whole squash world, rather than the beliguered promoters who struggle from year to year to prevent the door closing on the Open's history for good.

Ramy Ashour pulls out of British Open 2007

Read more ...

London loses out as Super Series heads north

It was fantastic news to hear that the Super Series Finals had been saved, after the ATCO Group stepped in to fund the tournament.

The future of the Super Series had been in doubt after the sponsors had pulled out of this year's tournament.

With the 2007 British Open and the 2008 men's and women's World Opens to be held at the National Squash Centre in Manchester, the north-west is cementing its position as the preferred host for professional events in the UK.

However, for squash fans elsewhere in the country, the lack of options means that a long drive or expensive train fare are part of the package if they want to see the top players in action.

Other than the exemplary Canary Wharf Classic, this means that there will be no professional squash tournaments held in London in 2007.

For the long-term survival of the game in this country, this state of affairs is nothing short of disastrous. With money pouring into tournaments in the Middle East, only the financial muscle of the City can compete to bring the best players and tournaments to this country.

As I discussed in a previous post, it is not as if the money isn't there: the irony is that many of those who play the game most regularly are amongst the highest earners in the country.

Surely a squash-playing banker could be found to plough a relatively tiny proportion of their annual bonus into having an event named in their honour, with the cream of the world's elite squash players lining up?

That's one suggestion. A skilful and well-connected promoter - maybe borrowed from another sport? - would have many more.

I cannot believe that squash's governing bodies have not tried to leverage City money in the past (or indeed continue to do so), though the apparent lack of success suggests that something is not quite right.

Have your say:
Squash and the City

Read more ...

Squash and the City

Squash has an ambivalent relationship with the suited and booted. On one hand it tries to shake off "image problems" that perceive it as an elitist pursuit for public school toffs and City boys; on the other it courts the fat wallets by plonking itself in the middle of Broadgate or Canary Wharf.

Opening the recent 2007 International Edition (Issue 2) of Squash Player magazine I was pleased to see the annual London Super Series Finals, previously cancelled due to the withdrawal of a sponsor, may now be staged after all.

What particularly drew attention was a specific reference to the pertinence of the event's Broadgate Arena location:

"The Super Series Finals is a non-ranking event and as such provides exhibition-style squash for a niche audience in the City. Importantly, this is a showcase for the sport in the eyes of the world's financial community".

Having attended the event for a number of years I've seen some attempts to court (sic) the City workers who attend the Finals, usually through amateur tournaments throughout the week's competition, with a prize of competing on the glass court or a training session with one of the pros.

I don't doubt the sincerity and hard work of the organisers in offering these spin-off events to enthusiastic spectators. But does this constitute a serious attempt to "showcase the sport in the eyes of the world's financial community"? I doubt it - the profile is too small and investment minimal.

If the Super Series Finals at Broadgate are an explicit attempt to attract investment from City firms then they need to make a bigger statement. The venue (basically a marquee tent with limited tiered seating) does not allow for hospitality or entertainment away from the court – important side-shows when impressing corporate partners used to such things.

A couple of months ago I noted the irony in an initiative to attract City money to Olympic sports in preparation for the London 2012 Games. While large firms were being invited to "sponsor" an individual sport (supplementing increased state funding - some of which may even be diverted from squash), the chosen pastime of thousands of their employees wouldn't receive a penny due to squash's non-appearance at the Games.

Sponsorship v Partnerships

This shouldn't be the case. On a subsequent page of the Squash Player mag was an encouraging interview with Christian Leighton, Chief Executive and General Secretary of the World Squash Federation (WSF). His subject was sponsorships and partnerships: the former being centred on short-term mutual gain, the latter a strategic relationship that becomes "effective years after association".

While admitting that the WSF is "certainly no expert" in this area, Leighton says that his organisation is willing to take risks in pitching for partnerships longer than the usual one- or two-year deals "even if it will deter many sponsors". This is a brave but necessary step, and is evidence of an ambition that the sport all too often seems to lack.

Given squash's links with business, why shouldn't these longer partnerships be possible? Finding where City companies splurge the charitable funds that could, under different circumstances, befall squash isn't difficult. A click on the website of the investment bank JP Morgan, for instance, sees proud boasts of partnerships that have created (and continue to support) sporting and cultural events.

With big-money announcements in the Middle East increasingly locating the region as the epicentre of world squash, the traditional influence of Britain as the sport's "home" is also under threat. This may not be a bad thing, though without innovative investment Britain may lose some of its famous tournaments in the near future.

So what exactly can be done to woo the investment banks, insurers and equity groups? Which partnerships would provide the most mutual benefit?

Why target a “niche”?

Perhaps this is not the right question to ask at this stage. The most ambiguous phrase in the above Squash Player extract is "niche audience": niches are by definition small, and do not attract large amounts of money. Squash is a mass-participation sport and needs to appeal than more to a niche audience.

The governing bodies of squash need firstly to address the incongruity posed at the start of this article and agree on which side of the bed they lie. Christian Leighton mentions in his article that "in order to find companies or brands with similar objectives or needs, we must first understand our own" - a welcome admission that a sport's image is crucial to its survival in the modern era.

World Squash Federation
Squash Player magazine

Read more ...

Madrid steps in to save World Open

The governing body of the professional women's squash tour, WISPA, has announced that Madrid will host this year's World Open. The event had been in doubt after negotiations with other hosts had fallen through.

Promisingly for the event, the $100,000 prize fund at stake makes it the richest event ever to be staged in women's squash.

Time to start booking those early Easyjet flights ...

Have your say:
How strong is the women's game?

Read more ...

Women on top with KL prize purse

In an article I wrote a while back I asked readers to comment on the popularity of the women's game.

Lack of spectators is obviously not a probem in Kuala Lumpur, where the prize fund for the KL Open 2007 WISPA event was $44k, compared to $40k for the men.

This may be down to the participation of world champion Nicol David, a big star in her home country of Malaysia and the eventual winner of the tournament, beating Australia's Natalie Grinham in the final.

The fact that the women's prize fund exceeded the men's suggest that it is player marketability, and not the more well-worn factors such as game length or greater fitness, that determines who should be paid more in a particular event.

Have your say:
How strong is the women's game?

Read more ...

How strong is the women's game?

It's a perennial favourite of sports pollsters to wheel out their "Who's the greatest?" charts, and I've read many posts where squash fans contribute to similar lists. It's a lot of fun and whiles away many an hour in the pub.

The inherent flaw within this speculation, of course, is that many of us aren't old enough to have seen a player from an earlier era in their prime (though I bow to the wisdom of the more "mature" members of the squash community who witnessed Hashim Khan or Heather McKay at the height of their powers).

Squash poses an even trickier task for those who try to make comparisons between the overall strength of the professional game in different eras, as it has been dominated by a relatively small number of players; a glance at the previous winners of the British Open is a good indicator of this.

Differing fortunes

The recent announcement of new big-money men's tournaments in the Middle East was announced a few weeks before I read that the 2007 Women's World Open was sadly under threat as the sponsors had pulled out.

This difference in fortune between the men's and women's game had me wondering about the relative strengths of the games and whether overall playing standard and competitive appeal (or, as I rather suspect, a multitude of other factors) is indicative in any way of the contrasting luck in attracting audiences and sponsorship.

Another check back at Wikipedia shows that the men's World Open was not held in 2000 or 2001 due to similar difficulties in securing sponsorship for the event.

The current era benefits from heightened competition in that no one player in either the men's or women's game is dominant (though one could argue that Nicol David is creeping towards this position). Greater competitiveness and a sense of unpredictability in sport should in theory attract greater audiences.

Competitiveness doesn't equal increased investment

However, there is an important difference between the strength of a sport as borne out by results and how it is perceived by those who choose to watch or invest in it. Some would rather go and watch one individual superstar trounce his or her opponents week-in, week-out, than back an underdog in a wide-open tournament.

It is also unfortunate that women's sport in general receives less money than men's - for example, each summer tennis commentators debate the injustice of women at Wimbledon receiving less prize money than their male counterparts.

I am sure there is a straightforward explanation why the sponsors have withdrawn from the Women's World Open, and I have my fingers crossed that WISPA finds a more than suitable replacement sponsor and venue (maybe in the USA?).

It would be interesting to hear, though, what others felt about the strength of the modern women's game.

Read more ...

Congratulations to the PSA

Congratulations to the PSA on its recent agreements in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that will bring some great tournaments to the region.

Most importantly for the game are the large prize purses: the four Super Series Platinum events to be held in Saudi Arabia are worth more than $1 million - the size of the deal being a first for squash.

This should not only raise the profile of the sport in the region but hopefully attract press coverage from further afield.

Read more ...