Over the last few weeks, con­sid­er­able de­bate has cen­tred on the role of cor­po­rate spon­sors in the de­vel­op­ment of lo­cal sport.

Many com­men­ta­tors have de­cried the ap­par­ent re­luc­tance of cor­po­rate T&T to sup­port sport­ing or­gan­i­sa­tions, echo­ing fa­mil­iar cries of a lack of na­tion­al pride and sup­port.

While this nar­ra­tive plays well in some quar­ters and on so­cial me­dia, where the un­in­formed most­ly roam, a deep­er in­tro­spec­tion re­veals a much more trou­bling pic­ture. In one word, the biggest draw­back to cor­po­rate spon­sor­ship in this coun­try is gov­er­nance. Yes, gov­er­nance!

​While I have no doubt there are ex­cep­tions to what I de­scribe be­low, I be­lieve those ex­cep­tions are prob­a­bly rare and must be more com­mon if we are hon­est.

Cor­po­rate spon­sors are look­ing for a few ba­sic truths when de­cid­ing to get in­volved with any sport: a good part­ner with whom they can work. That part­ner, one would ex­pect, should log­i­cal­ly be the sport­ing as­so­ci­a­tion re­spon­si­ble for that sport­ing dis­ci­pline in this coun­try—be it foot­ball, crick­et, swim­ming, hock­ey, cy­cling, ath­let­ics, wrestling, etc. The spon­sor is ex­pect­ing that as­so­ci­a­tion to demon­strate pro­fes­sion­al­ism and ac­count­abil­i­ty.

​There are five key in­di­ca­tors of this: a clear or­gan­i­sa­tion­al struc­ture, strong lead­er­ship, fi­nan­cial trans­paren­cy, a track record of suc­cess­ful events/pro­grammes, and prop­er safe­guard­ing and com­pli­ance poli­cies. Most com­pa­nies avoid projects/part­ner­ships plagued by gov­er­nance risks or poor fi­nan­cial con­trols.

Many of our sport­ing or­gan­i­sa­tions are un­able to pro­vide up-to-date fi­nan­cial in­for­ma­tion, re­spon­si­ble ar­ti­cles of as­so­ci­a­tion, con­sti­tu­tion and sound busi­ness prac­tices. They lack ex­pe­ri­ence/skills with re­spect to project man­age­ment, lack a well-ar­tic­u­lat­ed vi­sion for the sport in this coun­try, dis­play no ac­count­abil­i­ty to their mem­bers, and are un­able to pro­vide ev­i­dence of arm’s-length trans­ac­tions and deal mak­ing.

De­spite these short­com­ings, many of them ex­pect cor­po­rate T&T to still pro­vide sup­port. If the po­si­tion is to be re­versed, the sport­ing as­so­ci­a­tions need to buck them­selves up, be open, and lis­ten to ad­vice.

​Once they can im­prove their gov­er­nance, their pro­pos­als must demon­strate re­spon­si­ble use of funds. Im­por­tant con­sid­er­a­tions in this re­gard would in­clude a re­al­is­tic bud­get, a clear break­down of ex­pens­es, co-fund­ing or oth­er spon­sors, demon­stra­ble val­ue for in­vest­ment, and fi­nan­cial re­port­ing mech­a­nisms. Hir­ing a fi­nan­cial ac­coun­tant would be a step in the right di­rec­tion.

Com­pa­nies want con­fi­dence that their funds will be man­aged ef­fec­tive­ly. Projects must have de­fined goals and ways to mea­sure suc­cess, in­clud­ing spe­cif­ic de­liv­er­ables, par­tic­i­pa­tion tar­gets, de­vel­op­ment in­di­ca­tors, re­port­ing plans, and eval­u­a­tion met­rics.

​As­sum­ing the cor­po­rate gov­er­nance and project man­age­ment is­sues can be re­solved, sport­ing as­so­ci­a­tions need to en­sure that their pro­posed ac­tiv­i­ties align with the val­ues and brand of the spon­sors they are seek­ing. This is not a one-size-fits-all ap­proach; it re­quires an in­tel­li­gent ap­proach where spon­sors are tar­get­ed based on an un­der­stand­ing of their spe­cif­ic val­ue and po­si­tion­ing.

As­so­ci­a­tions need to sell par­tic­i­pa­tion in their ac­tiv­i­ties by pro­mot­ing the like­ly au­di­ence size, me­dia cov­er­age, ge­o­graph­ic reach, and brand­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties.

​Out­side of the com­mu­ni­ty im­pact, this is what will ap­peal to spon­sors. For the right val­ue propo­si­tion and with­in the right gov­er­nance con­text, no cor­po­ra­tion can turn down the op­por­tu­ni­ty to en­hance its im­age. Sport­ing as­so­ci­a­tions in this coun­try need to ac­knowl­edge that spon­sor­ship is not a right but a busi­ness op­por­tu­ni­ty. They need to po­si­tion them­selves through ef­fec­tive gov­er­nance and fi­nan­cial re­port­ing to stand up to the clos­est of due dili­gence, and then po­si­tion their ac­tiv­i­ties to demon­strate both ef­fec­tive use of funds and max­i­mum cor­po­rate val­ue.

​Nat­u­ral­ly, over the years, I have ob­served and not­ed the prac­tices of some and I have to shake my head in dis­be­lief at the way some con­tin­ue to op­er­ate in cloud cuck­oo land, obliv­i­ous to their true pur­pose. Sad­ly, it is our ath­letes who have to suf­fer be­cause of their col­lec­tive in­ep­ti­tude. I hope there is change be­fore it is too late.