(updated 20-jun-09 23:34 ) 

PSA MEDIA INTRIGUE
For those of you who follow the PSA closely, there has been more than the usual intrigue going on in this "off season". This has revolved around a new media (i.e. Video/TV/Internet streaming) contract that the PSA has PRIVATELY offered to several media outlest this spring, as a successor to their contract with Horizon which has broadcast PSA Live for the past two years.

This whole controversy has come to light largely through the efforts of Shawn Patton of Vancouver, Canada, who published the website squash360 up until recently and has been on a tireless mission to act as a watchdog for the activities of the PSA. I use the word activities as a positive spin - many people would characterize their actions more as antics.

SquashTalk didn't realy cover this topic when Shawn brought it to light several months ago, largely because there wasn't much to say. The PSA didn't want to comment on it, they vigorously defended their right to negotiate a new media contract privately, completely away from the public eye. In fact they even threatened to bring suit against Mr. Patton for publicizing some of their internal email communications.

However, the PSA had originally planned to announce a new "media partner" (why are all contracts always claimed to be partnerships these days?) at "the end of June" so it is timely for us to raise this topic now.

It is also timely in conjunction with the World Squash presentation just made before the International Olympic Committee at the beginning of the week just ended in Lausanne, Switzerland. Last time around (before the current increasingly secretive WSF regime) the squash questionnaire submitted to the IOC was provided to SquashTalk and other squash media in a spirit of cooperation and openness. No such information has been provided to us this time around.

However, based on the last time around, there are a few simple conclusions we can draw, which lead the squash community inexorably to the point that whatever the PSA does with the media has a major impact on whether squash as a sport can success with the IOC. Namely, squash has up until the present day fallen short on three main criteria that the IOC looks at. First, the global TV coverage and reach of the sport (as we all know squash has minimal mainstream TV coverage anywhere in the world and certainly not in North America). Second, demonstrated media coverage of major world championships (as we know, the Squash world championships are barely covered by the media, and increasingly over the past few years, the WSF has put itself even more at arms-length from even the specific squash media, discouraging SquashTalk's Martin Bronstein, for instance, from covering world junior events he had covered regularly for years). Third, the ability of a sport to contribute or attract global sponsors who could be added to the Olympic banner. (As we know, squash has none.)

Shawn approached SquashTalk about more aggressively publicizing PSA's strangely secretive and private solicitation of potential media partners. At first, we were hestitant to march into this fray. But the more silence there has been from the PSA, the more we realize the world squash community needs to know.

WHY THE NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY
The key point is that in almost every sport, the sport governing bodies have moved more and more towards open-ness, and that has included open competition for the media rights for that sport. Open publication of the bid documents, open access to the press during the process. The process itself has become a very positive news story for many sports. Not squash, however. Up and down the sport (with the standout exception of WISPA) there has been inexplicably greater and greater secrecy and attempts to completely control messages to the media.

The benefits of an open process are many - unknown but interesting bidders might come to the table, members of the squash community with ideas and creativity might contribute those ideas, and sweetheart deals which are harmful to the progress of the sport will be more difficult to execute.

Here are some issues all squash fans should be concerned about regarding squash broadcasting:

• PSA squash broadcasting contracts have given away way too many rights without demanding performance.
• The personalities doing the broadcasting (and there is no signal this is about to change!) are charitably, complete amateurs with little understanding of what effective broadcasting entails, no formal training in broadcasting, in many cases limited ability to impart insight or critical thinking, and with no preparation ahead of time. This above all shows the sport in a poor light.
• The business models pursued, in the rush to give PSA complete control, have destroyed entrepreneurial business models involving production, distribution and sale of high quality squash recordings. In fact PSA appears to have little understanding of the need for an "ecosystem" of healthy secondary businesses that can lend credibility to the tour.
• The business models pursued have put promoters, especially in non-European markets, at a disadvantage.

With all of this in mind, we talked to the man who revealed the PSA media negotiations, Shawn Patton:

SQUASHTALK:  Shawn, you’ve brought this debate into a public forum.   Could you say a few words about why you feel so  passionately that the PSA media contract is of importance to the average squash fan? 

SHAWN: I think my rambling answer/train of thought might take more than a few words.

Thinking of the importance of this issue to "average squash fan" ... hate to say it, but does the average player, parent, club owner, spectator even know what the PSA is?   I would suggest many would venture a first guess that the PSA is a screening test for Prostate cancer or an acronym for Public Service Announcement rather than the governing body for professional men's squash.

More tellingly, if you surveyed 100 enthusiasts at your average squash club from most anywhere in the world, how many could name any two players from the PSA top ten?  What if you asked them, if they have watched squash on television or streamed on the Internet in the past year or two?  3?  5?

Pro squash is barely scratching the surface of reaching the "average squash fan."

Finding the very best partners in the areas of TV, Web Rights, Sponsorship and Event Planning just might help the pro game reach this "average squash fan."

But only if enough pressure comes to bear on the PSA Executives and Board of Directors to change their current tender process for the TV Distribution & Internet Rights. 

Imagine a tender process that is more visible, open and transparent. A more comprehensive range of potential bidders becomes possible and given the increased competition a much stronger bid just might might surface.
 
With the right process, attracting the right proposal, from the right company, the average squash fan might with quality marketing and business models (and support of "gatekeepers") become aware of the pro game and be able to watch squash on TV or watch/download the odd pro squash match to watch these amazing athletes and the pace, creativity and athleticism of the squash at that level. 

But what about the "average American squash fan" given the current language in the Invitation to Tender document?  TV distribution in the US not to mention Canada, Central and South America isn't an immediate priority.

"PSA seeks meaningful distribution avenues in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Australia and sub-Saharan Africa in the first instance. In the long term, it is hoped that distribution will be worldwide."  

In my opinion, it is the professional squash players and squash tournament organizers who should really care about improving the bid process.  Time will tell if apathy and/or fear of reprisals will prevent more players and promoters from publicly speaking their mind and sharing their concerns on these and other issues.

SQUASHTALK:  Shawn, you have been championing the cause of getting the various squash bodies to be more transparent towards the world squash community.   Have you received grass roots support from readers of your comments (emails and the like) that make you feel that there is a groundswell of support for this concept? 

SHAWN: Championing, that's sound rather dignified.  I would imagine certain squash association executives and staff might refer to my efforts as being a pain in the you know what, while others might are certain to consider me, my tone and actions similar to a bull in a china shop. 

My concerns relate more generally with squash executives properly conducting major initiatives and decisions (examples: efforts to gain Olympic status, composition of PSA Board, recruiting and selecting CEO of PSA) with professionalism, transparency being one aspect quite often lacking.

With regard to receiving a groundswell of support for my efforts, reaction is definitely mixed.  Can't say I have been overwhelmed, in the past or recently, with a quantity of supportive comments or encouragement, but have been most appreciative at all times for any support I have received. 

SQUASHTALK:  Shawn, you’ve done a lot of research in the area of how other sports handle their media rights negotiations.  Do you feel there is precedent for a public process?

SHAWN: My research consisted of doing some basic Google searches available to Joe Public and PSA executives.  

A fully public process is not what I believe is prudent or what I have suggested.  However, fully promoting in the public domain that the TV & Web are available for tender to maximize the potential quantity and quality of bidding companies I believe is in everyones best interest. 

As for a precedent:
   http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/marketingtv/releases/newsid=100959.html 
    http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/commissions/tv_and_internet/full_story_uk.asp?id=2110
      http://www.iaaf.org/aboutiaaf/news/newsid=47565.html

SQUASHTALK:  Behind much of your writings, is I believe your belief that we as a sport are not accessing the broader sports marketing and media sources.  What reason do you have to believe that there are better deals out there for our sport?

SHAWN: What I believe or if there is or isn't another better deal out there is secondary.

Our sport, pro players, tournament organizers, sponsors, squash businesses deserve a professional Invitation to Tender process period. 

# # # # # # # # # #