MT E23 - Is it time to stop fixating on public funding?

Does basketball need to stop fixating on public sector funding?

Interesting discussion. And I do agree, sometimes we focus far too much on public funding to grow the sport in the UK. If anyone’s in the best position to do this it’s those who would benefit commercially, i.e. the BBL. But as mentioned in the podcast I think the fact that the BBL is essentially a franchise model, owned by the teams and not a governing body, is the biggest problem. How could the BBL implement strict criteria to improve the overall quality of the league when said criteria would essentially force half the teams – or should I say owners, out of the organisation. And probably make things financially worse, at least in the short term, for the other half. They aren’t going to do it.

Some people like to knock it for being circus basketball (for which I do understand) but the closest we’ve maybe come to this happening is Matchroom Sport running the British Basketball All-Stars Championship. It has a quality conbasketball kited entry policy (top 7 teams in the league, plus the current champions), is one of the best attended events of the season, is arguably the best presented event of the season – both in the arena and on television, and receives some of the best media coverage (even being broadcast in multiple countries around the world). That’s the kind of standard the BBL needs to start to adopt throughout.
You have to ask, is it a coincidence that the best example of this being done is with the only competition not being run by the BBL…?

What does the Trophy result mean for the rest of the season? (00:40)


Might mean something, might mean nothing. I'd like to think it shows Royals are capable of big things. However, it may also mean they managed to up their game because it was a derby game and a final. With 7 losses i'm not getting *too* excited however it might come together in time for the playoffs.




Are we seeing the last of Tayo in a Scorchers jersey? (09:37)




Maybe not. Surrey were excellent last season and *did* manage to win the allstars despite a poor season since. I think they'll have to work hard to keep him but I don't think it's a definite that he's gone. 


Does the Riders v Eagles game mean as much as it used to? (15:30)



Almost. Both teams are still hugely relevant. It's just not a battle of 1 v 2 anymore. The point about it being great to see 4 excellent teams this season is one that i'd agree with. We have a situation where 4 teams are better than the rest however none are so good as to be invincible. It's exciting.
To go back to the original question, the fact that London v London now exists means that Riders v Eagles is no longer the only show in town. it's not that it doesn't mean as much, it's that it doesn't *need* to mean as much.



Does basketball need to stop fixating on public sector funding? (22:47)

Yes. 100 times yes! Our MO seems to be whining about not being funded and attacking other sports. It is tiresome, boring and utterly unprofessional. Public funding can be a good source of money to complement private or self generated funding. When used as a crutch to stop the national team programme imploding it is neither complementary or being used for long term benefit. I've said it enough times so i'm not gonna dwell on the point too much other than to say "Who the fck in their right mind would fund us?".

We should be run like a business instead of a basket-case begging for handouts. We seem to think because we're a popular kids sport, and because we consider ourselves more inclusive than other sports, we're automatically deserving of free money.

To address the question posed at the end of the episode - am I happy with the way things are going? Unsure. I do feel we're making some progress in terms of facilities. However, are we seeing much difference in terms of commercial partnerships? We've no title sponsors for any competitions. I think there's some way to go.