by Craig Fiddes

If you are working within a sponsorship or experiential role or have either area within your marketing mix you will at some point be required to get approval (directly or indirectly) from your company’s board. This may be to start, grow, change or worryingly stop your activity. Either way, when the time comes you will need those magic numbers that tell your audience your plans are the right thing to be doing.

These numbers can often feel elusive to find or if you do find them, you might not like what they’re telling you. However, what I have found more often than not is people really struggle to identify tangible metrics that can show direct benefits to appeal to company executives, who often have their own competing objectives.

It seems there is still a heavy reliance on old fashioned AVE, reach, database sizes and social interactions as oppose to finding the true value your activity can or has created for the consumer and ultimately your company’s bottom line. The results of this often mean, when competing for ever tighter marketing budgets, the fields of sponsorship and experiential activity get the thumbs down when assessed next to more traditional channels, where boards have past experience and hence greater confidence.

So, I want to use this blog to show from my experience what has worked when measuring the value of either marketing discipline. Looking at how this can be utilised to gain buy in from a company’s board and specifically how this can influence the Marketing Director and the all important FD.

Having spent time on both the brand and agency side of things, it has struck me the importance of speaking the language of your stakeholders when it comes to evaluating sponsorships. How, if you get this right you can integrate all measurements to create a simple, clear, successful picture.

Taking a step back from the actual evaluation itself the first key challenge to successfully selling in the benefit of a sponsorship or experiential strategy is to fully understand your audience. In the majority of cases this will obviously be a company’s board and it’s at this level where I would start any evaluation process. It sounds simple but if these are the people that will give you the thumbs up then you need to know how they tick, their objectives, challenges, targets are and most importantly what values and language they use to evaluate these against. There will more than likely be a central vision, strategy and set of objectives which should not be ignored, but these individuals will have their specific areas of focus, identifying these and where your activity can support them will give any proposal far greater impact.

In short, know who your advocates are, know who are the detractors (that can derail any proposal no matter what the benefits) and know who are stuck on the fence. When the time comes to show the value of your channels activity, spending time building a rapport with these key stakeholders will massively help shape your understanding of what picture they need and what assessment criteria you’ll need to paint it.

The Power of The Net Promoter

There has been a big shift in recent years amongst service, financial and utility industries towards focusing on customer retention, putting more effort into building existing customer loyalty rather than having to constantly chase and replace lost customers with new ones. These industries have suffered from low trust, only having transactional customer relationships and no differentiation between their competitors. This has resulted in poor customer advocacy, high churn and as a consequence (especially within energy and telecoms) high sales costs and targets to fill their leaking buckets.

From a sponsorship and experiential perspective this aspiration provides a fantastic opportunity to demonstrate how these channels can support a customer orientated approach.  Both disciplines (done well) allow you to put the consumer and their story at the heart of an engagement campaign and both can provide tangible proof points that a business is putting its customers first.

In support of this, from a research perspective there has been a big increase in the number of company executives using Net Promoter Scores (NPS) as a way of measuring customer loyalty. This method allows businesses to measure both positive and negative scores in terms of consumer feedback. However, there is still very low integration of this tool within sponsorship and experiential disciplines and there is still challenges raised by a number of bodies and individuals with using NPS as a sole indicator of customer loyalty. Critics cite the fact that it only focuses on one specific measure ‘likelyhood to recommend ’as an issue – it does not directly determine a commercial value, likelihood to stay or propensity to purchase. It also does not provide a view of brand metrics or ultimately result in a pound sign to play back to your FD.

So, knowing these industries have customer focused aspirations and knowing the benefits and challenges of using NPS, I’ve found to get the complete picture its best to lead with NPS as the assessment criteria but tie the other key metrics as a subset of this. This goes against the very nature of using NPS which is supposed to be a simple quick question but by integrating all the measures and splitting them by 3 clear control groups of customers (#1 those with no sponsorship or experiential engagement, #2 those who receive communication only and #3 those fully engaged) you will able to fully measure NPS alongside rolling churn, customer service complaints, brand and purchase decision making perceptions etc, etc.

This has proven to be a very successful evaluation model both in terms of creating an holistic picture to present to a board and also in its integration of the different insight and research teams (often working in isolation and certainly distant from any sponsorship and experiential marketing). Bringing these people together gets everyone’s buy-in from a research perspective and further more gets them aware and on board with the actual campaign you’re measuring. The strength of this means you have a strong army of credible voices internally backing you when the time comes to present the results to your key stakeholders.

From the numerous campaigns we have delivered in this way, I am proud to say the results have been fantastic. We have consistently demonstrated clear change in customer perceptions, advocacy, loyalty and commercial value. With one specific brand we were able to demonstrate how we had taken their non engaged audience from an NPS and churn rate of -17 and 13% respectively, to a fully engaged audience of +9 NPS and 2% churn. In addition, having the NPS and churn linked in this way also enabled us to show the substantial financial benefits our integrated sponsorship and experiential campaign had delivered.

In summary, what should we take from this, I think its that you don’t have to be an analytical genius to pull together a presentation that sells and gets the thumbs up for your campaigns. What you do need, is the very thing written in most of our experiential and sponsorship job spec’s, ‘great networking and stakeholder management skills’. Using these abilities allows you to understand what picture your audience wants to see and allows you to lean on the right people to paint it.

By Charlotte Parish

The concept of corporate hospitality has been practised since the days of wise Aristotle. The philosopher explained the ‘Theory of Distributive Justice’, whereby if you provide a positive experience for someone, the balance has been tipped and ultimately, they will be obliged to do something in return to shift the balance back to equilibrium. Converted to modern day terms, the aim of the hospitality provider is to create such a memorable experience that the balance is considerably shifted and therefore requires the greatest amount of readjustment.

A day at the races or match day box hospitality  at a top Premier League Football Club are common types of hospitality, but what are the benefits of spending large sums of money on what some would class as an excuse for a booze-filled jolly? Strengthening of relationships is the most common justification for providing these events. Providers believe that a relaxed setting will develop a relationship outside of the pressures of a four walled conference room and allow a company to really understand their clients or suppliers. ‘People do business with people’ and the face to face interaction will often improve communications, make difficult situations in the future easier to deal with and improve loyalty to the company.

There are clear benefits of choosing a sporting event for your hospitality programme. Sports like rowing, polo and horse racing offer between 2-3 hours of ‘spectating’ time and over 5 hours of ‘refreshment’ time. If employees hosting guests are properly briefed, this is an invaluable time for companies to impress their clients, promote networking and forge long lasting relationships. Surely then, the money spent is worth it for the increased face to face time you have with important stakeholders?

Those more sceptical believe that whilst soft benefits may exist, there is little justification for spending part of their often limited marketing budget on corporate hospitality. The 5:1 theory advocates that for the amount spent, a company will expect a 5 times increase in profits from the individual invitee. However, is hospitality really the catalyst behind boosting business growth? Can we really prove important decisions were swayed by hospitality? Whilst offerings of a day out of the office to watch high level sport may be a lovely extra, the question is – is hospitality worth the money? Or would business relationships continue to be strong and bring in increased revenue year on year without it?

Corporate hospitality had been growing steadily until the recession hit in 2008. At this point, many companies found their marketing budgets slashed and hospitality programmes removed. During recessive times, some companies have stopped what is deemed  ‘frivolous’ spend for fear of a negative PR backlash and others are finding the approval process more taxing  due to the additional internal requirement to provide proof of ROI. In contrast, some believe that now is the time more than ever to use corporate hospitality to strengthen business relationships and keep up with competitors. Perhaps if you have offered corporate hospitality in the past you should stick with it as stopping annual hospitality events may suggest your company is not weathering the storm.

So what is the future of hospitality? With money tighter and spend harder to justify, purchasers of hospitality packages demand more value for money. They want a truly once in a life time experience which is unique and not something that is rolled out day in, day out. Sponsors are therefore creating more exciting hospitality programmes with more access to players or venues and a ‘real time’ experience (such as training ground access, dug out seats, passenger seats in cycling support cars etc.). Event organisations are looking closer at the target audience and creating tailor-made, customer focused programmes for smaller groups in order to tap in to what they are really passionate about.  More innovative packages will provide a truly memorable experience for invitees who will then have a more positive attitude of the provider.

Since the Olympics, spend is on the up and analysts predict the hospitality market will increase by 8.5% to £1.34bn by 2016. Something is clearly driving people to spend money on hospitality, even if the benefits are viewed as intangible. Perhaps more sophisticated systems which clearly attribute hospitality to ROI is what is needed to convince companies to take the plunge and embrace corporate hospitality. Either way, those that do not provide some form of client entertainment risk relationships eroding as clients move on to others who will ‘look after them better’. We must remember that competitive advantage often lies in the relationships that are at the heart of nearly all organisations and the better we look after them, the better they will look after you.

by Jackie Mills

Much has been made about Rory McIlroy, former world No. 1, and his reported £150 million switch in equipment from Titleist to Nike at the start of the year. Whilst he had a spectacular 2012, his form since the switch has been a continuous debate within the golfing world. Has he sacrificed performance for relatively short term (albeit large) commercial gain?

History shows that equipment changes in sport are nothing new; a number of top-name athletes have cashed in over the years. There have been some that have made the change and succeeded; not least Ernie Els who has defied brand loyalty and won a total of four major golfing titles with three different companies! But also some who have gone in quite the opposite direction; tennis racquet maker Prince endured intense speculation about what Maria Sharapova was really swinging on the tennis court before breaking off their deal with her after ten years.

With such fine margins making the difference in sport these days, messing around with equipment that is so intimately involved with a sport like golf is a very delicate matter and not one that should be taken lightly. A golf club is an extension of the golfers body and sadly Rory’s transition to his new Nike clubs haven’t exactly been seamless. In Abu Dhabi earlier this year, he was seen ditching his Nike putter for his trusty old Titleist Scotty Cameron – whilst a PR dream for Titleist; a bit of a headache for Nike!

So the worry now for Nike is that if Rory somehow continues to struggle, many will continue to point to the equipment as the reason, and Nike Golf, which is just starting to get its legs under the table as a legitimate player in the equipment business simply can’t afford that sort of negative impression on its product line. Whilst Rory might have been the obvious endorser to the Nike Golf brand, the real test will be if Nike can prove that they can get him back to the top of his game…starting with the Masters this weekend.

by Andy Kenny

A few weeks ago, I drafted a blog which gave an overview of the Top 10 trends in the sponsorship industry. One of the points highlighted the changing face of the sponsorship agency, and the fact that these days an agency needs to be full of marketers who are close to sport, rather than the other way round.

I thought it worth going into a bit more detail as to how the Sponsorship Agency model is changing, and how it may look in the future.

In the old days, an agency would develop an activation programme with a few random ideas, generate some PR coverage and at the end of the season land the client with a foot high of bound up media cuttings, present a strong media value ROI and everyone would congratulate themselves on a job well done. And if an Award was won, then that always went down well. Clients were more easily retained, more easily pleased, and fees & margins were better. Oh, the good old days.

We all know the industry has grown up substantially over recent times. Sponsorship is a much more sophisticated discipline, with better ROI models, and is taken more seriously as a platform to engage with customers and stakeholders – especially given the explosion of digital and ‘branded content’. For many brands, sponsorship is a key part of their marketing programme and is based on a rationale business case, rather than the subjective thoughts of decision maker/s.

On the back of this change in our industry, everyday life in an Agency has changed. There are a number of factors and trends at play – brands are more in control to put pressure on fees/margins/resource, the increased competition amongst the sponsorship agencies, the overlap with ATL agencies who are moving into the space, developing brand engagement strategies & programmes built on extensive insights and research, an ongoing need for creative thinking and ideas, digital strategy offering and a move away from activation support to Comms & Social media. All of this has led to an ever increasing over servicing of clients. And to add to this, Procurement departments like to have a look around the market place every 12-24mths.

Sponsorship agencies now need to act and deliver as Brand agencies, and need to demonstrate strong Strategic, Creative, Digital, Comms and Executional services across both Sport & Entertainment. Therefore agencies are moving towards a model to mirror those of the traditional Ad agency such as Planning departments, Creative teams, Insight departments etc. The challenge of course is to have the right people, set up the processes and deliver these specialist skills when the sponsorship agencies don’t enjoy the fees of the ATL agencies! But it’s a challenge Agency’s need to address, otherwise they will get left behind in the stampede.

‘Beef, TOMKINS & Onions’ wins Best Use Of Public Relations at Hollis Sponsorship Awards 2013

Heinz BIG Soup has been presented with the award for ‘Best Use of Public Relations in a Sponsorship Campaign’ for its sponsorship of Super League at the prestigious Hollis Sponsorship Awards in London last night.

The Hollis Sponsorship Awards’ judging panel, made up of professionals from each area of the industry, recognises the creativity, rationale and results of the most effective sponsorship campaigns in the UK and internationally across a range of sectors and budgets.

Heinz BIG Soup beat a strong field of competitors for its ‘Beef, TOMKINS & Onion’ public relations campaign which commemorated 2012 Man of Steel Sam Tomkins and helped raise money for duchenne muscular dystrophy charity, Joining Jack.

Commenting on the success, Heinz senior brand manager Chris Nunn, said:

“We’re delighted to win this prestigious award, especially up against such strong competition. Our Beef, TOMKINS & Onion campaign was really well received by Super League fans, particularly as it supported such a worthy cause. It’s really pleasing to have all of the hard work recognised in this way and we look forward to continued success in the 2013 season. ”

In May 2012 Heinz BIG Soup appointed sport and entertainment agency brandRapport to provide consultancy, activation and PR for its sponsorship of the Super League.

Tim Percival, brandRapport head of communications, added:

“It has been a pleasure to work for a brand that has approached its sponsorship with such creativity, enthusiasm and bravery.”

by Felicity Robinson

The atmosphere inside the dramatic converted Covent Garden church is electric; photographers poised, journalists gossiping, and designer-clad fashionistas sat in prime position on the front row. Backstage it’s chaotic. The lights dip, and out strut the models – owning the runway dressed head to toe in Marc Jacobs, Chloe and Gaultier. But this is no ordinary catwalk show – these models pouting, smiling and skipping on the runway are children.

Earlier this week the first ever Global Kids Fashion Week (19-20 March) kicked off in London, showcasing designer fashion brands that have followed the growing trend of creating ‘mini me’ ranges for children. Backed with sponsorship from the V&A Museum of Childhood, the event put the fun back into fashion – aimed at entertaining an audience of kids before, during and after the catwalk shows. For the first time ever, a truly child-friendly fashion event.

However, the creation of GKFW catered specifically towards a young, influential market has seen the re-emergence of the perpetually challenging question – do brands market responsibly to children?

In 2012, UNICEF launched their Children’s Rights and Business Principles in reaction to the increasingly persuasive means used by companies to ensnare children in the consumerist net. Principle 6 stated that businesses should “use marketing and advertising that respect and support children’s rights”. The fact that this even needs spelling out speaks volumes about the increasingly significant impact of the commercial world on children around the globe.

Ominously, research has shown that children can now often recognise brands and status items by the age of 3. Strategies for selling to this young, materialistic UK market frequently include “advertgames” that blur the line between adverts and entertainment, and peer-to-peer marketing – shown on a small scale on the catwalk at GKFW.

Brands have recognised that children constitute the most lucrative market out there for 3 reasons:

1)      Current - they are a market that spends billions of pounds a year of their own money on their own desires

2)      Future - children are a future market for most goods and services

3)      Influential - children have a high level of influence on their parents’ purchases

Events such as the GKFW are proving that even those traditionally considered luxury, non-child-friendly brands have realised the worth and started tapping into this lucrative market. For no matter how ably a luxury fashion brand positions itself in front of a child audience, with a market worth an estimated £500 million in the UK alone this is a product that requires more than pocket money and a puppy-eyes persuasion tactic to move from consideration to purchase (for those who can afford it…).

By creating a childrenswear range, designers such as Burberry (featuring Romeo Beckham), Dior, Gucci and Stella McCartney can simultaneously tap into adults who are brand-fixated by allowing them to buy into the label at a slightly more economical cost, whilst at the same time hooking children onto the brand at a young age and therefore creating the next generation of purchasers both now (through influence) and in the future.

The word ‘consumers’ covers a huge base including (generally impressionable) children, while the marketer will always be an adult with commercial objectives to fulfil. Children have a right to be consumers but if a brand chooses children as a target market, whether current, future or influential, it must assume the responsibility for conscientious marketing to a vulnerable audience.

by Nick O’Donaghue

Football is known as “The beautiful game”; played by more people in the world than any other sport, from all corners of the globe. More people talk about the sport than any other and the human element of the game results in many hours of conversation throughout a week leading up to and following match days.

Following approvals last year from FIFA, the use of goal-line technology is now expected to be in the Barclays Premier League from next season and to be used in Brazil at the World Cup in 2014. However; there is an argument both ways as to whether the introduction will actually be a good thing.

If you were to ask an England fan whether we need goal-line technology in football, they would reminisce back to Sunday 27^th June 2010, when in the 39^th minute, just moments after Matthew Upson had pulled a goal back to make it England 1 Germany 2, a shot from 25 yards from Frank Lampard bounced off the bar into the goal and back out again

The Uruguayan referee and his assistants didn’t see the ball go over the line and as they say, “the rest is history” as Germany went on to win the game 4-1 and progress to the semi-finals.

However, if we were then to fast-forward to six minutes past nine on Tuesday 19^th June 2012 – the flip side occurred. England, needing to win against Ukraine, had John Terry to thank as he clawed the ball back from goal, when Ukraine felt they had scored to equalise.

The “goal” was not given and as they say “the rest is history”. Let’s not even get started with the Russian linesman, Geoff Hurst and the 1966 World Cup Final!

But if we did have goal-line technology, we wouldn’t be having these discussions. We wouldn’t be able to spend hours chatting down the pub with our friends, Sky Sports wouldn’t need to have their pundits and fancy computers – all of the main talking points would be taken out of the game by officials using technology. The human element of football will have gone.

The main question is, “is this a bad thing”? The amount of money involved in football results in the need for perfection – for a goal not to be given it could result on a national level, of a country not winning a World Cup. On a domestic level, it could have could cost a club as much as £50million (as would be the case if a “goal” was not given in a Championship Play-off Final at Wembley for example). It could cost fans the chance of not watching Champions League football along with teams losing out on millions of pounds from commercial revenue (In the one season that Tottenham Hotspur played in the Champions League in 2010, their revenue for the season grew by 36% – £43.7million);

Looking at other sports, in particular tennis – the introduction of Hawk-eye (one of the approved licensees of FIFA for goal-line technology) has had a great effect on the game, and even brings fans closer to the game when waiting for the result.

On a personal level, I agree with the use of goal-line technology and feel that it will only enhance the sport we love; however, I do not feel that technology should be used for anything more than that. We should not be using technology for fouls, we should not be using it for offsides – yet for seeing whether the ball has crossed the line or not is essential for the game.

All that is required now is for FIFA and then the Premier League to enlist the best company with the best technology to ensure the best game in the world develops with the times and continues to provide the greatest product possible for fans. When this happens, it will be interested to see how brands look at the potential benefits of sponsoring the technology which can only improve the beautiful game?

RaboDirect, the straight talking savings bank and proud sponsor of the RaboDirect PRO12, has announced that former Ireland and British and Irish Lions international Keith Wood will become the bank’s Voice of Rugby.

Keith, a former hooker for Munster and Ireland, is currently working as a rugby pundit for the BBC and Newstalk’s Off the Ball radio show.

He will be generating exclusive content via RaboDirect’s @RaboInsider Twitter channel, taking part in a number of live Q&A sessions (beginning tonight, 28^th February, at 19:30), hosting exclusive events for RaboDirect customers, and appearing on behalf of the savings bank at key RaboDirect PRO12 fixtures.

Tim Bicknell, General Manager at RaboDirect, commented: “It’s great to have a legend of Irish rugby like Keith on board at RaboDirect.

“As a bank we pride ourselves on our straight-talking ethos and a commitment towards providing our customers with a greater choice and access to the rugby sponsorship, so we are very excited about the opportunities our partnership with Keith brings.

“Keith is known across the rugby world for his prowess on the field and his direct and thought provoking views on the game off it. He will be a great asset to our sponsorship of the RaboDirect PRO12, helping us to generate lots of exclusive content and new ways for rugby fans to get even closer to the competition.”

Keith Wood added: “I love what RaboDirect has achieved in the first year of the sponsorship. They have created a strong awareness and I like the way they bring rugby fans closer to the action with their approach. The RaboDirect PRO12 is an essential part of the rugby calendar and is the key nursery for rugby talent. As professional sport grows increasingly distant it is great to see a sponsor and a competition striving to keep the close link between player and supporter as the cornerstone of their vision.

“As well as driving business, ensuring the future health of the competition is important to them, and I’m looking forward to having a role in both of these.”

Got a question for Keith? Tweet your questions to @RaboInsider using #AskKeith and see if he answers yours

Launched in May 2005 by the Dutch co-operative Rabobank, RaboDirect is in its second year as the title sponsor of the RaboDirect PRO12.  Last season saw Welsh region Ospreys crowned as the inaugural RaboDirect PRO12 champions

Npower is planning to ape the marketing strategies of brands such as Marks and Spencer and John Lewis to become a retail focused brand and focus less on sport sponsorship as it confirms it will not renew its Football League sponsorship.

Npower is looking to shift its marketing away from sport sponsorship to be a retail-focused brand.

The energy firm says the decision not to renew its three-year deal with the League was made after reviewing its business strategy and looking at costs across the business. It adds the sports property no longer fits with its plans to become the market leader in customer experience by 2015.

The company has hired branding experts Interbrand and BrandRapport to help shape its marketing strategy over the next year. It claims the revised approach will take inspiration from how retail brands such as Marks and Spencer and John Lewis have developed multichannel services. Npower will create online content to help people understand their bills as well as developing its ecommerce offering.

The business hopes to allow people to order, review and pay for services across multiple devices by developing a more integrated customer journey.

Additionally, the company is also expanding its analytics team to gather deeper insight on bill payers in a bid to accelerate the strategy.

Debbie Britton, director of customer marketing at Npower, told Marketing Week: “We are a retail business so the same things customers would expect if they were shopping in M&S or John Lewis will be the equivalent to what they get from us in the future. The way customers can order services online, receive engaging content, receive personalised services. These are all things we’re working on delivering now.”

The renewed focus from energy firms on customer service comes at a time when impending regulation on tariffs could force companies to be competitive on service rather than price.

Npower’s announcement follows news the Football League is in danger of starting next season without a title sponsor because it is struggling to find a backer willing to meet a revised annual fee.

This article first appeared in Marketing Week

by Andy Kenny

Ok, so its late February and its getting a tad late for predicting trends for 2013, but better late than never….so below is a brief overview of the Top 10 trends we are seeing in the sponsorship sector at the moment. Enjoy!

1. Customer Needs: brands are listening, empowering and addressing their target audiences needs and insights more when developing their engagement pans. But with social media, brands need to be willing to give up a bit of control, and react quickly when required
2. Social Sponsorship: more brands want to make a difference for their customers, communities and to their staff. In the past there has been an element of a ‘ticking box’ exercise, but brands now mean it when they say it, and are looking for a tangible proof point and legacy. Hence the rise of what we call ‘social sponsorship’. As Sir Martin Sorrell said ‘Doing good is good business’.
3. Digital/Social Media: A lot has been written on this area, but clearly content is king these days and this is where sponsorship can really come to the fore. It goes without saying that digital & social media has a key role to play in sponsorship programmes these days, but it’s all about balance – a strong sponsorship programme is an integrated one.
4. Create led: brands (especially international brands) are looking more and more at creating their own, new platform. It’s a challenge, but they are looking for something exciting and innovative which they can own, and away from the traditional ‘off the shelf’ sponsorship
5. In stadia: better fan experiences are beginning to come through via match day apps, wi fi, entertainment, volunteers. Recent examples include  Twickenham (£76m upgrade), the new Allianz Park & Etihad Stadium
6. Not just sport: in the pursuit of being differentiated and having a ‘balanced portfolio’, brands are now more willing to looking into other platforms outside of sport such as film, music, and fashion
7. Industry Confidence: our sector is now a more confident, sophisticated and better evaluated discipline than ever before. This is due to a number of factors, but primarily driven by brands and their agencies being more focused on delivering a tangible commercial return, better business integration and with more sophisticated evaluation models in place .g. customer retention rates, sales
8. Agency Life: Agencies are now marketers involved in sport, rather than sports people who know a bit about marketing
9. Procurement:  Brands are reviewing their agencies more frequently – they may be happy with them, but they want to see what’s out there, so it makes for an ever competitive market. It’s also due in part to tighter procurement processes internally
10. The Future: the forecast for the sector is positive…approx 5% growth yoy is forecast dependent on which research you take. This is due to a number of factors including the increased profile of the industry post London 2012, a sector which is taken now taken more seriously and can prove its worth, brands understand they need to go to where their customers passions lie, and also partly due to with the number of sporting events coming to the UK over the next decade.