European boycott should be a wake-up call for social media platforms

Sports in Europe have decided to switch off their social media engagements for four days starting May 1 in protest against the rampant vilification on basis of race, gender and religion. The level of "abuse" came to such a pass that the organisers, participants and all other stake-holders have decided to join hands demanding action by authorities and owners.

It is important to note how social media becomes such a huge influence among the populace when there is so much poison being bandied about in gay abandon!

Each web-page / website makes money from the traffic it generates, leading to the host platform (Twitter, Facebook, et al.) placing advertisements and generating revenue, a small part of which is indeed shared by the those that created the content in the first place.

Makes perfect sense, especially since the content creators have a right to be compensated. But that is where the line needs to be drawn.

Social media is dependent completely on the traffic / eye-balls, which are counted as "hits" or "likes" as the case may be. And what better way to generate traffic than a bit of disagreement, which more often than not leads to outright venom being spewed by both sides leaving bystanders aghast but the platform owners laughing all the way to the bank!

It is here that European sport has decided to draw the line. Players, officials, broadcasters and organisers have for once all come together to put their foot down on what they have rightly labelled as "downright abuse on the basis of skin colour, gender, race or place of birth".

Why does it happen? Social media provides a certain anonymity to the participants, making them less vulnerable to retaliation, if ever there is one barring being suspended / taken off the platform for a specified period of time. Beyond that there is nothing being done or even attempted to be done to place any kind of check on the venom spewed right across the internet.

Tough to justify that for the owners of social media platforms who have expressed their helplessness in curbing the obvious use or misuse of the tool for free speech. 

But why is it important for those at the helm to remain on social media despite the poison arrows? The answer is very simple ... its about information dissemination and fan engagement which allows them to prove to those putting in the money about the volume and level of traffic. Indeed this has become rather for sports to have a presence on social media in order to keep their fans satisfied and feeling engaged and empowered.

But with the poison crossing bearable limits, action was demanded from the platform owners but when none was forthcoming, the limited boycott was the only option. The four-day absence is to prove how much of traffic these sports alone can command and owners better take note and devise ways to curb infringements before it's too late.

Social media owners so far have been sitting smug in their ivory towers hiding behind the belief that they have no control over what transpires on their platform, barring the odd intervention when they "feel" limits have been breached. But tolerance levels may vary and its about time there was a standard policy against direct abuse.

Quite unlike the traditional media (newspapers and television) the internet has grown mostly unbridled, But time has come to tame the monster before it drowns in its own vomit.

English football clubs' sense of entitlement could hurt them

The announcement that a 20-member group of football clubs is all set to launch a breakaway competition in Europe seems to have taken greed to unimaginable levels.

Of the 20 clubs expected to join the "rebels", six are from England! 

And the reason for the English resentment with the European football administration, UEFA, is that not enough of the Premier League sides feature in the competitions in the continent. The logic behind the argument is that these are some of the most widely followed and supported clubs world-wide and hence should be first choice rather than some poor, unknown entities from obscure parts of Europe itself.

True that the likes of Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur do enjoy a mammoth fan following globally, the reason behind it is their success in various competitions that are run by the same official governing bodies they seek to oppose.

Drawn by the lure of the proverbial pot of gold are Spanish giants Real Madrid, their city-mates Atletico and perennial rivals Barcelona along with Italian clubs Juventus, Inter Milan and AC Milan.

German giants Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund have so far held off as have France's Paris Saint Germain. 

The proposed competition parallel to the cash-rich UEFA Champions League puts the "dirty dozen" on a direct collision course with UEFA, and consequently FIFA.

In the likelihood of the world governing body coming down heavily on the rebel clubs, which might even include a world-wide ban on their players from all levels of competition, suddenly the money may not be pouring in as expected.

After all the idea is to showcase the very best on prime-time television.

The flip side, however, is fraught with danger. A ban on players would mean exclusion from FIFA World Cups and everything under the umbrella of the world body. Tough call for young players to throw in their lot when future is on the line.

Remember how the World Series Cricket launched with such fanfare by late Australian tycoon Kerry Packer, backed with a home-grown TV network to boot, fared against the Australia versus India Test series. The official contest, where Bobby Simpson came out of retirement to deny Kapil Dev's Indians a series victory, posted far superior viewer numbers than the "exhibition" games between the best talents drawn from across the world.

Agreed that Packer's attempt was in protest against the Cricket Australia denying an open bid for the telecast rights of the home series. Hence once the monopoly of a particular channel had been dented, the WSC died a quiet death. 

Despite the coloured uniforms and late afternoon starts, the matches were deemed nothing more than a "circus".

But what it did was give world cricket a direction where marketing the game was seen going hand in hand with innovations and, lo behold, these came to stay and even evolve into the 20-over contests, et al. But everything is under the official umbrella of the International Cricket Council and its affiliated national units.

No denying that even the football establishment needs a wake-up call, given that the people running the game have paid scant attention to the several aspects of the "glorious game". But all said and done they are still the establishment and hold all the aces.

The American dream, powered by the Glazers and financed by a US bank, may yet be a non-starter since TV companies may not exactly be falling over each other for the rights for fear of being barred from the "real" stuff.

After all, the rebels have been able to get only a dozen clubs on board even though their plan is to have 20, of which 15 would be "permanent founding members" not subject to relegation. Sounds pretty exciting on paper but, challenging the establishment may not be the way to go and nor would the idea of "permanence" in place of a level playing field, go down with the lovers of football.

And if the fans turn up their nose, clubs will have little option but to fall in line. Its the fan-power that is driving the clubs to extreme steps though it appears, more likely than not, to backfire!