There have never been more forces competing for our attention. A scroll through TikTok whilst Netflix is blaring in the background, just to delay the next moment of boredom – it is fairly clear that the human mind was not built for this. The absolute deluge of information and entertainment instantly available to anyone with an internet connection has meant that sport – among other things – has had to change to keep up. Sport is adapting to our shortening attention spans, aiming to keep us more engaged and excited than ever before. This comes as private investment from businesses and billionaires into the sector is skyrocketing. Can the enormous volumes of capital being privately invested into maximising entertainment value, in sports like Formula One and cricket, save their long-term futures, or will it leave them a shell of what they used to be?  

Money is not good or bad per se, rather, it is a practical tool. However, when there are the volumes of cash that are being deployed into franchising and commercialising teams, competitions, formats or even governing bodies of a sport, alarm bells should be ringing. In cricket and F1, for example, there have been significant changes to the format of the competitions, in an attempt to make them more profitable and capture the viewers’ attention. The advent of T20 (or even T10) cricket has shortened the game from the traditional 5 days to just 3 hours, and F1’s introduction of the Sprint Races in 2021 shortened the racing from 90 minutes to just 30! In both cases, the changes have yielded higher live attendances, greater financial profitability, and engendered more interest from a broader public. Yet, the question remains: is the sport actually better for it? 

Whether it has meant to or not, private investment in sport has come at a time when most televised sporting events are facing huge competition from other entertainment drivers in society. Williams F1 team was acquired in 2020 by Dorilton Capital for $200 million – a notable sum but dwarfed by the $940 million that Indian Premier League cricket team, Lucknow Supergiants, were bought for. Whilst this is no problem in and of itself – and actually a very positive thing for maintaining the financial future of these sports – these businesses and investors are primarily concerned with the bottom line. Simultaneously, the vast investment carries political influence in determining fixture calendars and regulation changes. This crossover can be majorly problematic, and has thus led many fans of the original formats to feel alienated by changes that have deprioritised or pushed them to the seasons’ margins.   

Yet, stasis is certainly not desirable, and change has the ability to transform a sport. Although an entirely different case, darts has been resurrected from almost irrelevant to now seeing unprecedented TV viewing numbers, not just in the UK, but across the world. The sport’s revival came as a result of Barry Hearn – CEO of Matchroom Ltd. (owners of the PDC) – and an enormous investment in the sport, coupled with an attempt to repackage the characters and drama created by live sport. Walkout songs, flamboyant dress, and other accoutrements tailored to energise the spectacle and liven the consumer experience have culminated in an incredibly successful arrangement, not just for Hearn and Matchroom, but the general sphere of darts. In this case, its success can be seen as a direct consequence of financial investment and rebranding.  

It must therefore be asked: is shortening the format (as seen in cricket and F1) diminishing the ebb and flow of sport or packing more action into a shorter period, encouraging risk-taking and more thrilling play? And maybe even more importantly: is this enough to reinvigorate and grow their reach, in a world of swipes, likes and clicks for instant gratification?   

Time will only tell if the private equity mission of value creation has genuinely been just that, or was just a flash in the pan on the way to the next buck.