Almost every team, sporting event and competition has a sponsor, if not an army of sponsors, behind it.

Great Eastern and Yeo’s keep the S-League afloat, Standard Chartered bankrolls the Singapore Marathon, or Marathon Singapore as it will be called from this year on, and where would our bowlers be without major sponsor Canon?

Clear-cut indications of how much corporations pump into sports will be the $300,000 from Five Star Tours for Geylang United before the S-League season started this year, or the $3 million given by Nestle Milo last week (Feb 19) for local sports development.

That same week, the Singapore Tote Board and Singapore Pools dished out $455,000 to reward champion athletes as part of the Multi-million Dollar Award Programme. They have been doing this since 1995, with the $1.9 million forked out in 2002 being one of, if not the, biggest sum given.

Also, the Singapore Badminton Association received its biggest sponsorship from a single contributor when Chinese sports brand Li-Ning promised them $8.8 million earlier this month. That sum will be disbursed in cash, apparel and equipment over a four-year period.

Those are staggering numbers and there’s no way to describe how handicapped the sports fraternity would be without such support.

Surely, there wouldn’t be a purse of $1.8 million waiting for the top golfers at this year’s HSBC Women’s Champions 2010, if not for the bank’s sponsorship. More importantly, the golf event that will, this year, attract the top 55 ranked players on the LPGA’s Official Money List to Tanah Merah Country Club probably wouldn’t exist.

Outside of Singapore, just imagine how plain and boring the Manchester United jersey would look without the Nike slash and AIG logo emblazoned across the front. That’s a sure success for a drop in merchandise sales.

But while AIG and Nike may be getting a cut of jersey sales, there’s not much rewards in store for local sponsors to reap.

No one is going to run out and buy a Canon camera because the brand is splashed across Remy Ong’s chest, neither will they be thirsting for Milo just because local athletes are drinking it. And sure, the billboards at S-League matches will be screaming Great Eastern, but chances are you wouldn’t be looking for your Great Eastern financial advisor anytime soon.

So why do these companies invest so much, knowing it may not result in an equal amount of revenue?

Marketing and brand exposure are natural business-driven reasons, but forging an association with the sport or event is an equally strong incentive for these companies, nevermind the 'loss'.

Pilot Pen’s general manager Benjamin The explained that very clearly in an earlier report in The Straits Times: 'We are unlikely to cover our association with the YOG. But in the long run, we will feel proud about having worked with them and would like to be remembered for it.'

Apart from supplying the writing instruments for the sports event, the Japan-headquartered company will also be making a cash contribution, with its total sponsorship worth up to $500,000.

In a similar light, OCBC looked beyond marketing when it decided to set aside $1.2 million for this year’s OCBC Cycle Singapore. As Koh Ching Ching, the bank’s head of group corporate communications, put it: 'Branding is a nice benefit, but our main purpose of sponsoring this event is to engage the community and connect with them through an emotive activity.'

Consider it 'National Service' on the companies’ part to contribute money for an intangible result, even though some of these companies are not locally born.

That is more than what I can say for homegrown telecoms giant SingTel.

To be fair, SingTel did invest heavily into sports when it slipped in as the title sponsor for the Formula One race here after it was confirmed that the race will come here. Kudos to them.

But the telco is saying no to the $40 million that Fifa is supposedly asking for to screen the World Cup here, because it sees no way of recovering that money. Can this sacrifice not be the company’s 'National Service'? Especially since it had a hand in luring Fifa to sharpen its claws after it blew StarHub out of the English Premier League rights with, reportedly, a whopping $400 million.

$40 million for the World Cup is a large sum of money, but it should be peanuts to SingTel, whose combined mobile customer base in the region ballooned to 285 million last year, as compared to 52 million the year before. Furthermore, it will recover some part of that investment from subscribers who want to watch the games.

The company’s net profit rose 7.7 per cent to $945 million for the three months to June 2009; compare that to foreign-based $8.8million-sponsor Li-Ning, whose profit after tax in six months to June 2009 was $100.2 million, and you’ll see who’s feeling a bigger pinch.

After the years of support SingTel has received from Singaporeans, the company must recognise that it owes something to them.

Take a tip from the other sponsors, Sports Pte Ltd is not always a profit-making business, it’s about the reputation and association with the people and the sport.

Apart from an endless succession of articles in the media, there are even several websites – all created with different permutations of the words: Tiger-Woods-affair - dedicated to his affairs and loss of sponsorships.

The sensation Woods has created is simply amazing.

While out for drinks with some friends two weeks ago, one of them was even checking the latest news on his mobile phone.

Even now, it seems people have not grown tired of the saga.

I think it is time we gave the poor man a break, if not for the yuletide season, then because of three things we can take away from this whole incident.

Firstly, champion golfer or not, Woods is human. He has faults just like anybody else. Sure, his alleged 14 dalliances may be a record of sorts but would things be better if he had had just one affair? I don't think so.

I am not condoning his adulterous ways but unfaithfulness is not something rare. Who is to say no one was watching the news of Woods' affair from someone else’s bed other than their own?

If an average Joe can fall, why not a famous billionaire whom everybody wants a piece of? He is definitely not the first rich and famous man to have gone astray, and he will not be the last.

We have heard his story, we have had our jokes, it's time to move on. The issue is, ultimately, one between him and his wife.

If you had been looking to Woods as a role model, the lesson learnt here is that you’d be better off picking a homely and studious guy-next-door than a rich and famous celebrity. Celebrities as role models are just something advertisers want us to believe.

Another thing the whole hullabaloo has shown us is that everybody loves to see the fall of the successful. Call it our base instincts, envy, or whatever you want, such things are news fodder.

The higher they fly, the harder they fall. And the bigger the dust cloud they create.

He can be your hero one moment, or you might not even care about his achievements, but the moment scandal breaks, everyone's eyeballs are stuck on it.

Yet, unsatiated, we hope to dig deeper to unravel more dirt and point dirty fingers at him who was once adored.

Which brings us to the final lesson: People are fickle.

When Woods was claiming a succession of titles, he was everyone's idol. The fans loved him, the sponsors loved him even more and everyone was in awe of this golfer who possessed skills never before seen.

When negative news of him appeared, the fans loathed him, the sponsors deserted him and everyone treated him as the joke of the century.

This display of 'loyalty' must surely tear Woods apart more than the potential millions of dollars he is losing.

Right now, we should ask ourselves why Woods became who he is.

Woods did not become famous for being the most upright and faithful man in the world. He came to be because he was the best golfer in the world. And he still is. He still has his skills around him, though we may not see them for some time to come.

He was a sportsman first, before he became anything else.

I am not a golfer, neither am I a big fan of his, but I think we should respect the man for his skills, even as we disapprove of his ways.

As for his faults, let him who has no fault cast the first stone, or leave the man alone to settle his problems.

PHOTO: AP

My last experience of watching any game live would have been in the early 1990s, when the Singapore soccer team was in action at the National Stadium for Malaysia Cup matches.

I also witnessed the Red Devils massacring our local boys eight years ago, but that was more for the chance to see the English Premier League team.

Then, younger and more passionate, I would shout myself hoarse at Malaysia Cup games, the tasty triangular curry puff sold there not making things any better for my throat.

So, after a long hiatus from sports events, I found myself at the Padang four weeks ago for the Singapore Cricket Club's International Rugby Sevens.

And I was delighted to see the passion that infected the fans who were watching the games. The excitement and atmosphere was something I have not felt in a long time.

Watching the South African Vipers confound their opponents with their brilliant runs as the spectators chanted their name, experiencing the festive mood in the air and seeing uncut scenes of players psyching themselves up or warming up on another pitch before their turn to play — all these are lost in the two-dimensional world of TV.

Sure, there may be 25 cameras hovering over a single match, but TV viewers only get to see the game from one perspective — the one which the producer decides to let you see.

When was the last time you felt the heartache of a coach as he consoled his players after a defeat, or witnessed two friends from opposite camps bantering over which team is better, or heard vulgarities from an angry fan after his team misses a shot?

If you did, it wouldn't have been on your 42-inch plasma screen.

Take the recent Barclays Singapore Open, for example.

On screen, it was a hushed affair — a lone player on a rolling green lawn with spectators lined along the sides. It was sombre, quiet and stodgy. Even the commentator was whispering, as though he was afraid the players might hear him.

What viewers missed was the rush of fans travelling from one hole to another, the buggies causing mayhem as they whizzed by, the corporate guests chatting over beers and the die-hard fanaticism of spectators who stuck it out in the open even as raindrops started to fall.

The difference between TV-world and the real world was most evident to me because I saw the game being telecast at the event itself.

Yes, some may argue that it’s not all dullsville on TV, there are whoops of joy and cheery applause when a birdie is made. But the emotion felt at the stadium is just rawer.

On television, for instance, Lewis Hamilton's celebration with a raised finger in the air during his victory lap in Singapore almost looked subdued. But at the circuit there was mayhem. Fans were more liberal with their emotions as they screamed, hugged and raised their drinks, cans or even bottles of mineral water.

Given the bland and detached experience of watching sports on the telly, why do people choose that over being part of the action at the event?

I am sure there were many more people lounging on their living room sofas than on the hard wooden benches under the floodlights at Kallang when the Lions lost to Thailand there two weeks ago.

Tickets for sports events do not cost more than a crate of beer, the events are usually held at a convenient time like in the evening or on a weekend, and you won’t get imprisoned for supporting the wrong team — so these can hardly be the reasons.

Convenience, I suppose, would be the main culprit. All the action, however flat it might be, is available at just the click of a button.

There’s no need to queue up to buy a ticket, push your way through the crowds at the event, expose yourself, possibly, to the mercy of the weather and have to be stuck in the car for 20 minutes trying to get out of the carpark after the event.

I appreciate the comfort that television offers, but the emotion I have recently felt at sports events has led me to question whether TV is killing sports somehow.

Without a doubt, there's a need to telecast games for the benefit of those who can't catch it live, but what if it keeps the spectators away?

What if, one day, the chants and shouts at the stands can no longer be heard in the stadiums and halls, but only from the living rooms in HDB estates?

Do you agree that television is killing sport? Leave a comment below.

That wheel is the 150m-diameter Singapore Flyer which reversed its direction last Monday, amidst other new features introduced at the Marina Bay attraction.

While in most cases it might have taken months of discussion and much persuasion to bring about such an about-turn, all it took in this instance was a few Feng Shui masters and four months of study.

Some of these practitioners had approached the management of the Flyer, Great Wheel Corporation, and alerted them that the wheel was turning the wrong way although it was sited perfectly.

According to them, the wheel was bringing fortune out of the land, instead of towards it, because it faces the financial district and then turns around towards the east and open sea.

The company was convinced and, after spending a six-figure sum, reversed the wheel and made it rise up on the eastern side and then turn towards the financial district - supposedly a sign of bringing fortune inwards and flowing to the city.

Of course, it was no mean task to make the 165m-tall structure spin the other way. Sensors had to be reinstalled and other technical implications had to be resolved.

Whether the change will bring queueing hordes to the attraction remains to be seen but, definitely, the attraction’s recent achievement - at the beginning of this month - of selling one million tickets within four months of its official opening could not be credited to the turnaround.

Now, we'll see when the next million will come.

Redirecting Feng Shui back to the city.
Source: Promotional photo