Troubled corporate giant General Motors this week announced that it is severing its nine year sponsorship with Tiger Woods a year before the contract was due to end.

It is a significant step because GM has had its Buick brand on Tiger Woods’ golf bag since 1999. Only a few weeks ago they generated global media coverage when Tiger Woods played the role of caddy for an ordinary club hacker.

Almost simultaneously, GM announced the end of its 24 year partnership with the US Olympic Committee, worth an estimated $5m per year.

Tiger Woods has other endorsement deals and the USOC is in a strong position to attract new partners but the news provides stark evidence that athletes and sports properties at a slightly less exalted level are going to struggle to find corporate sponsors in the coming months.

Sponsorship has become mainstream to the extent that it is now difficult to imagine a televised sports event in most parts of the world taking place without commercial partners. As financial services companies in several countries are currently dependent on government backing, it will be interesting (nerve-wracking?) to see what the future holds for their many high profile sponsorship agreements (for example RBS 6 Nations).

Media reports suggest that GM is in deep trouble so they were probably compelled to cancel their deals but it is clear that retail banks, like a car company, cannot survive without significant marketing activity. What we will learn early in 2009 is exactly where sponsorship ranks among the marketing priorities for company directors when they are under real pressure.

There will also be some difficult decisions to make for governments that are effectively in control of certain banks. Public opinion will be an important consideration. Would the majority of the population rather see sponsorship cut to save money, perhaps crippling some sporting events and institutions? Or would they prefer that sponsorship agreements are renewed because they are fundamental to the business?

Now, more than ever, sponsorship must prove its worth.

On 1 November on the Caribbean island of Antigua, the England cricket team was soundly beaten by the Stanford All Stars (almost the West Indes team) in the Stanford 20/20 competition. The victorious All Stars will be rewarded with a remarkable $1m US per player for this single match, with substantial amounts also available for the backroom staff and the cricket boards.

The brainchild of Texan businessman Sir Allen Stanford, the whole week-long series of matches has been condemned in much of the UK media as a meaningless money-making exercise (see, for example, Mike Atherton in The Times). With Sir Allen staging the matches at his own private ground, the whole spectacle gives the impression of a supreme act of vanity.

Question: What do you buy the man who has everything?  .
Answer: His own cricket tournament with top players competing for the biggest prize in the history of the sport.

What might be termed “Vanity Sponsorship” is by no means a new phenomenon in sport but it seems to be a growing trend. The most visible example is the spate of wealthy foreign owners of English and Scottish football clubs, such as Vladimir Romanov, majority shareholder of Heart of Midlothian FC.

The general pattern is that an astonishingly rich man or men (I haven’t seen any women involved) approaches a sporting institution and offers to invest sufficient money to restore them to their rightful place at the pinnacle of their sport. A business plan is brandished, which tantalises with a scheme for world domination in three to five years. In return for their largesse, the new owner or benefactor seeks public adulation and the right to have their whims indulged. Occasionally there are rumours of other political or economic motives as well.

One or two years later the relationship between benefactor and sponsored organisation sours, often resulting in the acrimonious departure of the sponsor, minus a large chunk of their fortune. The sporting institution somehow muddles on, amid much hand-wringing and calls for tighter regulation.

I am all for good financial governance in sport but a dose of realism is necessary. The leaders of sporting institutions are by their nature desperate for success. It would be surprising if they were to turn down a major investment, even with strings attached. Similarly professional athletes, who have short and insecure careers, will naturally welcome the chance of a windfall. Supporters may find the whole thing distasteful (as parodied in a Budweiser football advert) but ultimately they also want to see victory.

In short, rich men will continue to indulge themselves with vanity sponsorship and some of them will end up looking like fools. As for Sir Allen Stanford, he may just have spotted an opportunity to revive West Indes cricket that traditional brand sponsors had missed. Only time will tell. 

On 16 October tens of thousands of people lined the streets of London and congregated in Trafalgar Square to see the parade of British Olympic and Paralympic stars who competed in Beijing. They were rewarded by the sight of several hundred athletes, including almost all of the most recognisable stars from Chris Hoy to Rebecca Adlington.

Perhaps the most notable feature of the parade was the fact that there was virtually equal billing for the Paralympic athletes. Paralympic medallists such as Eleanor Simmonds (13 year-old swimmer), Lee Pearson (9 gold medals in equestrian) and Aileen McGlynn (multiple medals in cycling) were interviewed live on television alongside the Olympians.

Here is an example of sport leading the way. Apart from politician David Blunkett, there have been very few disabled people in British public life. Where Tanni Grey-Thompson led, others have followed.

It has helped that the standards in some of the Paralympic disciplines are now so high. South African swimmer Natalie du Toit, who has one leg amputated above the knee, competed in the Olympic Games in Beijing as well as the Paralympic Games. Oscar Pistorius ("Bladerunner") narrowly missed out on qualifying for the 400m at the Olympic Games and generated global publicity in the process.

The nature of Paralympic competition, with classifications for different forms of disability, creates opportunities for people who may be denied such chances in other walks of life. High quality broadcasting has helped raise the profile, which in turn has prompted the public authorities to invest in training Paralympic athletes.

Media coverage of sport thrives on human interest stories, which the Paralympic Games provide in abundance: rehabilitation after terrible accidents; great challenges overcome as children; the dramatic tales of war veterans.

The next bold step forward would be for a major sponsor to focus on a disabled athlete as their headline ambassador rather than as one of a group. Oscar Pistorius is the leading contender. Who will be first to give it a go?

In the last 40 years prejudiced views towards race have frequently been challenged through sport (although that's a completely different story). Now it is through sport that attitudes to disability are also being questioned. The communities of business, politics, the arts and entertainment should take note.

Golf's Ryder Cup, which takes place on 19-21 September, is one of the great events on the sporting calendar and has been attracting extensive preview media coverage in several markets (for example in the NY Times and Marca) since the teams were announced at the start of September. And yet, curiously, the Ryder Cup is an exception in many ways:
- It's a team event in this most individual of sports;
- Europe competes as a united team;
- There is no prize money; and
- It takes place every two years, whereas most other golf events are annual.

So why does it work so well? There are plenty of reasons:
- It has a tradition dating back to the 1920s, although it has evolved over the years, and many of the great golfers of the past are remembered for their Ryder Cup exploits.
- The complicated format regularly produces great drama.
- Spectators identify with the teams, even if they don't know some of the individual players.
- The recently retired golfing statesman as team captain gives an added dimension: they pick wildcards, choose the playing order and roam the course offering moral support.
- Holding the event every two years makes each edition more special.
- It has a good slot in the calendar, separate from other big events and well after the golf majors.

But the key thing is that the players desperately want to be involved. Good performances at the Ryder Cup increase a golfer's commercial value considerably and the event probably attracts a broader audience than other tournaments.

All in all, rights-holders of other sports events would do well to study the success of the Ryder Cup.

Despite the event's undoubted strengths, there may be challenges ahead. The European team has won the last three events and is favourite again for 2008. If the USA team, missing the injured Tiger Woods, fails to run the Europeans close, American interest could begin to wane. In July the American player Hunter Mahan criticised the commercial demands made on the team at the Ryder Cup and said that golfers might
start turning down invitations. Once he was selected, however, all of that seems to have been forgotten.

Samuel Ryder would have been proud.