knoffel

Coming at it from a different angle: Spaceland wants to host the event. Why? They (Spaceland) would obviously get the exposure which in turn will (hopefully) bump up their business. But, to foot the WHOLE bill for the event would be counter-productive as it would dig into whatever future profits they might make as a result of aforementioned exposure. So they make a bid and USPA awards the event to them. Note: Spaceland did not VOLUNTEER to host the event in the purest sense, but instead (as is the gist of the whole "awarding" business, similar to cities vying for the Olympics) offered a proposal/bid to enter into a quid-pro-quo agreement with USPA to use their (Spaceland's) facilities and organizational abilities. From USPA's perspective they could either dig into their own coffers to host an expensive event, but instead they chose to only exercise their sanctioning powers and let someone else pick up the tab for the actual event. This is the way that the USPA nationals have run for years now. We can all agree that there is no controversy in this part of the process. So, Spaceland decides that the best way to offset their costs would be to offer sponsorship opportunities. That is a common business concept that's used all over the spectrum of sports entertainment. Still: no controversy. Agreed? Good, let's move on. So, being as they are not natural-born marketing professionals, they (Spaceland) decide to rather hire a professional marketing firm to handle the rather intricate two-step that is known as "event sponsorship". Still no controversy. Their intent seems to be pure and their business decision to outsource this part sound. Note: the workings of event sponsorship as a business concept is in itself a complicated beast for which their are no set guidelines and principles. You have to find out what equity the hosts have, what equity the sponsors want, what to charge for that equity, how to protect that equity, all the while trying to keep everybody happy. It is up to the hired professionals to negotiate the intricacies of the represented sport/activity within a larger context and to make sure that ALL parties concerned - participants, hosts, sponsors, spectators, media, sanctioning bodies - get a fair deal out of the whole thing, as well as to get their OWN fair share of kerching as this is a service that they provide and for which they should be fairly compensated. So, Spaceland sends out feelers for such a company, company X approaches them with an offer to do business, they think they have found the right company, and they sign on the dotted line. No controversy. So, with signed contract in hand company X goes ahead and develops a sponsorship policy for this event and WHAM!!!!! The shit hits the fan in turbo mode and oodles of controversy ensues. So, as allocating blame is what life is about these days, who is responsible for this SNAFU?