Sport is clearly a an engaging passion - and I'm all for being positive about British success. However, in the spirit of being slightly contentious on a blog - I'd like to propose music as a more rich, universal and positive platform to be involved with.

Greater flexibility to engage with multiple audiences - due to formats, content, personalities etc

More consistent engagement - consumers listening to music most days, in many environments, whereas sport tends to be a more fixed schedule

More brand opportunity - as the industry shifts, and the structure changes - brands can become true supporters, rather than just financiers and facilitators, as they tend to be in sport

Overall, we completely agree that British sport, and Britain as a host for great sporting events, is enjoying a resurgence - and we wish all teams the best.  However, we'd just also ask that Music is considered, as in much the same way

Numbers of festivals in the UK have grown every year for 5 years, to now over 500 individual events over the year

More people than ever are attending live music events

FRUKT recently concluded in a study with the PRS (the first time this value has been calculated) that brands spend a staggering £89m on music in the UK

More people own more personal music devices than ever, and spend more time listening to them

More 'music' is sold than ever before - the format changes, the desire doesn't

Of course there is a place for both, but we just think music is, you know, better... Let the fight begin.

In response to Jack's comments ... Music is clearly an 'engaging passion', but it is rarely a unifying force - when is the last time the streets of any city were filled with fans celebrating the return of a British band with an international music award?  Music's strength is its sheer diversity - providing everyone with a platform for self expression - whereas the major sports events are much more of a shared experience.  Sport is great at doing mass ... music is great at doing niche ... and long may it continue.  

I agree. Live music events offers many of the same benefits to brands as sport. Or of course you can just do both - like Sony Ericsson have done with Run to the Beat!!

Jack, the key question of course isn't which is better: it's why isn't music bigger as a partnership platform given its consumer appeal? (£89m being a fraction versus sport). And to continue in the spirit of being slightly contentious - and at the risk of an almighty generalisation because there are honourable exceptions, one of which is FRUKT - let me venture that the problem is the music industry itself: its various, often conflicting stakeholders, continue to make it unnecessarily difficult both to create and to activate partnerships effectively. And Jack, you know I speak from experience!

Brand owners are all too aware of the passions involved by sport - sadly sometimes because their hearts drove them into a sponsorship when their heads might have warned them off. There are all sorts of ROI questions the sports sponsorship business can sidestep as long as brands just keep buying the dream.

1. Sports sponsorship packages are valued badly - basing it on "media equivalent value", adding up all possible exposures whether duplicates or not, and guesstimating the value of things like brand fit.

2. By it's nature, it's a pig to evaluate, and success depends on activation campaigns elsewhere (esp. Olympic sponsorship)

3. A clear brand sponsor can attract attention, but the risk is that it's bad attention: the sport is invited into the consumer's head but that doesn't mean the brand can gatecrash.

I don't know if this is true - but somebody told me yesterday that during the Rugby World Cup, The Emirates Stadium and the Ricoh Arena will have to be referred to by their 'non-branded' names during the tournament. Bit unfortunate if it's true - especially as Emirates are a RWC sponsor. I imagine they'd find a solution.