(Editor's note: BassFan Charles Bowman is a structural engineer who lives in Kernersville, N.C. He regularly competes in BFL tournaments and often fishes tour-level events as a co-angler.)
I love tournament bass fishing. I love to compete in bass tournaments as an angler and I love to observe the sport as a fan. I'm also filled with pride when I see our sport grow. I enjoy knowing that a young Luke Clausen and a seasoned professional like Larry Nixon can both make a living in this sport at the same time.
Even as I'm happy now (in the short-term), I have a nagging feeling, deep inside, that says something about our sport isn't quiet right for the long-term.
BASS and FLW Outdoors are both starting to make me feel uncomfortable. The uncomfortable feeling stems from each organization's position on sponsors and their willingness to embrace new ones.
The governing bodies of both BASS and FLW Outdoors are making it next to impossible for an individual angler to bring a new sponsor – whether fishing-related or non-endemic – into the sport of tournament bass angling. The reason is simple – impressions.
Neither governing body allows any individual angler to make significant advertising impressions in print, on the Internet, or on television. The most obvious and most talked about deletion of possible advertising impressions was ESPN's refusal to cover Luke Clausen over the first couple of days of the Bassmaster Classic, due to his Chevrolet sponsorship.
On the surface, we all see the "Toyota vs. Chevrolet" sponsorship conflict, but if one digs a little deeper, the big roadblock becomes apparent.
If I, as an angler, pursue a sponsorship, and that sponsorship is based upon advertising impressions, and impressions are based upon media coverage and exposure, then why would any company with any business sense at all financially support an athlete in our sport? Especially if a governing body is sponsored by a competing company, and would therefore blackball any potential media coverage of my sponsor?
I thought it was difficult to secure financial backing from my own personal experience of searching for sponsorship, but now, what company will invest in me and my sport if I have to tell them that, even if I'm leading the Superbowl of my sport on the first day, even if I'm leading on the second day – and even if I might win the whole thing on the last day – that they (my sponsor) will get limited or no significant media exposure?
BASS is not the only governing body that restricts an angler's opportunities to advance him or herself as an advertising outlet. FLW also creates an advertising barrier (and therefore a sponsorship barrier) to all participating anglers. It's common knowledge that the FLW Tour requires anglers who make the cut for the final days of competition to strip themselves of their own sponsor markings (boat, clothes, etc.) and participate in FLW-marked boats and wear FLW-sponsor clothes.
What's much more subtle is that competing boat brands are sometimes "fuzzied" out of the video coverage when the tournament coverage recaps competition from the two qualifying days. An excellent example of this "fuzzy factor" is the 2004 Old Hickory FLW event. I use this event as an example as it is one that I purchased from FLW Outdoors.
On the tournament-coverage DVD, as the DVD recaps days 1 and 2 of the tournament, the anglers who made the final cut are shown weighing their catches from days 1 and 2. One of the anglers who made the cut was Rick Clunn.
Clunn, who's arguably one of the best known and most respected anglers on tour, had his Nitro tournament shirt "fuzzied" when he was shown weighing in his first 2 days' catches. Rick and his fish could be seen by the viewer, but his shirt and hat had been altered in the video such that it could not be read.
If the biggest and most historical name in the sport cannot promote himself as an advertising palette, then how can any other angler believe that he or she can? While deleting any advertising competition on FLW's tournament shows may appear to help the FLW sponsors in the short run, it's my opinion that in the long run, this limits the flow of dollars into this sport.
And it comes down to dollars. If an organization is looking to build a sport, any sport, then it must have money flow. To restrict the flow of money is detrimental to all folks involved. It's clear to me that there are barriers currently in place that will make securing sponsorship next to impossible, if one's target company is a competitor to a company already sponsoring a governing body.
Therefore, in my opinion, the sport is restricted like never before in terms of dollars and potential dollars.
I don't like to draw comparisons between NASCAR and tournament bass fishing, but when it comes to dollars, we all can learn from racing. Let's assume that a particular race is sponsored by a fictional company we'll call "Big John's Jelly Company." If I'm a race car driver, and my personal sponsor is "Little Jimmy's Jelly Company," and I'm leading the race, I'll be covered by the media.
I'll get coverage because I'm dominating or I'm the most competitive person in my sport that day. Money is allowed to flow in all directions. The racetrack and governing body make money from the event sponsorship and television advertising, and individual cars are financed because companies know that if their car is competitive, the television impressions will come.
It's my position that if we do not adopt the NASCAR attitude of embracing all comers to our sport – and make it a welcoming place to enjoy as a competitor, fan and business – then tournament bass fishing will remain locked in its little bottle, and we'll never see corporate America fully embrace it.
