With these included Melbourne would move up the ranks significantly. The difference between the two rankings is explained by one (Sport Business International) ranking cities on multiple factors such as its hosting ability, event and tourism infrastructure, its event history and current event profile whereas the other (Sportcal) almost exclusively focuses on actual events being hosted and organised by cities. So the question is, what does it take to be a world leader in sport - to be the sporting capital of the world? Is it about sport city rankings, the economic impact of major events, the social impact maybe, the number of medals that Victorian elite athletes win or the number and quality of sporting venues and arenas? Is it about the number of sporting organisations in the state, the number of sporting headquarters of governing bodies that are based in the city, or the number of different professional sporting franchises that the region can sustain? Or does it even extend to those organisations that do not produce sport themselves but are service providers to sport such as the Victorian Institute of Sport or educational institutions graduating the sporting professionals who coach and manage sport? Does it matter if the majority of sport nuts and sport customers are passive consumers, also known as couch potatoes? Or can a city only be called a sporting capital when its population wholeheartedly and actively embraces the activity itself, and play sport in clubs or as an important leisure pastime?

A possible answer lies in the conception by strategic management guru Michael Porter of competitive advantage through industry clusters. His research shows that excellence is facilitated whenever the critical components of the supply chain of an industry gather in close proximity. Such ‘clusters’ of organisations reach a critical mass when most providers in the industry start benefiting from each other’s presence. Learning and innovation is fast tracked because the smartest brains in the industry gather in one place, but also as a result of increasing pressure from competitors and heightened customer expectations. Excess resources (profit) are accumulated and reinvested to further enhance the leadership position. Prime examples of superior knowledge and innovation through resource and intellectual property power in Melbourne are the AFL, the Australian Formula One Grand Prix, and the Australian Open tennis championships. They all can be considered global leaders in the way that they run their businesses. Victoria University (my employer), setting out to become Australia’s leading sport university, makes perfect sense in that regard. As a tertiary institution VU operates in a competitive environment where a multitude of organisations, professionals, and events require world-leading degree programs and cutting-edge sport science and sport business research.

Equally important is the fact that through the Melbourne sport-industry cluster we have access to hundreds of local, regional and (inter)national organisations for placements and broader industry partnerships. Our students and staff work with the Melbourne Vixens, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne Rebels, Melbourne Victory, Victorian (and Australian) Institute(s) of Sport and the Sporting Australia Hall of Fame, but also with the Brazil Olympic Committee, Real Madrid Graduate School and UEFA, just to name a few. In regard to industry clusters, Melbourne’s supposed leading position in sport has to be relative to the city’s population. Unlike, for example, a technology-industry cluster such as Silicon Valley, where production of new technology is independent of those who consume it, market size (of potential event attendees and sport participants) remains one of the most important determinants of sport industry cluster success. Melbourne is a medium-sized city on a world scale with just over 4 million inhabitants. However, in terms of the number of professional sporting organisations within the city’s boundaries, only London comes close. No other city in the world has more professional sporting teams per head of population than Melbourne. But can this also be said about active sport participation? For Melbourne and Victoria to become a global sporting capital, we have wonderful challenges ahead of us.

The bigger pieces of the puzzle include bench learning from cities and countries that have expertise in regard to what are the pieces of a sporting capital jigsaw. For example, in Amsterdam there are almost three bikes per head of population - one is more likely to be in a cycling accident than a car crash. Finland boosts the highest physical activity participation levels in the world, including the highest numbers of active seniors. Counting record numbers of active and healthy Victorians is more important than sell-out crowds at the G or Rod Laver Arena. Preventing chronic inactivity-induced disease is more important than clinically treating it. Being confident that our kids receive regular high-quality physical education at school is more important than to drive them from training to matches after school and during the weekend. All of us need to burn a lot of energy to be living in the sporting capital of the world. We need to practice what we already successfully preach.

Hans Westerbeek is Professor of Sport Business at Victoria University and the Dean of the College of Sport and Exercise Science and the Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL). Registrations for the Sport in Victoria - Who’s Really Winning? conference on August 14-15 can be made at vu.edu.au/news-events/events/sport-in-victoria-whos-really-winning Age subscribers receive a 25 per cent discount: theage.com.au/mybenefits