Although I'm glad that the last few weeks are finally over, I'm not so sure that the dealing rooms around the world are. Great sporting occasions are given just as much attention as moves in the euro or on the Nasdaq as far as most traders are concerned and I'm sure that the footie, the tennis and the golf have livened up many an otherwise boring summer afternoon in the world's financial centres.

A lot of our best dealers honed their skills by making prices on France/Italy or Sampras/Agassi long before they ever quoted a two-way price in the long bond and almost as much money can change hands on the result of a golf match as a move in crude oil.

As I've mentioned previously, I never make money on sporting fixtures because I bet on the team or the people I'd like to win rather than those who are more probable winners. (It's a technique that a lot of people use when they're picking shares too.)

So, as I rather sadly forecast, the Netherlands blew it again at the footie which was a classic heart over head deal. Venus Williams winning offset my losing support for Pat Rafter in the Wimbledon men's final but I didn't wager anything on the golf even though it was the only event that I attended rather than viewing in my couch potato position.

The event was so superbly organised that mid-summer torrential rain didn't dampen anyone's enthusiasm and there were plenty of opportunities to disport oneself in the tented village instead of on the golf course if that's what you wanted to do.

It seems rather a shame that the Smurfit Group can stage the European Open in such style and yet can't do enough to persuade fund managers that its share price should be any higher. Maybe that's because people in the company are too busy concerning themselves with golf and the Ryder Cup (there was an area named the Ryder Cup Pavilion at the K-Club) than they are with linerboard and packaging. And you can understand why - what hold can a cardboard box have over your soul when Colin Montgomerie is on the course with his driver? Yet surely the fact that Smurfit's share performance this year is worse even than the dismal Eircom must be of some alarm to those at the company's helm?

I used to work for a partly-owned Smurfit company (back in the 1980s but it obviously doesn't seem all that long ago to me) and I remember the absolute commitment to the company's share-price performance that existed at that time. I also remember the night when one of my colleagues, rather the worse for wear, informed a couple of twenty-something women at a night-club that he worked for Smurfit. He said it with pride and they were impressed. (Possibly because he was buying the drinks but who cares!)

I can't imagine anyone gaining any kudos with young women these days by saying they worked for Smurfit. The industry isn't a very sexy one for starters but that doesn't matter if the name has a certain cachet. It did in the 1980s. It doesn't now.

And although you can't really turn corrugated paper into something high-tech, I was surprised that the company's website wasn't on all of the hoardings around the course. Admittedly, the average punter wouldn't be visiting the website to see if he or she could pick up discounted cardboard boxes but a website address seems to be part of almost every company billboard these days and not to have it displayed seems somewhat out of touch.

However, if the average punter isn't actually buying Smurfit products on a day-to-day basis, what benefit is it to the company to sponsor something like the European Open?

Corporate sponsorship of sporting events doesn't come cheap. Especially major events. And, if I was a shareholder who'd seen the value of my investment fall by nearly 40 per cent this year, I'd be wondering if I was getting good value just to see the company's logo, without website address, for a few days at the weekend. Did shareholders get discounted entry fees to the golf, I wonder?

Far more bang for your buck, I'd imagine, to have had a stand at the event like the mobile phone companies or be the official courtesy car. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there are companies who are dealing with Smurfit because of seeing their sponsorship of the Open and, if it wasn't for that sponsorship, the share price would be down even more, although it's kind of hard to believe.

I suppose if I was rich enough to indulge in my favourite sporting events and I could throw someone else's money (because a company is, after all, owned by the shareholders not a few individuals) at them, I might succumb too. Although, in my case, I wouldn't need to buy a chunk of Kildare, just a hall with a high roof since I still hack my way around a badminton court. Unfortunately, badminton doesn't have the high-profile of golf or rugby or GAA so we don't have company executives rushing to disport themselves to sponsor our major events.

Nevertheless, proving that the will to win is as strong no matter how little money is involved, Irish badminton's first Olympic representative, Sonya McGinn, will be jetting out to Sydney in a few week's time and we're hoping that she'll need a few large cardboard boxes for her medals. I have, obviously, promised not to ruin her chances by putting any money on her.

Meanwhile, the debacle of the awarding of the 2006 World Cup to Germany shows what big business sport has become at so many levels. Whatever about the accusations that flow regarding the success of the German bid, the fact is that these events have become huge revenue generators and everyone wants a piece of the action. And there will be a lot of companies vying to be the "official" snack bar, or cold drink or shampoo provider to the tournament.

But whether this is good advertising for the companies concerned and is recouped in higher sales and an increase in the share price, or whether it is simply a way for the executives to get a selection of decent tickets, is something that's still open to question.