Why do thought leadership?
Because thought leadership is the spreading of an idea, and the spreading of an idea is never an accident.
Most leaders treat communications as something that happens after the real work is done. The strategy gets set in one room, and then someone is asked to "get the word out." That sequence is backward, and it is the single most common reason corporate communications fail.
The spreading of an idea has a process. I call it E-STOCK.
Event: What is the context? Every idea lands inside a moment: markets, politics, the news cycle, your own org chart, a book launch. Identify an action forcing event before you open your mouth.
Strategy: What are you trying to achieve? Not "awareness." A decision. A specific target. Something that will help you maintain or expand. A measurable shift in how your company is understood. Name the outcome before you choose the tactics.
Tactics: What tools will you use? Op-eds, podcasts, briefings, a keynote, a quiet lunch. Tactics are the easy part, which is exactly why they are the wrong place to start.
Organization: What systems do you need? Ideas die in the gap between intention and execution. You need the people, the calendar, the material, the resources, and the approvals that turn a good thought into a published one.
Consistency: What is your cadence? One brilliant post is a flare. A reliable rhythm is a signal. Audiences trust pattern over brilliance. Create an editorial calendar and execute consistently. Like daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and yearly.
Know-how: What can you share that no one else can? This is the whole game. Your proprietary insight, your scar tissue, your view from inside the room. Commodity takes don't spread; actionable insights do.
Here is where most organizations go wrong.
They jump straight to tactics.
"Let's do a podcast." "We need to be on LinkedIn." "Get me a TED talk." They pick the tool before deciding what they are trying to achieve, and then wonder why the audience never showed up.
That is not a thought leadership problem. It is a sequencing problem.
Done right, thought leadership does more than build a profile.
It creates new opportunities to expand commerce and shape culture. It opens doors that cold outreach cannot. It lets a company shape how it is understood before a crisis forces the conversation. In an environment defined by permanent disruption, the organizations that can deliberately spread an idea hold an advantage that those still "getting the word out" will never match.
So the real question is not whether you should be a thought leader. The question is the one you have been avoiding.
What idea are you holding back?
Start with E-STOCK. Build from there.
Enjoy the ride + plan accordingly.
-Marc
You can always reach me @ marc@caracal.global.
MI5 and US Soccer made the same mistake
Think the expensive suburban travel team is the road to the US Men's National Team. Think again.
Only about a third of National Team Coach Pochettino's World Cup 26 came from that affluent club-soccer world. Cristian Roldan was raised in Pico Rivera, a 91 percent Hispanic city, by parents who fled Guatemala and El Salvador. Ricardo Pepi and Alejandro Zendejas are from El Paso. Max Arfsten is from Fresno, played college soccer, and never spent a day in a pro academy. Nineteen of the twenty-six reached this team through a system that charged their family nothing.
The expensive path is not worthless. It produced Gio Reyna and Brenden Aaronson, and Christian Pulisic was a Pennsylvania club kid before Dortmund. It is wildly oversold. The system looked where it expected the talent to be, but the talent was somewhere else.
This is not a sports story. It is the oldest mistake an institution can make, and the UK spies got there first.
In the 1930s, the Soviet recruiter Arnold Deutsch found his perfect first agent in a young Englishman named Kim Philby. Philby was introduced to him by Edith Tudor-Hart, a Viennese communist, photographer, and spy, the subject of Daria Santini's new biography, A Woman Named Edith. MI5 was watching Tudor-Hart. It was watching her fellow Austrian émigrés in Hampstead. And it missed Deutsch's British recruits entirely, the men who became the most damaging spy ring in modern British history. The service could not imagine that idealistic young men from Cambridge would betray their friends and their country for a fashionable ideology. So it watched the working class, but never looked at the elite class.
Two institutions. Two class stereotypes pointing in opposite directions—the same failure.
Every communications strategy makes this mistake in some form, and it is expensive and based on assumptions.
You decide who your audience is, then you spend accordingly. The marquee press hit. The analyst day. The campaign aimed at the room you already sit in. It feels like rigor. It is a stereotype with a budget, the boardroom cousin of "a spy would be working-class." And while you spend time there, the verdict on your company is forming exactly where you assumed it would not.
Stop confusing the audience you can picture with the audience that decides. The outlet your board likes to see is rarely the channel where belief about your company is actually built. Name the audience that moves your license to operate, your valuation, and your ability to hire. Then look at your budget and see how little of it reaches them.
Go where the understanding is forming, not where it is comfortable to be seen. Your reputation is taking shape in your frontline employees, in a regulator's junior staff, in your customers' group chats, and in the AI systems now describing your company to the world without ever contacting you. Those are the Cambridge common rooms of your business, hiding in plain sight, and almost no one is watching them.
Then build the pipeline instead of renting the prestige.
US Soccer's fix was not a better travel team. It was free academies that reached the talent the old system priced out. Yours is direct, owned, durable access to the people who actually shape how your decisions are understood, before the moment you need them.
Enjoy the ride + plan accordingly.
-Marc
The Sporting Caracal Global | May 23, 2026
The Sporting Caracal Global
May 23, 2026
Sport at the intersection of geopolitics, commerce, and governments. With insights for better communications from an athletic perspective, and a 68.5-foot birdie championship putt.
The cheapest ticket to the World Cup final now runs $2,030, the most expensive seat at the most expensive sporting event ever staged. The hotels built to house the fans who would pay for them are sitting empty. Hold those two facts next to each other, and you have the communications story of the summer.
That is the lens this week. Five stories where the score on the field matters less than who controls the story off it, plus the Person of the Week.
The lead: America is losing the World Cup narrative before a ball is kicked
The story of the week in sport is not a game. It is a set of empty hotel rooms.
The American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA) reports bookings well below expectations in almost every host city, and warns the anticipated economic lift may fall short. The AHLA represents more than 32,000 properties and over 80% of franchised hotels in the country, so this is not a fringe complaint. It also directly contradicts FIFA's claim that more than five million tickets have been sold.
That gap is the whole story. The host country wanted a soft-power triumph: a tourism boom, a billion friendly eyeballs, proof that America still throws the best party in the world. Instead, the narrative is being written by empty rooms, a $2,030 entry price, SoFi Stadium workers threatening to strike over ICE deployment, and the fact that Trump handed hosting duties to Andrew Giuliani. Every one of those is a message the host is not choosing to send.
The communications failure is structural. FIFA and the US government are running two different stories, and nobody is reconciling them. Tell investors to expect a World Cup revenue surge in Q3, watch it not materialize, and the press writes the disappointment story for you. Better to walk expectations down yourself, on your own terms and timeline. Pre-empting a bad narrative is cheaper than correcting one.
The Saudi sports story is leaving the arena
Two signals, one trend. The Esports World Cup is leaving Riyadh for Paris, the first time the event has been held outside Saudi Arabia, with Macron personally receiving the Esports Foundation chief at the Élysée. And LIV Golf is reportedly drawing up bankruptcy plans for the end of the season.
Saudi Arabia spent a decade buying sport to buy a narrative: modern, open, a fixture on the global calendar. That works only as long as the money and the legitimacy hold together. LIV is the clearest evidence yet that you cannot purchase a story you cannot sustain, and the esports defection shows the assets walking to a host that offers something Riyadh could not. The lesson is not that the Saudis ran out of money. It is that money was never the part that was failing.
Watch what France did. Macron treated esports like the Olympics, framing state involvement as a national partnership rather than acquisition. That is the difference in communication between sportswashing and soft power. One buys the trophy and tells you so. The other builds the platform and lets you draw the conclusion. France just won that transfer without spending Gulf money.
Britain's one world-beating industry is its best unused message
Arsenal ended a 22-year wait for the Premier League title. Aston Villa won European silverware for the first time in 44 years, dismantling Freiburg away. And The Economist made the point underneath both results: in a country where many things are not working, the Premier League is.
This is the most underused communications asset Britain owns. The national story the UK tells the world right now is decline, dysfunction, and political fragmentation. The single best brand the country exports tells the opposite story: global dominance, ruthless execution, the standard everyone else measures against. Those two messages are running side by side, and only one of them is true at scale.
For UK Inc., and for any company using Britain as a gateway brand, the lesson is that the Premier League is doing soft-power work the government cannot. The country communicates managed decline. Its best export communicates winning. Smart stakeholder messaging borrows from the export, rather than the self-image.
The NAACP boycott is a communications strategy, not a sports story
The NAACP has called on Black athletes to withhold commitments to athletic programs in eight states over redistricting that targets Black voting power, and asked fans to stop buying tickets. Read it as a campaign, not a protest.
The reason it targets sport is precise. College athletes command a narrative that state legislatures cannot control, and athletic programs are the most visible, most sponsor-dependent institutions in those states. By routing a voting-rights fight through recruiting, the NAACP forces a values conversation onto schools and corporate partners who would much rather talk about depth charts and television windows.
That is leverage through messaging, not through a lawsuit. For athletic programs, conference sponsors, and the brands associated with them, the exposure is both real and reputational. The instinct will be to stay silent and hope it passes. Silence is a position here, and a costly one. The operators who fare best will have decided in advance what they stand for, because this fight is designed to make neutrality impossible.
When diplomacy freezes, sport becomes the only open channel
Relations between the two Koreas sit near a historic low. Yet a rare visit by a North Korean soccer team to the South triggered intense emotions among older South Koreans, some of whom openly cheered for the visitors.
That emotional response is the message getting through where official channels are sealed. When governments stop talking, sport remains one of the last functioning channels of communication between adversaries, carrying signals that diplomats cannot send and publics cannot otherwise receive. It is the oldest soft-power instrument there is, and it still works precisely because it looks like it is about a game.
For anyone reading geopolitical risk, this is worth filing. Sporting contact between hostile states is rarely just sport - think Ping-Pong Diplomacy. It is a controlled, deniable, low-cost way to test sentiment and signal openness. Watch who plays whom, and where, as carefully as you watch who meets whom.
Person of the Week: Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
Two MVPs in a row. Now defending an NBA championship. And the hardest narrative problem in American sport: he is, by wide agreement, too excellent to be interesting. They are literally calling him boring.
This is a communications case study dressed as a basketball story. Dominance is the toughest thing to sell, because narrative runs on tension, and inevitability kills tension. The league and the press cannot manufacture suspense around a man who simply wins, so they reach for the wardrobe instead: the fur coats worn without irony, the sunglasses indoors. That is not vanity. That is a market leader manufacturing personality because the product alone will not generate the story.
The lesson travels well beyond the NBA. Any company that wins too cleanly faces the same trap. Execute flawlessly, and you become invisible, then resented, then called dull. The scoreboard stops doing your communicating for you. Gilgeous-Alexander understands, consciously or not, that excellence needs a story bolted onto it. Plenty of dominant businesses never figure that out, and pay for it in the narrative ground they cede to louder, lesser competitors.
Enjoy the ride + plan accordingly.
— Marc
Marc A. Ross | Chief Communications Strategist @ Caracal Global | The Sporting Caracal Global is published on Saturdays.
The Sporting Caracal Global is a weekly memo applying the Caracal Global lens to sport: globalization, soft power, governments, and commerce, resolved on the communications stakes that decide who wins on and off the pitch.
Caracal Global is a communications firm for global business, working at the intersection of geopolitics, commerce, and governments. Specializing in Globalization + American Politics. Intelligence + Strategy + Communications.