cheri l. bradish, ph.d., department of sport management brock university lessons from big and little...

Cheri L. Bradish, Ph.D., Department of Sport Management

Brock University

Lessons from

BIG and little Brother:

An Examination of Regional Sport

Councils in the United

States

• 100+ communities in the USA

• partners of local/regional governments

• also referred to as commission, authority, council, corporation, federation, foundation

• supported by the National Association of Sports Commissions (NASC)

Regional Sport CouncilsRegional Sport Councils

Defi

ned

Ob

jectiv

es

• to attract, stimulate, and promote sporting events and facilities

• to improve overall quality of life for host community, while contributing to actual economic impact

• to serve as recognizable and identifiable advocates and experts


Stu

dy O

verv

iew

• powerful, yet misunderstood sport organization (s)

• nationwide study:

Is there a difference in organization structure and characteristics between regional Sports Commissions* which are large in size, versus those that are small in size, according to metropolitan area served?


Meth

od

s

• two-part SCOSS survey• 86 ‘active’ NASC members

(77% response rate)• balance between large*

(greater than one million) and small** (less than 700,000) inhabitants* 5.6 m – 1 m (mean 1.9 m)** 672,000 – 9,999 (mean 317,128)


““Large” Sport CouncilsLarge” Sport Councils

““Small” Sport CouncilsSmall” Sport Councils

Resu

lts: S

tructu

re

• similar findings for measures of organizational structure for large versus small sports councils (reflective of similar ‘size’ of independent organizations)


Resu

lts:

Ch

ara

cte

ristic

s

• more ‘small’ market councils are dependent on other government entities

• overall budget sources: lodging/bed taxes, corporate partnerships

• internal ‘bid’ activities/minimal external ‘activities’

• varying perceptions of success (small)

• economic impact important to both (large: event hosting, small: room nights)


Resu

lts: G

en

era

l

• type: independent (70.8% L; 35.7% S), CVB (12.5% L; 42.9% S)

• 94% not-for-profit• 77.2% lack amateur sport

mandate• mean annual budget

($828,652 L; $592,144 S)


Resu

lts: P

ers

on

nel

• full-time: 6.63/5.11• part-time: 3.93/2.1• interns: 2.43/1.94• volunteers: 1400/250• Bod: 35/21


Resu

lts: B

ud

get

(%)

• lodging/bed tax: 44.96/68.53

• corporate partnerships: 41.61/33.27

• government assistance: 36.67/28

• events revenue: 22.67/13.66


Resu

lts: A

ctiv

ities

• Internal– Solicit bids (88/79**)– Writing bids (88/71)– Presenting bids (83/75)– Assembly bid team (83/68)– Obtaining funding (75/79**)

• External– Facility management (17/29)– LOC marketing (13/11)– Ticket sales (8/14)– Community recreation (8/18)– Event management (8/7)


Con

clu

sio

ns

• similar in structure (regulated)

• strong community support as a means to social and economic development

• diverse activities• beneficial to create an

ongoing ‘lobby unit’• resource dependent activities

are outsourced/minimized yet should be enhanced, or better coordinated for communities


Recom

men

datio

ns

• examination of councils (budget/type)

• examination of the effectiveness of the bid and management activities performed

• community perception of the effectiveness and legacy of council

• volunteer capacity


Questions?

cheri l. bradish, ph.d., department of sport management brock university lessons from big and little...

Documents

small sport councils

large sport councils

small market councils

regional sports commissions

lack amateur sport mandate

management activities

activities internal

event management