1 / 16

Lessons from BIG and little Brother: An Examination of Regional Sport Councils in the United States

This study examines the structure, characteristics, and activities of regional sport councils in the United States. It investigates whether there are differences in organization based on size and metropolitan area served. The findings highlight the importance of community support, diverse activities, and the need for enhanced resource coordination. Recommendations include further examination of council effectiveness and community perception.

csinclair
Download Presentation

Lessons from BIG and little Brother: An Examination of Regional Sport Councils in the United States

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lessons from BIG and little Brother:An Examination of Regional Sport Councils in the United States Cheri L. Bradish, Ph.D., Department of Sport ManagementBrock University

  2. Regional Sport Councils • 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) Defined

  3. Regional Sport Councils Objectives • 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

  4. Regional Sport Councils Study Overview • 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?

  5. Regional Sport Councils Methods • 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)

  6. “Large” Sport Councils

  7. “Small” Sport Councils

  8. Regional Sport Councils Results: Structure • similar findings for measures of organizational structure for large versus small sports councils (reflective of similar ‘size’ of independent organizations)

  9. Regional Sport Councils Results: Characteristics • 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)

  10. Regional Sport Councils Results: General • 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)

  11. Regional Sport Councils Results: Personnel • full-time: 6.63/5.11 • part-time: 3.93/2.1 • interns: 2.43/1.94 • volunteers: 1400/250 • Bod: 35/21

  12. Regional Sport Councils Results: Budget (%) • lodging/bed tax: 44.96/68.53 • corporate partnerships: 41.61/33.27 • government assistance: 36.67/28 • events revenue: 22.67/13.66

  13. Regional Sport Councils Results: Activities • 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)

  14. Regional Sport Councils Conclusions • 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

  15. Regional Sport Councils Recommendations • 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

  16. Questions?

More Related