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

Regional Sport CouncilsRegional Sport Councils

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?

Regional Sport CouncilsRegional Sport Councils

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)

Regional Sport CouncilsRegional Sport Councils

““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)

Regional Sport CouncilsRegional Sport Councils

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)

Regional Sport CouncilsRegional Sport Councils

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)

Regional Sport CouncilsRegional Sport Councils

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

Regional Sport CouncilsRegional Sport Councils

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

Regional Sport CouncilsRegional Sport Councils

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)

Regional Sport CouncilsRegional Sport Councils

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

Regional Sport CouncilsRegional Sport Councils

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

Regional Sport CouncilsRegional Sport Councils

Questions?