Sportville Model Review

Sportville

In 2008, in response to this interest among sports clubs, national and regional sports organisations, and potential investors like councils and community trusts, SPARC commissioned Peter Burley, Director of Sport Guidance, to examine how eight sportville projects had evolved and developed, and what lessons could be learned.

His report, “Sport Partnership Projects: a review of eight high-profile sport club partnerships” (PDF 1.2 MB) is available.

For those of you looking for a brief introduction, read on.

Case studies

Peter Burley’s report looks at a representative cross section of sport club partnerships, which includes:

• College Rifles Rugby Club
• Eskview Sports Association
• Greytown Community Sport & Leisure Society
• Lynfield Cultural Recreation Club
• Moutere Hills Community Centre & Sports Complex
• Papamoa Sport & Recreation Club
• Sharks Sports Trust
• Te Puru Community Charitable Trust

His first acknowledgement is that there is no single model for sportville initiatives and he prefers the term “sport club partnerships” because it allows for a greater variety. Each of the eight case studies reveals different motivations and different responses, resulting in different legal structures and different management models. There is no one right way to do it.

And not all sportville ventures prosper. Among the eight case studies, six are regarded as being successful, one is said to be struggling and one is judged to have failed. Burley looks at each of the eight partnerships, noting their differences, but searching, too, for the commonalities.

Is there a pattern?

In tracing the evolution and development of the eight sport club partnerships, Burley looks at:

• the impetus for change (forming)
• the early adjustments in a new relationship (storming)
• the settling of behaviour (norming)
• the realisation of the desired gains (performing)

and lastly, because not every venture is successful,

• the collapse of a joint venture (deforming)

For each of these classic stages in what he calls “the journey,” Burley teases out key learnings. It will be these critical success factors that will interest sports organisations contemplating change, as well as investor organisations looking for more effective ways to support sport at community level.

Of particular interest are the possible catalysts for change. Why do traditional single-purpose sports clubs contemplate radical change? Burley suggests there are several reasons:

• the struggle to survive as single-purpose organisatons
• the desire for better & more professional sport delivery
• the appeal of a more “family-friendly” environment
• the added attractions of a multi-sport organisation
• the prospect of a new building development

Any one of these forces may stimulate the appetite for change, but the last mentioned often has the power to galvanise decision-makers so they move past just “thinking about it.”

Critical success factors

In summary, Burley notes the following key essentials:

• Good governance – sport club partnerships are complex arrangements that must satisfy multiple stakeholders. They require enlightened leadership and a clear separation of governance and sport delivery functions.
• Clarity of purpose – the value proposition must be clear, simple and compelling. The benefits of the partnership must be articulated in way that everyone can understand.
• Formal amalgamations are not always necessary – a new entity need not replace existing clubs but can instead can umbrella constituent members.
• Clustering of resources – the close physical proximity of facilities (fields, courts, changing rooms, café etc) is important in the same way the kitchen is central to a home
• Staged progression – building trust is essential as sovereign organisations feel their way towards a new relationship. The influence of a respected “project champion” is critical, even where there are willing parties and conditions are favourable.
• Council support – partnerships appear to have a greater chance of success if local authorities have supportive policy settings and are prepared to invest

Positive results

Burley finds that in the great majority of cases, sports club partnerships are successful. He documents improvements in

• growth – in playing numbers and in the range of activities on offer.
• money – in increased access to grant funding but also in improved accountabilities and financial management
• morale – as participants understand the new possibilities on offer
• facilities – as critical mass of multiple users makes investment attractive

What about the evidence?

The report offers valuable insight because it looks at a cross section of sports club partnerships, some of them now well established and others getting under way, and some more successful than others.

While there are limitations to the statistical information presented throughout the report in a series of tables, it is possible to see evidence of progress. The “numbers” always make interesting reading but so do the comments from individuals who have been closely involved in these ground-breaking projects.

The last word

The last word belongs to Peter Burley:

Six of the eight are succeeding while one is defunct and the other has been struggling. Those that are successful are generally very successful. They display healthy financial positions, and are able to demonstrate growth in sport participation by the constituent clubs that formed them. They are able to show much more than this. Many of the successful clubs also provide a range of programmes that they are now able to support as a result of the increased human capital and infrastructure they created out of forming collectives.”

For sports leaders, council politicians and officers, and investor organisations alike, the report is a valuable resource.

Updated | 17 Sep 2008.

Skip page tools.

• Go to top