Search Results

The general acceptance of sport sponsorship by corporate and sporting worlds alike has led to a situation whereby corporations receive from hundreds to thousands of unsolicited proposals annually. Despite this, there is a general lack of systematic research into sport sponsorship with little information in existence as to how corporations decide between alternative properties. In an attempt to address this situation, this paper develops a conceptual model of the sport sponsorship acquisition process based on the basic tenets of organizational purchasing behavior, contemporary literature on sport sponsorship, and the results of a qualitative study. It is anticipated that the Sport Sponsorship Acquisition Model will form the basis for further scholarly research to ascertain the precise nature of the acquisition process.

This article examines the coalitions undergirding comprehensive sport-centered growth agendas in three cities actively pursuing sporting event development strategies: Edmonton, Canada; Manchester, United Kingdom; and Melbourne, Australia. Using DiGaetano and Klemanski’s (1999) study of modes of urban governance as a starting point, we review each city’s urban political economy, urban governing agenda, and urban governing alliances. We then discuss whether coalitions in each of the cities can be identified as regimes, by examining the conditions required for the presence of regimes developed by Dowding (2001). Results suggest the presence of regimes in each city, which can be best described using Stoker and Mossberger’s (1994) symbolic regime, developed in their typology of regimes for cross-national research. However, the cities differ slightly, with Edmonton exhibiting the characteristics of a progressive version of a symbolic regime, whereas Manchester and Melbourne more closely resemble urban revitalization regimes.

This article examines the piloting of a cultural safety training module in the Canadian Red Cross’s (CRC’s) Water Safety Instructor Development Program. Thematic analysis of interviews with program participants and facilitators revealed two main themes: Inclusion is important and valued by instructors, and accommodation for cultural and ethnic diversity is difficult to achieve in aquatics settings. Doherty and Chelladurai’s (1999) framework was used to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the pilot module. In conclusion, the authors propose that cultural safety training for the instructors alone will not lead to the provision of culturally safe sport; rather, there needs to be a change in the overall organizational culture in which the CRC’s programs are offered if they are to succeed. These findings make three contributions to the literature. First, the authors bridge the existing bodies of literature on critical Whiteness theory and sport management literature that addresses the management of diversity. Second, the authors explore the novel application of cultural safety training for instructors of a sport program. Finally, the authors offer recommendations to enable the development of an organizational culture that is facilitative and supportive with respect to inclusion (i.e., is welcoming) and accommodation (i.e., is flexible and adaptable) of cultural and ethnic diversity in aquatics programming.

Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and cross-efficiency evaluation are shown as support tools for sports team management in the context of a study of assessment of the individual game performance of handball players of the Spanish premier league. A sample of 66 players that play as backs in their teams is evaluated from the perspective of their offensive game. DEA yields a measure of the overall performance of the game of the players, and allows to identifying relative strengths and weaknesses by means of a benchmarking analysis. The cross-efficiency evaluation has provided a peer-appraisal of the players with the different patterns of game that the 10 players rated as efficient have used in the DEA assessments, and has made it possible to derive a full ranking of players.

This investigation examined the procedures employed by NCAA Division I, II, and ΙΠ athletic directors (ADs) in evaluating their cross country and basketball coaches. Three components were examined: individual input, methods, and criteria for evaluation. Questionnaires were mailed to 660 ADs, and final analyses were conducted on 389 responses. ADs most commonly sought input from athletes, coaches' self-evaluations, senior associate ADs, and university administrators in the evaluation process. Meetings with coaches and watching contests were rated as important methods of evaluation. Factor analyses of evaluation criteria revealed 8 evaluation factors for basketball coaches and 7 for cross country coaches with different underlying structures. For basketball coaches, unique solutions were created for technical-skill development and coach-player relationships. For cross country coaches, these items loaded together creating a general player development factor. MANOVAs examining divisional differences in the evaluation process indicated that significant differences existed between sports and across divisions.