EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This portfolio will analyse, examine and evaluate the structure of the organization that
owns, controls and organizes the FIBA World Championship for Women specifically
concentrating on the 16th edition held in the Czech Republic in 2010. FIBA was founded in
Geneva in 1932 and its original name was Fédération Internationale de Basketball
Amateur; in 1989 it dropped the word Amateur from its official name but retained the
initials. At foundation, FIBA had eight members; Argentina, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Italy,
Latvia, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland. The first world championship for women was
organized in 1953 and it has being held every four years since then.
FIBA is the owner of this world event but transfers the organizational rights of the world
championships to the organizing committee, which is made of a majority of member states.
In this case, the local organizing committee for FIBA 2010 championship for women is the
Czech Basketball Federation (CBF). Bowdin et al (2006) believe that this translates into a
total control of the organizer from FIBA and as such somewhat stifles creativity and
flexibility on the part of the organizer. Hardy et al, (2003) agrees that the dominance of one
organization, e.g FIBA, over others may lead to frustration and a sense of powerlessness in
partnerships, however it does guarantee uniformity especially where branding and
marketing is concerned (Bowdin et al, 2006).
There are a lot of factors mitigating against the success of such a mega event especially in
these days of global recession and economic downturn, however, the host country that bids
and wins the hosting rights is expected to shoulder these responsibilities (Ali-Knight &
Donna, 2006). This essay intends to show, with references drawn from FIBA and CBF that if
more independence is given to the host country by relaxing the hold of these governing
laws regarding the event organization and giving more power to the organizing country,
flexibility, efficiency and creativity will be considerably improved.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. FIBA World Championship for Women
2.1. History
2.2. Features
3. Strategic Considerations
3.1. Organizational Structure
3.2. Planning and Decision-making Process.
3.3. PEST Analysis of FIBA.
3.3.1. Political Factors
3.3.2. Economic Factors
3.3.3. Socio-cultural Factors
3.3.4. Technological Factors
3.3.5. SWOT ANALYSIS
4. Recommendation and Conclusion.
5. References
6. Appendices
1. INTRODUCTION
The FIBA world championship for women started in 1953 in Chile and it is the second
biggest championship event in the basketball community, the other event is the male
version of the same championship.
FIBA, the world governing body for basketball, is an independent association formed by
213 National Basketball Federations throughout the world. It is recognised as the sole
competent authority in basketball by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
FIBA world championship for women is a phenomenal event bringing together basketball
players and fans of basketball from all over the world. It is an event that commands the
attention of millions both at home on the television, and at the event venue, hence why the
16th edition of the games held in Czech Republic in 2010 and organized by the Czech
Basketball Federation, is the focal point for this essay.
This essay aims to critically analyze and evaluate the event planning process involved in
hosting the event with special consideration for the decision-making process and
organizational structure of FIBA. Recommendations will be made at the end of this analysis
about the future planning strategy of similar future events.
2. FIBA WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP FOR WOMEN
2.1. History
The International Basketball Federation (FIBA, 2013) created the Women’s World
Championship. It began in 1953, three years after the first men's event, and was first held
in Chile. For most of its early history, it was not held in the same year as the men's
championship, and did not establish a consistent quadrennial cycle until 1967. The number
of participating teams has remained at 16, unlike the men's event, which has been
expanded to 24 and will expand further to 32 in 2019 (FIBA, 2013).
2.2. The 16th FIBA WORLD BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP FOR
WOMEN.
The FIBA games for women takes place every four years just like the Olympics and it brings
together basketball players from all over the world with TV broadcast to over 150
countries, and such can be classified as a mega event (Jago et al, 2010).
The 16 teams participating are split into four preliminary groups, after playing a round
robin in the preliminary group, the three best teams from each group are going to one-
eighth final (Appendix A). Within the one-eighth final Groups E and F, each team will play
three games against teams from paired preliminary group. (For example, a team, which
proceeded from Group A to Group E will play against all three teams in Group E that came
from Group B). The six best teams from one-eighth final groups will proceed to the playoffs
(knock out rounds) (CBF, 2010).
The organization of the championship is handled by the country that wins the hosting bid
and in this case. The host country then sets up a local organizing committee to plan the
event according to the guidelines set by FIBA (FIBA 2013). The Czech Basketball
Federation (CBF) is the local organizing committee for the championship. The committee
is made up of eight persons, these eight people are responsible for single handedly tailoring
most if not all the aspects of the championship to meet FIBA regulations (CBF, 2010).
Fig1: Logo for the 16th
edition of the world basketball championship for women
For the purpose of this paper, we shall be examining the 2010 FIBA world championship
for Women held in Czech Republic from 23 September to 3 October 2010. The 16th edition
of the FIBA World Championship for Women was held in three cities - Ostrava, Brno and
Karlovy Vary (Appendix B). In total, sixteen countries participated in the championship
with the USA emerging as the overall winner (ESPN, 2013).
The 2010 FIBA World Championship was brought to one of the hotbeds of women's
basketball and that is reflected in the outstanding spectator numbers. 85,000 spectators
came to the arenas in Brno and Ostrava in the first three days while the event website had
almost half a million unique visitors in first three days, and a total of 357,800 tickets were
sold (FIBA, 2013).
3. STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS
This section will examine the structure of FIBA and its decision making in the event
planning process, then followed by a macro-analysis of other factors relating to the host
country and event environment and a detailed analysis of the organization. The section will
be concluded with recommendations, issues and conclusions regarding strategy for future
events.
3.1. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The World Basketball Championship for Women is owned by FIBA, the internationally
recognized governing body for the game of basketball (FIBA, 2013). FIBA reserves the sole
right to award hosting rights of the competition to anyone of its member federations, who
then after being selected proceeds to constitute another local organizing committee that
plans and executes the event under the watchful eyes of FIBA.
FIBA enjoys an absolute monopolistic power over these proceedings, so in the case of 16th
edition of the world basketball championship for women; CBF planned and organized the
event while ownership (even named ownership) belonged and still belongs to FIBA. This
shows that the planning, production and execution of this event rested entirely with one
central organization.
According to Mintzberg (cited in Theodoraki et al, 2007), an organization’s structure can be
defined as ‘simply as the sum total of the ways in which it divides its labour into distinct
task and then achieves coordination among them’. The overall organizational form of FIBA
from data obtained from (FIBA, 2009) is shown below in Figure 2, which illustrates its
division into a strategic apex, a middle line and an operating core surrounded by technical
structure and ad-hoc staff e.g the FIBA Media and Marketing Services.
FIBA, due to its relatively mature ages of members and the number of federation members,
has moved from a simple structure to a more bureaucratic administrative structure
(Mintzberg, 1980). Every local organizing committee has its own structure for delegation of
duties and hierarchy of authority, this can be found in Figure 3. For the CBF in 2010, they
adopted a machine bureaucratic administrative structure because all decision making
regarding the hosting of the event, was approved by FIBA.
Work process is standardized by the rules and regulations of FIBA, that means the LOC
must choose and employ staff as prescribed by FIBA to carry out responsibilities listed as
necessary by FIBA for the successful hosting of the event (FIBA, 2009).
GENERAL ASSEMBLY/CONGRESS,
EXECUTIVE BOARD, MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE, THE TREASURER
TECHNICAL STRUCTURE
AUDITORS, FIBA
SUPERVISORY BODY, FIBA
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY TEAM.
THE MIDDLE
COMMISSIONS, HEAD
OFFICE, GROUPS
AD-HOC STAFF
FIBA MEDIA&MARKETING,
ARBITRATION,COMMISSION
AND TRIBUNALS.
OPERATIONAL CORE
MEMBER STATES/FEDERATIONS, ATHLETES,
COACHES, LOCAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEES.
Fig 2: Overall organizational structure of FIBA. Adapted from (Mintzberg,1980)
Source: (FIBA, 2009)
The environment of the host country plays an important role in the decision to grant them
hosting rights (Theodoraki .E, 2007). FIBA requires a stable (i.e little change to the
environment), complex (i.e number of members), diversified (i.e opportunity to
rotate/change host countries), and munificent environment, this process or criteria may
be seen as encouraging bureaucracy, red-tapism and decentralization which in turn affects
the organizer. If the political or environmental situation of a potential host country is seen
as volatile, dangerous or unhealthy, (whether this view is objective or not), hosting rights
are taken from them if the situation is not addressed.
3.2. PLANNING & DECISION MAKING PROCESS
The 2010 FIBA women’s world championship was the 16th edition of the tournament and as such,
there are existing blueprints of organizing the championship events. FIBA is a 60 year old
organization that, over time has perfected its processes and guidelines have been tailored to
experience. Bowdin et al (2011) posits that decision making and planning approaches are crucial to
the success of any event, especially if there are already set guidelines for the execution of an event.
In the case of FIBA 2010 world championship for women, the decision-making process ran
smoothly as practically every step of the process has been clearly stipulated in the event and bid
manual of FIBA.
EVENT DIRECTOR
COMPETITION MANAGER
ACCREDITATION MANAGER
IT,COMMUNICATIONS & TELEVISION
MANAGER
ADMINISTRATIVE & FINANCE MANAGER
SECURITY MANAGER
PROMOTIONS, SALES AND MARKETING
MANAGER
HOTEL SERVICES AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGER
VENUE AND COURT MANAGERS
Figure 3 : The organizational structure of the Czech Basketball Federation as the LOC for the 2010 World Basketball
championship for Women (Adapted from FIBA, 2013)
VO
LU
NT
EE
RS
Fig 4: The event bidding process (Isaac, 2009)
FIBA conducts the bidding process and then make the final decision on who will host the
championship tournament. During the bidding process, Czech Republic was required to sign an
initial agreement with the FIBA, which sets out standard terms which must be adhered to in the
running of the event (Westerbeek, Smith, Turner,Emery, Green, & van Leeuwen, 2006).
The decision making process was predominantly carried out by a method of vertical
decentralization (Mintzberg, 1980). FIBA decides the number of participating countries, the
referees, the match fixtures etc but works together with CBF in matters relating to branding,
marketing, accreditation, promotions, venues, competition dates etc. Except for the price tickets,
ALL decisions must be discussed with FIBA, and approved by FIBA (FIBA, 2009), one can safely
conclude that the CBF is merely executes the plans of FIBA without any creative input.
3.3. PEST ANALYSIS OF FIBA/CBF
3.3.1. POLITICAL/LEGAL FACTORS
‘By submitting its candidature, the national federation (in this case, the CBF) accepts to comply with
the terms of engagement contained in this Bid and Event Manual, the FIBA Europe Regulations and
Bye-Laws and the FIBA Internal Regulations. The agreement to organise the FIBA World
Championship for Women and the agreement to take part in the said competition constitutes a
contract between FIBA Europe, the organisers and the participating teams. All parties involved must
scrupulously respect this "sports contract". (FIBA, 2009).
The above clearly shows that the host country not only has to adhere by the country’s laws with
regards to hosting an event but also to FIBA’s legislative laws (Appendix C). This agreement also
underlies the control of WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) and the International Olympic
Committee on Basketball on the event planning process.
In planning the 2010 event, Czech Republic got an enormous support from the government in terms
of the development of sports for women and even set-up an ABC (All Baskets Count), a charity
project adopted and introduced to the 16th World Basketball Championship for Women by the LOC
with the support of the government. Generally, most major sporting events receive support from
the government because, sport events encourages tourism, cultural development and ultimately
economic growth for the host country (Allen et al, 2011).
3.3.2. ECONOMIC FACTORS
The year 2010 was a good year for the Czech economy, which started to recover after contracting
by 4.1 percent in 2009. It is estimated that the Czech economy grew by 1.7 percent in 2010,
however, this is mostly a by-effect of the surprisingly good performance by the German economy
(Aktuálně.cz, 2011).
Sponsorship is a major source of income for any event (Bowdin et al, 2011), although the current
economic climate is harsh, major brands continue to sponsor major sport events because of the
returns on their investments. It comes as no surprise that in 2010, the year of a vibrant Czech
economy, the 16th edition of the FIBA had 17 sponsors split into three categories namely: Global
Partners, Main Sponsors and Event Sponsors (Appendix D).
A distinction should be made between sponsor status, such as being a global FIBA partner, and
named events sponsors, since the latter have two additional benefits. Firstly, the publicity of a
named event will help build brand presence, depending on the amount of press coverage. Secondly,
associating the brand with the event is much more feasible when it is a named event rather than
one for which the brand is simply a sponsor at some level (Aaker & Joachimsthaler 2000, p. 207)
3.3.3. SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS
In Europe, there is a global awareness that there is a growing trend of more older people than
young ones and so it is no surprise that more young people are involved in sports and sporting
events (Dodouras & James, 2004). It is a vibrant profitable market for investors and with the global
economic recession and economic downturn, more people are out of work and spend more time
watching television (Metro, 2013). This can be seen in the growth in television viewership over the
last five years. In 2010 however, more women tuned in to watch basketball globally, that was the
years people from all over the world gathered to participate in the FIBA world championship for
women and the entire world tuned in to watch (Appendix E).
3.3.4. TECHNOLOGICAL FACTORS
Technology is an important part of hosting mega sporting events such as the world championship
for women, it helps to make communication between officials smooth and also aids the marketing
and promtotion of the event. In the case of the 2010 FIBA world champion for women, technology
played an important role as fan had access to the event website, (CBF, 2010).
The tournament was streamed live on FIBAtv and fans could download wallpapers and check match
schedule. The tickets to the matches were also sold electronically and a mobile phone app was
developed by Nokia for the tournament (nokiaOvi, 2013). The downside to this is that live
streaming might reduce the number of tickets sold as some people might prefer to watch the
matches from the comfort of their homes and this might pose a threat to future revenue generation
for future events.
3.3.5. SWOT ANALYSIS
A SWOT analysis is developed using the above factors that might affect a mega event such as the
FIBA world championship for women and they have been highlighted in Appendix F. The PEST
analysis above forms the external analysis as well as the cultural, physical/environmental and
economic resources, which make up the internal analysis. For example, a weakness the organizers
had to deal with is the issue of brand name confusion with FIBA World Championship which is the
male version of the sport.
4. RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION
FIBA is to basketball what FIFA is to the world cup, this means that a huge amount of power
resides in the organization over events in the basketball world, and the organizing/host country
has little or no influence over the structure of the event. With this kind of control, the world
basketball championship can be categorized as an isomorphic event, ‘The central idea of
institutional isomorphism is that the environment (or institutional context) pressures
organizations to adopt specific practices and processes to survive (Meyer & Rowan, 1977).
Isomorphism in this regard appears intimidating mostly because of the all-inclusive and thorough
laws, contracts, guidelines, and reconciliatory meetings of this tournament, so regardless of the
diversity of the host countries, the structure and operations remains the same across board.
However, this is not necessarily a bad thing as a uniformed structure and guideline implementation
guarantees a similar and consistent appearance in their “structure, culture and output” (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1991, p. 64). The failure to have an appropriate governance to control and monitor sport
organisations can result in withdrawal of sponsorship, decline in membership numbers and
participation and possible intervention from external agencies (UK Sport, 2004)
Smith & Lipsky (1998 cited by Ramanath, 2008) identified a tendency towards greater conformity
among nonprofits. Such conformity to governmental priorities, they noted, threatens the
inventiveness of the nonprofit sector including its “spontaneity,” “variety,” and even its
“unpredictability.”
Generally speaking, cooperation between FIBA/FIBA Zone with the Local Organising Committees
and knowledge transfer process must improve if FIBA is to realise its potential. The most
successful sport organisations have already addressed this by implementing joint venture models
for their major events and for all events ensuring closer collaboration with the Local Organising
Committees together with the usage of documented know-how generated from previous events to
ensure knowledge transfer.
Financially, sponsorship and government funding might be affected by the global economic
recession and as such reduce spending on events. Socio-Culturally, the dwindling attendance at
mega sports events venue, caused by inability of the general public to afford increasing ticket
prices, may also affect live event participation. If live audience participation is affected, companies
will not be so eager to sponsor or co-own events because the ROI may be affected, and so on.
Governments’ guarantees should be a mandatory part of every candidature for the organisation of
FIBA/FIBA Zones’ events. Government should also play a role in structuring the Organising
Committee and delivering the necessary resources.
Digitally, the basketball player and fan is particularly suited to the enormous opportunities that
digital technology is bringing, being young, tech-savvy and mobile. FIBA has for many years worked
to introduce digital technologies ahead of most other Federations and should now enter the age
where they can use these as a key part of their commercial strategy. The FIBA on-line community
can become the way they interact with the fans year-round, improving the way they play and follow
basketball and providing new revenue stream for FIBA.
Due to the above factors, it is recommended that FIBA reduce the severity of its isomorphic form of
governance to allow for flexibility, spontaneity and variety. By loosening terms and conditions of
host participation and giving organizers more creative and financial independence in the
organization of FIBA events, organizers/host countries can adequately react and deal with changing
financial and social changes.
5. References
Aktuálně.cz, 2011. Pulled by German boom: 2010 in Czech economy. [Online] Available at:
http://www.expats.cz/prague/article/weekly-czech-news/pulled-by-german-boom-2010-in-czech-
economy/ [Accessed 2013].
Ali-Knight, J. & Donna, C., 2006. Case studies in festival and Event Marketing and Cultural Tourism.
Festival and Events: Beyond Economic Impacts, 1(1), p.25; 93.
Allen, J., O'Toole, W., Harris, R. & McDonnell, I., 2011. Festival and Special Event Management. 5th ed.
Australia: John Wiley & Sons Australia ltd.
Anon., 2012. The Economic Impact of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. London: Oxford
Economics; Lloyd's Banking Group.
BBC, 2004. www.bbc.co.uk. [Online] Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3719375.stm
[Accessed 7th March 2013].
Bowdin, G. et al., 2006. Events Management (Online). 2nd ed. Taylor&Francis. Available at:
http://lib.myilibrary.com/?ID=131135 [accessed 12th March 2013].
CBF, 2010. Czech Basketball Federation. [Online] Available at: www.cbf.cz [Accessed April 2013].
DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective
rationality. American Sociological Review, 48, pp.147-60.
Dodouras.S & James.P, 29th March - 2nd April 2004. Examining the impacts of mega-sports events:
Fuzzy mapping as a new integrated appraisal system. In 4th International Postgraduate Research
conference in the built and human environment. Salford, 29th March - 2nd April 2004.
ESPN, 2013. www.espn.com. [Online] [Accessed April 2013].
FIBA, 2009. Bid & Event Manual. [Online] FIBA (PDF) Available at:
http://www.fibaeurope.com/files/%7BD367915F-519A-4A93-8832-138868F18FF9%7D.pdf [Accessed
April 2013].
FIBA, 2009. FIBA Regulations and Event Hosting Manual. [Online] FIBA (PDF) Available at:
http://www.fiba.com/downloads/v3_abouFiba/prog/nf_manu/1_2.pdf [Accessed 2013].
FIBA, 2013. FIBA.com. [Online] [Accessed April 2013].
Hall, C.M., 1997. Hallmark Tourist Events: Impacts, Management and Planning. Chichester: John Wiley
and Sons.
Hardy, C., Phillips, N. & Lawrence, T.B., 2003. Resources, knowledge and influence: The organizational
effects of interorganizational collaboration.. Journal of Management Studies, 40(32), pp.1-347.
Issac, L., 2009. Bidding For Events. Online Learning for Sports Management.
Jago, L. et al., 2010. Optimising the potential of mega-events: an overview. International Journal of Event
and Festival Management, 1(3), pp.220-37.
METRO, 2013. Recession changes TV habits. [Online] Available at:
http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/20/recession-changes-tv-habits-3552224/ [Accessed April 2013].
Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B., 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony.
American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), pp.340-63.
Mintzberg, H., 1980. The nature of managerial work. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Ramanath, R., 2008. Limits to Institutional Isomorphism : Examining Internal Processes in NGO -
Government Interactions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(1), pp.51-76.
Theodoraki, E., 2007. Olympic Event Organisation. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.
UKSport, 2004. Good governance guide for national governing bodies. UK Sport.
Westerbeek, H. et al., 2006. Managing sport facilities and major events. Abingdon: Routledge.
6. Appendix
A.Participating teams and match schedule
Source: FIBA,2013
B. Event Venues
Source: CBF, 2010
C. Member guideline/regulations
Source: FIBA, 2013
D. Categories of Sponsoship
Source: FIBA.com
E. FIBA 2010 BASKETBALL BROADCASTING FIGURES
Source: FIBA, 2013
F. SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESS
Valuable brand equity
Experience
Dependable supply chain
USP makes sponsorship easy.
Good volunteer base.
Access to good venues and facilities.
Brand confusion with FIBA championship for
men.
Not enough media support.
Dependent on sponsors for funding.
Minimal organization versatility.
Lack of interest in female sport tournament.
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Growing market segment (Female Basketball)
Innovation in technology.
Increasing number of new federation
members means new markets.
Strong Czech economy.
Increase in viewership of live events.
Monopolistic nature of FIBA guarantees
exclusivity for host countries.
Global economic recession.
Increased TV viewership means dwindling
attendance at live events .
New technology will affect ticket sales.
Governmental laws may cause restrictions.
0
100,000,000
200,000,000
300,000,000
400,000,000
500,000,000
600,000,000
700,000,000
800,000,000
900,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
FIBA BASKETBALL BROADCASTING FIGURES
MEN WOMEN
E. GALLERY