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