Sports Administration -- Sports Teams:

Sports Administration -- Sports Teams: Private or Public Administration?

The general perception is that sports is a field for the highly athletic elites, the people who then move on to representing the countries in international sports events, to keep the audience in awe and tension, and to bring them from agony to ecstasy. Yet, what is often overlooked is that, just like any other formation, the sports teams function in accordance to pre-established goals and plans; gather money and spend money. From this standpoint then, they ought to be run as private institutions, in charge of their funds and able to administer their resources as they see fit. On the other hand however, the sports teams are part of the national heritage and they represent the country. From this angle then, they ought to fall under the patrimony of the state.

The matter of how should states and private players go about in best administering the sports teams is a long standing question, which has captured the attention of various writers. Two noteworthy editors are Mark Rosentraub and David Swindell, who, in 2009, wrote the comprehensive article Of Devil and Details: Bargaining for Successful Public / Private Partnership between Cities and Sports Teams. The article featured in the 33rd volume of the Public Administration Quarterly; it can also be found online at two websites, namely the Southern Public Administration Education Foundation (http://www.spaef.com) and the Questia virtual library (http://www.questia.com), both of which require subscriptions.

2. Article Summary

The article commences by revealing several instances in which the states have poured a lot of money into the building of facilities to be used by sports teams, the most relevant example in this sense being the construction of sports fields and stadiums. Rosentraub and Swindell find that sports teams are often a product of entertainment, but explain that states gain from investing in them both financially, as well as non-financially. While the financial gains can easily be put down, fact remains that the non-financial benefits are tremendous and the state is worth investing in sports even only for the non-financial gains.

The benefits can be even further enhanced if a respective city becomes the home of a professional sports team. In order to capitalize on the advantages of such a situation, the state officials are presented with the single opportunity of closing an agreement with the team to share costs of administration. In signing such a contract however, state representatives must pay attention to the safeguarding of the interests of the citizens; that there are no hidden costs and that all information is clearly stipulated.

Throughout the years, the partnerships between private and public institutions in the administration of spots teams has evolved, and evidence in this sense stands the more extensive contracts. Today, whenever the city hall wishes to invest in a sports team, they can close an agreement by signing a standard contract, to which they may add the very clauses of the respective understanding. Since the agreements of the contract are subjected to negotiations, there are five steps to be taken in the preparation of the negotiation:

Clearly setting the goals for the negotiation and the partnership

Nominating the representative of the public party with authority and bargaining power

Identify the BATNA, or the best alternative to a negotiation agreement

Gather sufficient information, and finally

Establish the rules for the negotiation

These steps will ensure that the public is a strong participant to the agreement, and that the sports team will not only generate individual benefits, but will also be guided by the interests of the state. It is also necessary for the state representatives to be able to identify and implement the most useful tools that safeguard their goals. "Unlike the final score for a game in which there is always one winner and one loser, winning at the negotiating table means sharing resources to achieve multiple objectives. The public sector is getting better at this game and, with some changes, can insure that they achieve their goals for enhanced economic development, tax revenues, and the intangible benefits of image."

3. Article Critique

Simply put, the general idea is that of agreeing with the thoughts of Mark Rosentraub and David Swindell. Here is why. First of all, it is true that the role of states in sports related fields is generally increased, and like many other elements, it has evolved from a stage in which it was only necessary for the state to offer the general infrastructure, such as roads and bridges to be used by the teams in their endeavors, to the nowadays construction of modern stadiums.

Then, sports teams have also evolved, and not do not only serve the purposes for which they were initially intended. Sports competitions are held in popular locations, and broadcasted on television. So they raise audiences. And where there are audiences, there are advertisers, who promote their products, which are then purchased by the people watching the competition; the sales revenues for the advertisers are used in investment projects to generate more jobs and more economic opportunities. This virtually means that by investing in sports teams, the states invest in the economic growth of the country. Additionally, if the sports team is professional, or even semi-professional, it will generate economic wealth through the attraction of tourists. All these make the public investment in sports teams worthwhile.