Recreational sporting events are big business and cities throughout the United States are competing fiercely to host events (Saayman, & Saayman, & du Plessis, 2005). March (1984) suggested that the reason why smaller sporting events have received relatively little attention is because it is assumed that they are economically less significant. The purpose of this study was to estimate the economic impact of hosting a club sport national tournament on a midsize community. The current study estimates the economic impact of hosting the American Collegiate Hockey Association (ACHA) Division II National Championship. The survey consisted of 105 questionnaires that were completed during the three day tournament of which all 105 were used. The findings of the survey indicated that hosting a national tournament can have a positive effect on the local economy. It was estimated that nearly $2 million of new money may have been injected into the community of Fort Collins, Colorado. This research provides midsize cities with information to justify hosting one-time events and working favorably with the community university.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper examines corporate sponsorship as an additional source of funding for college recreational facilities and programs. The purpose of the study was to: (a) examine current sources of funding for campus recreation, (b) estimate the percentage of institutions currently involved with corporate sponsorship in their campus recreation programs, (c) identify the types of businesses sponsoring campus recreation centers as well as what these companies receive in return for their sponsorship, and (d) identify the reasons various institutions give for their lack of involvement with sponsorship. Questionnaires were mailed to campus recreation directors at 140 randomly selected universities representing four regions of the United States. Results indicated that primary sources of funding for campus recreation programs currently include student fees (63.5 percent), private donations (23.5 percent), and state funding (13 percent). The use of corporate sponsorship to supplement funding was indicated by 46 percent of responding institutions. The most common types of businesses currently sponsoring campus recreation programs included athletic equipment/apparel, soft drink, insurance companies and restaurants. Slightly over half of the companies identified in the sponsorships were national chain corporations, while almost 40 percent were local businesses. In regard to what sponsoring companies received in exchange, results of the study indicated that use of company names in recreation center literature was most common. In addition, 20 percent of respondents reported that sponsoring corporations were given advertising space on the recreation center website. The two primary reasons given by campus recreation directors for lack of involvement with sponsorship were: (a) institutional policy prohibiting sponsorship involvement, and (b) uncertainty of how to pursue sponsorships. There are several implications of the study for campus recreation directors. These include the following: 1. Corporate sponsorship represents a significant opportunity for obtaining additional funding for campus recreation. 2. Knowing the types of companies currently involved in campus recreation sponsorship provide a starting place for those recreation directors who are exploring sponsorship as a source of funding. 3. Recreation center directors should closely examine what sponsors are currently receiving, or will receive in exchange, so that the sponsorship is not perceived as purely philanthropic.

Providing proper and adequate security is a critical element in comprehensive risk management for campus recreation facilities. However, little research has been done in this area to assess and analyze the status of security at campus recreation centers in the United States. The purpose of this study was to (a) examine the types of security systems used in campus recreation centers, (b) determine the most common types of security incidents that occur in these centers, and (c) examine facility security procedures and personnel. Questionnaires were mailed to 100 randomly selected campus recreation directors across the United States. There were 58 usable surveys returned for a 58 percent response rate.Notable results included: (a) the majority of centers have written security plans but only about one-third update their plans on a regular basis, (b) 72 percent of responding centers provide employee training for security issues, and (c) less than half indicated that they use centers use pagers or cell phones. In addition, while closed circuit television (CCTV) was recognized as an excellent way to decrease criminal activity, only 30 percent of centers reported the use of CCTV to monitor their facilities. Approximately two-thirds of respondents indicated that ID cards were required to access the centers. Interestingly, less than half of the respondents indicated that they thought their facilities were designed with security in mind. Finally, with regard to criminal activity, illegal entry was recognized by 65 percent of respondents as a primary security issue.