Challenges for third sector organisations in cutback management: a sporting case study of the implications of publicness

Theorising organisational resilience for sport management research and practice

“…An important distinction is the difference between the resilience of the organisation itself as opposed to the resilience of the services provided to its users (Bovaird & Quirk, 2013), which is particularly critical where there is a high degree of "publicness", as is the case for most sports organisations (Bostock et al, 2020). Bovaird and Quirk (2013) argue that for such services, the nature of risk and resilience within the service system as a whole needs to be identified and strategies developed which give primacy to the interests of service users, while recognising the multiplicity of stakeholders.…”

“…In contrast, in countries such as Australia and Canada, NSOs generally cover both "high performance" and "participation" levels, but operate in a federated model, overseeing provisional/state organisations which in turn oversee local sports clubs (Parent et al, 2018;Pedras et al, 2020). The governance structure for each sport in each country determines the administrative boundaries influencing organisational systems, which are always complex and embody a wide range of different stakeholders ( (Bostock et al, 2020;Parent et al, 2018;Pedras et al, 2020). For elite sport NGBs in the UK, the relative weakness of "home nation" and regional levels in their governance structure creates a challenge as to how they engage with their stakeholders across the whole of the area they cover.…”

“…Amongst the NGBs operations, it may be just specific activities which are affected by a major stressor, such as a prestigious event cancelled due to a natural disaster (Miles & Shipway, 2020), or it could be that a major stressor leaves the NGB to decide where the cuts are to be made amongst its different activities. Major UK Sport funding cuts require the NGB to consider the relationships between inputs (how), operations (what) and outcomes (why, for whom) in order to determine their priorities (Bostock et al, 2020).…”

“…There may be efforts from within the organisational system to influence the external environment, and external effects arising from internal outcomes. For example, in the UK, NGBs have lobbied at times for changes to the "No Compromise" system of funding for elite sport (Bostock et al, 2020). Also, the future of that funding system is affected by its overall success, as measured through the medal tables at major championships.…”

“…This is, however, a risky strategy if the hoped-for results do not materialise since it will leave few resources for the final months of the funding period. Bostock et al (2020) found that three NGBs which received large cuts in funding between the 2009 and 2013 and 2013 and 2017 cycles were in a perilous financial situation at the end of 2012/beginning of 2013 because of front-loading, and, as a result, had to make severe and immediate cutbacks. Prior planning (Lee et al, 2013) for the potential major stressor of a funding cut would suggest back-loading of funding.…”