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 Fdration 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. 2.2. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. History Features Organizational Structure Planning and Decision-making Process. PEST Analysis of FIBA.

3. Strategic Considerations

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 Womens 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.

Fig1: Logo for the 16 edition of the world basketball championship for women

th

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 oneeighth 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).

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 16 th 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 organizations 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.

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)

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).

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.
IT,COMMUNICATIONS & TELEVISION MANAGER COMPETITION MANAGER

EVENT DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE & FINANCE MANAGER ACCREDITATION MANAGER

HOTEL SERVICES AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGER SECURITY 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)

3.2. PLANNING & DECISION MAKING PROCESS

The 2010 FIBA womens 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.

VOLUNTEERS

PROMOTIONS, SALES AND MARKETING MANAGER

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 countrys laws with regards to hosting an event but also to FIBAs 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 (Aktuln.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 specic 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
Aktuln.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-czecheconomy/ [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

FIBA BASKETBALL BROADCASTING FIGURES

900,000,000 800,000,000 700,000,000 600,000,000 500,000,000 400,000,000 300,000,000 200,000,000 100,000,000 0 2005 2006 2007 MEN 2008 WOMEN 2009 2010

Source: FIBA, 2013 F. SWOT Analysis STRENGTHS Valuable brand equity Experience Dependable supply chain USP makes sponsorship easy. Good volunteer base. Access to good venues and facilities. OPPORTUNITIES 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. men. Not enough media support. Dependent on sponsors for funding. Minimal organization versatility. Lack of interest in female sport tournament. THREATS Global economic recession. Increased TV viewership means dwindling attendance at live events . New technology will affect ticket sales. Governmental laws may cause restrictions. WEAKNESS Brand confusion with FIBA championship for

E. GALLERY