Large-scale sport events are perceived to offer a range of potential outcomes for host cities. Sport development is one outcome that is often used to encourage public support and justify government spending on bidding and hosting large-scale sport events. However, studies investigating the relationship between large-scale sport events and sport development outcomes have not provided conclusive evidence to suggest such outcomes occur and there has been limited investigation into why this is so. This research applies interorganisational theory as a framework to better understand the delivery of sport development outcomes from large-scale sport events. Preliminary findings presented at the SMAANZ 2011 Conference in Melbourne, Australia.

1. Large-Scale
Sport Events:
Influences on
Sport
Development
Outcomes
Alana Thomson
PhD Candidate
University of Technology, Sydney
SMAANZ
Conference, Melbourne, Australi
a
24th – 25th November, 2011

2. • Background
• Research Problem
• Theoretical Framework
• Conceptual Framework
• Research Questions
• Research Design
• Findings
• Discussion
• Concluding Comments

3. • Large-scale sport events offer a range of outcomes for host
cities
• Sport development outcomes are often used to encourage
public support and justify government spending on these
events
• Sport development:“policies, processes and practices that
form an integral feature of work involved in providing
sporting opportunities and positive sporting experiences”
(Bramham & Hylton, 2008, p. 2)
• Assumption that sport events are a catalyst to get more
people participating in sport more often
– “trickle-down effect” (Hindson, Gidlow, & Peebles, 1994)

4. • There is limited research that supports the trickle-
down effect
• There is limited understanding of the relationship
between large-scale sport events and sport
development outcomes
• Event leverage for economic, tourism and broader
social outcomes:
– importance of coordination and cooperation between
organisations for achieving these broader outcomes (Chalip,
2002, 2006; Chalip & Leyns, 2002; Kellet et. al., 2008; O’Brien, 2005, 2006,
2007; O’Brien & Chalip, 2007, 2008; O’Brien & Gardiner, 2006)

5. • Interorganisational Network (ION) Theory (Benson, 1975;
Hudson, 2004)
– Organisational activities influenced by interrelationships
between many organisations operating interdependently in a
network
• Effectiveness of IONs based on 4 dimensions:
1. Domain Consensus – agreement between organisations for scope and role
of organisations within the ION;
2. Ideological Consensus – agreement between organisations for nature of
tasks presented, and the appropriate methods for tasks;
3. Interorganisational Evaluation – perception of the value of work of one
organisation by another organisation in the ION;
4. Work Coordination – patterns of collaboration and cooperation between
organisations to achieve effectiveness and efficiency.

6. C
Domain
B
Consensus
Event A
Organising
Committee
Ideological
Sport
Consensus
Development
Outcomes
from a large-
Key Key
Organisation Organisation Inter- scale sport
organisational event
Evaluation
Work
Coordination
D

7. • How can a large-scale sport event be used for
sport development outcomes?
– Identify the key organisations that impact on sport
development outcomes from a sport event;
– Establish how these key organisations conceptualise
sport development from a sport event;
– Examine the nature of the relationships that exist
between these key organisations;
– Investigate the factors that influence sport
development outcomes from a sport event, at the:
• organisational level; and
• interorganisational network level.

8. • Case Study: Sydney 2009 World Masters Games
• Data collection: Documents (and Interviews)
• Data analysis: Open and Pattern Coding (Bazeley, 2007;
Bryman, 2004)
– sport development outcomes

9. Key Organisations
Event Organising Sydney 2009 World Masters Games
Committee Organising Committee (SWMGOC)
Relevant Government NSW Premiers Department & Major
Departments Event Board (bid phase and
legislation)
NSW Sport & Recreation (later NSW
Department of Communities)
Contracted Sport 28 sports included in the event: SSOs,
Organisations NSOs and a Masters Sport Association
Event Governing Body International Masters Games
Association (IMGA)

10. NSW NSW
Sport Development... SWMGOC Prem’s Sport & IMGA Sport Orgs
Dept Rec
Encouraging Active
Lifestyles
Promotion of Sport
Participation
Enhance Capacity for
Sport Development
Legacy for Masters Sport
– Enhanced Capacity

11. NSW NSW
Sport Development... SWMGOC Prem’s Sport & IMGA Sport Orgs
Dept Rec
General
Bid General
Planned for... Objective Objective Objective/
promise Charter
Mission
Strategies implemented... None None None None Limited
Outcomes evaluated... None None None None Limited

12. • The preliminary findings show various ideas
regarding what sport development outcomes
were meant to be achieved through the Sydney
World Masters Games
– a lack of Domain Consensus
• Without Domain Consensus there is no shared
vision by which to guide organisational efforts to
meet a common goal
• As a result, sport development outcomes are
adhoc, or become missed opportunities

13. Conclusions Future Research
• To realise sport • Investigate relationships
development outcomes between key
from large-scale sport organisations and
events: broader network
– Shared vision; influences
– Responsibility; and
– Coordination

14. • Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage.
• Benson, J. (1975). The Interorganizational Network as a Political Economy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 229-249.
• Bramham, P., & Hylton, K. (2008). Introduction. In K. Hylton & P. Bramham (Eds.), Sports Development: Policy, process
and practice (2 ed., pp. 1-9). Oxon: Routledge.
• Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chalip, L. (2002). Using the Olympics to optimise tourism benefits: University lecture on the Olympics [online article].
Retrieved from http://olympicstudies.uab.es/lec/pdf/chalip.pdf
• Chalip, L. (2006). Towards Social Leverage of Sport. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11(2), 109-127.
• Chalip, L., & Leyns, A. (2002). Local Business Leveraging of a Sport Event: Managing an Event for Economic Benefit.
Journal of Sport Management, 16, 132-158.
• Hindson, A., Gidlow, B., & Peebles, C. (1994). The "trickle-down" effect of top-level sport: myth or reality? A case study
of the Olympics. Australian Journal of Leisure Recreation, 4, 16-24.
• Hudson, B. (2004). Analysing Network Partnerships. Public Management Review, 6(1), 75-94.
• Kellett, P., Hede, A. M., & Chalip, L. (2008). Social Policy for Sport Events: Leveraging (Relationships with) Teams from
other Nations for Community Benefit. European Sport Management Quarterly, 8(2), 101-121.
• O'Brien, D. (2005). Strategic Business Leveraging of a Mega Sport Event: The Sydney 2000 Olympic Games Experience.
Australia: The Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre; Australian Government,.
• O'Brien, D. (2006). Event Business Leveraging: The Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 240-
261.
• O'Brien, D. (2007). Points of leverage: maximising host community benefit from a regional surfing festival. European
Sport Management Quarterly, 7(2), 141-165.
• O'Brien, D., & Chalip, L. (2007). Executive training exercise in sport event leverage. International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 1(4), 296-304.
• O'Brien, D., & Chalip, L. (2008). Sport events and strategic leveraging: pushing towards the triple bottom line. In A.
Woodside & D. Martin (Eds.), Advancing Tourism Management (pp. 318-338). Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing.
• O'Brien, D., & Gardiner, S. (2006). Creating Sustainable Mega Event Impacts: Networking and Relationship Development
through Pre-Event Training. Sport Management Review, 9, 25-47.