European Journal for Sport and Society

ISSN: 1613-8171 (Print) 2380-5919 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ress20

Variety in hybridity in sport organizations and

their coping strategies

Jo M. H. Lucassen & Sarah de Bakker

To cite this article: Jo M. H. Lucassen & Sarah de Bakker (2016) Variety in hybridity in sport
organizations and their coping strategies, European Journal for Sport and Society, 13:1, 75-94,
DOI: 10.1080/16138171.2016.1153880

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16138171.2016.1153880

Published online: 22 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 141

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ress20

Download by: [Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris] Date: 23 September 2016, At: 17:57
EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR SPORT AND SOCIETY, 2016
VOL. 13, NO. 1, 7594
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16138171.2016.1153880

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Variety in hybridity in sport organizations and their

coping strategies
Jo M. H. Lucassena and Sarah de Bakkerb
a
Mulier Instituut, Utrecht, The Netherlands; bUtrecht University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht,
The Netherlands

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The governance of national governing bodies of sports such as Accountability; civil society;
sport federations is becoming increasingly complex. An important governance; management;
driver of this is the widening of the scope of activities of these sport; voluntary associations
federations, from servicing local sports clubs or providing sport
activities, to involvement in professional sports and media busi-
nesses and aspiring to a wider social role in accordance with gov-
ernmental objectives. This development is analysed from the
viewpoint of hybridization of organizations. Hybridity appears
when organizations cannot (or can no longer) be described as
completely belonging to the civil communities, private sector, or
state sector and become an organization containing a mix of sec-
torial, structural, and/or mission related elements. Quantitative and
qualitative data is used to analyse how many of the national sport
federations become more hybrid in their goals, use of resources,
governance model and even in their identity. Since hybridity can
create problematic tensions and governance dilemmas, the way in
which the federations react to this development has also been
studied. Hybridity has consequences for the role of different stake-
holders in the governance process. Not all federations are involved
in hybridization, but if they are, they are capable of coping with
this by adapting their strategy. Some of them, however, are opting
to develop into branch organizations and become fully hybrid
organizations.

Introduction
The way in which sport organizations are governed is a very current issue. An import-
ant trigger for this current interest has been several incidents that have appeared in
(professional) sport, e.g. confessions of doping use by professional cyclists (Armstrong,
Rasmussen, Boogerd), cases of match fixing, corruption and fraud (Atlanta 1996, FIFA),
and violence, such as in the tragic death of Dutch football referee Nieuwenhuizen. All
these raise the question of whether sports organizations are governed in a sound way.
The issue is not new and has been given considerable thought by sport organizations
for some time. In the Netherlands, the umbrella organization NOC*NSF introduced a
governance code more than a decade ago (NOC*NSF Commissie goed sportbestuur,

CONTACT Jo M. H. Lucassen j.m.h.lucassen@mulierinstituut.nl Mulier Instituut, PO Box 85445, 3508 AK Utrecht,

The Netherlands
2016 European Association for Sociology of Sport
76 J. M. H. LUCASSEN AND S. DE BAKKER

2005). Comparable initiatives have been taken in other countries (New Zealand, UK, US,
South Africa Alm 2013). National sport organizations have to adhere to the govern-
ance guidelines and take measures to adjust their practice accordingly. The implemen-
tation is followed critically. NOC*NSF, for instance, organized an evaluation congress in
2012 in cooperation with Transparency International (Transparency International, 2012).
Similarly, the international Play the Game organization executes a reviewing project
Action for Good Governance in International Sports Organizations and introduces a
Sport Governance Observer to compare these organizations (Alm, 2013).
The sports sector is not the only societal sector in which the quality of governing
and management has been stressed and a governance code has been introduced
(Algemene Rekenkamer, 2008; Houlihan, 2013; Kjr, 2004). Good governance has
become a more important issue because views on the role of government in industrial-
ized societies have been changing and many public responsibilities and tasks have
been outsourced to social organizations (Rhodes, 1996). Organizations that are being
subsidized by public funding are confronted with growing demands for accountability
and intensified supervision and control in terms of the way they are managed and gov-
erned (Baarsma, 2005; Groot, 2010).
The demand for good governance and the resulting question as to what kind of board
member and manager competences this requires has been a stimulus for research into the
governing of sport organizations (De Vries et al., 2007). In the Netherlands (Anthonissen &
Boessenkool, 1998; Noordegraaf, 2008; Trommel, 2009; Van t Verlaat, 2010) and inter-
nationally, the governance of sport has become an important research topic (Cuskelly &
Hoye, 2007; Gammelsaeter, 2010; Grix, 2010; King, 2009; Kjr, 2004; Rhodes, 1996, 1997;
Shilbury & Ferkins, 2011; Smith, 2009; Walters, Trenberth, & Tacon, 2010). This research
addresses not only questions about good governance, but also changes in: the financing
system of sport organizations (Geurtsen & Doornbos, 2007; Van t Verlaat, 2010), the effect-
iveness of work processes (Bayle & Robinson, 2007; Winand, Zintz, Bayle, & Robinson,
2010), and the architecture of voluntary associations (Huizenga & Tack, 2011).
Historically, many sport organizations were voluntary associations that were posi-
tioned within the third sector, or, civil society. These sport organizations tended to act
in self-organizing, hierarchical networks characterized by interdependence, resource
exchange, self-ruling and significant autonomy from the state (Rhodes, 1997; Siekmann
& Soek, 2010). Until a few decades ago, this sporting network was able to exercise self-
governance without significant interference of states or other actors. In the last deca-
des, however, hybridity seems to be a feature that has become more common in sport
organizations on a national and local level as a result of processes of commercialization
and new public management (Lucassen & Van der Roest, 2011a, 2011b). Hybridity
appears when organizations cannot (or can no longer) be described as completely
belonging to the state sector, private sector, or civil society. On an international level,
this feature has rarely been studied and usually within a sociological framework
(Houlihan & Green, 2009; Hoye, 2006; Ibsen & Ottesen, 2004; Koski & Heikkala, 1998).

Research questions and method

Our main point of interest is the development of hybridity in sport organizations and
the way in which this is handled. We utilize a societal approach to analyse and
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR SPORT AND SOCIETY 77

understand societal organizations within the so-called third sector (Ibsen & Ottesen,
2004). These organizations are situated between the state, the private households and
the market. The third sector includes all kinds of organizations with activities that are
often less cared for by the state, the market or private households or are held to be
leisure activities, for instance: free education, personal support, housing, arts and sport.
Solidarity, civil responsibility, dignity, acceptance of mutual dependence, and justice are
core values within the third sector. Many of these organizations have the legal shape
of associations or foundations.
Our research project analysed this issue in voluntary and professional sport associa-
tions (clubs and federations) with the objective of answering the following questions:

a. How can a systematic framework for the analysis of hybridity features of organiza-
tions be constructed and to what extend can hybridity be recognized in (national)
sport organizations?
b. In what way are governance boards and management of sport organizations trying
to master the possible tensions and consequences of hybridity?

 Does hybridity have consequences for the management and governance of the
sport organizations (e.g. composition of board and management, mixing of cul-
tures, use of resources, conflicts of logics, strategies (Gammelsaeter, 2010;
Putters, 2009)? Is there any relation to the number of board members (larger net-
work, link to resources)? Do larger demands for accountability lead to changes in
composition (e.g. getting more outsiders involved)?
 Is there any relation between hybridity and the model of governance chosen
(professional board, leadership-style, democracy (Huizenga & Tack, 2011)?
 What are the perceived consequences for the autonomy and identity of the
organization?
In 2012 and 2013, exploratory research on these issues was conducted as part of a
larger investigation into the governance characteristics of national governing bodies of
sport. Hybridity was not the main topic of this research. However, by collecting govern-
ance data conclusions about hybridity could be drawn.
To study the questions mentioned we primarily used qualitative research techniques,
and also gathered quantitative data and did additional in-depth case studies. The
methodology used can be characterized as mixed and consisted of three steps.
A thorough start was made by reviewing recent literature on hybridity in sport
organizations and in other institutional areas where positions have recently changed
from public or third sector to mixed organizations. Specifically, we studied literature on
health care and cultural organizations. The review resulted in a provisional theoretical
framework for the analysis. Next, a survey was done of the governance features of
almost 100 national governing bodies of sport (referred to as the Mulier Institute
Governance monitor (Lucassen Bakker & Straatmeiier 2014)). Public sources (published
policy documents, annual reports and websites) were combined with additional inter-
views. Features surveyed were: board composition, governance policy, organizational
composition, partnerships and financial characteristics. Finally, to get a better view of
the way in which hybridity was experienced and managed, six case studies were
78 J. M. H. LUCASSEN AND S. DE BAKKER

conducted. These studies consisted of an analysis of the contents of policy documents

as well as semi-structured in-depth interviews with board members and/or managers
of a selection of the governing bodies. Issues discussed with regards to hybridity were
the federations policies, partnerships, financing, and governance (Evers & Laville, 2004).
Through the selection process, diverse federations were included: small/big, elite sport,
grassroots sport, mixed, with/without professional staff. The various national governing
bodies of sport that were studied include: Royal Dutch Power Sports Federation (KNKF),
Royal Dutch Gymnastics Union (KNGU), Water Sports Association (Watersportverbond),
Athletics Union (AU), Bobsleigh Federation Netherlands (BSBN), and Dutch Bowling
Federation/Royal Dutch Draught Federation (NBF/KNDB).
The theoretical frame of reference is described next, followed by the presentation
and discussion of the main findings.

Conceptualizing hybrid organizations in a nonprofit context

Hybridity appears when organizations cannot (or can no longer) be described as com-
pletely belonging to the state sector, market or civil communities (Brandsen, Donk &
Kenis (2006). In our research, we were not interested in the restructuring of public gov-
ernmental services to a more corporate organization or the addition of social activities
to the operations of commercial organizations, such as through corporate social
responsibility activities. Instead, our main concern lay in hybridity in sport federations
as third sector organizations.
Billis, in his analysis of hybridity of third sector organizations, takes as his starting
point the characteristics of the separate (public and private) sectors (Billis, 2010). These
sectors are treated as collections of (non-hybrid) organizations. Billis suggests that
(a) all organizations have broad generic structures\features or elements (such as the
need for resources) but that (b) their nature and logic or principles are distinctly different
in each sector. These principles have a logical interdependence and provide a coherent
explanation for meeting objectives and solving problems. Together, they represent the
rules of the game of the ideal model for each sector. He states that the following five
core structural elements in the public and private sector can be distinguished:

 ownership
 governance
 operational priorities
 human resources
 other resources

Billis broadens the interpretation of ownership from the material ownership of prop-
erty to formal ownership (members, civilians). Only part of them may actually exercise
their rights and be the active owners through involvement in decision-making. The
third group are the principal owners: those who in effect can close the organization
down and transfer it to another sector (2010, 50). Comparing the characteristics and
core elements for different sectors he constructs an ideal type model of the three sec-
tors and their accountability features, as described in Table 1.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR SPORT AND SOCIETY 79

Table 1. Core elements of the private, public and third sector (after Billis, 2010).
Core elements Private sector principles Public sector principles Third sector principles
1. Ownership Shareholders Citizens Members
2. Governance Share ownership size Public elections Private elections
3. Operational priorities Market forces and Public services and Commitment about
individual choice collective choice distinctive mission
4. Distinctive human Paid employees in Paid public servants in Members and volunteers
resources managerial controlled legally backed bureau in association
firm
5. Distinctive other sources Sales, fee Taxes Dues, donations and legacies

Billis assumes that organizations will have roots in, and primary adherence to the
principles of one sector. Thus hybrids are not on a continuum but have a clear-cut
anchor within a particular sector. If we compare his approach to the conceptualization
of sectors by, e.g. Dufourney and Pestoff (2008), theres a remarkable difference. In their
analysis the family/household is a separate institutional entity, and third sector organi-
zations take an intermediary stance.
For our analysis of hybridity in sport organizations, we will draw on the core ele-
ments in sector principles as described by Billis and to four related dimensions of
hybridization as distinguished by Evers and Laville (Evers, 2005; Evers & Laville, 2004).
The first dimension of hybridization concerns resources (Billis elements 4 and 5). The
supportive elements from society and various communities that have material effects
vary very much. Two other dimensions that constitute a hybrid character of an organ-
ization are goals (compare core element 3 from Billis) and forms of governance (Billis
second core element). Within the governance debate this development has been
labeled as co-governance, mixed governance, or plural governance (meervoudig
bestuur, Brandsen, Donk, & Kenis, 2006). The steering mechanisms that operate simul-
taneously in such a form of governance have to align with organizational goals. The
processes of hybridization with regard to resources, goals, and steering mechanisms
can thirdly and finally lead to the development of a new corporate identity that reflects
the multiple roles and purposes of an organization.
From a general sociological perspective, the development of hybridity can be seen
as adaptation of the organization to the changes in its environment (Brandsen et al.,
2006). This process of contingency is needed to optimize the operating of organizations
within a dynamic environment (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Harris (2010) and Cornforth
and Spear (2010) mention several interrelated processes that have stimulated hybridity
in third sector organizations:
First, there is the changing public services agenda. Government policy has been
aimed at creating a mixed welfare economy by encouraging both private and third
sector organizations to engage in public service delivery. Growing emphasis is placed
on partnerships and other forms of organizational collaboration. Market principles have
become more dominant in public policy making and in the marketing strategy of third
sector organizations, partly in reaction to the financial crisis after 2008. Another factor
is the rise of expectations of local communities. There is a drive towards new localism
to devolve power and the responsibility for the solution of social problems to the local
area level. In the Netherlands, an extensive transition of this kind is taking place
(Rijksoverheid (Government), 2014). The government stimulates new partnerships at a
80 J. M. H. LUCASSEN AND S. DE BAKKER

local level between organizations in the public, third, and private sectors to tackle
social problems and deliver joint services. Boundaries between policy sectors are grad-
ually eroding.
From these analyses it might seem that hybridity is a unilateral and more or less
forced response to the external pressure of a changing environment. Brands and Billis
however stress that public and third sector organizations may well take initiative by
themselves to explore the borders of demarcation or even go where no man has ever
gone before (Billis, 2010). Several authors state that hybridity is no new phenomenon
and that hybrid organizations have always been present to some extent (Billis, 2010;
Brandsen, Donk, & Putters, 2005; Karr e, 2011).

Governance of hybrids, a challenge

Governance of third sector organizations
In this paper the focus is on the organizational level and how organizations are gov-
erned (Cornforth & Spear, 2010). Following Billis, a typical third sector organization is a
membership association run by its members and volunteers, and their governing body
is elected by the members in private elections. Cornforth and Spear (2010) distinguish
three main types of governance structures employed: the pure membership associ-
ation, the self-selecting board and the mixed type, which combines features of the two
previous types. Associations using a self-selected board structure are in this respect
comparable to foundations. According to Cornforth & Spear, pure membership associ-
ations are characterized by having no paid employees including the board, which is a
twofold board structure (core general). Huizenga and Tack present five board types
for voluntary associations. They distinguish as governance models: executive, directive,
policy making, condition creating, and supervisory boards (Huizenga & Tack, 2011).

Governance of hybrid organizations

Combining organizational characteristics from different sectors or dealing with multiple
missions is no simple task. The difference between sectors or missions tends to result
in demands that are ambiguous and contradictory. Brandsen states that the essence of
hybridity is the representation of different and conflicting values within one organiza-
tion (Brandsen et al., 2006). As a consequence of this, actors will experience tensions in
the execution of their roles. Hybrid organizations show a mixture of the pure, but
incongruent, contradictory, and conflicting action rationalities or social action logics of
the distinguished sectors (Braun, 2003; Ibsen & Seippel, 2010; Skirstad & Chelladurai,
2011; Van Hout, 2007). For example, the question as to whether an association should
try to improve efficiency (market logic) or not even when this is detrimental for the
voluntary involvement of members.
Braun (2003) characterized these logics as follows: the market coordinates demand
and provision by price-governed exchange and is dominated by the social action
logic of maximized profit for the individual; the state organizes the production of
public services through hierarchical ways of coordination and follows the action logic
of equal treatment of citizens in common interest; the private household governs the
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR SPORT AND SOCIETY 81

satisfaction of individual needs through affective relations and mutual support and
follows the action logic of non-selfish love. The voluntary or third sector also has its
distinct action logic (Ibsen & Seippel, 2010). Strob, for instance, describes this associ-
ation logic as a common actions aimed at mutual, targeted benefits (cited in Braun
2003, 50).
Hybrid third sector organizations like associations will have a wider range of stake-
holder interests than a purer organizational type (Baird 2013). The board the locus of
the governance function must look to balance the different interests and resources
of these stakeholders. In hybrid healthcare organizations plural governance (meervou-
dig bestuur) is demanded (Brandsen et al., 2006; Putters, 2009) as a consequence of
privatization and commercialization.
In the long run, the combining of interests may have far-reaching consequences.
Baird mentions the risk of mission drift and the development of a delegate syndrome
(board members solely working in their own self-interest). According to Putters, sev-
eral fields of tension have developed in hybrid care organizations that to some
extent could also appear in sport organizations. The first tension between manage-
ment and supervision is a result of increasing governmental demand for control and
the application of market principles. The market approach and governmental demand
for accountability put the emphasis on measurable and transparent achievements in
health care. Only what is measurable counts. For sport organizations, there is a ten-
sion between commercial demands (media, sponsors) and member expectations. A
second tension develops between the individual needs of people and collective
accessibility of care. In sport organizations the dilemma is to choose between the ris-
ing demands of elite athletes and sport for all. The third tension develops between
expectations and accountability. Several parties involved ask for accountability on
their behalf, all having their own expectations concerning the quality of service. If
service is not in accordance with these expectations, it might lead to judicial claims
or media may draw attention to it.
As Putters points out, the board or management can make use of four resources to
master these dilemmas: institutional constructions (legal forms, e.g. introducing share-
holders, councils, professional codes); Interactions with others (cooperation, competi-
tion); Knowledge and information (e.g. experiential knowledge, polls, benchmarks);
Personal intuition (vision and preferences based on professional ethics).
In addition, Van Hout (2007) discusses four strategies to manage hybridity in organi-
zations as a result of their choices on two dimensions: on the one hand the extent to
which hybridity is consciously acknowledged by the management (recognition
denial), and on the other hand whether the strategy is an overall strategy for the
organization as a whole or just for some parts of the organization. When these two
dimensions are combined, four ways of coping with hybridity result: re-identification,
manoeuvring, hybridization and selection (Figure 1). So, when only separate parts of
the organization become more hybrid and this is not a deliberate choice, the organiza-
tion is said to be manoeuvring; when it is a deliberate strategy, however, the organiza-
tion is held to aim for selective hybridization.
82 J. M. H. LUCASSEN AND S. DE BAKKER

Denial of hybridity

Manoeuvre Hybridize
Focus on separate
Focus on total
parts of organization
Select Re-identify

Recognition of hybridity

Figure 1. Coping strategies with hybridity by organizations (after Van Hout, 2007).

Findings and results

As indicated earlier, most of our quantitative data was collected through the analysis of
public sources such as statutes and annual reports. By interviewing a selection of board
members and directors of several federations, we also gathered background informa-
tion on the situation and developments. We will now present the key findings on the
extent to which hybridity is visible in the activities of the sport federations according
to the four dimensions described by Evers: goals, resources, governance and corporate
identity. The quotes used are cited from our interviews unless indicated otherwise.

Hybridity of goals
Looking at the formally described goals of sports federations, it can be concluded that
40% of the federations are hybrid (Table 2). Federations describe goals related to both
grassroots sports and elite sports. This is interesting, since when a federation has an
elite sport policy, the organization often has to be specifically structured and equipped
for that: governing bodies should be able to cope with sponsors and media; relations
with sponsors and media will be shaped through contracts and require specific judicial
know how. In fact, one of the recommendations of the governance code for sport
organizations relates to this: The organization drafts an elite sport statute to manage
the large (financial) and specific interests and the complexity of elite sport (NOC*NSF
Commissie goed sportbestuur, 2005, 16).

Table 2. Explicit topics of Organization description and Formal goals in % n 72.

Organization description Formal goals
Valid 91 Grassroots sports 74 Valid 83 Grassroots sports 60
Elite sports 3 Elite sports
Both 11 Both 32
Other 12 Other 8
Missing 9 Missing 17
Total 100 Total 100
Mulier Institute Governance monitor (2011).

Furthermore, a majority of the Dutch Sports Federations discussed their governmen-

tal policy in their public documents (Table 3). In 21% of the cases it concerns the
implementation of the general governance code. More frequently it concerns other
governmental issues (42%).
Another trend of hybridization in the goals of sports federations is the growing
attention for social responsibility and involvement. Federations not only pursue sport-
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR SPORT AND SOCIETY 83

Table 3. Topics governmental policy in % n 72.

Frequency % %
Good governance 11 15 27
Other 26 36 63
Combination of both 4 6 10
Unknown 31 43
Total 72 100 100
Mulier Institute Governance monitor (2011).
(Oldenboom, Hopstaken, & Meer, 1996; Schouten, Verschuren, & Brands, 2012; Van Puffelen, Reijnen, & Velthuisen,
1988)

related goals, but they are also convinced that part of their mission is to contribute to
society. This has been made very explicit in the Olympic Plan 2028 developed by
NOC*NSF (2009) and the federations in 2009. This plan was intended to pave the way
for hosting the Olympics in the Netherlands in 2028, one hundred years after the
Olympics in Amsterdam. The plans mission statement is: With sport in all its modes
we intend to bring our nation as a whole to an Olympic level. We will all profit from
this, today and in the future in the social, economical, planning and welfare area. In
the end the result might be to host the Olympics and Paralympics in the Netherlands
(NOC*NSF, 2009). On every four domains mentioned, specific targets were formulated
for the contribution of sport to social development in the next decade. Although the
plan has been terminated as a consequence of the economic crisis, it has for some
years been a very inspiring source for the sport federations and for public authorities.
The idea that sport can play a wider role for society at large has been widely accepted
and has been translated to the establishment of specific organizations (Coalter, 2007).
Several former elite sportsmen have developed as social entrepreneurs by founding
their own social foundations. The Johan Cruyff Foundation and the Richard Krajicek
Foundation are two of the most famous sport-related foundations in the Netherlands.
Both were founded in 1997 and since then have realized over a hundred courts and
playgrounds where children in disadvantaged areas can practice sports. Cruijff and
Krajicek cooperated closely with the federations in their sport discipline. Other sport
stars followed their example. Some federations have also taken specific initiatives. In
2004, the foundation Meer dan Voetbal (More than soccer) was initiated by the Royal
Dutch Football Association in collaboration with the professional soccer leagues to
deploy the connecting power of soccer for a stronger society.

Hybridity of resources
Sports federations have different resources: dues, subsidies, sponsoring and merchan-
dizing, and other resources. An example of other resources is the provision and sale of
courses or certificates. Over the last decades the importance of these sources of
income has changed as is shown in Figure 2. Member contributions have become less
important and sponsor income and other revenues have become more important. The
share of governmental or public subsidies has not changed much, but these are
granted in a more conditional way. From a resources perspective these organizations
can no doubt be classified as hybrids.
84 J. M. H. LUCASSEN AND S. DE BAKKER

Figure 2. Sources of income of sport federations as percentages of total revenue 1985 19932011.

Table 4. Resources of national sport federations in 2010 in Euro.

All federations Sponsoring Dues million Subsidies Other resources
Range 026 million 182510.2 <AQmillion 09.5 million 016 million
Mean 3.726.502 1.147.000 1.452.000 1.196.000 908.000
Median 1.681.500 70.000 577.800 371.800 265.500
n 44 49 50 48
Unknown 28 23 22 24
Mulier Institute Governance of sport monitor (20112012).

In 2010, the average revenue of sport federations was 3,726,502 Euros (Table 4). The
biggest resource was dues. The mean is distorted because of some very big federations
who have high revenues. The median provides more interesting information. Half of
the federations had sponsoring of 70,000 Euros or less, while the amount of subsidies
is much higher, namely 371,800 Euros.
In 2005 the Dutch government replaced structural subsidies to sport federations
with program subsidies. To qualify for a subsidy a federation has to participate in a
program and has to meet several requirements. Part of the loss of governmental subsi-
dies was compensated by grants from Lotto, the Dutch lottery. This change of the
subsidy system also resulted in more requirements that have to be met to obtain a
subsidy. Subsidy providers are putting forward conditions for participation and are
increasingly demanding, for instance that local clubs need to be involved. A recent
environment and trend analysis of the Football Association (KNVB) states the most
important factor the Association has to cope with in making future policy is a with-
drawing government, that at the same time, expects sport will utilize its social value
optimally (Lagendijk, Postma-de Groot, & Verweij, 2012).
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR SPORT AND SOCIETY 85

Also NOC*NSF, the umbrella body for organized sports in the Netherlands, is more
demanding. A so-called Star system was developed. The star status a federation could
obtain, dependent on whether specified conditions were met, determined their finan-
cial support. In this way, federations were pressed to implement the governance code
and to start collaboration with another federation.
At the same time federations reacted by expanding their market-oriented approach.
All federations were included in a national program of NOC*NSF to develop marketing
strategies. A trigger for this strategic revision was a market analysis that indicated that
sport provision by voluntary associations was losing market share to other providers. In
the last two decades fitness in commercial fitness centers has become the most popu-
lar way of practicing sports. Sport federations were therefore challenged to define new
target groups and develop new products. While before 2000 only a few federations
employed a professional marketer, this number had grown to 28 by 2013 (Brands,
Kusters, & Til, 2014). Theres a strong trend toward commercialization in elite sport as
well as in grassroots sport. Federations and their member clubs are expected to behave
more entrepreneurially. Federations attempt to attract more sponsors to gain resources
(Stokvis, 2010; Van t Verlaat, 2010). This shift in mindset, however, is not an easy task
for a lot of federations: There are still people who have difficulties with the market ori-
ented approach. That is mainly, with all due respect, the group of people who are
doing the same task for over twenty years (An employee of the Royal Dutch Korfbal
Federation in Verlaat, 2010).
Finding sponsors, however, is getting harder since the start of the economic crisis.
The ice-skating association lost its main sponsor in 2009 when DSB Bank went bank-
rupt. Van Haperen, director of the Athletics Union (AU), states his federations depend-
ency on sponsors:
We mainly depend on dues for 4042 percent, but also on grants and Lotto resources.
Nevertheless, we cannot do without the five to eight percent of resources from business/
corporate partners. But it is increasingly harder to maintain those partners.
The importance of corporate partners has increased or at least, it has changed. One
example is the broadcasting of the European Championships in 2016. Before we assumed
the NOS1 would broadcast the event, now it works by tendering. So we have significant
costs. Four years ago this would have been unthinkable.

The difficulties of finding resources and the demands from providers of funding are
some of the reasons that complicate managing a sport federation. Managers are
expected to come up with solutions and besides the complexity of doing so there is
also the pressure of the media with their increasing interest in miss-management.

Governance
Governance model
All sport federations are formally structured as associations. There is a board appointed
by the members and the federation policy and its execution are decided on and eval-
uated by the general assembly. In the past the regional divisions of the federation
were often separate corporate bodies and members had indirect rights throughout
86 J. M. H. LUCASSEN AND S. DE BAKKER

these divisions to the decision-making on a national level. Several sport federations

have been changing the governance model of their organization in recent years.
The first change is a stronger emphasis on separation between governmental,
executive, and policy roles and responsibilities. A second development is a shift from
governing based on portfolio to collegial governing. Also there is corporate restructur-
ing: for example, the intermediary regional federations have lost their governing rights
and responsibilities in several federations and have been reorganized to regional ser-
vice centres. This results in a more consistent and clear policy of the federations, which
in turn is expected to improve effectiveness and policy impact. Wals, the director of
the Gymnastics Union (KNGU), says: In the old system all administrative levels had their
own decisive power. The members of the federation board could, if they were lucky,
express their opinion about it, but in practice mainly regional policies were imple-
mented, which not always matched with the federal policy. Since the recent organiza-
tional changes this has been rectified, according to Wals: Now we are able to manage
from one central position, so we can really get things done.

Table 5. The applied Governance Model (cf. Huizinga & Tack, 2011) related to four organizational
characteristics (group means).
Governance Model applied Number of federations Staff Resources Members
Executive 15 2.1 e609.022 8.397
Directive 9 4.6 e1.062.342 13.637
Policymaking 8 6.5 e1.231.568 14.676
Condition creating 11 14.9 e2.934653 38.144
Supervisory 17 103.8 e9.574.116 193.629
Total 60 34.2 e3.726.502 67.629
Schouten et al. (2012)

Huizenga & Tack (2011) distinguish five governance models: executive, directive, pol-
icy making, condition creating and supervisory boards. In Table 5 the distribution of
governance models in sport federations is shown as well as the relations between the
applied governance model and organizational variables, such as staff size, resources,
and members. The federations presently apply all types of governance models from
executive boards to supervisory boards. Furthermore, it may be concluded that as the
magnitude (and complexity) of the organization increases, the governmental structure
develops towards a supervisory model. Governing a national sport organization has
apparently become more complex. In the last five years, 12 national sports federations
encountered some form of crisis. In the same period three sports federations experi-
enced more than two changes in general director and three other associations had a
new president more than three times (Brands et al., 2014).
Seventeen federations (23%) work solely with volunteers. In total, 4500 volunteers
are active in the associations on a national level. Their estimated total time investment
amounts to 900 fulltime jobs. The majority of the federations, 56, also have paid
employees, in total amounting to 1140 fulltime jobs (Schouten et al., 2012).
Professionalization can have far-reaching effect on the governance demands for sport
organizations (Koski & Heikkala, 1998; Shilbury & Ferkins, 2011; Thibault, Slack, &
Hinings, 1991). As Table 5 indicates: the larger the numbers of paid employees, the
more organizations tend to change to a supervisory board model.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR SPORT AND SOCIETY 87

Another notable phenomenon in the governance of sport federations is decoupling.

Sometimes the organization of some activities is decoupled from the federation. For
some commercial or risky activities concerning top sport and events with large budg-
ets, for example, separate associations are initiated.

Governance Code
The governance code states that based on the applied governance model for each board
position, a board profile and competence profile should be drafted. Several chairmen
and directors of the sport federations are convinced of its usefulness. Van Haperen of the
AU states: The code gives us a firm hold, because it makes clear at least what the role of
the board members, the role of the director and the role of the sports medical is. These
positions are clearly defined. The KNKF chairman also thinks that although the essence
of the code is alright, the federation is not able to implement all aspects of the code,
such as executing a strict schedule of resignation of board members. Chairman Van Loon
states that this is related to the scale of the federation: Small federations have difficulties
in finding board members at all who have the capacities to cope with the pressure of
members and the environment and manage the federation at the same time.

Board members
One of the strategies several federations implement to cope with the developments is
to appoint new board members. Until recently, board members were mostly people
from within the sport or the federation. Now more often board members are scouted
based on their capacities and networks instead of their involvement in the sport. For
example, the Dutch Diving Federation (NOB) invited a former national politician to join
their board because they were looking for someone with a big political network. Also,
in the Athletics Union, board members with certain specializations were recruited,
which was something people had to get used to. Van Haperen: It is quite a difference,
to work with people from the business world and IT-specialists.
More frequently it is said that the sports world should get in touch with business
life. Ten years ago a special organization was founded in the Netherlands to stimulate
this: Sport en Zaken (Sports & Business). They aim to support federations that are
searching for board members amongst businessmen. However, some sport federations
are cautious in doing so. For example, Leeser, director of the Water Sports Associations,
says: A good manager in business, is not always a good manager in the sports world.
Sports are more about politics and emotions and the voluntariness in sports is also an
essential part to cope with. Of course it can be a good thing when skilled managers
come from business life to sports, but it is not always naturally a good match. This
has been proven by past experiences. In business you do not have to get the consent
of a general assembly or deal with volunteers.
For other federations, the issue is that traditionally former board members of local
sport clubs used to take place in federation boards. The context of a federation, how-
ever, is often very different when it is a professional organization instead of an organ-
ization based on volunteers. This requires other competences, which is often
underestimated by the former local governors.
88 J. M. H. LUCASSEN AND S. DE BAKKER

Identity
The identity of sport organizations is under construction on both national and local
level. Several sport federations are currently focusing on a broader target group and
they are positioning themselves more as a branch organization.
Sport federations traditionally provide services to members. However, due to declin-
ing membership numbers, they have had to cope with new developments. There are a
lot of runners in the Netherlands, for example, but not many of them are willing to
join an athletics club.
Huub Stammens, former manager of the cycling and the ice-skating association,
states that a mind shift is needed. Federation managers and directors have to let go of
traditional views about membership. They have to develop combined members-clients
organizations to also provide services to non-members (Stammes, 2013). Several federa-
tions are working on this. Van Haperen of the Athletics Union comments: It is a utopia
to think all 1.6 million runners participating in events are willing to join the Athletics
Union. Our vision is that above all we want to be of service for this total target group
by representation and the provision of information, without pressing them into a one-
to-one membership.
Another example of reforming their identity is that at the moment at least 10 feder-
ations and their clubs are working on finding and binding seniors. They are developing
sport activities specifically aimed at the demands of people aged over 45.
The members of the sport federations are more frequently seen as policy imple-
menters by federations and by the government. They are approached as outlets of the
national service organization (Skille, 2008). The local sports clubs are expected to reach
new target groups with new products or even to have a broader role as a public facil-
ity, focusing on more than only sports. In the Olympic Plan 2028, one of the sub-goals
of the social ambition was to develop sport clubs to social organizations and even to
public facilities before 2016 (NOC*NSF, 2009). Local authorities, such as the local town
government in Enschede, have established advisory bodies for this development of the
sports clubs. Stichting Vitale Sportvereniging (Foundation for Vital Sportclubs) stimu-
lates the development of clubs to active, socially involved, enterprises. Their belief is
that since sport clubs can have a positive impact on the liveability in the neighbour-
hood, a Vital Sportclub can contribute to welfare, healthcare, and labour participation
(Gemeente Enschede, 2008). Sport federations and local authorities are as a conse-
quence focusing their support for sport clubs that are willing and able to participate in
innovative programs.
The issue of governance of the national sport organizations has been a continuous
matter of prolonged and even intensified debate in the years after 2012. Stammes
idea that federations should develop into branch organizations for their type of sport is
supported by others (Aquina, 2015; Verweel, 2015). In several federations, member
clubs have been given a different status and the application of the supervisory govern-
ance model is spreading (Brands et al., 2014). Former board member of NOC*NSF
Loorbach considers the shift from the association model to a supervisory board model
as most adequate (Loorbach, 2015). Moreover, several national governing bodies joined
a program for the transition of national organizations, to prepare the existing sport
organizations for the future (Jonker, 2015).
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR SPORT AND SOCIETY 89

Discussion and conclusions

Using the theoretical frameworks of Evers, Billis, Putters and Van Hout, it has been pos-
sible to describe the extent of hybridity in sport organizations and the way they are
coping with this. From our description of the actual situation of national sport federa-
tions and its development using Evers dimensions framework, we can conclude that
many sport federations are genuine hybrid organizations in many respects. The goals
of many of these federations are hybrid: not restricted to sport itself any longer, but
widened to contributing to business, social welfare, and health. They combine resour-
ces from members with commercially earned money (media, sponsors) and subsidies
for the participation in governmental (health and welfare) programs. The governance
model used seems to gradually develop towards a supervisory model.
On the other hand, we would like to stress the diversity of these organizations,
some being very small and others very extensive and complex. Some are not appar-
ently hybrid in their goals or explicitly use external resources like sponsors or subsidies
granted for participation in government programs. Some still operate as traditional
associations and are primarily focused on their members interests and managed by
volunteers that are passionate about their sport. Theres a growing pressure however
from the sides of the umbrella organization NOC*NSF and of governmental authorities
and sponsors, to widen this scope and use sport as a vehicle to enhance excellence
outside the sports arena.
The tensions for governing bodies mentioned by Putters as a consequence of this
hybridity can also be found at sport federations. Marketization and intensified supervi-
sion from financing authorities have increased the pressure on boards and managers
to operate transparently and be accountable in accordance with the performance regu-
lations given. Individual interests of separate federations may conflict however with the
collective agenda decided for on a national level. In 2012, a collective decision was
taken by NOC*NSF to reorganize the system of funding for elite sport activities and to
focus on the most promising disciplines. The consequences for individual federations
were large: some lost the complete funding they had received for years.
Another type of tension is to be noticed through dilemmas for managers and
boards such as when balancing the interests of elite sport and sport for all and
between the local clubs as traditional stakeholders and other parties such as sponsors
and media. Not all local clubs tend to be very innovative, while the business-like activ-
ities around elite sport and innovative projects from the government ask for quick and
resolute decisions (Thiel & Mayer, 2009).
Many of the federations seem to recognize their hybrid status, but the way in which
this is managed can foremost be qualified as manoeuvring. They do get involved in
commercial activities or accept participation in governmental programs for welfare or
health while at the same time trying to maintain their association culture.
The step to hybridity can also be temporary. Participation in subsidized programs
can lead to a temporary involvement in social welfare. The Power Sports Federation,
KNKF, for example, developed a Time for martial arts initiative for one of these pro-
grams and was granted a subsidy of 11 million Euros in a five-year period. Because of
the financial risks for the federation as a whole they established a foundation with a
special board to execute the program and recruit professionals to do this. There was
90 J. M. H. LUCASSEN AND S. DE BAKKER

however no follow-up for this subsidy and the temporary structures were closed down
again. The idea, however, promoted by some federations to develop to a branch
organization which covers all kinds of providers (commercial, local voluntary clubs,
non-member services) could be qualified as a step to full hybridization.
To cope with the hybrid nature of operating, sport federations make use of several
of the solutions put forward by Putters. Governing structures are being innovated,
larger associations are gradually shifting to a supervisory board model and a govern-
ance code has been introduced and implemented. There has been some debate how-
ever on how this should be done. Some have pledged to make the code compulsory,
but in a response one of the developers remarked: Compulsory introduction no doubt
will lead to a faster and wider introduction, but will this always lead to effective practi-
ces? That is to be doubted. Theres also resistance in some federations. The Walkers
Association threatened to drop out of NOC*NSF because the code prescribes that
board members may not be appointed for over twelve years.
Some federations decide to cooperate more closely with others or with funding
authorities. Some have cooperatively purchased services such as judicial advice or com-
munication and marketing. A representative of cooperating smaller associations states,
however, that nationwide programs for social duties which are funded by the govern-
ment may not be very promising for them: The draughts association is too busy with
elite draught and has no capacity to engage in governmental programs beside that. They
just dont have the workforce for that (manager collective services sport federations).
Does hybridity have consequences for the autonomy and identity of the organiza-
tion? As we have noted repeatedly, there is pressure on the sport federations from
national umbrella organizations and the national government to align with a collective
strategy to use sport as a means for social and health objectives. This growing demand
from external stakeholders has also been described for sport federations in other coun-
tries (Coalter, 2007; Houlihan & Green, 2009; Ibsen & Ottesen, 2004; Ibsen & Seippel,
2010). Some federations are eager to get involved because they have already taken ini-
tiatives in this direction autonomously; others are less interested or even resistant.
Although this might look as unilateral resource-dependency of the federations on pub-
lic funds, this may in fact be interdependency: the government is to some extent also
dependent on the federations and conditions can be negotiated.
The process of hybridization may deeply affect the internal structure and decision-
making culture in the federations involved. The shift to supervisory kinds of govern-
ance within the federations is a radical restructuring of the association democracy. In
Cornforths terms, this might mean a shift from membership governance to a self-
selected board. This development raises the issue of ownership. Who are the principal
owners of these federations (Billis, 2010)? Do its directors and the board in fact own
the federation or do the members? In the actual decision-making process, the feder-
ation members are forced to share their influence with external stakeholders like
media, business-partners, and public funders.
Even more far-reaching may lead the consequences of hybridity for the way in
which the associations or federations treat their member clubs. The federations and
the (local) government with which they cooperate tend to treat them increasingly as
mere subordinates. The autonomous nature of these local associations has failed. The
issue of ownership therefore returns even in a more explicit way to the local level.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR SPORT AND SOCIETY 91

Moreover, most of these local sport clubs are convinced that they are already realizing
a social mission.
The question of how these relationships in a hybrid sector will develop is a provoca-
tive subject for future research.

Note
1. Dutch broadcasting organization

Disclosure statement
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and
writing of this article.

Notes on contributors
Jo M. H. Lucassen (PhD), is a Senior Researcher at the Mulier Institute (Netherlands) and research consultant
at Netherlands Association for Physical Education. His main research and publications subjects are profession-
alization, education, institutional development and quality management in sport.
Sarah de Bakker (MSc), participated in this research as part of her Master International Economics and
Business, University of Utrecht, and is actually a Lecturer in Business for Emerging Markets and for Research
Skills, Utrecht University of Applied Sciences.

References
Algemene Rekenkamer (Ed.). (2008). Goed bestuur in uitvoering. De praktijk van onderwijsinstel-
lingen, woningcorporaties, zorgorganisaties en samenwerkingsverbanden [The implementation
of Good governance. The practice of educational institutions, housing associations, care organi-
zations and alliances]. Den Haag: Algemene Rekenkamer.
Alm, J. (Ed.). (2013). Action for good governance in international sports organisations. Final report.
Copenhagen: Play the Game/Danish Institute for Sports Studies.
Anthonissen, A., & Boessenkool, J. (1998). Betekenissen van besturen. Variaties in bestuurlijk hande-
len in amateursportorganisaties [Meanings of governance. Variations in administrative practice in
amateur sport organizations]. Utrecht: ISOR.
Aquina, L. (2015). 5 vragen aan Paul Sanders, algemeen directeur van de KNSB [5 questions for
Paul Sanders, Managing Director of the KNSB] . SportKnowhowXL, (18 Augustus 2015). Retrieved
from http://www.sportknowhowxl.nl/nieuws-en-achtergronden/5-vragen-aan/item/98647/
Baarsma, B. (2005). Nederland Toezichtland een economisch perspectief [Netherlands Supervision
Land - an economic perspective]. Amsterdam: SEO.
Bayle, E., & Robinson, L. (2007). A framework for understanding the performance of national gov-
erning bodies of sport. European Sport Management Quarterly, 7, 249268, DOI: 10.1080/
16184740701511037.
Billis, D. (2010). Towards a theory of hybrid organisations. In D. Billis (Ed.), Hybrid organisations
and the third sector. Challenges for Practice, Theory and policy (4669). Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Brands, H., Kusters, E., & Til, S.v. (2014). Sportbonden Monitor 2013. Ontwikkeling van organisaties
in de sport [Sport Federations Monitor 2013. Development of sports organizations]. Arnhem:
NOC*NSF.
Brandsen, T., Donk, W. v. d., & Kenis, P. (Eds.). (2006). Meervoudig bestuur. Publieke dienstverlening
door hybride organisaties [Plural Governance. Public services by hybrid organizations]. Den
Haag: Boom/Lemma, DOI: 10.1081/PAD-200067320.
92 J. M. H. LUCASSEN AND S. DE BAKKER

Brandsen, T., Donk, W. v. d., & Putters, K. (2005). Griffins or chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent
and inevitable characteristic of the third sector. Journal of Public Administration, 28, 749765.
Braun, S. (2003). Freiwillige Vereinigungen zwischen Staat, Markt und Privatsphare [Voluntary
associations between state, market and privat domain.]. In J. Baur & S. Braun (Eds.),
Integrationsleistungen von Sportvereinen als Freiwilligen Organisationen [Integration achievements
of sports clubs as voluntary organizations] (4387). Aachen: Meyer & Meyer Verlag.
Coalter, F. (2007). A wider social role for sport: whos keeping the score? London/New York:
Routledge.
Cornforth, C., & Spear, R. (2010). The governance of hybrid organisations. In D. Billis (Ed.), Hybrid
organisations and the third sector. challenges for practice, theory and policy (pp. 7090).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cuskelly, G., & Hoye, R. (2007). Sport governance. Oxford: Elsevier (Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd).
Defourny, J., & Pestoff, V. (2008). Images and concepts of the third sector in Europe. Paper pre-
sented at the WP 08/02 EMES European Research Network. Download from: https://orbi.ulg.ac.
be/simple-search?query=pestoff.
De Vries, J., Nagtegaal, K., Baatenburg de Jong, R., Bekker, G., Lowik, S., & Wardenaar, R. (2007).
Besturen als sport; een onderzoek naar de competenties van besturen in de Nederlandse sportsec-
tor [Governance as a sport; an inquiry into the competences of board members in the Dutch
sports sector]. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.
Evers, A. (2005). Mixed welfare systems and hybrid organizations: Changes in the governance and
provision of social services. International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 737748, DOI:
10.1081/PAD-200067318.
Evers, A., & Laville, J. L. (2004). Social services by social enterprises; on the possible contributions
of hybrid organisations and a civil society. In A. Evers & J. L. Laville (Eds.), The third sector in
Europe (237256). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Gammelsaeter, H. (2010). Institutional pluralism and governance in commercialized sport clubs.
European Journal for Sport Management, 10, 569594, DOI: 10.1080/16184742.2010.524241.
Gemeente Enschede (2008). Enschede beweegt! Sportnota 2008-2015 [Enschede moves! Sports policy
plan 2008-2015]. Enschede: Gemeente Enschede.
Geurtsen, A., & Doornbos, F. (2007). Onderzoek kosten sportinfrastructuur. Eindrapportage [Costs of
sports infrastructure. Final research report]. Utrecht: Berenschot.
Grix, J. (2010). The governance debate and the study of sport policy. International Journal of
Sport Policy, 2, 159171, DOI: 10.1080/19406940.2010.488061.
Groot, H. d. (2010). Evidence-based Public Management. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding
van het ambt van hoogleraar public management aan de faculteit management en bestuur
van de Universiteit Twente op donderdag 3 juni 2010 [Evidence-based Public Management.
Lecture delivered at the acceptance of the position of professor of public management at the
Faculty of Management and Administration of the University of Twente on Thursday, June 3rd,
2010]. Enschede: Universiteit Twente.
Harris, M. (2010). Third sector organisations in a contradictory policy environment. In D. Billis
(Ed.), Hybrid organisations and the third sector. Challenges for practice, theory and policy (2545).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Houlihan, B. (2013). Accountability and good governance. In J. Alm (Ed.), Action for good govern-
ance in international sports organisations. Final report. 2224, Copenhagen: Play the Game/
Danish Institute for Sports Studies.
Houlihan, B., & Green, M. (2009). Modernization and sport: The reform of sport England and UK
Sport. Loughborough: PSA.
Hoye, R. (2006). Governance reform in Australian horse racing. Managing Leisure, 11, 129138,
DOI:10.1080/13606710500520338.
Huizenga, F., & Tack, P. (2011). Architectuur van verenigingen [Architecture of associations]. Lelystad:
VM uitgevers.
Ibsen, B., & Ottesen, L. (2004). Sport and welfare policy in Denmark: The development of sport
between state, market and community. In K. Heinemann (Ed.), Sport and welfare policies. Six
European case studies (3186). Schorndorf: Hofmann.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR SPORT AND SOCIETY 93

Ibsen, B., & Seippel, . (2010). Voluntary organized sport in Denmark and Norway. Sport in Society
13, 593608, DOI: 10.1080/17430431003616266.
Jonker, L. (2015). Hoe future proof zijn de sportbonden? [How future-proof are the sports associa-
tions?] Sport&StrategieOnline, (21 Juni 2015). Retrieved from http://www.sportenstrategie.nl/
2015/sportdeelname/statistieken-en-trends/hoe-future-proof-zijn-de-sportbonden/
Karre, P. M. (2011). Heads and tails: Both sides of the coin. An analysis of hybrid organisations in the
Dutch waste management sector. Den Haag: Eleven International Publishers.
King, N. (2009). Sport policy and governance. Oxford: Elsevier.
Kjr, A. M. (2004). Governance. London: Polity Press.
Koski, P., & Heikkala, J. (1998). Professionalization and organizations of mixed rationales: The case
of Finnish National Sport Organizations. European Journal for Sport Management, 5, 729.
Lagendijk, E., Postma-de Groot, M., & Verweij, S. (2012). Omgevingsanalyse KNVB [Environmental
analysis Royal Netherlands Football Association]. Amsterdam: DSP Groep.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organisation and environment. Cambridge (MA): Harvard
Graduate School of Business Administration.
Loorbach, J. (2015). (Answers to) De vraag van Jan Kossen aan Jan Loorbach [(Answers to) The
question from Jan Kossen to Jan Loorbach]. SportKnowhowXL, (1 September 2015). Retrieved
from http://www.sportknowhowxl.nl/nieuws-en-achtergronden/vraag-en-antwoord/item/98779/
de-vraag-van-jan-kossen-aan-jan-loorbach
Lucassen, J., & Van der Roest, J.-W. (2011a). Samenwerking, hybridisering en fusies bij sportvereni-
gingen [Co-operation, hybridisation and fusions of sports clubs]. In J. Boessenkool, J. Lucassen,
M. Waardenburg & F. Kemper (Eds.), Sportverenigingen: tussen tradities en transities, (pp.
95114), [Sports clubs: between tradition and transition]. Nieuwegein/s-Hertogenbosch: Arko
Sports Media/WJH Mulier Instituut.
Lucassen, J., & Van der Roest, J. W. (2011b). Management of hybrid organisations in the voluntary
sports sector. Paper presented at the 19th Conference of the European Association for Sport
Management Congres, Madrid, 7-10 September 2011.
Lucassen, J. M. H., Bakker, S, de, & Straatmeijer, J. (2014). Governance of sport monitor 2011-2012.
Actuele uitdagingen en antwoorden van sportbestuurders. [Governance of sport monitor 2011-
2012. Current challenges and responses from managers]. Utrecht: Mulier InsPtuut.
NOC*NSF. (2009). Olympisch Plan 2028. Heel Nederland naar Olympisch niveau. Plan van aanpak
op hoofdlijnen [The Netherlands to an Olympic level. Plan outline]. Arnhem: NOC*NSF.
NOC*NSF Commissie goed sportbestuur. (2005). De 13 aanbevelingen voor goed sportbestuur
[The 13 recommendations for good governance in sport]. Arnhem: NOC*NSF.
Noordegraaf, M. (2008). Professioneel bestuur. De tegenstelling tussen publieke managers en pro-
fessionals als strijd om professionaliteit. Rede 4 Februari 2008 [Professional governance. The
contrast between public managers and professionals as a struggle for professionalism. Speech
February 4th, 2008]. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, Utrechtse School voor Bestuurs- en
Organisatiewetenschap (USBO)
Oldenboom, E., Hopstaken, P., & Meer, F. v. d. (1996). De nationale bestedingen aan sport
[National spending on sport]. Amsterdam: SEO.
Putters, K. (2009). Besturen met duivelselastiek [Governance with devils elastics]. Rotterdam: Erasmus
Universiteit Rotterdam.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies,
XLIV, 652667, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997). Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity, and
accountability. London: Open University Press.
Rijksoverheid (Government). (2014). Deentralisatie van overheidstaken naar gemeenten
[Decentralization of central government tasks to municipalities.]. Retrieved from https://
www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/gemeenten/inhoud/decentralisatie-van-overheidstaken-naar-
gemeenten
Schouten, F., Verschuren, B., & Brands, H. (2012). Sportbonden Monitor 2011 [Sports federations
Monitor 2011]. Arnhem: NOC*NSF.
94 J. M. H. LUCASSEN AND S. DE BAKKER

Shilbury, D., & Ferkins, L. (2011). Professionalisation, sport governance and strategic capability.
Managing Leisure, 16, 108127.
Siekmann, R., & Soek, J. (2010). Models of sport governance in the European Union: The relation-
ship between state and sport authorities. The International Sports Law Joumal, 10, 93102, doi:
10.1177/1012690208096035.
Skille, E. A. (2008). Understanding sport clubs as sport policy implementers. International Review
for the Sociology of Sport 43(2), 181200.
Skirstad, B., & Chelladurai, P. (2011). For love and money: A sports clubs innovative response to
multiple logics. Journal of Sport Management 25, 339353.
Smith, E. (2009). The sport of governance A study comparing swedish riding schools. European
Sport Management Quarterly, 9, 163186, DOI:10.1080/16184740802571435.
Stammes, H. (2013). Van sportbond naar brancheorganisatie? Of van ledenorganisatie naar klantor-
ganisatie? [From federation to industry association? Or from membership organization to customer
organization?] Sport Knowhow. Retrieved from http://www.sportknowhowxl.nl/OpenPodium/
8024
Stokvis, R. (2010). De sportwereld. Een inleiding [The world of sports. An Introduction]. Nieuwegein:
ARKO Sports Media.
Thibault, L., Slack, T., & Hinings, B. (1991). Professionalism, structures and systems: The impact of
professional staff on voluntary organizations. International Review for Sociology of Sport, 26,
8397, doi: 10.1177/101269029102600202.
Thiel, A., & Mayer, J. (2009). Characteristics of voluntary sportsclub management: a sociological
perspetive. European Sport Management Quarterly, 9, 8198, DOI:10.1080/16184740802461744.
Transparency International. (2012). Aandacht voor integriteit in de sport urgent! Verslag congres
Integriteit in de Sport Arnhem, 16 februari 2012 [Attention to integrity in sport urgent! Congress
Report Integrity in Sport Arnhem, 16 February 2012]. Den Haag: Transparency International.
Trommel, W. (2009). Gulzig bestuur. Rede op 17 September 2009 uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding
van het ambt van hoogleraar beleids- en bestuurswetenschappen aan de Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam [Greedy government. Speech delivered on September 17, 2009 on acceptance of the
post of professor of policy and administrative sciences at the Free University of Amsterdam]. Den
Haag: Boom/Lemma.
Van t Verlaat, M. (2010). Marktgerichte sportbonden: een paradox? Onderzoek naar de achtergron-
den en gevolgen van een marktbenadering door Nederlandse sportbonden [Market-oriented sports
associations: a paradox? Research into the background and consequences of a market approach
by Dutch sports fedearations]. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.
Van Hout, E. (2007). Zorg in spagaat. Management van hybride, maatschappelijke organisaties [Care
in splits. Management of hybrid, civil organisations]. Den Haag: Lemma.
Van Puffelen, F., Reijnen, J., & Velthuisen, J. W. (1988). De macro-economische betekenis van sport
[The macroeconomic significance of sport]. Amsterdam: Stichting voor Economisch Onderzoek
(SEO) der Universiteit van Amstedam.
Verweel, P. (2015). Lessons learnt? Het bestuurlijk veranderingsproces van de KNVB [Lessons learned?
The administrative change of the KNVB]. SportKnowhowXL, (10 Mach 2015). Retrieved from http://
www.sportknowhowxl.nl/achtergronden/feedback-xl/item/97408/
Walters, G., Trenberth, L., & Tacon, R. (2010). Good governance in sport: A survey of UK national
governing bodies of sport. London: Birkbeck Sport Business Centre.
Winand, M., Zintz, T., Bayle, E., & Robinson, L. (2010). Organizational performance of Olympic sport
governing bodies: Dealing with measurement and priorities. Managing Leisure, 15, 279307,
DOI:10.1080/13606719.2010.508672.