Event Management, Vol. 25, pp.

425–444 1525-9951/21 $60.00 + .00

Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3727/152599519X15506259856363
Copyright © 2021 Cognizant, LLC. E-ISSN 1943-4308
www.cognizantcommunication.com

EXPLORING PARTNERSHIPS IN SPORT EVENT DELIVERY

RAN ZHOU,* WALKER J. ROSS,† HAOZHOU PU,‡ CHANGWOOK KIM,§ JEEYOON KIM,¶
KYRIAKI KAPLANIDOU,§ AND REBECCA LEOPKEY#

*Department of Sport, Nanjing University of Finance & Economics, Nanjing, China

†Barney Barnett School of Business and Free Enterprise, Florida Southern College, Lakeland, FL, USA
‡Department of Health and Sport Science, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH, USA
§Department of Sport Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
¶Department of Sport Management, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA
#Department of Kinesiology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

In order to provide high-quality sport events and cultivate economic, social, and environmental ben-
efits in the local community, regional sport commissions in the US form partnerships with organi-
zations across sectors. Building on Parent and Harvey’s partnership framework, this study seeks
to reveal the components and processes of the collaboration between sport commissions and their
partners in the delivery of sport events and subsequent outcomes. Using purposive and convenient
sampling, data were collected from 12 in-depth interviews with leaders in sport commissions and
partnering organizations based on their accessibility and familiarity with the research topic. The
study identifies five main areas and multiple subcomponents of event-based partnerships, provid-
ing empirical evidence for Parent and Harvey’s partnership model. The findings advance this model
by specifying the outcomes, challenges, and positive conditions for event-based partnerships and
showing interactions between partnership components. More importantly, the findings contribute
to a greater understanding of the partnership complexities and dynamics in the sport event-specific
context and provide practical insights for sport commissions and other sport event organizers to stra-
tegically manage and maintain sport event-based partnerships.

Key words: Interorganizational relationships; Sport event-based partnerships;

Components and processes; Sport commissions

Introduction compete for the rights to host sport events with

the expectation that events can bring substantial
For many years, sport events have been employed financial value to the local region by stimulating
as an economic development tool by host communi- event-related tourism, creating job opportunities,
ties (Chalip & Leyns, 2002). A wide range of cities fostering business networks, and improving the

Address correspondence to Ran Zhou, Department of Sport, Nanjing University of Finance & Economics, No. 3 Wenyuan Road, Xianlin
University Town, Qixia District, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China. E-mail: ranzhou@nufe.edu.cn

425
426 ZHOU ET AL.
host community’s profile (Chalip, 2004). More
recently, it was recognized that sport events had
the potential to generate impacts beyond financial
benefits (Chalip, 2006). Through proper leverag-
ing, sport events may provide additional opportu-
nities for social and environmental development
such as improving sport participation, residents’
well-being, and environmental quality (O’Brien &
Chalip, 2008). Delivering on these sport event out-
comes is a complex task in which multiple stake-
holders come into play. It cannot be accomplished
by the event organizing committee alone, but rather
requires different stakeholder groups to work coop-
eratively to achieve common objectives (Leopkey
& Parent, 2017; O’Brien & Chalip, 2008). As noted
by Babiak et al. (2018), “Sport is inherently col-
laborative. . . . No on-field competition is possible
without the collaboration of sport organizations”
(p. 12). As such, partnerships are deemed a “neces-
sity” rather than an “option” in sport event delivery
(Mackintosh, 2011; Werner et al., 2016).
Regional sport commissions have played an inte-
gral role in hosting different kinds of sport events
in the local community. In the US, there are hun-
dreds of regional sport commissions working as
sport tourism arms at county or city levels to solicit
and organize a variety of sporting activities—with
a focus on amateur sport events (www.sportscom​
missions.org). In the state of Florida, for example,
there are 27 regional sport commissions: some of
them (e.g., Tallahassee Sports Council) are affili-
ated with government agencies, while others are
stand-alone nonprofit organizations (e.g., Greater
Orlando Sports Commission). The primary mission
of these sport commissions is to create economic
impact through attracting and retaining sport events
in the county where they operate. In addition, the
regional sport commissions are committed to pro-
moting the social and environmental development
of the community via sport tourism events (Gibson
et al., 2012). Given most regional sport commis-
sions are small community-based sport organiza-
tions operating at local levels with limited resources
to achieve their missions, partnerships become
imperative (Misener & Doherty, 2013). To acquire
adequate resources and produce positive event out-
comes in the host community, sport commissions
have to network with a heterogonous group of part-
ners (e.g., local authorities, government agencies,
facility providers, hotels, sport governing bodies,
sport clubs, educational institutions, corporations,
and NGOs) (Misener & Doherty, 2014). As such,
sport commissions provide an ideal context to
examine the partnerships in sport event delivery.
In the sport event leveraging literature, inter-
organizational collaboration has been identified
as a useful approach for cultivating positive out-
comes from sport events (O’Brien & Chalip,
2008). Although the eminence of partnerships in
the economic, social, and environmental leverag-
ing of sport events has been stressed in the exist-
ing literature (Chalip, 2004; Taks et al., 2015), less
emphasis has been placed on the processes (e.g.,
partnership formation, resource exchange, outcome
delivery) and components (e.g., goal, form, struc-
ture, attributes, power dynamics) of partnerships
in delivering these event outcomes. Parent and
Harvey (2009) has proposed a partnership model
outlining the processes and components of partner-
ships in relation to community sport organizations.
The model synthesized a myriad of variables that
came into play during the formation, management
and evaluation of interorganizational partnerships,
providing a comprehensive and integrated frame-
work to investigate the relationship dynamics in
sport event delivery. Understanding the details
and complexities of the partnerships between sport
commissions and their stakeholders is important, as
each aspect of the partnerships may affect the suc-
cess of sport event delivery. As such, the purpose of
this study is to build on Parent and Harvey’s (2009)
partnership framework and empirically investigate
the collaboration processes and components in the
delivery of sport events while ensuing commu-
nity benefits. In the current context we focus on
long-term partnerships rather than one-off transac-
tional relationships. The former involves exchanges
beyond goods and services and as a result may have
higher-order effects, such as knowledge develop-
ment and capacity building, on partner organiza-
tions (Koschmann et al., 2012).
Literature Review
Partnerships, also known as interorganizational
relationships (IORs), are established through the
transactions, exchanges, and interactions between
two (or more) organizations with common interests
 PARTNERSHIPS IN SPORT EVENT DELIVERY 427
(Gerke et al., 2018). IOR is defined as “a voluntary,
close, long-term planned strategic action between
two or more organizations with the objective of
serving mutually beneficial purposes in a prob-
lem domain” (Babiak, 2007, p. 339) and is often
used interchangeably with terms such as partner-
ship, collaboration, cooperation, network, and stra-
tegic alliance (Babiak, 2007; Osborne, 2000). In
the context of sport, research focusing on inter-
organizational relationships (IORs) is growing.
Researchers have examined sport-based IORs in
various contexts ranging from public–private part-
nerships to collaborations among nonprofit organi-
zations and have focused on an array of domains
from IOR determinants and features to processes
and outcomes (Babiak et al., 2018). Drawing upon
the substantial body of IOR knowledge, Parent and
Harvey (2009) developed a comprehensive partner-
ship model that synthesized various components of
partnerships in relation to community-based sport
organizations. This model provides an overarching
framework for the present study.
Theoretical Framework: The Partnership Model
Parent and Harvey (2009) proposed a compre-
hensive and prescriptive model for community
sport partnerships. The model summarizes a range
of aspects and components of partnerships identi-
fied in the existing literature. In this partnership
model, there are three major aspects—antecedents,
management, and evaluation—representing differ-
ent phases of partnership evolution. The anteced-
ents include four basic components (i.e., the project
purpose or goal, the environment, the nature of the
partners, and partnership planning) in the stage
of partnership formation. These antecedents may
affect not only the initiation of a partnership but
also relationship management in the ensuing stage
(Parent & Harvey, 2017). The second aspect of the
model is partnership management, which includes
three main components (i.e., attributes of the part-
nership, communication, and decision making)
along with 15 subcomponents. These components
delineate the behavioral characteristics of a part-
nership, as well as key conditions that can affect
the success of a partnership (Parent & Harvey,
2009). The final aspect is the evaluation of partner-
ship outcomes, which can be based on two types
of measures (i.e., level of partners’ satisfaction
and achievement of project outcome). While the
organization’s financial performance is a common
measure of partnership success within the commer-
cial sector (e.g., private firms), the nonprofit sector
(e.g., community-based sport organizations) often
assesses partnership outcomes based on whether or
not the organization’s mission is achieved (Parent
& Harvey, 2009).
Parent and Harvey’s (2009) model has informed
two empirical studies in sport and physical activ-
ity contexts. Lucidarme et al. (2014) employed this
model to help identify crucial partnership variables
(e.g., motives, governance, commitment, staffing,
personal relations and leadership, etc.) that influ-
enced the implementation of physical activity
programs. Parent and Harvey (2017) applied this
model to examine community-based youth sport-
for-development partnerships. By reviewing a list
of components presented in the original partnership
model, the study elucidated key conditions (e.g.,
time, funding, governance, synergy, fairness, com-
munication, engagement, coordination, outcome
evaluation, etc.) required for garnering desirable
outcomes before, during, and after partnerships. As
such, Parent and Harvey’s (2009) model provides
a useful tool for analyzing the (1) formation, (2)
management, and (3) outcomes of interorganiza-
tional partnerships in sport-related settings. Guided
by this framework, the following sections reviewed
existing literature in these three respective areas.
Partnership Formation
As mentioned earlier, the sport industry is highly
complex. The production of a sport event involves
specialized input from a wide variety of organiza-
tions (ranging from public authorities to private
businesses) (Werner et al., 2016). As the sport mar-
ket becomes increasingly globalized and diverse,
no single organization can possess all the resources
and competencies needed for the provision of an
optimized sport product (Gerke et al., 2018; Loza,
2004). This implies a high level of interdependence
and reliance among sport-related organizations,
which becomes a major driving force behind part-
nership formation (Babiak, 2007). As described in
the partnership model, organizations see partner-
ships as opportunities to acquire new resources
428 ZHOU ET AL.
that are otherwise inaccessible (Parent & Harvey,
2009). For many community-based sport organiza-
tions, the lack of employees with specialized skills
and the need for financial capacity to run sport proj-
ects stimulate them to partner with external groups
across different sectors (Misener & Doherty, 2014).
Sport organizations were found to collaborate with
public partners (e.g., government agencies, minis-
tries of sport, local sport councils, education insti-
tutes, and school boards), private partners (e.g.,
sport equipment companies, hotels, media, tour/
transport operators, and private facilities), and non-
profit organizations (e.g., amateur sport clubs, sport
governing bodies, tourism organizations, Chambers
of Commerce, and community charities) (Gerke et
al., 2018; Misener & Doherty, 2013; Werner et al.,
2016). By having partners from different sectors,
sport organizations can gain access to a diverse
range of resources, thereby addressing any fund-
ing and infrastructure insufficiencies and extending
organizational capacities in creating community
benefits through sport-based initiatives (Jones et
al., 2017; Meyskens, 2010).
Sport organizations not only collaborate with dif-
ferent types of partners but also form different types
of partnerships in their daily operations. Some part-
nerships are short-term, transaction-based, while
others are long-term, trust-based (Gerke et al.,
2018). The former, which are known as first-level
relationships, are established for purely economic
purposes and are usually observed between buyers
and suppliers, whereas the latter represents higher-
level relationships that extend beyond mere eco-
nomic transactions and usually involve knowledge
transfer and organizational learning (Gerke et al.,
2018; Koschmann et al., 2012). The second type of
partnerships (i.e., long-term, trust-based) are col-
laborative in nature and are strategically built for
mutually beneficial purposes, and as such are the
focus of this particular study.
Partnerships can be formal or informal. Formal
partnerships are based on legal contracts in which
the obligations of both transacting parties are
clearly written, whereas informal partnerships are
based on social contracts that are largely implicit
and nonverbalized (Ring & Van De Ven, 1994). A
core characteristic of informal partnerships is the
heavy reliance on trust, which assumes both parties
will behave in a fair and respectful way (Ring & Van
De Ven, 1994). Furthermore, informal partnerships
are more flexible and efficient as the efforts associ-
ated with bargaining, constructing, and enforcing
the contracts are minimized (Dyer & Singh, 1998).
Due to these advantages, informal partnerships are
favored by many nonprofit sport organizations that
tend to value their faith and beliefs in their partners
more than the contracting documents that are used
to bind them (Gerke et al., 2018).
Partnership Management
In the partnership model, Parent and Harvey
(2009) have stressed the importance of trust and
communication in the management of interorgani-
zational relationships. Trust is based on the expecta-
tion that the partner is dependable and predictable
in the interorganizational exchange (Zaheer et al.,
1998). High levels of trust can minimize conflicts
in a partnership, as organizations are likely to give
their partners the benefit of doubt and leeway when
disagreement arises (Zaheer et al., 1998). More-
over, interorganizational trust can reduce the incen-
tives for opportunistic actions, thus it often replaces
a legal contract in an informal relationship (Ring
& Van De Ven, 1994). Trust-based partnerships
are very common in sport event networks, but the
development of such relationships is an incremental
process that involves iterative interactions and com-
munication (Wäsche & Woll, 2013). Communica-
tion is an essential element in a healthy, successful
partnership (Parent & Harvey, 2009). Having open
and timely communication, such as regular meet-
ings and informal conversations, can accelerate
information exchange and reciprocal understanding
between partners (Wäsche & Woll, 2013). In turn,
the deepening understanding between partners can
increase mutual trust and commitment in the rela-
tionships (Parent & Harvey, 2009).
Communication can also facilitate knowledge
sharing and organizational learning. In the part-
nership model, Parent and Harvey (2009) identi-
fied organizational learning as part of partnership
management. An organization may learn from
their counterparts throughout the life course of the
partnership, enhancing its capacities and competi-
tive advantages in the marketplace. For example,
Misener and Doherty (2013, 2014) found that
cross-sector partnerships provided community
 PARTNERSHIPS IN SPORT EVENT DELIVERY 429
sport organizations access to tangible (e.g., physi-
cal and financial) assets, as well as intangible
(e.g., human resources, knowledge, and reputa-
tion) resources, which enhanced the organizations’
operational capacity (e.g., technical and concep-
tual skills) and relational capacity (e.g., interper-
sonal skills) to fulfill their missions. In addition,
collaboration with a variety of network players
can enhance organizations’ collaborative capac-
ity (Lai, 2012). According to Lai (2012), human
resources and knowledge contributed significantly
to the development of collaborative capacity (i.e.,
the ability to collaborate with others and achieve
synergies). In interorganizational networks, each
player commits its unique skill set and expertise
to the network; as a result, the involved organiza-
tions were able to learn from the collaborators and
become equipped with required skills and abilities
to achieve a collaborative advantage (Lai, 2012).
Furthermore, partnerships are important to attain-
ing competitive advantage. Dyer and Singh (1998)
argued that competitive advantage depends on
what resources an organization can extract from its
external environment rather than what resources it
stocked. Interactions with diverse partners allowed
organizations to extract heterogeneous and com-
plementary resources, hence helped organizations
build a competitive advantage (Meyskens, 2010).
In an idealistic partnership, each actor makes
an even contribution to the relationship and holds
equal power in decision making. In reality, how-
ever, organizations vary in terms of the resources
they bring to the table; hence, power is often dis-
tributed unequally between partners (Parent &
Harvey, 2009). In the partnership model, power
dynamics is another key component in the partner-
ship management and is a prominent issue faced
by local sport organizations that often operate with
limited resources (Parent & Harvey, 2009). In com-
munity-based partnerships, governments and busi-
ness sponsors are commonly viewed as important
partners as they provide critical financial support
(e.g., grants, funding, and sponsorships) for the
programs and the daily operations of the sport orga-
nizations (Jones et al., 2017). However, the heavy
reliance on external partners may lead to power
asymmetries, which are likely to exert negative
impacts on the dependent organizations (Ford et al.,
2012). When being disadvantaged in an unequal
power relation, community sport organizations
may be forced to comply with coercive policies and
rules dictated by the dominant partners, causing a
loss of autonomy and mission drift (Babiak, 2007;
Misener & Doherty, 2013). Nonetheless, the less
powerful actors can gain power by occupying stra-
tegically important positions (e.g., broker) in inter-
organizational networks (Ford et al., 2012). Ford et
al. (2012) found that hotels offset their power dis-
advantages in the tourism distribution network by
becoming the center of the communication channel
and acting as intermediaries that provided valuable
information for other actors.
Partnership Outcomes
In the partnership model, the outcomes of a part-
nership in the nonprofit sector is evaluated based
on whether or not the organizational mission has
been accomplished (Parent & Harvey, 2009). Com-
munity sport organizations, such as the sport com-
missions, have a unique position in the heart of the
community as they provide local sport services crit-
ical to the viability and livelihood of the local area
(Misener & Doherty, 2014). They are dedicated to
a range of community development goals includ-
ing the delivery of economic, social, and environ-
mental benefits through sport events and programs
(Gibson et al., 2012).
Existing research has alluded to specific commu-
nity benefits of event-based partnerships between
nonprofit sport organizations and other sectors. In
terms of economic benefits, Chalip (2004) found
that sport event organizers, in collaboration with
public (e.g., government agencies) and private
(e.g., business groups) sectors, staged event-related
activities to lengthen visitor stays and increase tour-
ist spending in the local region. Similarly, Schulen-
korf and Edwards (2012) suggested that nonprofit
event organizers can optimize the economic impacts
of sport events by strategically cooperating with
media in event promotion and destination market-
ing. In terms of social benefits, it was found that
collaboration on sport events can strengthen inter-
organizational ties and foster social capital among
community groups (Mackellar & Jamieson, 2015).
In the context of sport-for-development events,
Schulenkorf and Edwards (2012) identified the
potential of partnerships between event organizers
430 ZHOU ET AL.
and educational institutions (e.g., local schools) to
facilitate intergroup relationships, social equality,
and cross-cultural understanding. The effectiveness
of partnerships in the social leverage of sport events
was empirically examined by Kellett et al. (2008).
Their findings showed the host city that proactively
coordinated with different community sectors gener-
ated way more sociocultural legacies (e.g., cultural
learning and relationship building) than the other
city without such efforts (Kellett et al., 2008). On the
other hand, the absence of partnerships may result in
failure of sport event legacy delivery. As Misener et
al. (2015) discussed, the lack of connection between
the national sport governing body and local sport
clubs prohibited the translation of sport participation
legacy at the grassroots level.
In summary, with growing scholarly interest in
IORs in the sport management field, an increased
amount of literature has looked into various aspects
(e.g., formation, management, and outcomes) of
IORs in sport-related contexts. However, “the spec-
trum of IORs is extensive and their collaborative
activities are both broad and complex” (Werner et
al., 2016, p. 228). Existing knowledge into the intri-
cacies and nuances of IOR processes is still limited.
While extensive attention has been devoted to IOR
formation (e.g., partners’ motives and environmental
drivers; Babiak, 2007; Gerke et al., 2018; Thibault
et al., 1999), researchers have not fully explored the
dynamics of IOR implementation and management
(Babiak et al., 2017). Moreover, most empirical
research to date has focused on discrete components
(e.g., trust and communication, Wäsche & Woll,
2013; power dynamics, Ford et al., 2012; knowl-
edge transfer, Werner et al., 2015a; organizational
capacity, Misener & Doherty, 2013) of IORs, in the
absence of an integrated and systematic analysis of
how IORs work to deliver on-field products—for
example, how is the partnership structured; how
do partners interact; what functional elements are
involved; and what factors play a part in determining
partnership success. Given the limited understand-
ing about the complex processes and diverse aspects
of event-related partnerships, we propose the follow-
ing research question to guide our study:
RQ: What are the specific processes and compo-
nents of IORs in the delivery of sport event
outcomes?
Methodology
As evidenced by its use for understanding rela-
tionship forming, management, and event outcome
aspects of organizations and their partners, the
Parent and Harvey (2009) partnership model was
used to examine partnership formation, manage-
ment, and outcomes in the context of regional sport
commissions and their delivery of sport events that
promise benefits for the host community. As such,
a qualitative research design was employed to con-
struct a study focusing on interviewing regional
sport commission leaders and the partners they
work with to create successful sport events within
their host communities.
Data Collection
In order to prepare for data collection, the inter-
view guides based on the partnership model (Par-
ent & Harvey, 2009), extended literature review on
partnerships (Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010; Meyskens,
2010; Osborne, 2000), and community sport (Har-
ris & Houlihan, 2016; Jones et al., 2017) were
developed. Interviews are the most appropriate
method for exploring in depth a participant’s expe-
riences, motives, and opinions (Rubin & Rubin,
2012). Since these interview participants were
credible experts on working with partners to deliver
successful sport events, the data gathered from the
participants yielded sufficient information to deter-
mine the role of partnerships in sport event delivery
as well as how sport organizations leverage these
partnerships to create successful outcomes from
their events. The interview guides (Appendix A and
Appendix B) were constructed to facilitate a semi-
structured approach, which allowed the research
team to ask questions that explicitly explore part-
nerships in sport event delivery while allowing
participants the opportunity to provide information
they felt was relevant to the study. This approach
gave the study content validity (Rubin & Rubin,
2012; Yin, 2013).
A total of 12 semistructured interviews last-
ing 45–60 min were conducted. The interviews
were conducted in person via Skype or telephone
and were audio recorded. The interview record-
ings were transcribed verbatim and collabora-
tively reviewed by the research team (Miles et al.,
 PARTNERSHIPS IN SPORT EVENT DELIVERY 431

2014). Additionally, the interview transcripts were
sent back to participants to be member checked
in order to ensure accuracy of the data (Nowell
et al., 2017).
Half of the interviews were with leaders of
regional sport commissions in six separate counties
across the southeastern US. These regional sport
commissions are responsible for lobbying for and
helping to organize sport events in their commu-
nities. Leaders of sport commissions were purpo-
sively sampled to include a diverse mix of large and
medium sized communities. Four of the organiza-
tions were from Florida and two were from South
Carolina. These areas were chosen due to feasibility
of access for the research team and their popularity
as destinations for sport events. The remaining six
interviews were conducted with partner organiza-
tions of those sport commissions, which included
sport facilities, hotels, local governments, and sport
clubs. Interview participants from the partnering
organizations were directors and managers who
currently served in leadership positions and were
knowledgeable of the strategic actions of their par-
ticular organization. The sport commission leaders
interviewed referred the research team to partner
organizations and the partner organizations lead-
ers interviewed were sampled from these lists of
references. These partner organizations were inter-
viewed to gain a full perspective of the partnership
from both sides of the relationship. This process
also helped to corroborate interview data from the
sport commissions. Interviewing the most credible
sources was critical to the success of the interviews
and further validated the results of this study (Rubin
& Rubin, 2012). Information on the interview par-
ticipants may be found in Table 1.
This broad set of interview data allowed the
research team to address the process of partnership
formation and management by regional sport com-
missions and their ability to leverage those part-
nerships to create successful outcomes from local
sport events.
Data Analysis
Content analysis was utilized to analyze the
interview data (Saldaña, 2015). In order to ensure
the credibility of the data and the neutrality of the
analysis, all members of the research team reviewed
and analyzed the data separately and met to discuss
findings (Nowell et al., 2017). In order to facilitate
consistency, however, a protocol for the analysis
was agreed upon to ensure dependability among
the various analyses. Interview transcriptions were
coded in an initial open coding cycle using NVivo
11 software for all responses related to the research
question. This first coding cycle was important
as it identified relevant pieces of data from the
transcripts and allowed those codes to be gener-
ated organically from the data itself (e.g., hotels,
sport facilities, restaurants, monetary exchange,
or economic outcomes) (Miles et al., 2014). A
second axial coding cycle was used to group the
data into categories of related information (e.g.,

Table 1
Information of the Interview Participants
Interviewee Years in the Organization’s Organization’s
Pseudonym Organization Position Organization Location Type

Jane Sport Commission Executive Director 11 Florida nonprofit

Jimmy Sport Commission Executive Director 19 Florida public
Matthew Sport Commission Executive Director 25 Florida public
Bill Sport Commission Executive Director 12 Florida public
Colin Sport Commission Executive Director 10 South Carolina nonprofit
Ellen Sport Commission Executive Director 12 South Carolina nonprofit
Lily Sport Facility Director 20 Florida public
Ben Hotel General Manager 3 Florida private
Grace County Government Assistant Manager 10 Florida public
Anderson Sport Club General Manager 20 Florida nonprofit
Mary Hotel Director of Sales 9 South Carolina private
David Sport Facility Market Development 16 South Carolina public
Director
432 ZHOU ET AL.
sport facilities as public entities or hotels and res-
taurant as private partners) (Miles et al., 2014).
These codes were generated using a combination of
inductive and deductive coding processes based on
partnership literature (e.g., partnerships with gov-
ernment entities, nonprofit organizations, and for
profit organizations). A further coding cycle was
conducted in order to organize those categories of
related information into networks in the data that
identify patterns (e.g., private hotel partners are
linked with funding sources for regional sport com-
missions and the events themselves). These pat-
terns led to the creation of higher order themes for
these sport event partners and successful outcomes
(Miles et al., 2014; Saldaña, 2015). After collec-
tion of six initial interviews with the regional sport
commissioners, the research team met to discuss
the findings, explored codes and consistent themes,
and considered collection of further interviews
with partners of those regional sport commissions.
This process helped to ensure intercoder reliability,
which helps ensure the trustworthiness of the data
(Nowell et al., 2017). Six more interviews were then
conducted with those partners of the regional sport
commissions and followed by another meeting by
the research team. Data saturation was reached
after completing 12 total interviews, at which point
the research team no longer learned new informa-
tion through further collection of data. Overall, it is
believed that the present research is dependable due
to the well-documented methodology of the present
study (Nowell et al., 2017).
Results
The process of collaboration between regional
sport commissions and their partners involved
five major components (i.e., resource interdepen-
dency, nature of partnerships, resource exchange,
partnership outcomes, and partnership challenges).
As depicted in Figure 1, the partnership process
started with resource interdependency. The high
level of reliance among partnering organizations
led to the formation of partnerships across sec-
tors. The nature of the partnerships determined
the resource exchanges and partner interactions
taking place within the collaborative network. As
a result of these exchange activities, the partner-
ships delivered a series of benefits to the involved
organizations and local communities. From forma-
tion to outcomes, the partnerships between sport
commissions and multiple stakeholders were asso-
ciated with challenges, which played a part in shap-
ing the trajectory of partnership development.
Key findings regarding the process and compo-
nents of partnerships are presented in detail in the
following subsections.
Resource Interdependency
Resource interdependency played a fundamen-
tal role in initiating the partnerships between sport
commissions and their partners. From the sport
commissions’ perspectives, they had to rely on
external organizations for funding, facilities, and
staffing in order to attract and stage sport events
in the local region. Specifically, sport commis-
sions had to acquire funding from their government
partners through the available accommodation and
hospitality tax. They also needed sport venues from
facility partners to host sport events, lodging ser-
vices from hotel partners to house event officials
and participants, staff and volunteers from sport
clubs to assist event organization, and monetary
and in-kind contributions from business partners to
offset operating budgets. On the other hand, these
partners had to rely on the resources and capaci-
ties of sport commissions to achieve their respec-
tive organizational goals. For example, the partners
had to rely on the expertise of sport commissions
in bringing in event-related business and the broad
business network maintained by sport commissions
within the sport tourism industry.
Driven by the imperative need for resources,
partnerships were formed among these highly inter-
dependent organizations. Interviewees commented
that the partnerships were essentially about mutual
resourcing and support because each organization
was limited to its resources and needed help from
other organizations to survive and succeed. As
Matthew put it:
The more resources you can bring to the table,
which include your local partners, the better off
you are gonna be. (sport commission executive
director)
While each of the organizations had its own
motive (due to the demand for particular resources)
 PARTNERSHIPS IN SPORT EVENT DELIVERY 433

Figure 1. The process and components of sport event partnerships.

when entering into the partnership, they worked
together to pursue a common objective—that is,
to benefit the economic, social, and environmen-
tal development of the local community through
the host of sport events. This shared vision was
embraced by all interviewees as they viewed the
success of their organizations as a piece of the
larger success of the community:
It’s all about community benefits, the benefit for
[county name] continuing to grow. The more you
put people here the more it’s gonna grow and
all that benefits all of us in some point . . . If the
community wins, you win, even if it’s indirectly.
(Ben, hotel general manager)
Nature of Partnerships
The common goal of promoting community
development through sport events brought together
sport commissions and a diverse array of organi-
zations from public, private, and nonprofit sec-
tors. In general, five categories of organizations
were identified as the key partners of sport com-
missions. These included governments (e.g., city,
county, and state), sport facilities (e.g., Parks and
434 ZHOU ET AL.
Recreation Department, Recreation Commission,
public school, college facilities, and private facili-
ties), hotels, local sport clubs, and business groups
(e.g., restaurants, food companies, sporting goods
companies, and event service companies). The
partner categories remained the same regardless
of the type, location, and size of the event. How-
ever, the activation of specific actors within each
category changed as the nature of the event var-
ied. For instance, sport commissions may work
with different sport clubs (e.g., swimming clubs
vs. soccer clubs) to host different types of sport
events (e.g., swimming tournaments vs. soccer
games). Moreover, the activation of a particular
hotel partner may depend on its geographic prox-
imity to the event location—for example, a hotel
close to the host venue was more likely to engage
in the event-based partnership with the sport com-
mission than its distant counterpart. Furthermore,
the level of resource input and partners’ involve-
ment were also event specific. Compared to events
of smaller scope, large-scale sport events required
longer preparation and more extensive investment
of resources, thereby requiring a greater number of
organizations to be involved in the collaboration
process. Jane noted:
For a large-scale event, we’ll need all the hotels.
For a small-scale event, we’ll need only one spe-
cific hotel. (sport commission executive director)
The event-based collaboration between sport
commissions and their partners varied in terms of
formality. Some of the partnerships were more for-
mal, such as the contractual relationships between
sport commissions and governments and between
sport commission and sport facilities. These partner-
ships involved a written agreement binding the two
partnering organizations. Other partnerships were
more informal in the sense that they did not need
legal binding contracts. For example, the partner-
ships between sport commissions and hotels, sport
clubs, and business groups were mostly based on
oral agreements and personal relationships. Since
informal partnerships did not involve any signed
paperwork, they were preferred by sport commis-
sions for their flexibility and cost-efficiency:
We prefer to keep it informal, because formal
agreements require time and require money, and
the relationships become very stiff. (Matthew,
sport commission executive director).
Trust played a big part in both formal and infor-
mal partnerships. In the presence of trust, the need
for a formal contract was minimized by partners.
A hotel partner depicted the relationship as “an
honest-system” where he kept a “blind faith” in
the sport commission without necessarily having
a paper document explicating the return on invest-
ment (ROI) (e.g., room night numbers) generated
by the sport commission. Even when legal con-
tracts were in place between sport commissions and
partners, we found that the role of such contracts
was largely overtaken by trust:
Whenever we host an event, there is a contract . . .
for provision of services and rental of space. How-
ever, as far as the working relationship, it is much
more based on trust. We are a member [an annual
sponsor of the sport commission], but I don’t think
there is a need for formal paperwork even for that.
(Lily, sport facility director)
The reciprocal trust between sport commissions
and their partners formed the base for mutually bene-
ficial partnerships, which were frequently described
as “collaboration,” “cooperative partnership,”
“strategic alliance,” and “win–win” relationships.
According to the interviewees, their event-based
partnerships were decentralized and horizontal in
structure, with each partner making equal contri-
bution to the relationship. This nonhierarchical
arrangement encouraged mutual support and two-
way commitment. In the words of Jimmy:
We are not gonna ask them [partners] to give us
more resources than we are returning back, so it’s
all relative. (sport commission executive director)
Resource Exchange: Four Types of Resources
The willingness to make a mutual commitment
led to the reciprocal exchange of resources between
sport commissions and their partners. Within the
event-based partnerships, exchanges of financial,
material, human, and informational resources took
place between partnering organizations.
Financial Resources. Government partners (e.g.,
the city and the county) were the largest financial
 PARTNERSHIPS IN SPORT EVENT DELIVERY 435
contributors to the sport commissions, as they pro-
vided a significant amount of tax funding (e.g.,
tourism development, accommodation, and hospi-
tality taxes) to support the bidding for sport events
and organizations’ day-to-day operations. In turn,
sport commissions utilized some of the tax funding
they received from the government to support local
sport clubs (in charge of event operations) to offset
event costs:
It [the sport commission] helps us with expense
to pay for trophies, to pay our referees, cover
some cost like that. (Anderson, sport club general
manager)
Material Resource. Apart from the monetary sup-
port from governments, sport commissions gained
in-kind support from other partners. This included
rental discounts from facility partners, complimen-
tary rooms from hotel partners, coupons and food
donations from restaurants, and equipment and
catering services from local business partners:
We are also looking for in-kind trade outs from
other partners through businesses or hotels with
comp rooms or donations with food, things like
that, donation with services. (Jane, sport commis-
sion executive director)
Human Resources. The exchange of human
resources such as utilization of staff and expertise
played another big role in the partnerships. On the
one hand, sport commissions relied on the profes-
sional knowledge and technical expertise from
sport club and facility partners in terms of bidding
for and execution of the sport events. On the other
hand, sport commissions provided their expertise
in event operation and advertising to sport clubs.
Interviewees mentioned that sport commissions
helped struggling sport clubs with event schedul-
ing and marketing plans (e.g., giving them tutorials
on how to maximize event visibility through social
media).
Informational Resources. Information was shared
between sport commissions and partners through
phone calls and face-to-face interactions on a regu-
lar basis. Specifically, sport commissions shared
event calendars and venue availability information
with sport clubs to help them schedule events. They
also shared their estimation of participant numbers
to help the hoteliers be prepared for the upcom-
ing event. In return, sport commissions received
first-hand information from hotel partners about
customers’ feedback on the event. Communica-
tion between partners intensified as the event got
closer. Lily (sport facility director) reported that
her facility worked very closely with sport com-
missions on transportation coordination and crowd
management in the lead-up to an event. Likewise,
David (sport facility market development director),
who was in the middle of a busy event season, had
conversations with the sport commission on a day-
to-day basis:
We basically talk to them five times a week. . . .
It’s phone calls every single day.
Resource Exchange: Power Dynamics
The exchange of resources provided mutual ben-
efits for the partnering organizations, but it also
created power dynamics within the interorganiza-
tional relationships. It appeared that sport commis-
sions prioritized those partners who provided the
key resources to run an event. As such, government
and facility partners were perceived as the most
important partners, as public funding and facilities
were deemed the most crucial resources for sport
event organization. Ellen (sport commission execu-
tive director) revealed:
The funding is always important . . . this last
basketball tournament that we hosted, we pieced
together four municipalities and one state grant
money to provide them what they needed as host
city. If we hadn’t pieced that together then the
event just simply wouldn’t have come here.
She also highlighted the salience of facility
partners:
Facility and venue is at the top of importance
because if they don’t exist or they’re not acces-
sible . . . then whatever event we are looking at
simply cannot take place.
While the procession of critical resources made
governments and facilities powerful actors in
the partnerships, stark power differences did not
436 ZHOU ET AL.
emerge between sport commissions and these two
partners in the data. Instead, we found that sport
commissions played a key role in orchestrating
cooperative actions among various partners. Being
in the center of the sport event network, sport com-
missions had developed wide-reaching industry
connections. They served as “facilitators” who put
facilities, hotels, sport club, and business groups
into contact, coordinating their activities and ser-
vices. As described by the interviewees, sport com-
missions were “the first one to know about the
sport tournaments” and “the first point of contact
for the groups to call.” This informational advan-
tage conferred sport commissions strong influence
over governments, facilities, and other partners. As
a result, all partners perceived sport commissions
as highly important actors to their organizations.
Partnership Outcomes
The interactions and exchanges between sport
commissions and their partners produced positive
outcomes in multiple aspects including (a) relation-
ship benefits, (b) organizational benefits, and (c)
community benefits.
First, we found that the relationships between
sport commissions and their partners were strength-
ened and consolidated after years of collaboration
on sport events. Working together on sport event
delivery required constant communication (e.g.,
regular meetings, phone conversations, and face-
to-face interactions), which helped partnering orga-
nizations improve their mutual understanding. Hotel
manager Ben reflected that partnering with the sport
commission helped him better understand the sport
commission’s work and its effect on the local com-
munity. Sport events not only served as stimuli for
interorganizational relationships but also facilitated
interactions on a personal level. Personal phone calls
and informal conversations frequently took place
between leaders of two partnering organizations as a
result of repeated collaboration on sport events. Ben
recalled:
There’re times he [had difficulty] trying to find
some place to put up an official, he calls me on
cell phone. He doesn’t call hotels.
The increased interpersonal relationships also
manifested in cross-appointment of board members.
For example, Jane (sport commission director) and
Lily (sport facility director) served on the advisory
board in each other’s organization after working
closely together on sport events for 10 years.
Second, the partnerships around sport events
facilitated organizational learning. Through the
exchange of information and expertise, sport com-
missions advanced their sport-specific knowledge
by working with sport experts (e.g., head coaches
and athletic directors) in local sport clubs. On the
other hand, sport clubs learned marketing and oper-
ational skills from sport commissions. The learning
helped sport clubs to survive in the infant stage and
thrive in later stages of the organizational life cycle:
Ten years ago, when I was starting off, he [the sport
commission director] was a tremendous resource
to help me get started with [event name]. I sat and
talked to him numerous times about how I would
operate things, how I would go about advertising
and setting schedules. (Anderson, sport club gen-
eral manager)
A similar learning curve was experienced by
other partners as well. Many organizations had a
difficult time when engaging in a specific sport
event for the first time—which typically involved
detailed planning and extensive learning. As the
event began to be repeatedly hosted, organizations
became more competent in coping with all kinds
of issues related to the event because of the knowl-
edge they gained from prior event experience. As
such, the investment of time, effort, and resources
can be largely reduced in a recurring event with
knowledge being carried over from the previous
event.
Third, the exchange of complementary resources
and mutual support between partners enabled the
attainment of partnership objectives—that is, the
delivery of economic, social, and environmental
benefits in the local community. From an economic
standpoint, the input from partners across sec-
tors allowed sport commissions to host a diverse
range of sport events, which resulted in remarkable
“ripple effects.” As visitors came into town to par-
ticipate/attend sport events, they stayed in hotels,
dined in restaurants, shopped in stores, filled up on
gas, and engaged in diverse entertainment offer-
ings, bringing revenues for a variety of community
businesses. These event-based partnerships were
 PARTNERSHIPS IN SPORT EVENT DELIVERY 437
particularly important during low times when tra-
ditional tourism was stagnant, as they can drive
a significant number of sport tourists and stir up
local businesses. From a social standpoint, the
event-based partnerships promoted sport oppor-
tunities and quality of life among local residents
through the provision of well-organized and well-
known sport events. As such, local participants had
the opportunity to compete with top-tier athletes,
meanwhile their families could stay home for the
competitions without having to worry about travel
expenses.
From an environmental standpoint, sport commis-
sions worked with nonprofit environmental groups
on education programs during the event to raise
public awareness for environmental conservation.
In most cases, however, sport commissions were
not directly involved in the environmental initia-
tives (e.g., recycling and waste management) set up
by their facility partners, but they actively commu-
nicated with facilities to insure the event followed
environmental codes and left a light eco-footprint.
Overall, in concert with the primary mission of sport
commissions (i.e., to generate economic impacts
though sport events), we found that a majority of
the collaborative efforts around sport events were
devoted to the delivery of economic benefits in com-
parison to social and environmental benefits.
Partnership Challenges
While organizations gained various benefits
through event-based partnerships, they had to deal
with different challenges throughout the collabora-
tion process. First, divergent organizational values
created challenges in the partnership formation.
While most existing partners shared the same men-
tality as the local sport commission, there were
organizations in the community that did not under-
stand the importance of sport events in boosting
the local economy; thus, it was hard for sport com-
missions to engage those organizations in the sport
event network:
I would say it’s definitely the hardest part to make
them [potential partners] understand, if they are
not aware of the sport commission, make them
understand how much the economic impact
through sport events affects them. (Jane, sport
commission executive director)
Moreover, when leadership changed in the part-
nering organizations, sport commissions often faced
the difficulty of rebuilding personal relationships
with the new leaders who might or might not buy
in the vision of the local sport commission. Sec-
ond, the balance between personal and professional
relationships can be tricky in the resource exchange
process. According to a university facility manager
who had a close personal connection with the sport
commission director, she needed to be mindful of
not letting her personal relationship intervene on
her business operations:
A lot of times I knew they are doing a big event,
it’s fantastic for the community, and they need
help financially, because maybe it can be very
expensive for them, but legally I can’t give them,
as much as I personally want to, I can’t give them
a discount without some rationalization, some jus-
tifications, and some ability to show that I do not
treat them preferentially because of my relation-
ship with them. (Lily, sport facility director)
Third, resource constraints, especially the defi-
ciency in funding and staffing, limited sport com-
missions’ capacity to deliver positive and sustaining
outcomes out of the event-based partnerships. With-
out warranted funding from governments, sport
commissions had to request money through bed
taxes based on their impact on hotel stays. The
uncertainties and insecurities associated with finan-
cial income inhibited sport commissions from mak-
ing long-term development plans as reflected in the
following quote:
We don’t have any dedicated funding . . . we apply
every year. We are zero budget every year, so like
now I couldn’t tell you how much money we are
going to have July 1st—our new fiscal year. Our
budget is varied up and down over the years. . . .
It is a challenge to do long-term planning. To have
a long-term plan, to have a “we want to be doing
this in 10 years” when we are not sure exactly if
we will get approved for those funds. (Colin, sport
commission executive director)
Moreover, the inadequacies of full-time staff
forced sport commissions and some of their partners
(e.g., facilities) to rely heavily on volunteer assis-
tance. This can become a challenge when running a
large-scale event because they may not always secure
enough labor force from their regular volunteer base.
438 ZHOU ET AL.
In summary, our results revealed five main
components, as well as multiple interconnected
subcomponents, of the cross-sector partnerships
in sport event delivery. These findings provided
closer perspectives on the partnership dynamics
across different facets of event-based collabora-
tion. Implications of the findings are discussed in
the next section.
Discussion and Implications
Building on Parent and Harvey’s (2009) frame-
work, this study examined the components and
processes of intersectoral collaboration between
sport commissions and partner organizations based
on sport event delivery. The findings of this study
contribute to the extant literature in the following
four aspects:
First, the findings identified the prominence of a
number of components (i.e., project purpose/goal,
partner motives, partner complementarity and fit,
type of partnership, governance, coordination, trust,
organizational learning, mutuality, communica-
tion, power balance, and project/program outcome)
presented in Parent and Harvey’s (2009) partner-
ship model. While prior research has discussed the
importance of components such as common goals,
motives, complementarity and interdependencies,
collaboration forms, coordination, trust, mutual
learning, communication, power, and partnership
outcomes in contexts of physical activity projects
(Lucidarme et al., 2014), sport-for-development
initiatives (Welty Peachey et al., 2018), competi-
tive sport programs (Babiak & Thibault, 2009), and
sport policy implementation (Harris & Houlihan,
2016), the current study demonstrated the role of
these components in the collaborative delivery of
sport event outcomes.
Second, the findings extended the original part-
nership model (Parent & Harvey, 2009) by iden-
tifying specific outcomes, challenges, and key
conditions for the success of event-based partner-
ships. With regards to outcomes, we found that
collaboration on sport events can engender ben-
efits at three levels. First, at the intraorganizational
level, mutual exchanges of information and exper-
tise between partners can facilitate organizational
learning and knowledge development that, in turn,
help to build an organization’s skillset and various
capacities related to sport program operation, lead-
ership, and networking (Misener & Doherty, 2014;
Werner et al., 2015a). Second, at the interorgani-
zational level, collaboration on sport events can
strengthen interorganizational ties and foster social
capital among various community groups (Mackel-
lar & Jamieson, 2015; Werner et al., 2015b). Third,
at the community level, our findings confirmed the
view that event-based partnerships can be managed
strategically to achieve the triple bottom line (i.e.,
economic, social, and environmental objectives)
within the host community (O’Brien & Chalip,
2008).
With regards to partnership challenges, our find-
ings correspond with previous studies that pointed
to the pressure on community-based sport organi-
zations to acquire financial and human resources
(Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010; Jones et al., 2017). As
discussed in the literature, it seemed quite common
for small nonprofit sport organizations, which oper-
ate with limited budget and full-time employees, to
rely on external partners for funding and staffing
(Misener & Doherty, 2014). In the current study,
such high dependency resulted in uncertainties of
securing resources, which hindered sport commis-
sions developing long-term sport event plans. As
such, it was suggested that having guaranteed fund-
ing for a period of at least 3 years from external
partners was desired for the longevity of commu-
nity-based sport programs (Parent & Harvey, 2017).
Apart from resource constraints, sport commissions
also faced the challenge of negotiating divergent
values and objectives. This problem has been rec-
ognized in other studies (e.g., Babiak & Thibault,
2009; Harris & Houlihan, 2016; Hayhurst & Frisby,
2010) where competing organizational values was
a major issue in a collaborative arrangement. For
cross-sector partnerships, in particular, community
sport organizations often experienced the difficulty
of achieving goal congruency with entities from
other sectors—especially the commercial sector
whose mentality might be incompatible with the
nonprofit’s (Welty Peachey et al., 2018). In addi-
tion, the blurry boundary between professional and
personal relationships may give rise to conflict of
interests when dealing with multiple partners. This
was particularly relevant to community-based sport
organizations that tended to rely on informal part-
nership approaches (e.g., handshake, implicit or oral
 PARTNERSHIPS IN SPORT EVENT DELIVERY 439
agreement, friendships) (Gerke et al., 2018). How-
ever, building partnerships based on personal ties
may compromise the fairness and professionalism
of business operations. As noted by Misener and
Doherty (2014), it was important for community
sport organizations to act in a businesslike manner
in order to gain support from corporate partners.
With regards to the factors contributing to the
success of partnerships, our findings suggested
that common goals, trust, mutuality, and commu-
nication were key ingredients for partnership suc-
cess. First, establishing a common understanding
of the partnership goals and visions can increase
partners’ commitment and investment into their
joint endeavor (Babiak & Thibault, 2009; Parent
& Harvey, 2009). This is reflected in the current
study where sport commissions and their partners
were dedicated to the common objective of gener-
ating positive event outcomes for the local com-
munity. On the other hand, the lack of a congruent
goal and common ground might prohibit relevant
stakeholders (e.g., potential partners of sport com-
missions) buying into the core values of the part-
nership project (e.g., hosting sport events) (Gerke
et al., 2018). Second, trust was identified by each
partner organization as an important element in the
event-based partnership. Similar to our findings, it
was suggested that having an honest, integral, and
trustworthy partner was particularly important for
community sport organizations as legal contracts
were not always in place to guard against oppor-
tunisms (Misener & Doherty, 2013). Third, mutu-
ality (including mutual respect, mutual support,
and mutual benefits) enabled sport commissions
to maintain balanced, “win–win” relationships
with their partners. This corroborates Misener and
Doherty’s (2013) viewpoint that mutuality between
partners can ensure reciprocal give-and-take and
equal commitment to the relationships. Fourth, our
findings demonstrated the crucial role of commu-
nication in organizational learning and relationship
development. As indicated in the literature, regular
interactions and information exchange enabled col-
laborators to reap the benefits of new knowledge
and a better understanding of each other’s needs
(Babiak & Thibault, 2009; Wäsche & Woll, 2013).
Expanding on Parent and Harvey’s (2009) model,
our findings showed the interactions between part-
nership components. For example, we found that
resource-based motives and partner complemen-
tarity determined the horizontal structure and the
mutually beneficial nature of event-based partner-
ships. This mutuality, in turn, gave rise to reciprocal
exchange of resources between partners whereby
power differences were minimized. Such findings
reaffirm the importance of establishing mutuality
to overcome domination and conflicts in an asym-
metrical partnership (Babiak, 2007; Welty Peachey
& Cohen, 2016). In addition, we observed the inter-
connection between trust and communication. Spe-
cifically, the interorganizational trust established
the foundation for open and transparent communi-
cation that, in turn, can strengthen the mutual trust
between partners (Ring & Van de Ven, 1994). Fur-
thermore, iterative communication and information
sharing can deepen partners’ mutual understanding
and as such may result in greater consensus and
buy-in of the partnership goal (Wäsche & Woll,
2013; Welty Peachey et al., 2018).
Lastly, the results demonstrated a few distinctive
characteristics of community-based partnerships
that were unique to the sport event context. First,
we found that the nature of the sport event (i.e.,
event type, location, and scope) determined the
activation of specific partners. Second, the knowl-
edge and relationship components of the event-
based partnership can transcend discrete events and
be sustained over time. This is an interesting point
in light of Werner’s et al. (2015a) claims concern-
ing the application of knowledge acquired from
prior partnership experience to future event con-
texts, as well as, Ihm and Castillo’s (2017) findings
speaking to the endurance of collaborative ties over
the temporality of events. Moreover, sport events
can serve as stimuli for interorganizational relation-
ships. In this respect, Werner et al. (2015b) found
that the desire to deliver a successful sport event
and the pressure to meet the strict deadline pushed
partner organizations to work closely together.
Likewise, our findings showed that the short time
frame of sport events and the fleeting collaboration
opportunity forced partners to engage in highly fre-
quent and intensified interactions, thus providing a
platform for building interorganizational relation-
ships (Ihm & Castillo, 2017).
The present study provides practical implications
for local event organizers (e.g., sport commissions
and other community-based sport organizations)
440 ZHOU ET AL.
that are involved in cross-sector partnerships. As
collaboration on sport event delivery can catalyze
relationship development, event organizers should
seize such opportunity and strategically strengthen
relationships with their partners. Apart from having
intense and close interactions with partners during
the event, event organizers should capitalize on the
momentum and actively seek to continue collabora-
tion opportunities in the postevent stage. Moreover,
given the importance of interpersonal linkages in
the development of informal IORs, event managers
should pay more attention to building personal con-
tacts with staff in the partner organizations. Hav-
ing better personal and working relationships with
collaborators also facilitate mutual learning; thus,
event managers and organizers should leverage
the collaboration opportunity for gaining knowl-
edge and building capacity. For example, they can
acquire sport-specific expertise from club coaches,
marketing techniques from business owners, and
customer service skills from hotel partners. Fur-
thermore, being the focal organizations and central
players in the event-based partnerships, community
sport organizations such as sport commissions need
to take the lead and orchestrate activities and input
from various partners (including those with greater
resources and power). To coordinate all these rela-
tionships, community sport organizations need to
enhance their influences over partners by building
up core competencies and capacities (e.g., special-
ized skills and knowledge). Also, fostering part-
ners’ “buy-in” of sport event values and cultivating
trust and reciprocity can be helpful for developing
balanced, healthy event-based partnerships.
Limitations and Future Research
In presenting our findings, we recognize a
number of limitations that also provided plentiful
opportunities for future research. First, the pres-
ent study only looks into the dyadic relationships
between the focal organization (e.g., sport com-
mission) and its partners. The IORs are far more
complicated in reality. As such, researchers are
encouraged to employ network theory or stake-
holder theory to look into the intertwining relation-
ships in both internal and external environments.
Second, the study made an attempt to reveal the
interplay between sport event characteristics and
collaboration dynamics. This can be an intrigu-
ing avenue for future research, given that new
perspectives may be generated by examining and
comparing partnership components across events
of a different nature (e.g., youth vs. adult sport
events) and across different stages of an event
(e.g., planning, implementation, and postevent).
While prior studies (e.g., Babiak, 2007; Gerke et
al., 2018; Misener & Doherty, 2013, 2014; Parent
& Harvey, 2009, 2017) have looked into a range
of components within community-based sport
partnerships, few have sought to investigate the
unique influence of sport events on these compo-
nents (e.g., how an event-based partnership may
differ from a general partnership approach). As
such, we encourage scholars to address this knowl-
edge gap in future. Finally, while in this study we
interviewed both sides (i.e., sport commission and
partner) of the partnership, our implications can
be further extended if we include people at mul-
tiple levels of the organization. It would be equally
worthwhile to learn perspectives from midlevel
or frontline employees rather than people taking
a leadership role (e.g., presidents, directors, man-
agers) in an organization, as staff in lower posi-
tions are more involved in day-to-day operations
and hence are more knowledgeable about specific
collaborative activities (Werner et al., 2016). Built
upon the findings of this present study, we also
encourage future studies to investigate the inter-
actions between individuals and organizations. It
would be interesting to learn how the values and
beliefs held by individual agents shape the IOR
structure and how interpersonal trust and com-
munication influence the outcomes of IOR. The
integration of a personal level analysis may also
provide a richer understanding and carry more
insightful implications.
Acknowledgment
We thank the Southern Sport Management Doc-
toral Research Symposium (SSMDS) for the fund-
ing support.
ORCID
Walker J. Ross: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4194-8629
Rebecca Leopkey: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5870-8699
 PARTNERSHIPS IN SPORT EVENT DELIVERY 441

Appendix A: Interview Guide for Sport Commissions

Part I. Introductory Question
(1) What is the mission of your organization? How do you achieve that mission?
(2) What types of sport events do you involve with every year?

Part II. Identifying Partnerships

(1) Do you currently have any partnerships with other organizations, companies, or public sectors to achieve
your mission?
(2) Who are your partners? What is their role in achieving the mission of your organization?
(3) How long have these partnerships been established?
(4) What kind of partnerships do you have with the partner organizations mentioned above?
(5) If you are asked to rate your partners on a 10-point scale based on their importance, what rating (from
1 to 10) will you give to each of your partners? Why?
(6) Are there any entities that are not your partners but still have significant influence on your organization?
How do they influence your organization in terms of achieving your mission?

Part III. Partnerships and Organization

(1) What does your organization gain from the partnerships? What benefits does your organization bring to
your partners?
(2) For the long term, do you see the partnerships change?
(3) What are the challenges faced by your organization in the partnerships?

Part V Partnerships and Sport Events

(1) What are your (economic, social, and environmental) goals of hosting sport events?
(2) Do you think partnerships help to achieve those goals? Why? Do you have specific partnerships for each
type of goals?
(3) Do your partners differ across different types/scales of sport events?
(4) What does the community you operate in gain from these partnerships? Do you need these partnerships
to sustain the impacts you have on the community?
(5) How do you work with your partners in order to maximize the economic, social, and environmental out-
comes of sport events for the community?

Appendix B: Interview Guide for Partner Organizations

Part I. Sport Event Partnerships (Intro Questions)
(1) How would you describe your relationship with the sport commission (SC) in your region?
(2) How long has this relationship been established?
(3) Are you involved in any sport events with SC? What type of sport events are you involved in with SC
every year?
(4) How are you involved in these sport events? What is your role in delivering these events?
(5) Why are you involved in these events? What is your goal of supporting sport events in the community?
(6) To achieve the goal you just mentioned, how do you interact with SC? What resources do you exchange
with SC in this process?
442 ZHOU ET AL.

Part II. Organizational Outcomes

(1) What does your organization gain from your partnership with SC? In other words, how does this partner-
ship benefit your organization?
(2) How do you contribute to this partnership? For example, how do you contribute to the mission of sport
commission?
(3) Do you perceive your relationship with SC as important? If so, why do you think it’s important for you
to keep a good relationship with SC?
(4) What are the challenges faced by your organization in this partnership?
(5) Over the long term, do you see this partnership change?

Part III. Sport Event Outcomes

(1) In what ways do you think the community benefits from your partnership with SC?
(2) How do you work with SC to maximize the economic outcomes of sport events? How about social and
environmental outcomes?
(3) Do you work differently with SC in sport events at different scales?

Part IV. Supplementary Questions

(1) Are there other partners you also involved with in delivering SC events?
(2) When delivering SC events, which partner is most important to you? How important is SC to you when
delivering these events?

References
Babiak, K. (2007). Determinants of interorganizational rela-
tionships: The case of a Canadian nonprofit sport orga-
nization. Journal of Sport Management, 21(3), 338–376.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.21.3.338
Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2009). Challenges in mul-
tiple cross-sector partnerships. Nonprofit and Volun-
tary Sector Quarterly, 38(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/​
10.1177/0899764008316054
Babiak, K., Thibault, L., & Willem, A. (2018). Mapping
research on interorganizational relationships in sport
management: Current landscape and future research
prospects. Journal of Sport Management, 32(3), 272–
294. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2017-0099
Chalip, L. (2004). Beyond impact: A general model for sport
event leverage. In B. W. Ritchie & D. Adair (Eds.), Sport
tourism: Interrelationships, impacts and issues (pp. 226–
252). Channel View Publications.
Chalip, L. (2006). Towards social leverage of sport events.
Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11(2), 109–127. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14775080601155126
Chalip, L., & Leyns, A. (2002). Local business leveraging of
a sport event: Managing an event for economic benefit.
Journal of Sport Management, 16(2), 132–158. https://
doi.org/10.1123/jsm.16.2.132
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Coop-
erative strategy and sources of interorganizational com-
petitive advantage. Academy of Management Review,
23(4), 660–679. https://doi.org/10.2307/259056
Ford, R. C., Wang, Y., & Vestal, A. (2012). Power asym-
metries in tourism distribution networks. Annals of Tour-
ism Research, 39(2), 755–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2011.10.001
Gerke, A., Babiak, K., Dickson, G., & Desbordes, M.
(2018). Developmental processes and motivations for
linkages in cross-sectoral sport clusters. Sport Manage-
ment Review, 21(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
smr.2017.05.005
Gibson, H. J., Kaplanidou, K., & Kang, S. J. (2012). Small-
scale event sport tourism: A case study in sustainable
tourism. Sport Management Review, 15(2), 160–170.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2011.08.013
Harris, S., & Houlihan, B. (2016). Implementing the com-
munity sport legacy: The limits of partnerships, contracts
and performance management. European Sport Manage-
ment Quarterly, 16(4), 433–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/
16184742.2016.1178315
Hayhurst, L. M., & Frisby, W. (2010). Inevitable tensions:
Swiss and Canadian sport for development NGO per-
spectives on partnerships with high performance sport.
European Sport Management Quarterly, 10(1), 75–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16184740903554140
Ihm, J., & Castillo, E. A. (2017). Development and trans-
formation of collaborative networks in events. Journal
of Convention & Event Tourism, 18(3), 205–224. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15470148.2017.1322021
Jones, G. J., Edwards, M., Bocarro, J. N., Bunds, K. S.,
& Smith, J. W. (2017). Collaborative advantages: The
role of inter-organizational partnerships for youth sport
 PARTNERSHIPS IN SPORT EVENT DELIVERY 443
non-profit organizations. Journal of Sport Management,
31(2), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2016-0118
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. https://doi.
org/10.1080/16184740802024344
Koschmann, M. A., Kuhn, T. R., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2012).
A communicative framework of value in cross-sector
partnerships. Academy of Management Review, 37(3),
332–354. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0314
Lai, A. Y. (2012). Organizational collaborative capac-
ity in fighting pandemic crises: A literature review
from the public management perspective. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Public Health, 24(1), 7–20. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1010539511429592
Leopkey, B., & Parent, M. M. (2017). The governance of
Olympic legacy: Process, actors and mechanisms. Lei-
sure Studies, 36(3), 438–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/​
02614367.2016.1141973
Loza, J. (2004). Business-community partnerships: The
case for community organization capacity building.
Journal of Business Ethics, 53(3), 297–311. https://doi.
org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039415.90007.56
Lucidarme, S., Marlier, M., Cardon, G., De Bourdeaudhuij,
I., & Willem, A. (2014). Critical success factors for phys-
ical activity promotion through community partnerships.
International Journal of Public Health, 59(1), 51–60.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-013-0527-5
Mackellar, J., & Jamieson, N. (2015). Assessing the con-
tribution of a major cycle race to host communities in
South Australia. Leisure Studies, 34(5), 547–565. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2014.938772
Mackintosh, C. (2011). An analysis of county sports part-
nerships in England: The fragility, challenges and com-
plexity of partnership working in sports development.
International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 3(1),
45–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2010.524809
Meyskens, M. A. (2010). How do partnerships lead to a
competitive advantage? Applying the resource based
view to nascent social ventures [Doctoral dissertation,
Florida International University]. FIU Electronic Theses
and Dissertations. 238. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/
etd/238
Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualita-
tive data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.).
SAGE Publications. https://www.amazon.com/Quali-
tative-Data-Analysis-Methods-Sourcebook/dp/145225​
7876
Misener, K., & Doherty, A. (2013). Understanding capac-
ity through the processes and outcomes of interorgani-
zational relationships in non-profit community sport
organizations. Sport Management Review, 16, 135–147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2012.07.003
Misener, K., & Doherty, A. (2014). In support of sport: Exam-
ining the relationship between community sport organi-
zations and sponsors. Sport Management Review, 17(4),
493–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.12.002
Misener, L., Taks, M., Chalip, L., & Green, B. C. (2015).
The elusive “trickle-down effect” of sport events:
Assumptions and missed opportunities. Managing Sport
and Leisure, 20(2), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/​
23750472.2015.1010278
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J.
(2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthi-
ness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
O’Brien, D., & Chalip, L. (2008). Sport events and strate-
gic leveraging: pushing towards the triple bottom line. In
A. Woodside & D. Martin (Eds.), Tourism management:
Analysis, behaviour and strategy (pp. 318–338). CABI.
Osborne, S. P. (2000). Public private partnerships: Theory
and practice in international perspective. Routledge.
Parent, M. M., & Harvey, J. (2009). Towards a management
model for sport and physical activity community-based
partnerships. European Sport Management Quarterly,
9(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184740802461694
Parent, M. M., & Harvey, J. (2017). A partnership-based
evaluation of a community-based youth sport and physi-
cal activity programme. Sport in Society, 20(1), 7–29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2015.1124561
Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental pro-
cesses of cooperative interorganizational relationships.
Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90–118. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amr.1994.9410122009
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The
art of hearing data. SAGE Publications.
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative
researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Schulenkorf, N., & Edwards, D. (2012). Maximizing posi-
tive social impacts: Strategies for sustaining and lever-
aging the benefits of intercommunity sport events in
divided societies. Journal of Sport Management, 26(5),
379–390. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.26.5.379
Taks, M., Chalip, L., & Green, B. C. (2015). Impacts and stra-
tegic outcomes from non-mega sport events for local com-
munities. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(1),
1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2014.995116
Thibault, L., Frisby, W., & Kikulis, L. M. (1999). Inter­
organizational linkages in the delivery of local leisure
services in Canada: Responding to economic, political
and social pressures. Managing Leisure, 4(3), 125–141.
https://doi.org/10.1080/136067199375805
Wäsche, H., & Woll, A. (2013). Managing regional sports
tourism networks: A network perspective. European
Sport Management Quarterly, 13(4), 404–427. https://
doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2013.811608
Welty Peachey, J., & Cohen, A. (2016). Research partner-
ships in sport for development and peace: Challenges,
barriers, and strategies. Journal of Sport Management,
30(3), 282–297. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2014-0288
Welty Peachey, J., Cohen, A., Shin, N., & Fusaro, B. (2018).
Challenges and strategies of building and sustaining
inter-organizational partnerships in sport for develop-
ment and peace. Sport Management Review, 21(2), 160–
175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.06.002
444 ZHOU ET AL.
Werner, K., Dickson, G., & Hyde, K. F. (2015a). Coope-
tition and Knowledge transfer dynamics: New Zea-
land’s regional tourism organizations and the 2011
Rugby World Cup. Event Management, 19(3), 365–
380. http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599515X143862208​
74841
Werner, K., Dickson, G., & Hyde, K. F. (2015b). The impact
of a mega-event on inter-organisational relationships and
tie strength: Perceptions from the 2011 Rugby World
Cup. Sport Management Review, 18(3), 421–435. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2014.11.005
Werner, K., Dickson, G., & Hyde, K. F. (2016). Mega-events
and increased collaborative capacity of tourism destina-
tions: The case of the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management, 5(3), 227–238.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.009
Yin, R. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods.
SAGE Publications.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust
matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and
interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Sci-
ence, 9(2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.141
Copyright of Event Management is the property of Cognizant, LLC and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.