Britball
 

 
 
 

Consultation Documents
 
Hoopchat - Have Your Say

BBL

NBL Men 

NBL Women

Ireland

Scotland
 

FRONT PAGE
 

 

Who governs the guvnors ?

Charges of mis-management have been levelled against the custodians of the game but who is really accountable ?

Mark Woods
 

I recently received a copy of an open letter on the future of English basketball compiled by Brixton's well-respected coach Jimmy Rogers which criticised, amongst other matters, the support which his set up receives from the pockets of the sport's governing body.

Rogers alleges England has become a "third world" country in basketball terms and believes that "it is due to the fact that the vast majority of our finances are determined by and spent on administrators, not the players or coaches." He adds that achieving meaningless standards have become an obstacle to growing the game and that a lack of indoor facilities is a crippling issue.

A reply made by EBBA chief executive Simon Kirkland admitted mistakes had been made but that steps had been taken to rectify the problem.  In particular, Kirkland offers that "the critical issue (when he took office) was that the EBBA were not supporting or helping the clubs" but a stricter application of the rules set out by the clubs themselves would push standards in the right direction.

The debate, on which both parties make valid arguments, does however call into question one crucial issue and which in public has warranted little examination.
What exactly is the governing body's reason for existence ?

By co-incidence, the EBBA have just launched a consultation paper which is seeking public views on what strategies and objectives the organisation should pursue over the longer term to improve the health of basketball.

It is well-thought out document which asks all the right questions and offers a genuine chance for everyone to have an input.

Above all, promotion of the game must be paramount but are there too many voices diluting the message of selling basketball ? 

Bring people into the system. We receive numerous enquiries per week from people asking where they can go play the game or join a team. In England, we refer them to the offices of the EBBA who we believe whose job it is to satisfy such requests directly. Far too often, the correspondent returns unsatisfied and no less aware. Surely, that point alone illustrates that there are areas on which the public is not being served.

Another area is the running of the National Basketball Leagues. Ironically, it the one area of the Association's activities in which the level of service is rarely, if ever, criticised. And rightly so, because it is run in an extremely efficient manner.

However the whole uproar over the creation NBL's Super League (or whatever it will eventually be entitled) raises the issue of whether overseeing 'professional' basketball should be a priority when resources are being divided up. 

The motives behind the new structure are essentially sound. Those teams who want to raise their standards can now do so in unison and will hope to drag others upward with them. Yet isn't that the reason that the BBL was established in the first place ? 

Clubs that are spending time assembling a worthwhile development system should be applauded, given the paucity of such endeavours among many of the 13 clubs at the top level of the domestic game. It is the sort of project, like those in Brixton, or Manchester, or Leicester that ought to be backed to the hilt.

Kirkland makes the valid points that those clubs who can fund the funding for foreign players are often those to de-cry that there is no money in the kitty for development. What difference does an extra import in  the new Division One make? There are no huge profits to be made nor prizes at stake nor television monies. So why bother when there are more suitable items on which to allocate expenditure ? Like building a club with various tentacles in its community rather than a single team with its wallets in the hands of foreign agents.

The Super League's birth illustrated perfectly that the system put in place to govern the EBBA's administration leaves much to be desired. The initiative to have a clean slate is not unreasonable but its enaction has left both the full-time staff, and those who sit on its various committees, wide open to charges of cronyism.

In particular, Portsmouth's elevation into Division One left many with a sour taste, given that the club's sudden elevation in spite of its on-court failures was decided by a small panel which included a representative of the south coast club.

Co-incidence ? Well, probably yes, since Portsmouth's delegate took no part in the discussions concerning his own side. But the view was that it was a stitched-up act of favouritism and such perceptions, however ill-founded, do nothing to raise the confidence which the basketball public hold for the sport's so-called guardians. At best, it was an extreme display of naivety which was poorly handled by all concerned. At worst, amateurish.

It is true the EBBA is under-resourced. And that many successes - such as those in Brixton - are in spite of, rather than because of system.

But the buck stops at the top and if you feel you aren't being served by either the strategy-makers or the people who administer their ideas then stop and ask questions and react to the consultation document. Because finding the answers might just be the difference between getting everyone getting it right or wrong.


Copyright Britball. Download is subject to Britball's Terms of Service.