Types of sports organizations

First of all, what do we mean by a sports team[1]? A team may also be considered as an organisation. One might immediately think of football or handball teams when talking about sports teams; however, rowing, tennis with two players (doubles) or gymnastics teams are also listed among teams by the current literature in special cases. What are the key differences then? Those groups of players that consist of at least two members are generally called teams in any branch of sport. The literature analyses these branches from several perspectives. The following section deals with some of these features.

Team cohesion, required for successful sports performance between members who cooperate in order to achieve a goal, can be interactive (in the case of handball, basketball, volleyball, football, etc.). As we can see it, a special inner structure characterises these teams due to the interactions of members, and that is why each and every team-mate has to find his/her position (not only on the field but also in the locker room, which is very often forgotten by them). On the other hand, in other groups, also known as additive or summative team types (kayaking and canoeing, tennis with two players (doubles), gymnastics teams), the efficacy of members is added together (Baumann, 2006).

According to another model, there are interactive and coactive (not much or no interaction or cooperation is required in the latter) groups. Interactive sports require individuals to work directly with each other. Members may only be successful in attack and defence if they constantly adjust their movements to match others’. Therefore, we could say that the evergreen proverb seems to be true here, “one swallow does not make a summer”, meaning that even teams with poor performance abilities might have the chance to be successful with high levels of cooperation (Baumann, 2006).

Cratty (1983), who studied the relation between group cohesiveness and performance, divided team sports into the following three main categories on the basis of the level of cohesion related to the goal (Nagykáldi, 1998:97):

• coactive teams: the frequency of interaction and the level of coordination between members are rather low (for example, archery, bowling, shooting, wrestling);
• interactive teams: the frequency of interaction and the level of cooperation between members are both required (for example, handball, football, volleyball);
• mixed teams: display all the features mentioned above (for example, jumping in athletics, rowing, relay swimming).

The two basic components of cohesion occur differently in the groups listed above. A goal functions as a stronger cohesive force in the case of coactive teams, while these groups are characterised by weaker social cohesive forces. The reverse is true of interactive teams, whereas mixed groups have almost identical levels of goal-oriented and social cohesive forces.

In his work, Baumann (2006), a sport psychologist, cites the thoughts of Steiner (1972), who studied the key psychological factors of team performance and proved that a team’s level of performance is always lower than the simple sum of individual performance. The root cause of this is losses resulting from team processes such as a deficit caused by the lack of trust, the loss of trust, or dissatisfaction. Therefore, Baumann finds it crucial to further investigate these variables.

As stated by Rókusfalvy (1992:148): “We might find it unimportant or try not to realise the significance of the development of a good atmosphere in the association/organisation that employs players, as well as that of a healthy team spirit, and a strong trainer-player relationship, but these factors most of all do not only contribute to the good mood of athletes (which is not secondary at all but is not the most important factor) but also have an objective influence (resulting in goals, scores, etc.) on general performance, thus shall be enhanced by sports experts.” As we can see it, players’ attitudes towards their club and team play a crucial role when developing the abilities to cope with psychological burdens (Rókusfalvy, 1992), all the expectations coming from inside and outside of their groups, they face all the time.

Sports teams are actually special organisations the members of which work together to reach common goals by means of coordinated activities, having their own unique inner dynamics, structures, and hierarchy. In addition to this, group identity is normally strong in sports teams, by the help of which team members differentiate themselves from the members of other groups and strengthen their own unity. There are several expectations both on the part of athletes and clubs which may increase or decrease players’ effort to reach goals, thus influencing the performance itself, when met or failed to be met, respectively. These mutual expectations are included in the so-called psychological contract, as described above. We can also claim that the success of sports organisations has two dimensions. One of them is the results achieved by a sports team, for example, winning a championship or a cup. And the other one is of economic nature, for instance, making the biggest possible profit. The two go hand in hand at best, but there are cases – however, it happens rarely – when a club does better in terms of sports results than economic gains (for example, the former Mizo-Pécs women basketball team, which despite having won titles in a row, got financially overwhelmed, ceased to exist finally due to financial problems). Otherwise, there are occasions when teams are financially more successful than in terms of results, for example, due to the organisation of professional championships in North America, teams which do not qualify for the payoffs but play over 80 matches during a season might make a great deal of profit after receiving money from tickets sold, TV broadcasting, and merchandising.