ABSTRACT

Nonprofits in general long for fundraising guidance, market and donor research, and strategic planning support from academia. Within this sector, US amateur sports could represent a $60.5 billion segment, which receives but a small portion of total donations. To help close the gap, this paper presents a case study that can serve as a model to optimize nonprofit performance based on an amateur sports organization, which combines three related studies: a time-series analysis of nonprofits in the US showing that revenues depend largely on awareness and income, and points to the need to choose the right target and put the message out to raise funds; a donor survey which showed that, individually, decisions to give are based mostly on pride, pity, PR, personal interest, and pleasure, and points to the need to craft the right appeal; and a cross-sectional, six-country analysis of a proposed structure and processes that represents the underlying theory for this paper, which showed how networking, fiscal leveraging, and a coherent narrative, supported by the proper strategy and organization, generate external influence and revenues, thus emphasizing the need to follow proper procedure to achieve the desired results. A deep dive into the scientific literature sets the stage to analyze 17 years of experience in the WSKF Sports Foundation, part of a worldwide organization that spans over 110 countries and a million members, and raised up to $3.3 million at its peak in 2015, winning 266 world medals between 2007 and 2017, thereby providing a blueprint for fundraising in sports that can extend to most nonprofit organizations.

Key Words: sponsorship, strategy, process, model, medals, nonprofit, WSKF, foundation

INTRODUCTION

This paper points to the most pressing needs of nonprofit organizations. An unpublished survey of the Center for Marketing Advantage, Advancement, and Action of Rutgers University, working with the membership of the NJ Center for Nonprofits, pinpointed the demands of private foundations; fundraising, marketing and donor research stand out as the most urgent requirements of NGOs, followed by specifics like digital marketing and communications, market research, and strategic planning. Tracking 17 years of nonprofit research and amateur sports experience, we aim to present a tested and proven model to optimize nonprofit performance with the support of three specific research studies and a wide search of the literature.

The proposed model is supported by a cross-sectional test of Koschmann, Khun & Pfaerrer’s theory (23) done by Quevedo (33), a time series analysis of the US nonprofit sector by Quevedo & Quevedo-Prince (36), and a national survey that studied the driving motives to donate by Quevedo and Lee (35), which extended prior research by Quevedo and Gopalakrishna (34) on consumer preferences applying them in the nonprofit field.

The WSKF Venezuela Sports Foundation, part of a Japanese karate federation, the World Shotokan Karate-do Federation, that spans over 20,000 clubs and over a million members in more than 100 countries, served as the basis for a six-country analysis that showed how networking, leveraging, and a coherent narrative, deployed on the shoulders of the proper strategy, organization and processes, generate external influence (press coverage and lobbying power), and lead to substantially more revenues for the organization.

These studies and experiences showed that choosing the right target, designing the right appeal, and following the right approach, strategy and processes, will boost press coverage and drive fundraising. It is not just about saying and doing the right things, nonprofits must do the right things correctly.

A key paradox in amateur sports is whether funding follows medals or medals follow funding. In the case of the WSKF Sports Foundation, winning seemed to be the key to fundraising. Winning in one championship leveraged the next championship cycle. Looking at other causes, however, we must ask, should they generate social benefits to raise funds or raise funds to generate benefits? This chicken-and-the-egg paradox (Illustration 1) is paramount in sports, since medals increase media coverage and provide bragging rights to get more funds, but then funds, and training of course, are the means to get those medals, but it may not be necessarily true in other scenarios.

Illustration # 1: Medals and Funds – A Virtuous Circle in Amateur Sports

BACKGROUND

The youth and amateur sports industry is booming. The sector’s direct spending impact was valued at $39.7 billion in 2021, says a Sports ETA’s industry report signed by Clement (6). Wintergreen Research predicted that this market would grow at a compound annual growth rate of 8.9% until 2028. The NCAA generated a record $1.22 billion of revenue in 2022 from March Madness ticket sales, merchandise and television broadcast rights. Indeed, CBS and Turner Sports will pay the NCAA up to $19.6 billion over a 22-year contract term said Morones (31). These elements can add up to a $41 billion industry which depends in good part on fundraising to survive. However, sports are but a minuscule part of the philanthropic market and dynamics, so small that they do not make the charts. Certainly, more research support is needed to develop the sector. Unfortunately, marketing literature is unable to provide meaningful guidance because scant research attention has hampered a fuller understanding of why people help, as Bendapudi, Singh & Bendapudi found (2).

Chart 1: Nonprofit Revenues in the US

The professional sports market on the other hand is projected to reach close to $85 billion this year and that may not consider royalties for branded sports clothing and memorabilia according to Statista (39). Based on these figures, we could be looking at an umbrella sports market of $126 billion in the US alone, and perhaps as much as $500 billion worldwide by extrapolation (based on US vs. world GDP). 

METHODS

Sargeant and Shang (2010) emphasized that the need for a comprehensive model for fundraising has never been greater (37). Accordingly, we aim to provide a blueprint for funding amateur sports based on both theory and practice, leaning on three specific research studies, a deep dive into the scientific literature, and 17 years of successful fundraising experience with the WSKF Venezuela Sports Foundation, and 20 years of foundational work overall. Furthermore, we aimed to answer the question “will the right target and message, the right appeal and the right approach drive fundraising success, or do we need credentials and credibility upfront to attract sponsors?”

Illustration # 2: Kushman’s et al (2012) Model for Nonprofits

The WSKF Venezuela Sports Foundation raised up to $3.3 million (at the official rate of exchange) in its peak year, 2015, when its national team won 66 world medals in Tokyo, and received 73 press mentions which reverberated throughout the web internationally. These results speak for themselves. Its model was in use since 2008, and was replicated in Japan, the US, Canada, Panama, Spain, Ireland and other countries where the organization is present. A cross-sectional study, covering six countries, tested how much a gap in the execution of the appropriate model will affect  fundraising results.

Data Analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 29.0.2.0 (IBM). Multiple regression was combined with factor analysis in the time series modeling of the US nonprofit sector. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated, as were the significance and p-values once the best fitting variables were identified. The donor decision model was determined through multinomial logistic regression, considering the extensive use of categorical variables. Cronbach’s alpha, Pseudo-R² coefficients, significance and Chi-square values were calculated as well. Compare means was used in the cross-sectional analysis of six countries represented in the WSKF Sports Foundation to validate variations in their results. 

Prior Research Studies

Traditionally, the largest source of charitable giving in the US are individuals, not corporations, with $268.28 billion in donations which represent 71% of total giving, followed by foundations ($57.19 billion or 16%), bequests ($28.72 billion or 9%), and corporations ($18.46 billion or 5%). The average annual household contribution to nonprofits stood at $2,974, according to Statista (42). The majority of charitable dollars go to churches (32%), schools and colleges (15%), human services (12%), grant-making foundations (11%), and hospitals in general (8%). Sports does not make the Top 5 in this report.

List says that the nonprofit market revolves around three major players: (1) the donors, who provide the resources to charities. These can be corporations, public institutions, individuals, and non-government organizations (NGOs); (2) charitable organizations, which attract and allocate resources; and (3) the government, which decides on the fiscal framework for individual, corporate and NGO contributions, shapes the supply of grants to the various charities, and decides which public goods it will provide directly (28).

This proposal feeds from three research studies and 17 years of fundraising experience with the WSKF Sports Foundation. First, a predictive model of the US Nonprofit Sector based on time-series analysis showed that Nonprofit Revenues (NPR) depend largely on Public Awareness, as measured by TV coverage, and on Disposable Personal Income (DPI), specifically: NPR = – 4401.542 + 528.327(DPI) +23.121(TV Coverage) + Ɛ (36). Pearson’s R came up to 0.935, significance levels were at 0.001. Confirmatory Factor Analysis reaffirmed the fit of the equation, with an R² of 0.87. These findings indicate that nonprofits must first choose their targets well. Then fundraisers must put the message out, if they wish to get funds.

The question is “what should nonprofits say?” The second reference comes from a survey of 615 respondents, using their alma mater, the ASPCA, St. Jude’s Hospital for Children, a local homeless shelter, and their church as references; considering pride, pity, PR, personal interest, and pleasure as the driving motives, testing which appeal worked best to communicate a Nonprofit Organization’s message to generate funds. These were called “The 5-Ps of Fundraising” (35). Based on the pseudo-R² coefficients generated by Multinomial Logistic Regression, the model reflected a predictive ability of 49.7%. All criteria were statistically significant. The pleasure of giving was the strongest driver, coming out as an underlying motivator in the donating decision. Different social causes respond differently to alternate fundraising appeals, therefore, determining which appeal works best is key to success. Ignoring the key drivers in the decision to donate may lead to being both ineffective and inefficient. These findings tell fundraisers how to craft the right appeal.

The third study would show how to deliver the right appeal to the right target, and how to operate a nonprofit organization successfully. Looking into the literature, Curry, Rodin and Carlson proposed that organizations that operate on transformational approaches to fundraising have fared significantly better than those which operate on a more transactional basis, and that the greater physical proximity of the donor base of an organization would positively impact fundraising (7). Wallace said that predictive modeling has concentrated on big-donor analytics, largely aimed at the identification of potential donors (43). Nonetheless, Koschman et al. (23) presented a more detailed model for optimizing the performance of Nonprofit Organizations (Illustration 2), which in hindsight, was being used by the organization under study years before it was published. Their model became thereby the underlying theory for this case study.

Indeed, Harris says that case analysis is a valid learning tool for research in fundraising for sports (15). Accordingly, we tested the Koschman et al. (23) model on the WSKF Venezuela Sports Foundation, part of a Japanese federation that spans over 20,000 clubs and more than one million members in more than 100 countries throughout all the continents except Antarctica, using six countries (the US, Panama, Spain, Ireland, Canada, and Venezuela) to find cross sectional illustrations of how the “meaningful participation” of members, the “centripetal forces” generated by the organization and its environment, and the consolidation of an institutional image through a “coherent narrative,” worked on the basis of “authoritative texts,” to use the original labels (23), generated “external influences” and led to substantially more revenues for the organization (33). These findings in sum tell fundraisers to follow proper procedure, a solid strategy, detailed plans and professional processes to achieve the desired results, given the choice of the right target and an appropriate message and appeal.

Although a better understanding of nonprofit dynamics and of the factors that affect fundraising efficiency is essential to charity managers, policy makers, and private donors, research has focused more on the micro than the macro view, says Yi (46), and not quite on the “how to” of organizational performance. Guy and Patton say that nonprofit marketing should begin with a basic understanding of motivations and donor behavior rather than merely adopting prefabricated marketing techniques (14). Sure enough, to be competitive, charitable organizations must rely on carefully formulated promotional programs, but there is an urgent need for research to identify the prevalence and effectiveness of different messages, according to Leonhardt and Peterson (27), who add that more than 55% of all NGOs appeal to selfless consumer motives (i.e., altruism), which is appropriate. However, an important experiment revealed that appealing to more selfless vs. less selfless (i.e., reputation) motives results in consumers having a more favorable attitude toward the charitable organization. So, there is more to donating than just the desire to help, and there is more to fundraising than just asking for money to those who have it. Consumer involvement, for instance, is found to have an important effect on the decision to donate; selfless appeals promote a more positive attitude among consumers with low involvement, but not for those with high involvement with a charitable cause (e.g., animal welfare).

Furthermore, Cao  found that psychological involvement with charities affects donation intentions; seeing a picture of a sad vs. a happy person increased intentions to give among participants with lower levels of psychological involvement, whereas the reverse was true for highly involved participants (3), hence the importance for NGOs and CSR executives to understand the nature and behavioral context of their operations. Huber, Van Boven, & McGraw combine what they call the internal and external influences on donor behavior (18), pointing in the direction of this paper and related research. Donor behavior has been disaggregated by researchers like Fajardo, Townsend, and Bolander into two components: donation choice and donation amount. Donor-related appeals have a greater effect on choice, while organization-related appeals have a greater effect on the amount pledged or donated. This could lead one to conclude that presenting both types of appeals in a solicitation is ideal (10).

On an individual level, the vast majority of donors are enthusiastic and positive about the organizations they give to, and about charities in general says Wooden (45). Leonhardt says that people give money to feel the “glow” associated with being the kind of person who helps a worthy cause (26). Kemp, Kennett-Hensel, and Kees studied emotions like pride and pity in charitable appeals, focusing on sex and gender as potential emotional collateral variables (21). Utility-based models that focus on the effects of lifetime, recency, seasonality, and appeals also show that fundraising attempts should emphasize commitment rather than amount, as stated by Kim, Gupta, and Lee, (22). Sectorial research by Kamatham, Pahwa, Jiang and Kumar focused on education’s 75% success rate studied how different appeals affect fundraising; sophistication of the appeal has a positive effect on fundraising and the amount donated. Providing information on the state of a project has a positive effect on donations, corroborating reinforcement models of donor behavior; individuals share a burden when supporting charitable causes and donate at least as much as the minimum donated (20). At the strategic level, Krug and Weinberg’s Merit Axis Model links the mission of the organization, the money raised, and merit as a standard for nonprofit management (24). Pride, pleasure, and personal interest were linked by Third to the legacy effect in the college and universities context, pointing to relational fundraising and the application of CRM to nonprofit marketing (41). A unified conceptual, behavioral, and econometric framework for optimal fundraising can combine approaches from Economics, Marketing, Psychology, and Sociology, said Haruvy, Popkowski,  Leszczyc, Allenby, Belk, Eckel, Fisher, Li, Ma, Wang, and List (16), which is the intention of this paper, considering the need for developing a comprehensive model of giving behavior and nonprofit organization performance.

Although the marketization of nonprofit activities, given by the introduction of marketing practices like sales of POP and different goods and services, competing for consulting contracts, donor relations management (the philanthropic version of CRM), and social entrepreneurship has drawn criticism, according to Eikenberry and Drapal (8), fierce competition for funds and a tighter economy have given rise to innovative fundraising methods like web-based crowdfunding and what is called Cause Related Marketing or CRAM by Chaney and Dolli (5).

Little research has been published about the perhaps circular correlation between medals and funds raised. Slater’s study relates medals and press coverage (38) which in turn supports fundraising. A cross-sectional study covering Belgium, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom by Funahashi, Shibli, Sotiriadou, Mäkinen, Dijk, and De Bosscher relates funding with sporting success (12), which seems logical. Funds allow athletes and teams to train and eat, even to rest properly, and of course to compete and classify, thereby increasing their chances of success in top-tier events. Another report by Hogan and Norton, published through the National Institutes of Health found a high direct correlation between medals and funds (17). Although correlation does not imply causation, definitely the more funds, the more medals (and vice-versa, we would add).

Fundraising will continue to be vital for sports programs and facilities to operate. However, the climate for fundraising has become more competitive as more organizations chase the same discretionary dollars, and donors become more demanding. In order to cope, fundraisers will need to readjust their strategies. Fundraisers must understand all fundraising-related elements such as the event’s purpose, target markets and donors, and methods and strategies to be employed, said a 1996 editorial in the Journal of Social Marketing. Indeed, Stier and Schneider claim that fundraising is one of the major responsibilities of sport managers in the 21st century (40).

The Case of the WSKF Sports Foundation

As mentioned, prior research showed that the secret to fundraising success lies on selecting the right target and getting the message out there (36), based on the right appeal (35), to set in motion the most effective model of nonprofit performance (33). Indeed, Koschmann et al. (23) suggested that a proper combination of networking, leveraging and communication, based on a clear strategy, and following well-targeted processes, will generate optimal press coverage and influence, and -of course- funds.

Illustration # 3: The Winning Strategy

At the WSKF Venezuela Sports Foundation, applying the Koschmann et al. (23) model, something it did four years before it was ever published, meant (1^st) leaning on the athletes and their parents to network and target corporations to gain access to their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs, (2^nd) leveraging fundraising efforts on the Law for the Development of Sports which created a 0.5% sports tax on profits and allowed corporations to channel half of that directly to projects accredited by the Ministry of Sports, and (3^rd) appealing to pride and PR interests, considering that Charity Sport Event (CSE) fundraisers are often confronted by the donors’ lack of interest, even though those events can provide participants with a meaningful experience, as stated by Filo, Fechner and Inoue (11). The message was carried by a top-of-the-line institutional DVD presentation, a quarterly newsletter, a website, direct and digital marketing efforts, and through an aggressive media management strategy that used timely press-releases, many of them sent from Tokyo, the common championship site, to gain immediate exposure.

This strategy, born out of a Shihan-kai meeting in Cyprus in 2010, blended well with Kaplan and Norton’s (19) map format, which kicks off from an organization that strove to muster the  support of parents, athletes, and instructors to execute the fundraising process, by reaching out to the right target with the proper appeal and press support, and achieve the desired financial results, as seen on Illustration 3. The leading KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) were medals won and funds raised primarily, but press coverage was extremely important for fundraising, since it reinforced the pride and PR appeal, as were the dimensions of the donors’ database. Donor relationship management leaned on the newsletter, BUDOtips, and as many as 73 media mentions per championship cycle.

The fundraising process was detailed, starting with the identification of all possible sources of funds, since it is not all about sponsorship. Indeed, McKeever and Pettijohn stressed that nonprofit organizations derive half of their revenues quid-pro-quo (30), as Graph 1 shows; in terms of sports organizations, this 50% may come from ticket sales, broadcasting rights, advertising, memorabilia and fees charged, among other internal sources. Additional funding may come from government or NGO grants, private and corporate donors, even multilaterals; depending on a single source is myopic as Levitt (25) would most likely define it. Accordingly, the first question that nonprofit managers must ask themselves is “are we doing the things we need to do to get money, or should we be getting money for the things we do?” Some nonprofits miss this benchmarking and go straight to asking for donations without considering the monetization of things that they can do or sell to generate funds. In case of WSKF, this meant monthly fees, sales of sporting goods and memorabilia, special training sessions, and events like national and regional championships.

Chart 3: Structure of Nonprofit Revenues

Based on a clear understanding of nonprofit market dynamics and the supply of funds, and considering the Sports Law, corporate and government targets were identified, and a unique appeal was tailored for each segment. The operational planning began when all decisions had been made and defined, otherwise it could have turned into a map without destination. The organization would pursue its financial objectives through traditional fundraising means, grants, events, and crowdfunding. The technical arm, the WSKF organization, would be the one to charge fees and hold events, collecting money from attendance and participation, under foundational guidelines.

Illustration # 4: The WSKF Fundraising Process

A growing database of corporate donors was informed and nurtured with a newsletter called BUDOtips which circulated throughout the organization. A survey of athletes, parents, and instructors generated the structure of the magazine which was then tested against donors’ expectations. Four sections were created: “Budo,” dealing with principles, for the parents who sought discipline and principles for their children, and who represented over two-thirds of the membership; “Technique” for the athletes who wanted to improve their performance; “Management” for the instructors who wanted to run their clubs profitably; and “News” for the donors and for everyone; the Editorial was just an introduction and an invitation to read, as seen on the cover page below.

A growing database of corporate donors was informed and nurtured with a newsletter called BUDOtips which circulated throughout the organization. A survey of athletes, parents, and instructors generated the structure of the magazine which was then tested against donors’ expectations. Four sections were created: “Budo,” dealing with principles, for the parents who sought discipline and principles for their children, and who represented over two-thirds of the membership; “Technique” for the athletes who wanted to improve their performance; “Management” for the instructors who wanted to run their clubs profitably; and “News” for the donors and for everyone; the Editorial was just an introduction and an invitation to read, as seen on the cover page below.

Illustration # 5: The WSKF Newsletter

The results of these concerted efforts were evident. Formal fundraising began after a lack of funding left the 2005 championship cycle dry. 14 medals were won in 2007. The WSKF Venezuela Sports Foundation was created in 2008, leading to 24 world medals in Tokyo the following year. As the organization learned and matured, the medal count skyrocketed to record-breaking numbers, 50 in 2011, 42 in 2013, a record-breaking 66 in 2015, and 60 in the following cycle, 2017. Eight medals were won by a small team in the World Cup held in Cyprus in 2010. Winning led to press coverage which peaked at 73 TV, newspaper, radio and digital mentions in 2015, which reverberated throughout the web, nationally and internationally.

Chart 4: The WSKF Venezuela Medal Count

rage of 158 days younger than those athletes who win bronze medals.  Together, these results suggest that the results are generally consistent across males and females as well as Summer and Winter Games.    

DISCUSSION

The predictive model points fundraising and communicational efforts toward deep pockets (36), which implies choosing the right target and putting out the most appropriate message; research into donor choice (35) leads to crafting the right appeal to carry that message; and testing Koschmann et al.’s communicative framework (23, 33) guides nonprofits to follow the right strategy and proper processes, supported on networking, leveraging on legal and fiscal incentives, and on the proper media strategy. Indeed, the strategy of the WSKF Sports Foundation, knowingly or not, and ahead of its time, blended these three theories and put them into practice, combining this theoretical framework with the Kaplan and Norton’s (19) strategy map format by adapting the organizational perspective to create a network of athletes and parents to reach out to corporate donors, crafting fundraising and sports operations to leverage on the Law for the Development of Sports, and fitting the customer perspective to the media strategy, and vice-versa. The financial perspective was led by the Balanced Score Card with metrics like revenues and average sponsorship level per athlete. The Strategy Map represented in and of itself a vital authoritative paper, along with the fundraising process flowchart. Moreover, it added an interesting twist, using world championship success and feedback to fuel fundraising, as medals triggered press coverage which in turn attracted sponsors, and then their sponsorship allowed the teams and athletes to train, compete and win more medals. This created a virtuous cycle. To feed the flame, the Foundation added reverberance by hosting a “Dinner with the Champs” upon returning from Tokyo, where the press and the donors would share photo-ops with the athletes in their colors and with their medals, while receiving plaques for their support, which added more press coverage and PR opportunities.

The Foundation continued to multiply its branding efforts by adding non-sports philanthropy to its credentials, networking with several organizations like Mayor’s Offices, corporate programs (CSR), and private foundations to help the needy, thereby positioning its brand at a national level and squeezing the most out of the athletes’ medals’ appeal (Illustration 6). Again, this added more press coverage. Indeed, the WSKF Venezuela Sports Foundation showed that theory, when put into practice, gets the most out of the strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Theory says choose your target well, craft the right appeal, and execute the right strategy correctly, following proper procedure, through a well laid out fundraising process. Strategizing will require a detailed situational analysis and brainstorm, blending the theory and the best practices into your initiatives. Choose your KPIs well; funds, medals, or outside of sports, social impact, and press coverage should be the strongest drivers; medals add leverage, they lead to press coverage, press coverage attracts sponsors and triggers pride and PR opportunities; and sponsorship allows athletes to train and participate in world events, which leads to medals, as the virtuous cycle makes another rotation. Be relentless and thorough in the execution of the strategy; and whenever and wherever possible, widen your networking circles. The more, the merrier!

Limitations and Further Research

Although the Pearson coefficient of the first study is outstanding, the donor choice research could use additional criteria like peer influence and personal commitment with the social cause to increase its predictive ability. This would make it “The 7-Ps of Fundraising” and should raise the model’s pseudo-R². The cross-sectional study is pretty straightforward, but it also showed that not every country has such a favorable fiscal framework for sports as Venezuela, which enacted legislation that taxes corporate earnings to fund the development of sports. They finance the construction of sports complexes, sporting events, and national team competitions, both nationally and internationally. Corporate donors can channel one half of that tax directly to accredited projects; this benefits the leveraging aspect of Koschmann et al.’s model (23). Nonetheless, there are always tax incentives and breaks for donors and fundraisers in just about every country we analyzed; in the end, what donors are looking for are meaningful projects that are properly organized and well presented. Credibility is a must, and feelings and appearances matter.

It should be also mentioned that the Venezuelan socio-economic and political situation today may not be conducive to achieving the same 2007 ⎯ 2017 results that were analyzed here. Funding has been politicized, the economy has shrunk 80%, and the exchange rate has gone from Bs. 10 per US dollar, in August 2018, to Bs. 119,144,000,000,000 or 119.14 today, after the regime erased eleven zeroes from the currency to hide the mega-devaluation and hyper-inflation.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

Rarely has a combination of theory and practice been put together to recommend fundraisers how to balance strategy and operations; not one or two but three research studies support this paper; 20 years of foundational experience leverage them; raising up to $3.3 million a year in funds and winning 266 world medals in 10 years prove it right; an organization spanning over 110 countries and over one million members, make this a unique learning opportunity. The underlying theoretical model calls for networking among people and organizations, leveraging on legal and fiscal incentives, and communicating the right message to the right target, working on the shoulders of a clear strategy, a lean and mean organization, and a consistent fundraising process, to generate press coverage and lobbying power, and ⎯ultimately⎯ funds. The theory says choose wisely, and indeed strategy is all about choice: identify the right target, craft the right appeal, and do the right things correctly, which demands a fine-tuned organization and processes.

Now, to the question, “do we need to win medals to raise funds or raise funds to win medals?” Well, yes, credentials help fundraisers win support but in the absence of medals, the operational model and the right choices should cast a net that is wide enough to generate revenues and attract volunteers, but in the absence of results, in startup nonprofits, the founders’ accolades, and networks, can help. But appearances matter, that is why the WSKF Sports Foundation leaned on its website, a top-of-the-line DVD presentation, and its newsletter, all of which seemed bigger than life, to reach the target before the medal count skyrocketed and a virtuous cycle was created. Momentum did the rest.

It is important to remember that one half of nonprofit revenues are quid-pro-quo, coming from things nonprofit organizations do or sell (see Graph # 1). Hospitals recover medical costs, universities charge tuition, and the WSKF Sports Foundation collected fees from its membership. Income cannot depend solely on donations or grants. Nonprofits must make an effort to add to their revenue streams by monetizing their activities, something not always remembered, as our consulting efforts at Rutgers University have shown us. Private foundations struggle with lack of resources and specialized skills, but solutions are at an arm’s length.

Social Implications

The Nonprofit Sector in general, which represents 5.4% of the US economy, can benefit from  strategies that are supported by data and research, plus decades of fundraising experience at the same time. Amateur sports fundraising in particular, a $60 billion industry, can surely profit from a fresh perspective.

Eather, Wade, Pankowiak, et al.’s research suggests that community sports programs, supported by fundraising, can significantly enhance social capital and promote social cohesion by increasing trust, improving social networks, and fostering a stronger sense of community amongst participants, providing opportunities for community members –athletes, coaches, volunteers, and supporters– to interact, build relationships, and develop a shared identity (8)

Supporting fundraising in amateur sports through scientific research goes beyond securing financial resources. It fosters community spirit, enhances social connections, and provides numerous positive social and psychological benefits for both participants and volunteers. These benefits contribute to stronger, healthier, and more cohesive communities says Wheatley (44). Ultimately, if the nonprofit sector does indeed pick up the slack of governmental failure, Matsunaga and Yamauchi’s theory (29), then anything that benefits philanthropy will benefit society as a whole.