Tokushima reflects RP sports governance

As I stated last week, the Australian Sport Commission (ASC), Basketball Australia (BA) and the National Basketball League (NBL) announced a major structural review of basketball in Australia. The ASC says the review will recommend a structure and governance framework for the delivery of the sport from a national level.

Philippine private and government sports officials can (again) learn from the Aussies how to ensure that major stakeholders of Philippine basketball participate in determining the structure and framework for governance of this sector of sports.

Apparently, the ASC wants to fully maximize its basketball potential despite its small population of about 12 million particularly in the light of giant strides made in international basketball by its much smaller neighbor New Zealand. New Zealand, which has a population of about 4.1 million, or about one third of Metro Manila, is known more for rugby and cricket.

It is said that, in reference to the size of the country and its small population, “in New Zealand, you see a lot of New Zealand but very few New Zealanders”. We are told the sheep population of New Zealand is greater than the human population.

For years, the Aussies have been finetuning the relationships among   basketball stakeholders to ensure mass participation and encourage competition so that the country will be represented only by Australia’s best at the international level.

I was privileged to see the Aussies work hard on this sports framework since I was first invited by the Sydney Olympics Organizing Committee to Australia in 1992. Sydney was then preparing its bid to host the 2000 summer Olympics.

One of Australian basketball’s main problems was synchronizing basketball schedules so that the finest of Australia is available for high-level competitions like the world basketball championships and the Olympics. The problem of Australia was no different from the Philippines whenever a national selection was to be tapped for an international competition.

The basic difference in the two countries’ situations is that Australia has apparently gotten its act together, compared to many years ago, while the Philippines now has to cope with the growing pains of a new structure which is ironically designed to unify Philippine basketball. These growing pains are reflected in our performance in the ongoing FIBA-Asia men’s basketball championship in Tokushima, Japan.

As of this writing, the Filipinos have lost to Iran, 75–69, and came from behind to beat what veteran sportscaster Andy Jao called China’s Team B.

The national team, which was officially formed literally at the last minute with the inclusion of Renren Ritualo, went to Japan after five months of preparation in the Philippines and overseas. On the surface, the thousands of hours used preparing for Tokushima should be enough. Given, however, the level of competition and the tremendous improvement of Asian countries like Iran, Jordan (which shocked China in Tokushima, 78–65), and Lebanon, and the gigantic task of qualifying for the Olympics, the length and quality of preparation may still be wanting.

The lack of a fluid team effort was obvious in the Philippines’ game against Iran where, at the crucial moments, the Filipinos opted to “free lance”. In contrast, Iran performed like a well-oiled team using basic pick and roll moves to build double digit margins most of the way. Without belittling the Filipinos’ victory over China, it was clear that the Chinese too were having problems working together as one well-oiled machine.

Going back to the ASC consultative process, the Aussies are inviting written submissions “from individuals with an interest in putting forward views that they believe should be brought to the attention of the reviewers”. The reviewers consist of three individuals who make up the steering committee.  

Individuals are asked to address key themes: do you think the current structure, comprising a national body and member associations (being state/territory associations, WNBL and ABA) and the NBL as a separate entity, is effective in delivering and building basketball in Australia? What do you see as being the benefits and risks of having BA and the NBL integrated under one governing body for the sport of basketball in Australia?  What do you see as impediments to structural and governance change in the sport of basketball in Australia?

Indeed, these are basic questions. Philippine basketball too has to resolve these fundamental issues if we want to take ourselves seriously and if we want others to take us seriously.