Every sports institution has a visible face—teams, competitions, achievements, and public presence. But behind that face there is an invisible backbone: the organizational structure. When the structure is outdated, even talented people struggle. Decisions slow down. Roles overlap. Accountability fades. And strategic goals become slogans rather than outcomes. This is exactly why I wrote the scientific paper summarized in the attached file: a study focused on developing the organizational structures of sports institutions in light of change management.​

This blog article is written in my own voice for my personal blog, because this work did not come from a purely academic impulse. It came from repeated field observations: many sports institutions still operate with traditional structures that were designed for a different era. Yet their environment—stakeholders, technology, governance expectations, financial models, and competition intensity—has changed dramatically. When the environment changes and structure stays the same, institutions experience silent decline. The paper was my attempt to diagnose that structural gap, understand leadership readiness for change management, and propose development directions that can support modern institutional performance.​

What the study is about

The paper is presented as: “Develop organizational structures sporting institutions in the light of the change management in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” It was authored by myself (Dr. Hamada Eid Nawar Al-Antably, PhD in sports management, Alexandria University), alongside Mr. Ali bin Mohammed bin Ibrahim Al-Numan (Master in Sports Management) and Ms. Marwa Mohamed Mahmoud Moussa (Master in Sports Management).​

The study aimed to determine the appropriateness of the current organizational structure of sports institutions and the role that structure plays in achieving institutional goals, to assess how much sports institution managers practice change management methods, to identify the importance of leadership roles under change management requirements, and to propose an organizational structure if necessary.​

For me, this is one of the most important “hidden” topics in sports management. People celebrate goals on the field, but goals in management require architecture: structure, leadership, and culture.

My journey writing it: why structure became personal

In many organizations, people think that structure is a chart on the wall. But structure is the lived daily reality of power, communication, and responsibility. When structure is unclear, even good people become exhausted: they work harder but achieve less, because effort is scattered and decisions are trapped in long cycles of approvals.

As I worked on this study, I kept asking myself: How many sports institutions lose value not because they lack talent, but because they lack structural alignment? That question became sharper when linking structure to change management. Change is not only a decision; it is a process. Without change management, structural reforms become chaotic, resisted, or abandoned.​

This is also why leadership was a central theme in the paper. Structures do not modernize themselves. Leaders either renew them—or keep them frozen.

Methodology and sample: listening to the system

To fit the research goals, the study used the descriptive method with a survey approach. The sample was selected (as described in the summary) from several stakeholder groups:​

• Workers in sports club administrations (76 participants).​

• Experts in the sports field (15 participants).​

• Members of the public sector represented by the General Presidency for Youth Welfare (20 participants).​

• Staff in union departments (50 participants).​

This brought the total research sample to 161 individuals, and the questionnaire was used as the tool for data collection.​

I consider this diversity essential. Organizational structure is not experienced only by managers. It is experienced by employees, experts, and public-sector partners. A structural diagnosis must reflect multiple perspectives, not a single leadership view.

What the results revealed: the uncomfortable truth about “traditional structures”

The most important result in the study is stated clearly: the current organizational structure of sports institutions is traditional and antiquated, and it clearly hampers achieving the objectives for which these institutions were established—creating an urgent need to develop it.​

This conclusion is strong, but it is realistic. Traditional structures often carry several symptoms: excessive centralization, unclear job design, weak delegation, slow information flow, and limited flexibility. In modern sport, these weaknesses are costly because sport institutions operate in fast-moving environments—sponsors demand speed, crises demand response, and stakeholders demand transparency.

The study also found that managers of sports institutions do not sufficiently practice change management techniques in their management of these institutions. This is a critical point: even if everyone agrees that structure needs modernization, the absence of change management skills makes reform unstable. Institutions then fall into a cycle of “we want change” without a method to implement it.​

Another major point in the results is the emphasis on leadership roles: motivating employees, effective leadership, building a shared organizational culture, and creating a regulatory environment are presented as major leadership roles required under change management. In other words, structure development is not only about drawing boxes. It is about motivating people to live inside the new structure with commitment.​

Recommendations: what needs to change in practice

The main recommendations highlight two urgent priorities.

First, the need to modernize the current organizational structure of sports institutions in a way consistent with the requirements of the times. This is not a call for “change for change’s sake.” It is a call for alignment: structure must match environment.​

Second, the need to prepare and qualify managers to keep pace with environmental changes and with the change management requirements imposed on modern institutions. For me, this is perhaps the most strategic recommendation. Institutions often invest in facilities, teams, and events—but neglect leadership development. Yet leadership capability is what turns resources into outcomes.​

The paper also includes academic references related to organizational structure, knowledge management, and change management, grounding the proposed direction in established management scholarship rather than isolated opinion.​

Who this research is meant to impact

Although the study focuses on sports institutions, its effects touch broader communities and industries:

• Sports employees and administrators benefit because modern structures clarify roles, reduce conflict, improve communication, and support professional growth.​

• Athletes and technical teams benefit because better structure improves service delivery, logistics, planning, and support systems that influence performance indirectly.​

• Public-sector stakeholders benefit because institutions with modern structures are easier to govern, coordinate with, and evaluate against national objectives.​

• Sponsors and investors benefit because structure is part of trust; professional governance makes partnerships safer and more sustainable.

• The sports industry ecosystem benefits because modern institutions create better events, stronger leagues, and more stable markets for services such as marketing, media, sports technology, and facility management.

A personal closing reflection

I wrote this research because I believe structural reform is one of the most “unpopular” but necessary conversations in sport. People love to talk about championships; fewer people want to talk about reporting lines, decision cycles, and accountability systems. But in reality, those invisible elements decide whether an institution will grow or stagnate.

The core message of this paper is that organizational structures must be modernized through change management, not through improvisation—and that leaders must be prepared to guide people through that transformation with motivation, culture-building, and clear governance.​

Because in the long run, trophies come and go. But a well-designed structure is what allows an institution to keep producing value—season after season.