38 Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana, ISSN 1318-2269  Kinesiologia Slovenica, 12, 2, 38–50 (2006)
Frane Erčulj*
Mojca Doupona Topič
ANALYSIS OF THE ORGANISATIONAL 
CHARACTERISTICS OF SLOVENIAN 
BASKETBALL CLUBS 
ANALIZA ORGANIZIRANOSTI 
SLOVENSKIH KOŠARKARSKIH KLUBOV
Abstract
The aim of this study is to present the organisational
characteristics of basketball clubs of the 1.A, 1.B and 2nd 
Slovenian basketball leagues (SKL) and to analyse them 
in terms of the guidelines for the development proposed 
by Basketball Federation of Slovenia. We were also 
interested to identify the characteristics that distinguish 
between clubs competing at different levels of quality.
The data were acquired through a survey questionnaire
which was completed by 26 basketball clubs. Differences
between the clubs engaging in competitions at different
levels were established using the Chi-square and one-
way ANOVA statistical methods. The results show that
the selected clubs failed to consistently provide suitable 
conditions for the work of their senior-men teams, 
namely the conditions stipulated in the guidelines 
proposed by federation. It may thus be established 
that these clubs often fail to provide their senior-men
teams with a sufficient number of training sessions and
that there are not enough professional and part-time 
coaches, doctors, physiotherapists and psychologists 
in the clubs in general. It would also be desirable 
that the senior-men teams of the 1.A SKL consist of a 
greater number of talented domestic players and fewer 
expensive foreign players.
Key words: Slovenian basketball clubs, senior-men 
teams, organisational activities
Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
*Corresponding author:
Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana
Gortanova 22, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Tel.: +386 1 5207766
Fax: +386 1 5207750
E-mail: frane.erculj@fsp.uni-lj.si
Izvleček
V pričujoči študiji smo se odločili predstaviti nekatere 
značilnosti strokovnega in organizacijskega dela s 
članskimi ekipami košarkarskih društev v 1.A, 1.B in 2. 
slovenski košarkarski ligi in jih analizirati v luči smernic 
razvoja, ki jih je sprejela Košarkarska zveza Slovenije. 
Zanimalo nas je tudi v katerih od omenjenih značilnostih 
se društva, ki tekmujejo na različnih kakovostnih ravneh 
med seboj razlikujejo. Potrebne podatke smo pridobili 
s pomočjo anketnega vprašalnika, ki ga je izpolnilo 26 
košarkarskih klubov. Za ugotavljanje razlik med društvi, 
ki nastopajo na različnih tekmovalnih ravneh smo 
uporabili statistični metodi hi-kvadrat in enostopenjsko 
analizo variance. Rezultati raziskave kažejo, da izbrana 
društva ne zagotavljajo vedno ustreznih pogojev za 
delo svojih članskih ekip oz. takšnih, ki jih narekujejo 
smernice razvoja, ki jih je sprejela košarkarska zveza. 
Ugotavljamo, da društva svojim članskimi ekipam 
pogosto ne zagotavljajo zadostnega števila treningov, 
da v društvih nasploh, kot tudi v članskih ekipah, 
primanjkuje profesionalnih in honorarnih trenerjev, 
kakor tudi zdravnikov, fizioterapevtov in psihologov.
Ključne besede: slovenska košarkarska društva, član-
ske ekipe, strokovno-organizacijska dejavnost
The organisation of senior-men basketball teams 39Kinesiologia Slovenica, 12, 2, 38–50 (2006)
INTRODUCTION
Sports organisations come in a variety of different forms and serve a number of functions.
There are small, community-based organisations such as a local basketball club that plays
in regional leagues and large professional operated organisations such as the IOC1 or NBA2 
which stage major international events. Whether they are large or small, rich or poor, the 
managers of all sports organisations encounter some common issues. When we think of 
how an organisation is structured a number of things may spring to mind. A useful way to 
think about structure is that it comprises the formal and informal interactions that make up 
organisational life (Amis & Slack, 2003). While this is a useful starting point for helping us to 
understand the concept of organisational structure, it does not really assist us when we seek to 
learn how and why sports organisations are structured differently. Kikulis, Slack, & Hinings’s
(1992) archetypes and Mintzberg’s (1979) structural configurations can help us understand
how and why organisations have different designs.
Sports organisations are not immune to the influence of environmental changes, while increas-
ing diversity can be expected in these organisations among their professionals, volunteers, 
athletes, coaches, officials, staff and administrators. The nature of the organisational function in
professional sports teams has mainly been addressed in the economics-of-sport literature.
That is to say that previous studies of organisational efficiency in professional sports teams have
concentrated exclusively on the technical efficiency of the coaching process (Dawson, Dobson,
& Gerrard, 2000). From this perspective, professional sports teams are viewed as a sporting 
production function in which the output – team performance (i.e. wins or losses) – is produced 
from the input – playing talent – with individual player performance as an intermediate 
good. The coaching effect comprises both the “direct coaching effect” of transforming “raw”
playing talent into on-field player performance. The fundamental problem in any empirical
investigation of coaching efficiency is the difficulty of controlling for the available stock of
playing talent. In order to quantify coaching efficiency, a measure of player quality is needed
that is independent of player and team performance. Empirical studies have tended to only 
investigate the direct coaching effect using either player performance data or measures of
player quality (Gerrard, 2005). Coaches work in accordance with the existing culture, the 
rules and standards prevailing in a given society and its sports environment; they have a large 
influence, in other words, they represent power.
In Slovenia, basketball is one of the most popular sports with a long and successful tradition 
dating back to the period before World War 2 (Pavlovič, 2000). In recent years, basketball in 
Slovenia has been the focus of about 120 clubs (Basketball Federation of Slovenia [BFS], 2005; 
Pavlovič, 2001) which are members of the Basketball Federation of Slovenia. The Federation
was founded in 1950 and has been a FIBA3 member since 1992. 
The outcome and simultaneously the proof of the high-quality expert work undertaken in
Slovenian basketball are the many elite players and strong results obtained by basketball clubs 
and the national team. Even before it gained its independence, Slovenia had many elite players 
while in recent years the best Slovenian basketball players have been playing a prominent role 
in the top European and US (NBA) teams. Since Slovenia’s independence the country’s national 
teams have been successful in the senior-men and especially younger-age categories. Slovenian 
1 IOC (eng.): International Olympic Committee
2 NBA (eng.): National Basketball Association
3 FIBA (fr.): Federation internationale de basketball
40 The organisation of senior-men basketball teams Kinesiologia Slovenica, 12, 2, 38–50 (2006) 
clubs also perform well in the international FIBA and ULEB4 competitions. In the past few 
years, despite its small population (2 million) and relatively modest economic strength Slovenia 
has had a representative in the strongest European club competition (Euroleague) and several 
representatives in lower competitions (ULEB Cup and Goodyear League). 
All of these successes and results (especially at the club level) in a sport demanding significant
investments have mostly been achieved with relatively few financial resources and are by no
means coincidental. They are primarily a consequence of the high quality expert (especially
coaches) work in basketball clubs (Mihevc, 2004; Šip, 2004). Nevertheless, in recent years some 
negative trends have been noticed in the development of Slovenian basketball, with this also 
being reflected in poorer results. These trends primarily stem from the changed conditions in
which basketball clubs work and the deteriorated financial position of the clubs and this sport
at large (Erčulj & Dežman, 2005). Negative aspects of commercialisation, globalisation (some 
of them that have an influence on sport in general are described by Maguire (2000) and his
associates (Maguire, Jarvie, Mansfield, & Bradley, 2002) and Europeanisation, the currently
unfavourable social and political environment, poor finances available from selling rights for
TV coverage and admission tickets (Bednarik, Ferenčak, & Turšič, 2002; Bednarik, Simoneti, 
Kolenc, & Šugman, 2000) and certain other factors pose a considerable threat and hinder 
the development of Slovenian basketball (Erčulj & Doupona Topič, 2005). The quality and
efficiency of related professional (especially coaches) work in the clubs depends directly on the
factors mentioned above, which have an influence on the worse financial situation of the clubs
and minor interest in playing and coaching basketball. In recent years a decline in the level 
of expert work has been noticed in those segments of basketball which are less attractive in 
commercial and marketing terms (e.g. younger-age groups and senior-men teams participating 
in the lower level and less popular competitions) (Erčulj & Dežman, 2005).
Aware of the changed conditions and the abovementioned factors that hinder the development 
of Slovenian basketball the Basketball Federation of Slovenia [BFS] adopted some developmen-
tal decisions and a document entitled ‘Guidelines on the development of basketball in Slovenia’. 
This document defines basketball clubs as the main promoters of competitive basketball in
Slovenia and specifies their tasks, responsibilities and competencies. Basketball clubs are thus
responsible for (Dežman, Drvarič, Krump, Fišer, Kobilica, & Majer, 2003):
− providing a stable inflow of financial sources in line with objective targets;
− setting optimal conditions for the regular training and competing of all categories of male 
and female players; and
− ensuring the development of competitive basketball in their area. 
In the abovementioned document basketball clubs are classified in three categories according
to the competitive level involved (Dežman et al., 2003):
a) Promoters of international level basketball
 They compete at international competitions with senior teams. They are directly respon-
sible for developing the quality of Slovenian basketball and the most promising male and 
female players. They should employ at least three professional coaches (one should only be
responsible for working with younger categories) and a physiotherapist. They should provide
their senior-men team with at least ten training sessions a week and be able to cover all 
their financial liabilities to players, experts and other club employees.
4 ULEB (fr.): Union des ligues Européenes de basket-ball
The organisation of senior-men basketball teams 41Kinesiologia Slovenica, 12, 2, 38–50 (2006)
b) Promoters of national level basketball
 Their senior teams compete in the Slovenian 1.A and 1.B basketball leagues. They are
directly responsible for developing the quality of Slovenian basketball and promising male 
and female players. They should employ at least two professional coaches full-time (one
per senior team) and one physiotherapist part-time. They should provide their senior team
with at least eight training sessions a week.
c) Promoters of local level basketball
 They compete in lower leagues with senior teams. They are indirectly responsible for the
development of quality Slovenian basketball. They should provide their senior team with
at least four training sessions a week.
The aim of this study is to present some of the organisational characteristics of senior-men
teams in the basketball clubs of the 1.A, 1.B and 2nd Slovenian basketball leagues (SKL), and 
to analyse them vis-à-vis both the decisions of the BFS assembly and the ‘Guidelines on the 
development of basketball in Slovenia’ which were accepted by the same assembly in 2003. 
We were also interested in which characteristics distinguish the clubs competing at different
quality levels that are the promoters of international, national and local level basketball and 
whether they are meeting the standards set by the BFS.
METHOD
Participants
The study encompassed all basketball clubs that in the 2003/2004 season competed with
their top (senior-men) teams at one of the three highest competitive levels in Slovenia: the 
1.A Slovenian basketball league (hereinafter: 1.A SKL), the 1.B Slovenian basketball league
(hereinafter: 1.B SKL) and the 2nd Slovenian basketball league (hereinafter: 2. SKL). In the
mentioned competitive season, 14 teams competed in the 1.A SKL, eight of which participated 
in the study (57.1%). Of these, three clubs, i.e. teams, took part in international club competi-
tions and they are thus the promoters of elite basketball in Slovenia, while the remaining 
five may be classified as the promoters of quality basketball. Of the 13 1.B SKL teams, 11 or
84.6% of them participated in the study. With regard to the 2. SKL, the response rate was, as 
expected, poorer. Of the 18 teams, only seven participated in the study, or 38.9%. Hence, of 
the 45 1.A, 1.B and 2. SKL basketball clubs 26 or 57.7% participated in the study. Those clubs
whose senior-men teams compete in the 1.B and 2. SKL are classified as the promoters of
competitive basketball in Slovenia.
Instruments and procedure
The data were acquired through a survey questionnaire sent by regular mail and e-mail to
45 basketball clubs. It encompassed 79 questions seeking general data on organisational 
characteristics in the club and the work with the top (senior-men) team and younger selec-
tions. The questions were answered by the clubs’ competent officials. For the most part these
people were the head coaches and the coaches of senior-men teams. The clubs also received
detailed instructions together with the questionnaire, while the author of the questionnaire 
was available for consultation by e-mail and telephone.
The collected data were processed using the SPSS 12 statistical software. The characteristics of 
the selected clubs were assessed by means of basic descriptive statistical parameters. Differ-
ences between the clubs engaging in competitions at different levels were established using
the Chi-square and one-way ANOVA statistical methods. 
42 The organisation of senior-men basketball teams Kinesiologia Slovenica, 12, 2, 38–50 (2006) 
RESULTS
Professional staff
In 23 clubs there are 121 coaches working which, on average, represents 5.2 coaches per team 
(see Table 1). There are statistically significant differences between the 1.A, 1.B and 2. SKL
clubs in terms of the number of coaches. As expected, most coaches work in the 1.A SKL clubs 
(slightly more than seven on average), while the 1.B and 2. SKL clubs are quite equal in this 
respect. Twenty-five of the 121 coaches work on a professional basis, most of them again in
the 1.A SKL (slightly less than two per club on average). Only three of all the coaches are not 
paid for their work. 
Forty-four coaches work with senior-men teams, which is on average slightly less than two per 
team. Again the highest number of coaches is recorded in the 1.A SKL teams and the lowest 
in the 2. SKL teams. Approximately one-third of the coaches in the senior-men teams are 
professionals. Of course, the highest number of them is found in the 1.A SKL (1.1 on average) 
and the lowest in the 2. SKL (just 0.1 on average).
Table 1: Number of players and coaches in senior-men teams of the 1.A, 1.B and 2. SKL bas-
ketball clubs (descriptive statistics and ANOVA) 
N Mean Sum Std. Dev. Std. Error Min. Max. F Sig.
players 1.A SKL 8 11.88 95.0 1.55 0.55 10 14 0.73 0.493
 1.B SKL 11 12.27 135.0 2.05 0.62 10 16
 2.SKL 6 13.67 82.0 4.88 1.99 7 19
 Total 25 12.48 312.0 2.81 0.56 7 19
coach_a 1.A SKL 8 7.25 58.0 2.25 0.80 4.0 10.0 7.60 0.004
 1.B SKL 11 4.18 46.0 1.08 0.32 2.0 5.0
 2.SKL 4 4.25 17.0 2.36 1.18 1.0 6.0
 Total 23 5.26 121.0 2.26 0.47 1.0 10.0
coach_p 1.A SKL 8 1.87 15.0 1.81 0.64 0.0 5.0 1.50 0.249
 1.B SKL 9 1.00 9.0 1.66 0.55 0.0 5.0
 2.SKL 4 0.25 1.0 0.50 0.25 0.0 1.0
 Total 21 1.19 25.0 1.63 0.36 0.0 5.0
coach_as 1.A SKL 8 2.37 19.0 1.06 0.37 1.0 4.0 1.84 0.185
 1.B SKL 11 1.73 19.0 0.79 0.24 1.0 3.0
 2.SKL 4 1.50 6.0 0.58 0.29 1.0 2.0
 Total 23 1.91 44.0 0.90 0.19 1.0 4.0
coach_ps 1.A SKL 8 1.19 9.5 1.07 0.38 0.0 3.0 1.99 0.165
 1.B SKL 9 0.50 4.5 1.00 0.33 0.0 3.0
 2.SKL 4 0.12 0.5 0.25 0.12 0.0 .5
 Total 21 0.69 14.5 0.99 0.22 0.0 3.0
Legend: 
coach_a number of coaches per team
coach_p number of professional coaches
coach_as number of senior-men teams’ coaches
coach_ps  number of professional senior-men teams’ coaches 
The organisation of senior-men basketball teams 43Kinesiologia Slovenica, 12, 2, 38–50 (2006)
Table 2: Co-operation with a physiotherapist, psychologist and medical doctor (results of 
Chi-square test)
Competitive level (league)
Total Chi-squareSig.1.A SKL 1.B SKL 2. SKL
physi 1 (YES) 8 (100.0 %) 8 (72.2 %) 2 (28.6 %) 18 (69.2 %)
 2 (NO) 0 (0.0 %) 3 (27.3 %) 5 (71.4 %) 8 (30.8 %)
Total 8 11 7 26 .011
psych 1 (YES) 2 (25.0 %) 0 (0.0 %) 0 (0.0 %) 2 (7.7 %)
2 (NO) 6 (75.0 %) 11 (100.0 %) 7 (100.0 %) 24 (92.3 %)
Total 8 11 7 26 .087
doc 1 (YES) 7 (87.5 %) 6 (54.5 %) 1 (16.7 %) 14 (56.0 %)
 2 (NO) 1 (12.5 %) 5 (45.5 %) 5 (83.3 %) 11 (44.0 %)
Total 8 11 6 25 .030
Legend: 
physi physiotherapist
psych psychologist
doc medical doctor
The lack of professional staff is also evident in the co-operation of clubs or their senior-men
selections with a physiotherapist psychologist and doctor. We established that on average 69% 
of all clubs participating in the study co-operate with a physiotherapist. Their number, i.e.
percentage, decreases with the level of competition. Hence, all the 1.A SKL clubs or senior-
men teams work with a physiotherapist, while in the 1.B SKL and the 2. SKL the respective 
percentages are 72% and only 28%. The 1.A SKL teams (all but one) work with a medical
doctor most frequently, followed by the 1.B SKL with 54%, while in the 2. SKL only one of 
the six teams discussed works with a doctor. As regards working with a physiotherapist and a 
doctor, statistically significant differences were established between the teams of the 1.A. 1.B
and 2. SKL. Only two clubs of the 1.A SKL work with a psychologist, while at the lower level 
there is no such co-operation at all. 
Playing staff
In the selected 26 clubs or their senior-men teams 312 basketball players play basketball (see 
Table 3), which is on average slightly more than 12 players per team. The number of players
in teams differs only minimally in terms of the competition level.
The 1.A. 1.B and 2. SKL teams differ statistically significantly in terms of the number of players
emerging from their own ranks. As expected, there are more of these ‘home-grown’ players 
in lower-league teams (as many as 73% in the 1.B SKL), while in the 1.A SKL there are only 
slightly less than six i.e. half of all players. There are practically no differences in the number
of domestic (Slovenian) players who were not trained from the outset in their own club and 
are the key players. The number of junior players in senior-men teams decreases with the level
of competition (most junior players are found in the 2. SKL senior-men teams, and the least 
in the 1.A SKL senior-men teams), however the differences are not statistically significant. A 
similar finding was established for the number of borrowed players. On the other hand, large
and statistically significant differences were established in the number of players with the status
of a foreigner and in the number of players with a foreigner status who are the key players. 
Foreigners are only members of the 1.A SKL teams and almost all of them play an important 
role in their teams as they represent key players.
44 The organisation of senior-men basketball teams Kinesiologia Slovenica, 12, 2, 38–50 (2006) 
Table 3: Some characteristics and composition of the playing staff (descriptive statistics and
ANOVA)
N Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error Min. Max. F Sig.
Young 1.A SKL 8 5.88 1.73 .77 4 8 3.44 0.049
 1.B SKL 11 9.00 2.10 .63 5 12
 2.SKL 7 9.00 4.40 1.66 0 13
 Total 26 8.12 3.09 0.61 0 13
main_si 1.A SKL 7 2.43 .98 0.37 1 4 0.27 0.762
 1.B SKL 11 2.91 1.64 0.49 0 6
 2.SKL 6 2.50 1.64 0.67 0 5
 Total 24 2.67 1.43 0.29 0 6
Fore 1.A SKL 8 3.63 3.81 1.349 0 11 7.22 0.004
 1.B SKL 9 0.00 .00 0.00 0 0
 2.SKL 7 0.00 .00 0.00 0 0
 Total 24 1.21 2.73 .558 0 11
Main_ for 1.A SKL 8 3.13 2.85 1.01 0 8 9.61 0.001
 1.B SKL 9 0.00 .000 0.00 0 0
 2.SKL 7 0.00 .000 0.00 0 0
 Total 24 1.04 2.18 0.44 0 8
play_pay 1.A SKL 8 11.13 1.73 0.61 9 14 20.61 0.000
 1.B SKL 11 7.73 4.80 1.45 0 15
 2.SKL 7 0.29 .76 0.29 0 2
 Total 26 6.77 5.33 1.05 0 15
play_pro 1.A SKL 8 7.00 4.81 1.70 1 14 14.07 0.000
 1.B SKL 10 1.00 1.33 0.42 0 4
 2.SKL 7 0.00 .000 0.00 0 0
 Total 25 2.64 4.11 0.82 0 14
play_bor 1.A SKL 8 .38 0.52 0.18 0 1 3.14 0.062
 1.B SKL 11 1.18 1.33 0.40 0 4
 2.SKL 7 1.86 1.34 0.51 0 4
 Total 26 1.12 1.24 0.24 0 4
Junior 1.A SKL 8 2.13 1.64 0.58 0 4 1.47 0.251
 1.B SKL 11 3.73 2.33 0.70 0 8
 2.SKL 7 4.43 3.99 1.51 0 12
 Total 26 3.42 2.76 0.54 0 12
Injur 1.A SKL 8 2.50 1.93 0.68 0 5 0.00 0.997
1.B SKL 11 2.45 1.37 0.41 0 4
 2.SKL 7 2.43 1.99 0.75 0 6
 Total 26 2.46 1.65 0.32 0 6
Legend:
young young players developed in lower-leagues teams
main_si main players who are Slovenian
junior junior players in senior teams
play_bor players borrowed from other teams
fore foreign players
main_for main players who are foreigners
play_pay paid players
play_pro professional players
injur injured players
The organisation of senior-men basketball teams 45Kinesiologia Slovenica, 12, 2, 38–50 (2006)
Table 4: Some characteristics of training sessions and games (descriptive statistics and ANO-
VA)
N Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error Min. Max. F Sig.
train_se 1.A SKL 7 364.00 108.82 41.13 196 500 10.27 0.000
 1.B SKL 11 195.36 55.34 16.68 100 312
 2.SKL 4 190.50 92.90 46.45 73 300
 Total 22 248.14 112.43 23.97 73 500
hour_se 1.A SKL 7 656.57 214.87 81.21 300 920 8.59 0.003
 1.B SKL 9 343.22 144.99 48.33 150 650
 2.SKL 4 300.25 115.78 57.89 168 450
 Total 20 444.30 226.62 50.67 150 920
train_we 1.A SKL 7 8.14 3.34 1.26 2 11 5.67 0.011
 1.B SKL 11 5.82 1.83 0.55 4 9
 2.SKL 6 4.00 0.89 0.36 3 5
 Total 24 6.04 2.64 0.54 2 11
train_min 1.A SKL 8 115.00 10.69 3.78 90 120 3.57 0.045
 1.B SKL 11 99.09 13.75 4.15 90 120
 2.SKL 6 95.00 22.58 9.22 60 120
 Total 25 103.20 17.01 3.40 60 120
prepar 1.A SKL 8 7.88 6.77 2.39 0 15 4.39 0.024
 1.B SKL 11 2.18 2.60 0.78 0 7
 2.SKL 7 2.71 2.93 1.11 0 7
 Total 26 4.08 4.93 0.97 0 15
ind% 1.A SKL 7 26.29 15.97 6.03 0 45 1.01 0.382
 1.B SKL 11 24.09 22.00 6.63 5 30
 2.SKL 5 31.00 21.33 9.54 0 40
 Total 23 26.26 19.49 4.06 0 45
games_off 1.A SKL 8 39.63 11.20 3.96 30 65 12.43 0.000
 1.B SKL 11 29.55 2.07 0.62 26 32
 2.SKL 6 21.83 3.82 1.56 18 28
 Total 25 30.92 9.39 1.88 18 65
games_all 1.A SKL 8 57.50 13.30 4.70 32 75 7.88 0.003
 1.B SKL 11 44.45 4.86 1.47 40 54
 2.SKL 6 39.17 8.54 3.49 30 50
 Total 25 47.36 11.47 2.29 30 75
Legend: 
train_se number of training sessions in season
hour_se hours of training sessions in season
train_we training session per week
train_min duration of training session
prepar number of days of preparation outside the come club
games_all number of all games in season
games_off number of official games in season
%ind percentage of individual training sessions
Of course, there are great differences in terms of the financial rewards or financial status of 
players. In the 1.A SKL almost all players are paid fees or salaries on the basis of a contract; 
seven or 59% of them on average play basketball professionally. In the 1.B SKL 63% of all players 
are paid fees or a salary on the basis of a contract, however on average only one player in a 
team plays basketball professionally. In the 2. SKL there are practically no paid players since 
46 The organisation of senior-men basketball teams Kinesiologia Slovenica, 12, 2, 38–50 (2006) 
all of them play basketball as amateurs. In spite of the differences in the number or duration
of training sessions and games, as shown in Table 4, no differences were established in the
number of injured players.
Training sessions and games characteristics
As regards the number of all training sessions in a season, the 1.A SKL teams are considerably 
ahead since on average they have approximately 364 trainings in a season which is almost 
twice as many as the 1.B and 2. SKL teams (see Table 4). Consequently, the 1.A SKL teams 
dominate in terms of the number of training hours (60 min) in a season. Both variables show 
statistically significant differences (p < 0.01). 
Large and statistically significant differences may also be established in the answers to the
question about the number of training sessions per week (F = 5.67, p < 0.05) and the average 
length (duration) of training (F = 3.57, p < 0.05). The 1.A SKL teams have more than eight
training sessions a week on average, while the 2. SKL teams only have four. A training session 
(unit of practice) of a 1.A SKL team lasts for almost two hours on average (115 minutes), 
while that of the 1.B and 2. SKL teams is substantially shorter (99 or 95 minutes). Statistically 
significant differences (F = 4.38, p < 0.05) may also be seen in the variable prepar i.e. the
number of days of preparation outside the home club. The preparations of the 1.A SKL teams
outside their home club last slightly less than eight days a season on average, while those of 
the 1.B and 2. SKL teams last less than three days.
Large and statistically significant differences were also established in the number of all games
in the 2003/2004 season (F = 7.88, p < 0.01), as well as in the number of official games played
in the same season (F = 12.42, p < 0.01). On average, the 1.A SKL teams played 57 games in the 
season (39 were official), the 1.B SKL teams 44 games (29 official) and the 2. SKL teams only 39
games (21 official). It is also interesting to note there were no statistically significant differences
between the 1.A., 1.B and 2. SKL teams in terms of the share (percentage) of individual training 
sessions. This share is even lower in the 1.A SKL than in the 2. SKL teams.
DISCUSSION
The “Guidelines on the development of basketball in Slovenia” (Dežman et al.. 2003) require
that basketball clubs base their operations on a long-term orientation and constantly achieve 
their objectives (in particular their long-term ones). Such an orientation and the achievement 
of objectives can only result from systematic and quality coaches and organisational work 
which is also based on the provision of the best possible conditions for the work of the senior-
men teams in the 1.A. 1.B and 2. SKL. 
Adherence to and implementation of the guidelines must also be ensured in that part of the 
text referring to the classification of clubs in three categories (promoters of international,
national and local basketball) and the ensuing responsibilities, obligations and duties of clubs. 
The results of our study show that those clubs functioning as the promoters of international,
national and local basketball fail to consistently ensure adequate conditions for the work of 
their senior-men teams. 
Moreover, it was established that the clubs 1.A and 1.B SKL fail to provide a sufficient number
of coaches. In the 1.A SKL the clubs have on average less than two professional coaches, of 
The organisation of senior-men basketball teams 47Kinesiologia Slovenica, 12, 2, 38–50 (2006)
whom there is slightly more than one in their senior-men teams. On average, one professional 
coach works in the 1.B SKL clubs and every second senior-men team has a professional coach. 
All of the above is substantially below the level stipulated in the mentioned guidelines which 
prescribes three professional coaches in the 1.A and two professional coaches in 1.B SKL. On 
the other hand, coaches are unwilling to work on a voluntary basis even if such work could 
broaden their knowledge and experience. Of the total 121 coaches, only three work for free. 
The clubs will have to pay greater attention to finding candidates for coaches, provide them
with expert training and to offer highly-trained and qualified coaches suitable conditions for
their normal work and development.
Given that the 1.A SKL basketball clubs are directly and predominantly responsible for 
developing quality Slovenian basketball and developing talented players (this is also set out 
in the guidelines), it is highly desirable that the senior-men teams of the said clubs include 
more players emerging from their own junior team. In this respect, the situation in the 1.B 
and 2. SKL teams is much more satisfactory. The figures on the number of junior players in
senior-men teams may be discussed in a similar context as this number decreases with the 
level of competition (most junior players are seen in the 2. SKL senior-men teams and the 
least in the 1.A senior-men teams). This information also leads to the conclusion that work
with young players in the 1.A SKL clubs is not at an appropriate level and that perhaps they 
are paying insufficient attention to the development of talented players.
We would also like to point out the large number of players with the status of a foreigner in the 
1.A SKL. According to Pajer (2006), the number of foreign players grew from 37 to 107 in the 
period 1996 to 2002. In compliance with the guidelines (Dežman et al., 2003) foreign basketball 
players should primarily fill in the gaps in the structure of senior-men teams. The clubs should
select a suitable number of quality foreign basketball players and carry out an appropriate 
selection procedure. If foreign basketball players are of inferior quality and inappropriately 
selected, then they take the place of talented domestic players and hinder their development. 
However, the results of our study show that in most cases those players with a foreign status 
are the key players in their teams. In view of the above it may be assumed that these are more 
or less quality players but, of course, this does not mean that their quality is adequate and 
that they were selected appropriately given the team structure. This problem is even more
pressing since the majority of clubs in the 1.A SKL face great financial difficulties. One reason
for buying expensive foreign, top-level (star) players could be marketing considerations, as 
suggested by Wen-Guu (2005).
Both the number of professional basketball players and the number of players who are paid fees 
or salaries on the basis of a contract are highest in the senior-men teams of the 1.A SKL clubs 
and they decrease rapidly in the lower leagues. In the 2. SKL there are practically no players 
on the payroll. In view of the situation in Slovenian basketball it may be estimated that, in 
terms of this parameter, there are considerable differences within the 1.A SKL as some teams
(primarily those taking part in international competitions) operate at a purely professional 
level while others are far from this. Given that concrete and detailed data on the amounts 
paid to the players are unavailable, no more detailed analysis can be made of this aspect of the 
basketball clubs’ operations. Even though this is a sensitive subject and it is difficult to obtain
accurate data, we should try to focus more attention on these problems in the future. 
The results of the study also show that, in terms of the number and duration of training
sessions, the 1.A SKL teams are predominant. In line with the guidelines (Dežman et al.. 2003), 
48 The organisation of senior-men basketball teams Kinesiologia Slovenica, 12, 2, 38–50 (2006) 
these teams should receive training at least ten times a week, something which is not confirmed
by our study. In the 1. B SKL at least 8 training sessions a week are prescribed, yet we found 
less than six sessions a week on average (Dežman et al., 2003). It should also be noted that the 
training sessions of the 1.B SKL teams are on average 16 minutes shorter.
The results of our study point out that the 1.A SKL teams play the highest number of games
(on average slightly less than 40 official games per season). However, notwithstanding the
large differences in the number of games no differences were found between the 1.A. 1.B and
2. SKL teams in terms of the number of injuries. In recent years, the professional basketball 
community in Slovenia has entered into a discussion about whether too many games are 
being played in a single competitive season. The criticism here is that teams do not have
enough time for training (adequate preparation) and, consequently, the number of injuries 
is rising due to the greater stress and overloading of players. However, in order to draw more 
objective conclusions, the number of games and injuries in those teams additionally burdened 
by international competitions needs to be analysed. 
As regards basketball clubs’ co-operation with doctors and physiotherapists, a satisfactory 
level can only be found in the 1.A SKL clubs i.e. their senior-men teams. In the competitions 
at a lower level, physiotherapists are practically not involved in the preparation of players 
and teams even though the guidelines stipulate this. A similar trend was established with 
co-operation with a doctor.
It is also interesting to note that only two 1.A SKL teams work with a psychologist, while 
the 1.B and 2. SKL teams do not work with psychologists at all. In view of the importance of 
psychological preparation and the trends seen in some other sports, this result is somewhat 
surprising, points to certain deficiencies and shows that there is still some room for manoeu-
vring in the quality preparation of teams and individual players. Certainly, co-operation with 
sports psychologists is thwarted or hindered by poor financial resources and, on the other
hand, the lack of qualified expert staff (sports psychologists specialised in basketball) along
with the fact that some coaches consider psychological preparation as being less important. 
Owing to the changed circumstances in Slovenian basketball in which basketball clubs operate 
and particularly due to the extremely rapid and strong commercialisation, new relationships 
have to be established between the promoters of quality basketball (Erčulj & Doupona Topič, 
2005). These should be based on solutions underpinned by expertise that will take into con-
sideration the particularities of the Slovenian sphere, the sport itself and individual clubs. The
uncritical or even blind copying of others and inconsiderate interventions may shake Slovenian 
basketball to its foundations. Elite clubs should not think only of themselves but try to find
adequate solutions (compromises) with other clubs to the long-term benefit of all Slovenian
basketball and, indirectly, also to the benefit of themselves. In the future they have to continue
with a responsible attitude to the development of Slovenian basketball in its entirety, not only 
for themselves (Erčulj & Dežman, 2005).
The said changes call for an active, responsible and professional approach of the BFS to promot-
ing and guiding the development of Slovenian basketball. Review and modifying the current 
‘Guidelines on the development of basketball in Slovenia’, including on the basis of the results 
of our study, is quite necessary. To promote the further development of basketball in Slovenia, 
suitable conditions for quality training and competitive activities have to be put in place. This
is primarily the task of those people occupying the leading positions in the BFS and in the 
various basketball clubs.
The organisation of senior-men basketball teams 49Kinesiologia Slovenica, 12, 2, 38–50 (2006)
REFERENCES
Amis, J., & Slack, T. (2003). Analysing sports organisations: Theory and practice. In B. Houlihan (Ed.),
Sports & Society (pp. 201-217). London: Sage Publications.
Basketball Federation of Slovenia. (2005). Zgodovina [History]. Retrieved August 5, 2005, from http://
kzs-zveza.si/kzs-zgodovina.php 
Bednarik, J., Ferenčak, M., & Turšič, N. (2002). Nekatere socialno ekonomske značilnosti slovenskih 
športnikov in športnic [Some social and economic characteristics of Slovenian male and female athletes] 
In M. Tušak, & J. Bednarik (Eds.), Nekateri psihološki, socialni in ekonomski vidiki športa v Sloveniji 
[Some psychological, social and economic aspects of sport in Slovenia] (pp. 140-168). Ljubljana: Faculty 
of Sport.
Bednarik, J., Simoneti, M., Kolenc, M., & Šugman, R. (2000). Analiza organiziranosti in financiranja
slovenskih športnih organizacij: Nekatere značilnosti financiranja slovenskih športnih organizacij v letu 
1998 [Analysis of the organisation and financing of Slovenian sports organisations: Some characteristics
of financing of Slovenian sports organisations in 1998]. Ljubljana: Faculty of Sport.
Dawson, P., Dobson, S., & Gerrard (2000). Estimating coaching efficiency in professional team sports:
Evidence from English association football. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 47, 399-421
Dežman, B., Drvarič, J., Krump, T., Fišer, S., Kobilica, A., & Majer, B. (2003). Smernice razvoja košarke 
v Sloveniji: Gradivo za skupščino KZS [Guidelines on the development of basketball in Slovenia: Mate-
rial for the assembly of the Basketball Federation of Slovenia]. Ljubljana: Basketball Federation of 
Slovenia.
Erčulj, F., & Doupona Topič, M. (2005). Nekateri organizacijski in finančni vidiki delovanja košarkarskih
društev v Sloveniji [Some club and financial aspects of operations of basketball clubs in Slovenia]. Šport, 
53(3), 67-73.
Erčulj, F., & Dežman, B. (2005). Nekateri vidiki dela z mladimi košarkarji v slovenskih košarkarskih 
društvih [Some aspects of work with young basketball players in Slovenian basketball clubs]. Šport, 
53(4), 58-64.
Gerrard, B. (2005). A resource utilisation model of organisational efficiency in professional sports
teams. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 143-169.
Kikulis, L. M., Slack, T., & Hinings, B. (1992). Institutionally, specific design archetypes: A framework
for understanding change in national sport organisations. International Review for the Sociology of 
Sport, 27, 343-370.
Maguire, J. (2000). Sport and globalisation. In J. Coakley, & E. Dunning (Eds.), Handbook of Sport 
Studies (pp. 356–369). London: Sage Publications.
Maguire, J., Jarvie, G., Mansfield, L., & Bradley, J. (2002). Sport worlds: A sociological perspective. 
Champaign: Human Kinetics. 
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. London: Prentice
Hall.
Mihevc, D. (2004). Organizacijsko-strokovni model košarkarskega kluba Alpos-Kemoplast [Club and 
expert model of the Alpos-Kemoplast basketball club]. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, University of 
Ljubljana, Slovenia. 
Pajer, S. (2006). Položaj ženske košarke v Sloveniji [Situation of women’s basketball in Slovenia]. Unpub-
lished bachelor’s thesis, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. 
50 The organisation of senior-men basketball teams Kinesiologia Slovenica, 12, 2, 38–50 (2006) 
Pavlovič, M. (2000). Mejniki slovenske košarke [The milestones of Slovenian basketball]. Ljubljana:
Pisanica. 
Pavlović, M. (2001). Slovenija gre naprej – košarka pa nazaj [Slovenia moves ahead – basketball goes 
backwards]. Šport, 49(4), 26-31. 
Šip, A. (2004). Predstavitev organizacijskih in strokovnih modelov košarkarskih klubov Union Olimpija. 
Pivovarna Laško in Helios Domžale [Presentation of the club and expert models of the Union Olimpija, 
Pivovarna Laško and Helios Domžale basketball clubs]. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, University of 
Ljubljana, Slovenia. 
Wen-Guu, Lei. (2005). An analysis of the STP marketing, marketing strategy and business philosophy 
of the Brother Elephants professional baseball club. Kinesiologia Slovenica, 11, 2, 33-41.