View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

“to be New Zealand’s leading participation game” (Basketball New Zealand, 2006, p. 1).
Unlike the other examples, Basketball New Zealand has never had a financial interest in the
Breakers and has not had the need for any government intervention in its affairs.
1.3 Research Problem
The three NSO-PSF relationships outlined clearly meet Contractor and Lorange’s
(2002) criteria of an alliance, as described earlier. NSOs and PSFs are distinct and
autonomous organisations but they are linked by a common interest in the same sport. New
Zealand’s small population and limited resource base only increases the need for this
relationship to be effective and functional. The PSF organisations that the Breakers,
Warriors and the Wellington Phoenix compete against in their respective leagues do not
have the luxury of an exclusive relationship with their national governing bodies. Similarly,
the national governing bodies in Australia are not able to develop quality relationships with
a single professional sport franchise, without the risk of being accused of favouritism. In
both respects, the ability of the New Zealand NSOs and PSFs to acquire some source of
competitive advantage over their rivals exists because their competitors do not easily
replicate these relationships. However, the mere existence of these relationships is not itself
sufficient. The key is the extent to which these organisations are able to draw value by
learning from their partner. The ability to understand fully the intricacies of a NSO-PSF
relationship in New Zealand as source of competitive advantage compared to those
Australian based PSFs is beyond the scope of this research project. However, it is clear that
the ability of each organisation to learn from the other is a fundamental antecedent to a
relationship that adds value to both organisations, which in turn can lead to improved
performance by both organisations in their respective markets.
7