Table of contents
The Ratio Is Broken Everywhere
A major state sporting body has two club development staff. They are responsible for supporting 170 clubs. That is 85 clubs per person. Assuming 48 working weeks per year, each club gets about half a day of support annually.
This is not unusual. Every state body we speak to has the same story. A handful of club development officers. Multiple, multiple clubs. The ratio does not work.
Why Hiring Does Not Scale
Some bodies have tried to hire their way out of the problem. Casual workforce liaison officers sent out to clubs. More headcount in the club development team.
It is very expensive. It has not scaled. And it creates a dependency — clubs rely on the development officer to solve their problems rather than building the capability to solve them themselves.
Giving them fish instead of teaching them to fish.
The Self-Sufficiency Model
The question is not "how do we support each club individually?" It is "how do we make clubs capable of supporting themselves?"
This requires three things:
Standard processes. Every club follows the same governance framework. Same meeting templates. Same affiliation process. Same compliance requirements. When processes are standard, clubs do not need individual guidance — they need a system that guides them.
Training the trainers. Instead of the governing body training every club, invest in champions — experienced club administrators in each region who know the system inside out. They become the first line of support for clubs around them.
Technology as the scalable layer. The governing body cannot visit 170 clubs. But a platform can reach all 170 simultaneously. Tasks assigned by role. Compliance tracked automatically. Support documentation available 24/7.
The Champion Model
The most successful rollouts we have seen use a champion model. The governing body identifies 10-15 experienced administrators across the state — people who understand the platform, know their local clubs, and are willing to support their peers.
These champions receive training and ongoing support from the governing body. They become the regional support network. When a club in their area has a question, they call the champion before they call the governing body.
The governing body's staff of two becomes an extended network of 15-20. Without hiring anyone.
What Technology Enables
A governance platform does not replace club development staff. It changes what they spend their time on.
Without technology: two staff spend 80% of their time on routine administration — chasing affiliation forms, answering how-to questions, compiling compliance reports from spreadsheets.
With technology: the routine work is handled by the system. The two staff spend their time on the high-value work that technology cannot do — relationship building, strategic planning, and supporting clubs through difficult transitions.
Same headcount. Different output. The maths starts working.
The Board Conversation
Every state body board asks the CEO: "Are our clubs healthy?" Without data, the answer is a guess. With a governance platform, the answer is a dashboard.
That visibility — knowing which clubs are thriving, which are struggling, and which are at risk — is what transforms a reactive club development strategy into a proactive one.
You will never have enough staff to visit every club. But you can have a system that sees every club. And that changes the equation.
Don't miss these
What Governing Bodies Get Wrong About Technology
Governing bodies buy technology for themselves, not for their clubs. That is the first mistake. Here are four more.
National Rollout: State-by-State vs Top-Down Adoption
Two models for rolling out technology nationally. Each has trade-offs. Here is how to choose.
The McDonald's Model: Why Sporting Clubs Are Franchises (And Should Be Treated L
Local governments don't fund every club directly. They use volunteers. That's a franchise model. Here's what changes when you recognise it.