CC BY
31«coyyomum-jmtmal» 2023 / physical education and sports
25
PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORTS
JEL: L83; Z20; Z21
Abrahamyan Lianna
PhD in Economics
Armenian State Institute of Physical Culture and Sport, Yerevan, Armenia, Chair of Sports Management and Marketing-lecturer ORCID 0000-0003-4282-860X DOI: 10.24412/2520-6990-2023-9168-25-33 KEY SPORT COMPLEX MANAGEMENT IN ARMENIA: CURRENT STATE AND PERSPECTIVES
Abstract.
The issue of efficient management of Armenian sport facilities is complex due to lack of adequate management model, funding and public management quality issues, and influence of current trends and drivers, including safety and security, accessibility, and inclusivity. To overcome these obstacles, a comprehensive strategy must be developed that incorporates efficient communication, strategic planning, and ongoing improvement. The goal of this paper is to identify peculiarities of comprehensive approach to Armenian sport complex management including both organizational and societal goals based on adequate funding. The paper examines the condition of Armenia's sport organizations, stressing the variety of organizations and sport professionals who participate in them. It highlights the need for efficient management of sports complex, with a focus on operational and strategic management using KPIs. The paper proposes a set of KPIs, which should include current diversity and inclusiveness concerns and span several directions of management. The financing options for sporting complex are also covered, with an emphasis on the need of striking a balance between organizational and society goals as well as ensuring accessibility and inclusivity. In order to manage sports complexes effectively, the paper suggests creating a comprehensive framework that includes both company and social objectives. This study may be of interest for sport management researchers, sport industry organizations, thinktanks, sport sector management both in public and private areas, public authorities and non-for-profit organizations. Further directions for this field's research are focused on creating a Balanced Scorecard-style approach that is comprehensive and incorporates organizational and societal goals for managing sport complex.
Keywords: sport complex management; organizational goal; sport management KPI; diversity; financing
mix.
Introduction. Efficient management of sport complex under volatile exogenous and endogenous environment is one of the main concerns for a number of stakeholder groups. Therefore, this necessitates a complex solution on both business-level and public-level on the part of major stakeholders. Lack of adequate management model is a significant limitation in this case. Further the issue is aggravated by lack of public funding and potential global recession over 2023-2025 period. Hence, it's an urgent task to develop an adequate managerial approach for Armenian sport facilitated based on management model encompassing multiple aspects, i.e. key drivers of exogenous and endogenous nature, stakeholder needs and motivations, leading technologies used both in public and business sectors.
The issue of efficient management of Armenian sport complex is complex by its nature. That encompasses funding and public management quality issues, which is more challenging under modern conditions of strained government budget and public spending cuts. Moreover, efficient management of Armenian sport complex has to deal with issues of safety and security. Accessibility and inclusivity are another aspect to consider in the field in question. Stakeholder needs are also to be included in the consideration for managerial approach towards Armenian sport complex under current situation. Therefore, overcoming these obstacles calls for a thorough and integrated strategy that incorporates
good communication, strategic planning, and ongoing improvement.
The studies goal is to determine the integrated approach for sport complex management in Armenia encompassing both organizational and societal goals supported by adequate financing component.
This goal is supported by a number of tasks, i.e. study the context of sport complex management in Armenia; determine key performance indicators for sport complex management; analyze diversity and inclusivity goal for sport complex management; study revenue sources in terms of relevant financing mix for supporting organizational and societal goals of sport complex management in Armenia.
Literature Review. Issues of sport complex management under complex exogenous and endogenous environment are considered in a number of research papers.
Body of research considers strategic and operational aspects of business models in managing sport complex. In particular, Hassin, Zaidi, Ali (2022) analyze strategic component of managerial model for sport complex in Malaysia. In turn, Elasri-Ejjaberi, Aparicio-Chueca, Triadó-Ivern (2020) propose an insight into factors determining expenditure structure in managing key sport facilities in Spain. Further, Santacruz Lozano, Espada Mateos, Clemente Remón, Jiménez-Beatty Navarro (2020) research peculiarities of business models for public and private sport facilities in Spain. Puglisi,
Baiardi (2019) analyze peculiarities of cost-focused and revenue-focused management models for sport facilities. In turn, Llagjevic-Govori, Tahiraj, Llagjaj (2022) study peculiarities of management model for sport facility in Indonesia. Further, Lyberger, Yim, McCarthy (2020) analyze management model for sport complex in terms of feasibility analysis. Kwon, Kim (2021) study managerial approaches towards customer management model for sport complex.
Number of papers analyze public policy aspects in managing sport complex. In this field of research paper Kayode, Tunrayo (2022) analyzes issues of managing sport complex in terms of budgeting in Nigeria. In turn, a specific issue is considered in paper by Cocco, Mayer, Montanaro (2022) studying peculiarities of managing abandoned sport facilities. In turn, Wang, Wang (2020) study management of Chinese sport facilities in terms of public policy on promoting healthy lifestyle. Further, Nasrulloh, Sumaryanto, Sumarjo, Nugroho (2022) analyze issues of managing sport facilities under COVID-19 pandemics. Lumintuarso, Suharjana, Widiyanto, Ndayisenga (2021) study management issues of Indonesian sport complex in terms of Asian Games 2018 preparations.
National and regional peculiarities of managing sport complex are studied in a body of research papers. In this particular field, Anam, Taufikurrahman (2021) outline a complex of managerial issues for sport complex in Central Java region, Indonesia. Further, Haofan, Jing (2022) research managerial approaches towards urban and rural sport complex in China. In turn, Chen
(2019) study issues of planning and managing large sport complex in China. Sizeable input for the outlined discussion is added by Gebreyohannis (2020) analyzing factors influencing accessibility of sport complex in Ethiopia. In turn, Bergsgard, Borodulin, Fahlen, H0yer-Kruse, Iversen (2017) analyze national structures in terms of managing sport complex in Northern Europe.
Sustainability and diversity issues in managing sport complex are studied in a set of research papers. Particularly, León-Quismondo, García-Unanue, Burillo (2020) analyze issues of efficient sport complex management in terms of sustainability. Further, Orynycz, Tucki (2020) research issue of energy efficiency in managing sport facilities. In turn, Reza Ghasemi, Khoshnam, Tork Far, Mohammadzadeh
(2020) analyze management of sport complex within sustainability concept. Further, McDowell, J., Pickett,
A. C., & Pitts, B. G. (2022) indicate a need for diversity component in implementing contemporary sport management aimed at achieving higher results in terms of social development goals. Paper Love, A., Bernstein, S. S., & King-White, R. (2021) further develop the need for diversity and inclusion component in sport management supporting social changes on community and state levels.
Technology factor in managing sport complex is analyzed in several papers. Discussion in this field is developed by paper Yang (2022) researching innovative managerial approaches for sport complex based on cloud technology. Further, Li, Zhang (2021) study approaches towards planning sport complex based on Big Data modelling techniques.
However, the issue of integrated approach towards sport complex management, in particular in combining organizational and societal goals supported by adequate financing is not studied sufficiently.
Methodology. In this research, the following methodology was used to study the peculiarities of sport complex management: synthesis - to identify trends and structure peculiarities for sport sector in Armenia; statistical analysis - to determine the viability of the suggested solutions for sport complex management based on Armenia's macroeconomic data and sport sector data; strategic analysis - to establish key priorities and integrated goals for sport complex management in Armenia based on endogenous and endogenous environment.
Data basis for this research is data of Armstat -Statistical Committee of the Republic of Armenia, i.e. Armenia's GDP and consolidated budget deficit, and Armenia's sport sector data over 2017-2021 period. Technical basis for data analysis of this research is MS Excel.
Results. Armenia's economy is in a relatively good shape. National GDP has been growing year by year over 2017-2021 period (Figure 1), in particular, GDP in real prices has grown from 5564 AMD billion up to 6983 AMD billion, which is +25,3% growth over 5-year period. However, the consolidated budget deficit is also increasing - from 264 AMD billion in 2017 to 318 AMD billion, which is +20,4% growth over 20172021 period. That indicates a complex macroeconomic situation for Armenia development, including capacity for sport sector's current state and perspectives for development.
«coyyomum-jmtmal» mm / physical education and sports
27
8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0
I I GDP (in real prices), AMD billion
^—Consolidated budget deficit, AMD billion
-264,8
-96,3
-52,4
-316,2
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 5564,5 6017,0 6543,3 6181,9 6983,0
-318,1
0
-50 -100 -150 -200 -250 -300 -350
Figure 1. Armenia's GDP and consolidated budget deficit dynamics, AMD billion, 2017-2021 Source: Armstat. Main Socio-Economic Indicators. 2017-2021
Various government bodies, as well as non-profits and commercial entities, are in charge of managing the sport complex in Armenia. The primary government agency in charge of planning and overseeing the nation's sports infrastructure is the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports. Along with privately owned sports clubs, fitness centers, there are public facilities controlled by the government that provide sports and recreation services. These facilities are often run by private persons or businesses that are in charge of managing, maintaining, and caring for them. Armenian government has recently made large expenditures in the creation of sporting facilities, including the building of new stadiums, arenas, and training facilities. This has made it simpler for sport professionals and the general public to use sports facilities and helped to raise the overall standard of sports complex in the nation. To offer the greatest sports infrastructure for Armenian sport professionals and the general public, a mixture of governmental and private groups oversees the country's sports facilities.
It has to be noted that number of sport organizations in Armenia is stable and does not demonstrate volatility. According to Armstat, there are 174 sport organizations as of 2021 and the number has not fluctuated over 5-year period. The dynamics for sport organizations in Armenia are presented on Figure 2. These sport
organizations encompass versatile directions, i.e. National Olympic Committee of Armenia, Armenian Football Federation, Armenian Wrestling Federation, Armenian Boxing Federation, Armenian Chess Federation, Armenian Weightlifting Federation and others.
Speaking of number of sport professionals in Armenia there are 43 thousand of them for 2021 (Figure 3). That number encompasses all sport professionals engaged in sport sector in Armenia both on state and community level. It has to be noted that Armenia has a robust Olympic team represented by top sport professionals in the respected fields. More specifically, National Olympic Committee of Armenia reported that as of 2021, 159 sport professionals represented Armenia in 24 different sports at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Armenia also has a large number of sports clubs, associations, and federations that employ coaches, administrators, and other sports professionals.
Considering the breakdown in term of sport professionals by Olympic sports in Armenia, the major Olympic sports segments in terms of number of sport professionals are football (17,5% as of 2021), Greco-Roman wrestling (11,2%), Freestyle wrestling (10,7%), boxing (8,5%), which determines the specific focus for sport complex management in Armenia (Figure 4).
200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
174
175
175
175
174
2017 2018 2019 2020
ZD number of sport organizations in Armenia ■
Figure 2. Number of sport organizations in Armenia, units, 2017-2021 Source: Armstat. Activities of Sports Organizations. 2017-2021
50000 40000 30000 20000 10000
42761
42529
42136
40934
42980
0,8%
0,6%
0,4%
0,2%
0,0%
-0,2%
-0,4%
-0,6%
-0,8%
2021 growth rate, %
6,0% 5,0% 4,0% 3,0% 2,0% 1,0% 0,0% -1,0% -2,0% -3,0% -4,0%
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
I I number of sport professionals in Armenia ^—growth rate, %
0
Figure 3. Number of sport professionals in Armenia, persons, 2017-2021 Source: Armstat. Activities of Sports Organizations. 2017-2021
17,5%
26,4%
4,2%
Football Boxing Athletics Other sports
11,2%
10,7%
7,2%
Greco-Roman Wrestling ■ Freestyle Wrestling Judo ■ Basketball
Powerlifting ■ Volleyball
Figure 4. Structure of sport professionals by Olympic sports in Armenia, %, 2021 Source: Armstat. Activities of Sports Organizations. 2021
This specific focus has to be reflected in goals and metrics which guide sport managers. In order to measure how effectively plans are performing, sport manager must first develop system of key performance indicators (KPIs). KPIs will also provide a notion on the trajectory manager is on toward achieving sport complex's major objectives.
KPIs for a sport complex will differ depending on the facility's unique goals and objectives, but the following are some potential KPIs to take into account: 1. Utilization Rate; 2. Revenues; 3. Customer Satisfaction; 4. Attendance rate; 5. Target Financing Mix; 6. Facility Maintenance; 7. Employee Performance; 8. Participation in Events; 9. Safety and Security; 10. Accessibility. In greater detail these proposed KPIs are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Key KPIs for sport complex management
KPIs Comments
Utilization Rate This KPI monitors how frequently athletes, teams, or members use the facility. It can be calculated by keeping track of how many hours or days the facility is reserved.
Revenues KPI measures how much money the sport complex brings in through membership fees, leasing costs, and event fees, among other sources.
Customer Satisfaction This indicator quantifies how happy users of the facility are (athletes, coaches, event planners.) Reviews, feedback forms, and surveys are the major tools to measure this KPI.
Attendance rate KPI evaluates the dynamics of rising or decreasing number of visitors of sports events who bought a ticket or paid an entrance fair. Number of sold tickets sold and paid registrations may be used as measures for this particular KPI.
Target Financing Mix This indicator is based on the financial objectives, risk appetite, and capital requirements of the sport complex. Organizations with predictable cash flows and low risk may choose a larger percentage of debt
financing since the total cost of financing may be reduced as a consequence. Target financing mix should be carefully researched and periodically evaluated to make sure it is in line with the organization's objectives and financial situation. It depends on a number of organization-specific elements.
Facility Maintenance KPI evaluates how well the facility is maintained, including the equipment's condition, the cleanliness of the restrooms and locker rooms, and the facility's general appearance.
Employee Performance This KPI gauges how well the facility's staff, which may include front desk agents, trainers, coaches, and maintenance employees, is doing. Metrics like attendance, timeliness, and customer satisfaction can be used to measure it.
Participation in Events Indicator counts the number of tournaments, competitions, and games that are held at the venue. The quantity of events held, the number of attendees, and the amount of money made from these events can all be used to monitor this.
Safety and Security The facility's and its users' safety and security are tracked by this KPI. The quantity of reported occurrences, the efficacy of safety protocols, and the security measures in place can all be used to gauge this.
Accessibility This KPI assesses how accessible a facility is to people with disabilities, including if there are accessible parking places, restrooms, and entrances, as well as whether adaptive tools and services are offered.
Sources: author's analysis.
Sport complex management has to be up-to-date and follow the major global trends of developed and developing countries, including focus of diversity and inclusivity. A focus on diversity can assist guarantee that public sports facilities are friendly and inclusive of people from all backgrounds. Hence, we consider a set of potential diversity and inclusivity objectives.
Increase the representation of various populations among facility users. Public sports facilities can make it a point to attract more users who identify as people of other nations, persons with disabilities, or those who come from lower-income families. This can be done through providing these populations with programs and activities that are inexpensive and accessible, as well as by reaching out to various communities to encourage facility use.
Recruit more people from varied backgrounds and offer training and professional development opportunities to encourage diversity and inclusion in the workplace are two ways public sport facilities can work toward increasing the diversity of their employees.
Adaptive sports programs for people with disabilities can be offered at public sport facilities. They can also offer gender-inclusive locker rooms and collaborate with neighborhood groups to create programming that is sensitive to and relevant to different cultures. Expand programming to meet the needs of diverse populations.
Create an environment that is welcoming and inclusive for all users. Public sport facilities can set a goal to create an environment that is welcoming and inclusive for all users. This can be done by putting policies and procedures in place that support diversity and inclusion, training staff on these topics, and designing spaces that are accessible and welcoming to people of all backgrounds.
To identify areas for development and track advancement toward diversity and inclusion goals, public
sport facilities can make it a priority to perform continuous diversity evaluations. This may entail gathering information on how various populations use the facilities, the demographics of the personnel, and the levels of customer satisfaction before using this information to guide decisions about facility policies and programming.
It's crucial to balance the organizational and societal aims of the sport complex while deciding on the finance mix for a sports facility. From an organizational standpoint, the finance strategy should seek to collect enough cash to pay for the construction and upkeep of the facility as well as to generate income to support operations. Government grants, business sponsorships, and private contributions are a few examples of the public and private money that might be used for this. To guarantee that the facility can continue to function and achieve its organizational objectives, it is crucial to make sure that the finance mix is sustainable over time.
The facility should be able to fulfill the demands of a larger community by maximizing accessibility and inclusion, which should be a goal of the funding mix from a social standpoint. This can include charging reasonable membership dues, funding programs for disadvantaged populations, and collaborating with neighborhood groups to encourage community involvement. Making ensuring that the finance mix does not create obstacles to access or maintain imbalances within the community is crucial. In order to guarantee a sport complex's long-term viability and social effect, the finance mix for the facility should be created to strike a balance between its organizational and social purposes.
Several variables, such as the facility's size and breadth, the degree of government assistance, and the financial objectives of local communities, might affect the financing mix of public sport facilities. Here are a few typical funding options for public sport facilities:
Government Grants: To fund facility development, renovation, and programming, public sport facilities may be eligible to receive grants from local, and state government sources. These grants may be distributed directly from government agencies, through competitive grant programs, or both.
Public-private partnerships allow public sports facilities to split the costs of building, running, and maintaining the facility with private businesses or groups. Private businesses may occasionally contribute money or goods in exchange for naming rights or other advantages related to the facility.
User Fees: User costs, such membership dues, leasing fees, or participation fees for events and activities, are one way that public sports facilities might make money. These fees may be completely eliminated for those who cannot afford them or set at amounts that low-income groups may afford.
Public sport facilities can accept donations from charitable groups or people to help with facility development, programming, and equipment requirements. These contributions may be utilized to support ongoing facility operations or to finance particular programs or initiatives.
Bonds: To finance facility development, renovation, or expansion, public athletic facilities may issue bonds. To raise money for the facility, these bonds can be backed by governmental bodies or offered for sale to private investors.
Tax Levies: Tax levies, which are taxes taken from local citizens or corporations, are one way that public sports facilities might get money. These taxes may be used to pay for continuing facility operations or to build new or renovate existing facilities.
Discussion. Therefore, the peculiarities of sport complex management in Armenia is identified. The results of this study are confirmed by previously obtained results. The obtained results are presented below in greater details.
This study indicates that operational and strategic components of the business model must be taken into account while managing sport complex. Key point is to determine the value proposition and determine relevant goals. This strategic directions has to be described through relevant KPIs. This is confirmed by the previously obtained results in a number of studies. In particular, Hassin, Zaidi, Ali (2022) indicate a strategic need in terms of sport complex management targeted at long-term development. Further, this statement is confirmed by Puglisi, Baiardi (2019) analyzing revenue and cost components in determining business model in terms of sport management. Additionally the obtained result is confirmed by results in paper Kwon, Kim (2021) in terms of focusing on key customer segment needs in terms of sport management.
This study points out a key need for sustainability and diversity component in sport complex management. Diversity in sport management is crucial because it enables the contribution of many viewpoints, experiences, and skill sets. Better decision-making, problemsolving, and innovation might result as a result in the industry. This result is supported by McDowell, J., Pickett, A. C., & Pitts, B. G. (2022) indicating higher
results in social development due to incorporation of diversity and inclusion component in sport management. Additionally, the obtained result is supported by Love, A., Bernstein, S. S., & King-White, R. (2021) outlining significant social change due to implementation of diversity and inclusion principles in sport management.
However, the component of financing operational and strategic development under key organizational and social goals for sport complex is not articulated sufficiently in the existing body of research. In particular, the results of this paper indicate that financing has to be oriented on diversity and social development goals. Both financing mix and means of monitoring and controlling a balanced combination of revenue streams have to be coherent with the set of organizational and social goals in terms of sport complex management. In turn, the results of this paper specifically stress that efficient achievement of organizational and social goals is possible only under stable and sufficient financing for sport complex.
Conclusion. Armenia has a robust sport sector which is characterized by a focused development. As of 2021, there are 174 sport organizations in Armenia, and their number has not changed during the 5-year period. These organizations cover a variety of areas such as football, wrestling, chess, powerlifting and others. The number of sports professionals in Armenia is estimated at 43 thousand for 2021. In particular, 159 sports professionals represented Armenia in 24 different sports at the 2020 Summer Olympics. The main Olympic sports in Armenia are football (17,5% of all of sport professionals involved), Greco-Roman wrestling (11,2%), freestyle wrestling (10,7%), boxing (8,5%), which determines the specific direction of sports management in Armenia.
The challenges facing the Armenian sports sector necessitate effective management. The key tool for such management of both operational and strategic directions is sport complex KPIs. These indicators should cover multidirectional areas of management of the sports complex in the context of key groups of stakeholders, as well as the main tasks of operational and strategic management of the sports complex. In accordance with modern needs, we offer the following list of KPIs: 1. Utilization Rate; 2. Revenues; 3. Customer Satisfaction; 4. Attendance rate; 5. Target Financing Mix; 6. Facility Maintenance; 7. Employee Performance; 8. Participation in Events; 9. Safety and Security; 10. Accessibility. These KPIs have to encompass key contemporary issues for sport complex management, in particular diversity and inclusivity. A focus on diversity can assist guarantee that public sports facilities are friendly and inclusive of people from all backgrounds. It is also outlined that when deciding on the finance mix for a sports facility, it is important to balance the organizational and societal aims of the facility. From an organizational standpoint, the financing of sport complex should seek adequate funding and generate income to support operations. From a social standpoint, the facility should be able to fulfill the demands of a larger community by maximizing accessibility and inclusion. Additionally, the finance mix
should not create obstacles to access or maintain imbalances within the community. Factors such as the facility's size and breadth, the degree of government assistance, and the financial objectives of local communities can affect the financing mix of public sport facilities. Moreover, national priorities in terms of focused sport sector development have to be taken into account in the financing mix for sport complex.
Further perspectives for the research in this field are in the direction of developing a comprehensive system encompassing both organizational and societal goals for sport complex management in the form of Balanced Scorecard.
References
1. Hassin, M. A., Zaidi, M. A., & Ali, I. M. (2022). Strategic Indicators for Strategic Intervention in Sports Facilities Management Performance in Malaysia. Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies,, 8(3), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.26710/jbsee.v8i3.2391
2. Elasri-Ejjaberi, A., Aparicio-Chueca, P., & Tri-adó-Ivern, X. M. (2020). An Analysis of the Determinants of Sport Expenditure in Sports Centers in Spain. Sustainability, 12(23), 10206. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310206
3. Santacruz Lozano, J. A., Espada Mateos, M., Clemente Remón, A., & Jiménez-Beatty Navarro, J. E. (2020). Spanish sport facilities: differences between public and private, and according to their business model (Las instalaciones deportivas en España: diferencias entre públicas y privadas, y según su modelo de negocio). Retos, (39), 38-45. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v0i39.74842
4. Puglisi, V., & Baiardi, L. (2019). Sports Facilities: The Transition from The "Cost System" Model to The "Revenue System" Model. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 471, 022037. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/471/2Z022037
5. Llagjevic-Govori, A., Tahiraj, E., & Llagjaj, D. (2022). The Managing of Sport Center: A Case Study. Indonesian Journal of Sport Management, 2(1), 22-27. https://doi.org/10.31949/ijsm.v2i1.2005
6. Lyberger, M., Yim, B., & McCarthy, L. M. (2020). Sport Facility Feasibility Study: Assessment, Value and Demand. Asia Pacific Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 1(1), 35-50. https://doi.org/10.46695/ascs.LL3
7. Kwon, K., & Kim, H. (2021). Understanding of consumption behavior at the sports facility approaching stage: Focusing on reservation method, payment method, and inconvenience making a reservation. Korean Journal of Sport Science, 32(2), 256-270. https://doi.org/10.24985/kjss.2021.32.2.256
8. Kayode, F. E., & Tunrayo, A. M. (2022). Management of sports budgeting on maintenance of facilities in Kwara State Sports Council, Nigeria. Indonesian Journal of Sport Management, 2(1), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.31949/ijsm.v2i1.1581
9. Cocco, A. R., Mayer, M., & Montanaro, A. (2022). When the Lights Go Out: Public Sector Management of Abandoned Sport Facilities. Public Works Management & Amp; Policy, 28(1), 11-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724x221129269
10. Wang, K., & Wang, X. (2020). Providing Sports Venues on Mainland China: Implications for Promoting Leisure-Time Physical Activity and National Fitness Policies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(14), 5136. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145136
11. Nasrulloh, A., Sumaryanto, S., Sumarjo, S., & Nugroho, S. (2022). Evaluation Study: Functions of Management of Sports Facilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Advances in Health Sciences Research, 1, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.2991/ahsrk.220106.001
12. Lumintuarso, R., Suharjana, S., Widiyanto, W., & Ndayisenga, J. (2021). Sports Management of Indonesian Sports Athletics Preparations in Asian Games 2018. International Journal of Human Movement and Sports Sciences, 9(1), 56-61. https://doi.org/10.13189/saj.2021.090108
13. Anam, K., & Taufikurrahman, N. (2021). Facilities Management of Samapta Sports Center in Magelang City. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Sports, Health, and Physical Education, ISMINA 2021, 28-29 April 2021, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.28-4-2021.2312209
14. Haofan, Z., & Jing, H. (2022). Research on Countermeasures of Urban and Rural Sports Facilities Planning and Promotion in Lingchuan County in Guangxi Province. Proceedings of the 2022 7th International Conference on Financial Innovation and Economic Development (ICFIED 2022), 3154-3157. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k220307.517
15. Chen, Y. (2019). Research on Planning and Management of Large-Scale Sports Venues in Chinese Cities. Open House International, 44(3), 76-79. https://doi.org/10.1108/ohi-03-2019-b0020
16. Gebreyohannis, T. L. (2020). Assessment of the determinants of accessibility of sport facilities and equipment: the case of Dessie city administration. International Journal of Applied Research, 6(10), 147153. https://doi.org/10.22271/allre-search.2020.v6.i10c.7261
17. Bergsgard, N. A., Borodulin, K., Fahlen, J., H0yer-Kruse, J., & Iversen, E. B. (2017). National structures for building and managing sport facilities: a comparative analysis of the Nordic countries. Sport in Society, 22(4), 525-539. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2017.1389023
18. Leon-Quismondo, J., Garcia-Unanue, J., & Burillo, P. (2020). Best Practices for Fitness Center Business Sustainability: A Qualitative Vision. Sustainability, 12(12), 5067. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125067
19. Orynycz, O., & Tucki, K. (2020). Technology Management Leading to a Smart System Solution Assuring a Decrease of Energy Consumption in Recreational Facilities. Energies, 13(13), 3425. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13133425
20. Reza Ghasemi, M., Khoshnam, E., Tork Far, A., & Mohammadzadeh, Y. (2020). Investigating the role of environmental management exercises on the sustainability of sports businesses. Sistemas & Amp; Gestäo, 15(1), 53-58. https://doi.org/10.20985/1980-5160.2020.v15n1.1618
21. McDowell, J., Pickett, A. C., & Pitts, B. G. (2022). Introduction to the Special Issue on Diversity and Inclusion in Sport Management Education. Sport Management Education Journal, 16, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2022-0006
22. Love, A., Bernstein, S. S., & King-White, R. (2021). "Two heads are better than one": A continuum of social change in sport management. Sport Management Review, 24(2), 345-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.005
23. Yang, X. (2022). Intelligent management system of sports resources based on cloud platform. Inter-
national Conference on Intelligent Systems, Communications, and Computer Networks (ISCCN 2022), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2653221
24. Li, W., & Zhang, W. (2021). Design Model of Urban Leisure Sports Public Facilities Based on Big Data and Machine Vision. Journal of Sensors, 2021, 114. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/1213978
25. Armstat. Main Socio Economic Indicators. (2022). Retrieved March 10, 2022, from https://arm-stat.am/en/?nid=82&id=2552
26. Armstat. Activities of Sports Organizations. (2022). Retrieved March 10, 2022, from https://armstat.am/file/article/soc_sit_2021_en_2 5.pdf
