Comparative Analysis of Sport Program Management, Implementation, and Sports Performance in State Universities and Colleges in the Cordillera Administrative Region

This study examined the level of management and implementation of sports programs and their relationship to sports performance among State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) in the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR). Using a descriptive-comparative - correlational design, data were gathered from 141 coaches through convenience sampling during Academic Year 2024–2025. A structured questionnaire measured program management across eight domains (program planning and policy development; organizational structure and leadership; budgeting and financial management; facilities and equipment management; athlete development and support; coaching and staff development; community and stakeholder engagement; and evaluation and continuous improvement), program implementation across three domains (program implementation and execution; monitoring and supervision; evaluation of implementation), and sports performance indicators. Data were analyzed using frequency and percentage, weighted mean and standard deviation, one- way ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD, and Pearson product–moment correlation. Results indicated that the overall level of sports program management was rated “High” (overall mean = 3.06), with Organizational Structure and Leadership as the highest domain (mean = 3.31) and Budgeting and Financial Management as the lowest (mean = 2.89). Program implementation was rated “High” (overall weighted mean = 3.25), with Monitoring and Supervision as the lowest implementation domain (weighted mean = 3.20). Sports performance was rated Very Satisfactory (composite mean = 3.00), characterized by stronger outcomes at local and regional levels and weaker outcomes at higher levels, particularly international performance (weighted mean = 2.31). Significant group differences were observed primarily across competition exposure and coach training, while years of coaching experience and accreditation showed limited or no consistent differences across key measures. Correlation analysis revealed strong, significant positive relationships between overall sports program management and sports performance (r = .778, p < .05) and between overall sports program implementation and sports performance (r = .772, p < .05). The findings support a regionally coordinated, evidence-based program focusing on strengthened budgeting systems, standardized monitoring and supervision, and a targeted high-performance pathway to improve national and international competitiveness. Limitations include the use of convenience sampling, reliance on coach perceptions, and the cross-sectional design, which constrain generalizability and causal inference.