An Agency Theory Perspective on Corruption in Sport: The Case of the International Olympic Committee

Abstract

This article discusses agency problems in sport organizations in which the same individuals are involved in both the management and control of decision making. We focus our analysis on the case of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) by reviewing the behavior of selected IOC members with regard to the bidding process for the Olympic Games and the resulting reform attempts made by the IOC in an effort to address issues of corruption. After a review of examples of corrupt behavior on the part of IOC members, agency theory is introduced to discuss IOC reforms and provide some suggestions for future reform. We propose incorporating other stakeholders (in addition to the IOC members), such as corporate partners, media conglomerates, and other members of the Olympic movement (e.g., athletes, coaches, officials), into management and control functions. More specifi cally, it is suggested that these stakeholders comprise a board that oversees the operations of the IOC (similar to the IOC’s current executive committee) and be given the ability to remove and/or sanction IOC members who act self-interestedly to the detriment of the Olympic movement. Thus, by delegating the control function of decision making to a board and the management function to internal agents, greater accountability for all organization members can be achieved.

Drivers of and Barriers to Professionalization in International Sport Federations

“…At the national level (national sport federations, clubs), existing studies have enhanced scholars' understanding of aspects such as occupational professionalization (Dowling et al, 2014;Horch & Schütte, 2009;Seippel, 2002), board composition (Taylor & O'Sullivan, 2009), functioning (Yeh & Taylor, 2008) and organizational performance (Bayle & Madella, 2002;Winand et al, 2013). With regard to IFs, isolated phenomena such as governance deficiencies (Chappelet, 2011;Forster, 2006), major sport events (Parent & Séguin, 2008), globalisation and commercialization of sport (Forster & Pope, 2004), and scandals on doping (Hanstad, 2008) and corruption (Chappelet, 2008;Mason et al, 2006) form the main body of literature.…”

Understanding Sport Corruption: An Examination of People’s Perceptions Toward Corruptions

“…Researchers (Gorse & Chadwick, 2010;Maennig, 2005Maennig, , 2008Mason et al, 2006) have studied corruptions in sport, but little is known how people in public sectors (e.g., politicians, public officials) seriously perceive corruptions and how it is connected to corrupt behaviors in sport. This study aimed to examine the relationship between people's perceptions toward corruptions and magnitude of corruptions in a country, and the relationship between people's perceptions toward corruptions and sport corruptions.…”

“…In particular, Mason et al (2006) addressed agency problems in sport organizations by reviewing the corruption case of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and suggested delegating the control function of decision making to the IOC board and the management function to internal agents.…”

“…Despite numerous corruption studies in sport (Gorse & Chadwick, 2010;Maennig, 2005Maennig, , 2008Mason et al, 2006), little attempts have been made to find a relationship between corrupt behaviors in sport and magnitude of national corruption in a country. If any, how the level of sport corruption (i.e., individual, team, and organization) is different according to the magnitude of national corruption in a country.…”

Revisiting the Salt Lake City Olympic scandal: Would the outcome be different today?

“…The defendants [Welch and Johnson] argued the Travel Act counts should be dismissed because "under Swiss law, an IOC member is not an agent or fiduciary" which is required for the Utah charge (Welch, 2003, p. 10). In other words, the gift recipients do not represent their individual countries, but are ambassadors to the IOC (Mason, Thibault, and Misener, 2006). These defensive arguments were rejected in favor of allowing the criminal charges to proceed.…”