Good governance in international sport organizations: an analysis of the 35 Olympic sport governing bodies

Abstract

In this article, structural issues with regard to the quality of the self-governance of the 35 Olympic sport governing bodies (SGBs) are analysed. First, this article presents empirical evidence on the lack of accountability arrangements in SGBs. In particular, the watchdog function of their member organizations is severely undermined by the general absence of objective criteria and transparency in the distribution of funding to members. With regard to checks and balances, arguably the most topical issue is the complete lack of independent ethics committees. Second, our survey demonstrates that most SGBs have institutionalized athlete participation. However, in the overwhelming majority of the organizations, they have not been granted a share of formal decisionmaking power. Third, with regard to executive body members, there is the rather anachronistic dominance of the European continent and also the preponderance of male officials. In addition, the general lack of term limits poses serious threats with regard to the concentration of power, which is evidenced for instance by the overall number of years SGB presidents are in office. The empirical evidence clearly supports the recent calls for improved governance in sport, according to which SGBs need to agree upon, and act in accordance with, a set of well-defined criteria of good governance. Only then will the self-governance of sport be credible and the privileged autonomy of these organizations justifiable.

Supporters and football governance, from customers to stakeholders: A literature review and agenda for research

“…To review the literature in favour of the supporter trust model, we draw upon principles of 'good governance' in sport (see Alm, 2013;Chappelet & Mrkonjic, 2013;and Geeraert, Alm & Groll, 2013 for current and comprehensive overviews). Indeed, the move to increase supporter representation in decision-making positions in football forms part of an attempt to address well-publicised claims that football is poorly governed (see for example Michie & Oughton, 2005;Winter, 2011) and in need of urgent reform (DCMS, 2011).…”

“…As Geeraert et al (2013) stress, accountability is a complex process that includes a dialogue between the board or committee as a focal point of the organisation and a wider forum of constituents. Having a representation on the board does not necessarily ensure a clear dialogue with the constituents in order to be accountable.…”

The governance of the Olympic Games in Canada

“…For instance, Considine and Afzal (2011) warned that accountability within a network can be ineffective, given the complexity and the nature of the actors, as well as the lack of structural boundaries. As well, the 'adoption of corporate governance practices [by non-profit organizations] depends primarily on the presence of a supportive institutional (that is, value) context as well as available resources to support governance restructuring' (Alexander and Weiner 1998 and Kübler-Mabbott 2008;Geeraert, Alm, and Groll 2014;Mason, Thibault, and Misener 2006), this paper will show that these aspects have become part and parcel of the Canadian approach to Olympic governance. There have also been studies focusing on corporate or organizational event governance aspects.…”

“…Agere 2000; Bevir 2010;Buuren 2009;Enjolras and Waldahl 2010;Geeraert, Alm, and Groll 2014;Shilbury, Ferkins, and Smythe 2013). I first examine key features within the broad governance literature that may be of assistance in this study before focusing on Olympic governance research more specifically.…”

Regulating full contact martial arts and combat sports: how governmentality as an analytical framework informs practices of the governing of sports

“…Other research on changes in the governing of sport also acknowledge this increased plurality and, in addition, delineate how increased government involvement in the sports management results in the loss of autonomous self-regulation Houlihan 2006, Phillpots et al 2010). Sport organisations, once accustomed to a large degree of autonomy (Geeraert et al 2014), currently need to deal with explicit government monitoring of the quality and results of their activities. Green and Houlihan (2006) state that government interference in sports has shown a 'profound shift in the pattern of accountability away from traditional stakeholders and toward government and its agencies and commercial sponsors' (p. 66).…”