good governance in international sports organisations
DESCRIPTION
Good governance in international sports organisations. drs. Arnout Geeraert [email protected] dr. Michael Groll [email protected]. AGGIS – Action for Good Governance in International Sports Organisations. Project funded by European Commission’s Sport Unit Project co-ordination - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Good governance in international sports organisationsdrs. Arnout [email protected]
dr. Michael [email protected]
AGGIS – Action for Good Governance in International Sports Organisations• Project funded by European Commission’s Sport Unit
• Project co-ordination
• Project partners
AGGIS – Action for Good Governance in International Sports Organisations
• Tool for assessing good governance in international sports organisations
• Academic work on transparency, accountability, compliance, monitoring, democratic procedures...
• Presentation of the project: Brussels, 8 April 2013
• More information: http://www.aggis.eu
Good governance• Current global quest for so-called “good governance”
• Is about the quality of governance. In essence prescriptive.
• Checklists of factors that are indicators of good governance by International institutionso UN Development Programme; European Commission; OECD;
World Bank; IMF• Checklists include key concepts
o Accountability, efficiency, effectiveness, predictability, sound financial management, fighting corruption and transparency
o When referring to the political area: participation and democratisation
Good governance checklists for• Public governance
o End of the cold war: questioning of the quality of political and economic governance systems of countries in international fora
o Urging of governments to heed higher standards of democratic representation, accountability and transparency
• Corporate governanceo “corporate governance” or “good corporate governance”o Make private and public held companies accountable to their internal and
external stakeholderso Originates from early stages of capital investment and regained
prominence out of scepticism that product market competition alone can solve the problems of corporate failures
• International organisations and NGOso More recently: calls for GG in IOs and NGOs
What about... Good governance in international sports organisations?
• Only recently, calls for better governance in sporto Traditionally: closed, self-governing sporting world o No government interference: Switzerland
• Commercialisation of sporto Exposed governance failures such as corruption and
briberyo Money in sport attracts cross-border criminals (cf match-
fixing, players agents, human trafficking)
Why is good governance in sport important?• Economic sustainability
• Ensure effectiveness in an increasingly complex environment
• Corruption jeopardises important sociocultural values of sport
• International sport organisations have huge impact on society
Good governance in sport: knowledge gapsSituated at two levels
• What constitutes good governance in INGSOs?o No generally accepted “checklist” of factorso INGSOs are peculiar kind of organisations: existing GG codes
cannot blindly be applied
• How bad is the situation?o Lack of empirical data on the internal functioning of INGSOso High-profile scandals tell us that there is something wrong
structurally
-> Premise for our paper
Paper in the framework of AGGIS project• Good governance in International Non-Governmental
Sport Organisations: an analysis based on empirical data on accountability, participation and executive body members in Sport Governing Bodies
Arnout Geeraerta,b,c, Jens Almd,e and Michael Grollf
aHIVA-Research Institute for Work and Society, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; bInstitute for International
and European Policy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; cPolicy in Sports & Physical Activity Research Group, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium;
dDanish Institute for Sports Studies/Play the Game, Copenhagen, Denmark; eDepartment of Sport Sciences, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden;
fInstitute of European Sport Development and Leisure Studies, German Sport University, Cologne, Germany
Purpose of the study• Gather empirical evidence
o From 35 organisationso Define structural problemso How bad is the situation?
• Incorporate concepts from political scienceo Interpreting the empirical datao Theory building: what constitutes GG in international
sports organisations
Quid international sports organisations?• Before we look into the governance of international sport
organisations...
• Typology needed on international sports organisations!
Typology of International Sport Organisations
Background:
- Quite a few expressions: Global Sports Organisations (GSO)Sport Governing Bodies (SGB)International Federations (IF) International Sport Organisations (ISO)
- Only a few efforts on typologies
Gomez, Opazo & Marti (2008)
Examples
Hybrid Governmental
Global Primary purpose: promotion of participation & specific values/servicesExamples: CIFP, CAS, ICSSPE, AIOWF, ASOIF
Primary purpose: managing/organising sport, athletes and eventsExamples: FIFA, UCI
Primary purpose: event organisingExamples: IOC, IPC
Primary purpose: regulationExamples: WADA, ICSSPE
Primary purpose: regulation & utilisationExamples: UNESCO, WHO
Regional/Selective
Primary purpose: promotion of participation & specific values/servicesExamples: Confederation Europeanne Santé
Primary purpose: managing/organizing sport, athletes and eventsExamples: UEFA, EHF
Primary purpose: event organisingExamples: Pan American Sports Organisation
Primary purpose: regulationExamples: WADA Regional Offices
Primary purpose: regulation & utilisationExamples: EU, Council of Europe
National Primary purpose: promotion of participation & specific values/servicesExamples:BASES, Youth Sport Trust
Primary purpose: managing/organizing sport, athletes and eventsExamples: domestic sport federations
Primary purpose: event organisingExamples: British University Sports Associatiuon
Primary purpose: regulationExamples: some national Anti-Doping Organisations
Primary purpose: regulation & utilisationExamples: UK Sport, Sport England
Sawyer, Bodey & Judge (2008)
Typology ofGlobal Sport Organisations (GSO)
Team Sports Bodies Specialist BodiesSport Event Governing Body
Solo Sports Governing Bodies
FIFA FIS
IOC WADA
FIMS
ICASIHF IAAF
... ...
...
Forster & Pope (2004)
Typology ofInternational Non-Governmental Sport Organizations (INGSOs)
Sport Governing Bodies Representative BodiesSpecial Task BodiesSport Event Governing Bodies
Typology ofInternational Non-Governmental Sport Organizations (INGSOs)
Sport Governing Bodies Representative Bodies
Team SportsBodies
Special Task BodiesSport Event Governing Bodies
Solo SportsBodies
Bodies of Olympic /Paralympic
Events
Bodies of Non-Olympic
Events
Governing Relevance
Informational Relevance
Sport Bodies Stakeholder Bodies
Typology ofInternational Non-Governmental Sport Organizations (INGSOs)
Sport Governing Bodies Representative Bodies
Team SportsBodies
Special Task BodiesSport Event Governing Bodies
Solo SportsBodies
FIFA FIS IOC WADA*
EOC
ASOIF
Other
FIMS
UEFA EAA
FIFPro
EPFL
PGA
IWGA
OCA
CGF
ICAS
Bodies of Olympic /Paralympic
Events
Bodies of Non-Olympic
Events
Governing Relevance
Informational Relevance
Sport Bodies Stakeholder Bodies
Supporters Direct
FARE
IHF IAAF... ...
EHF
ICSSPE
...UEG...
...
...
...
FISU
ANOCAEUPEA
...
...
...
Continental / Regional Level
Global Level
IPC
* = Hybrid Organisation
Typology ofInternational Non-Governmental Sport Organizations (INGSOs)
Sport Governing Bodies Representative Bodies
Team SportsBodies
Special Task BodiesSport Event Governing Bodies
Solo SportsBodies
FIFA FIS IOC WADA
EOC
ASOIF
Other
FIMS
UEFA EAA
FIFPro
EPFL
PGA
IWGA
OCA
CGF
ICAS
Body of Olympic Events
Bodies of Non-Olympic Events
Governing Relevance
Informational Relevance
Sport Bodies Stakeholder Bodies
Supporters Direct
FARE
IHF IAAF... ...
EHF
ICSSPE
...UEG...
...
...
...
FISU
ANOCAEUPEA
...
...
...
Continental / Regional Level
Global Level
AGGIS Research Area
Methodology• Focus on 35 Sport Governing Bodies
• Explorative set of indicatorso Based on academic literature +
other GG codes
• Lack of publicly available data!o Focus inevitably on available
data (e.g. statutes)o Website researcho SGBs were not cooperative
• Focus on areas perceived as problematic: accountability, stakeholder participation and executive body members in SGBs
AccountabilityWhat?
Actor Forum
Has to explain and justify conduct
Can pose questions and pass judgement
A
B C
Three elements: A, B & CAccountability arrangements help to make sure 3 elements are present
AccountabilityWhy?
• A lack of accountability arrangements constitutes a breeding ground for
o Corruption
o Concentration of power
o Lack of democracy and effectiveness
The importance of accountability arrangements
Usually explained in 3 ways:
(1) A democratic means to monitor and control government conduct
(2) To prevent the concentration of power (checks and balances)
(3) It induces the executive branch to learn
The importance of accountability(1) A democratic means to monitor and control government conduct
Here, accountability arrangements make sure the actor acts in the interest of the forum (principal – agent relationship) + WATCHDOG FUNCTION of the forum
In parliamentary democracy In corporate governance
The importance of accountability(1) A democratic means to monitor and control government conduct
• SGB: no shareholders or citizens
• Member Federations own the organisation since they have created it!
In principle, executive body of SGB should be accountable to the Member federations!
Member federations have an important watchdog function
In Sport Governing Bodies
The importance of accountability(1) A democratic means to monitor and control government conduct
The problem in Sport Governing Bodies
• Often, SGBs make vast sums of mony, which has made them independent from their Member federations
• Member federations are partly dependent on the funding they receive from their SGB
• Nothing wrong with funding, but risks:o MFs may become benevolent towards or servants to their SGBo Funds can be used to ensure votes, support a certain agenda,
ensure the re-election of officerso As such, MFs may become lapdogs instead of watchdogs!
The importance of accountability(1) A democratic means to monitor and control government conduct
To prevent haphazard us of funds: paramount that funds are distributed• Transparently • According to pre-established, objective criteria
The importance of accountability(2) To prevent the concentration of power (checks and balances)
An ethics committee could be called to adjudicate on the behaviour of members of the executive body of the SGB.
SGB Executive body Ethics committee
Has to explain and justify conduct
Can pose questions and pass judgement
The importance of accountability(2) To prevent the concentration of power (checks and balances)
In order to be an effective accountability mechanism, an ethics committee must be:
• Independent from the governing body
• Able to perform investigations on its own initiative (ex officio)
o without referral by the executive body/ president
The importance of accountability(3) It induces the executive branch to learn
• Possibility of punishment in the event of errors and shortcomings motivates the executive body to search for more intelligent ways to run their businesses
• Accountability makes sure that executive body reflects on governance failures resulting from their past conduct
Thus, lack of accountability mechanisms prevents the impetus for change in SGBs!
ParticipationParticipation of the governed in their government is, in theory,
the cornerstone of democracy.
No participation
Participation• More research is needed, because mere consultation offers no
assurance that athletes’ concerns and ideas will actually be taken into account
• Institutionalised consultation does not equal actual participation, since the latter requires that affected parties have access to decision making and power
• Participation will lead to legal certaintyo Including stakeholders in decision making process gives them
sense of “ownership”o They will come to see the decisions of the SGB as their own
decisions-> less likely to contest these before legal courts
Executive body MembersNationality issues• Anachronistic dominance of European continent• Can decisions be devised in the overall global interest?
NaCaCa: North America, Central America and the Caribbean
Executive body MembersNationality issues
NaCaCa: North America, Central America and the Caribbean
Executive body MembersGender inequalityOverwhelming overrepresentation of male members within SGBs executive bodies
However, 16 SGBs have some form of regulation in place assuring female representation
Executive body MembersTenure issuesIn general, term limits constitute a remedy for several tenure issues
• High rates of reelection stemming directly from the advantage incumbents enjoy over challengers
• Apathetic voters due to the certain reelection of incumbents
• Monopolisation of power
Conclusion• Paper does not paint a comprehensive picture on governance issues
in SGBs
• A lot of data left to be uncovered and many research avenues are still to be explored.
• In spite of the obvious limitations, the presented empirical evidence clearly supports the recent calls for good governance in sport.
• SGBs need to agree upon a set of well-defined criteria of good governance and take action towards compliance with those. Only then, the self-governance of sport will be credible and justifiable.