Good governance in international sports organisations

drs. Arnout Geeraertarnout.geeraert@kuleuven.be

dr. Michael Grollgroll@dshs-koeln.de

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 conceptso Accountability, efficiency, effectiveness, predictability, sound

financial management, fighting corruption and transparencyo 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 gaps

Situated 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 evidenceo 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

ICAS

IHF 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

ANOCA

EUPEA

...

...

...

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

ANOCA

EUPEA

...

...

...

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

Accountability

What?

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

Accountability

Why?

• 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!

Participation

Participation 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 inequality

Overwhelming overrepresentation of male members within SGBs executive bodies

However, 16 SGBs have some form of regulation in place assuring female representation

Executive body MembersTenure issues

In 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.