Good governance in international sports organisations

1. Good governance in international sports organisations drs. Arnout Geeraert arnout.geeraert@kuleuven.be dr. Michael Groll groll@dshs-koeln.de

2. AGGIS – Action for Good Governance in International Sports Organisations • Project funded by European Commission’s Sport Unit • Project co-ordination • Project partners

3. 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

4. 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 institutions • UN Development Programme; European Commission; OECD; World Bank; IMF • Checklists include key concepts • Accountability, efficiency, effectiveness, predictability, sound financial management, fighting corruption and transparency • When referring to the political area: participation and democratisation

5. Good governance checklists for • Public governance • End of the cold war: questioning of the quality of political and economic governance systems of countries in international fora • Urging of governments to heed higher standards of democratic representation, accountability and transparency • Corporate governance • “corporate governance” or “good corporate governance” • Make private and public held companies accountable to their internal and external stakeholders • 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 NGOs • More recently: calls for GG in IOs and NGOs

6. What about... Good governance in international sports organisations? • Only recently, calls for better governance in sport • Traditionally: closed, self-governing sporting world • No government interference: Switzerland • Commercialisation of sport • Exposed governance failures such as corruption and bribery • Money in sport attracts cross-border criminals (cf match-fixing, players agents, human trafficking)

7. 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

8. Good governance in sport: knowledge gaps Situated at two levels • What constitutes good governance in INGSOs? • No generally accepted “checklist” of factors • INGSOs are peculiar kind of organisations: existing GG codes cannot blindly be applied • How bad is the situation? • Lack of empirical data on the internal functioning of INGSOs • High-profile scandals tell us that there is something wrong structurally -> Premise for our paper

9. 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 forInternational 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

10. Purpose of the study • Gather empirical evidence • From 35 organisations • Define structural problems • How bad is the situation? • Incorporate concepts from political science • Interpreting the empirical data • Theory building: what constitutes GG in international sports organisations

11. Quid international sports organisations? • Before we look into the governance of international sport organisations... • Typology needed on international sports organisations!

12. Typologyof 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

13. Examples Gomez, Opazo & Marti (2008)

15. Sawyer, Bodey & Judge (2008)

16. Typologyof Global Sport Organisations (GSO) Team Sports Bodies Solo Sports GoverningBodies Sport Event Governing Body SpecialistBodies IOC WADA FIS FIFA IAAF FIMS IHF ... ... ICAS ... Forster & Pope (2004)

17. Typologyof International Non-Governmental Sport Organizations (INGSOs) Sport GoverningBodies Sport Event GoverningBodies Special Task Bodies RepresentativeBodies

18. Typologyof International Non-Governmental Sport Organizations (INGSOs) Sport GoverningBodies Sport Event GoverningBodies Special Task Bodies RepresentativeBodies Team Sports Bodies Solo Sports Bodies BodiesofOlympic /Paralympic Events Bodiesof Non-Olympic Events GoverningRelevance InformationalRelevance Sport Bodies Stakeholder Bodies

19. Typologyof International Non-Governmental Sport Organizations (INGSOs) Sport GoverningBodies Sport Event GoverningBodies Special Task Bodies RepresentativeBodies Team Sports Bodies Solo Sports Bodies BodiesofOlympic /Paralympic Events Bodiesof Non-Olympic Events GoverningRelevance InformationalRelevance Sport Bodies Stakeholder Bodies FIFA FIS IOC IWGA WADA* FIMS ASOIF SupportersDirect IAAF IHF FISU ICAS ICSSPE FIFPro IPC ... ... ... ... Global Level ... UEFA EAA OCA EUPEA EOC FARE EHF UEG ANOCA ... EPFL ... ... ... ... Continental / Regional Level PGA CGF Other * = Hybrid Organisation

20. Typologyof International Non-Governmental Sport Organizations (INGSOs) Sport GoverningBodies Sport Event GoverningBodies Special Task Bodies RepresentativeBodies Team Sports Bodies Solo Sports Bodies Body ofOlympic Events Bodiesof Non-Olympic Events GoverningRelevance InformationalRelevance Sport Bodies Stakeholder Bodies SupportersDirect FIFA FIS IOC IWGA WADA FIMS ASOIF IAAF IHF FISU ICAS ICSSPE FIFPro ... ... ... ... Global Level ... UEFA EAA OCA EUPEA EOC FARE AGGIS Research Area EHF UEG ANOCA ... EPFL ... ... ... ... Continental / Regional Level PGA CGF Other

21. Methodology • Focus on 35 Sport Governing Bodies • Explorative set of indicators • Based on academic literature + other GG codes • Lack of publicly available data! • Focus inevitably on available data (e.g. statutes) • Website research • SGBs were not cooperative • Focus on areas perceived as problematic: accountability, stakeholder participation and executive body members in SGBs

22. Accountability What? A Has to explain and justify conduct Actor Forum Can pose questions and pass judgement B C Three elements: A, B & C Accountability arrangements help to make sure 3 elements are present

23. Accountability Why? • A lack of accountability arrangements constitutes a breeding ground for • Corruption • Concentration of power • Lack of democracy and effectiveness

24. The importance of accountability arrangements Usually explained in 3 ways: • 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

25. The importance of accountability • A democratic means to monitor and control government conduct In corporate governance In parliamentary democracy Here, accountability arrangements make sure the actor acts in the interest of the forum (principal – agent relationship) + WATCHDOG FUNCTION of the forum

26. The importance of accountability • A democratic means to monitor and control government conduct In Sport Governing Bodies • 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

27. The importance of accountability • 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: • MFs may become benevolent towards or servants to their SGB • Funds can be used to ensure votes, support a certain agenda, ensure the re-election of officers • As such, MFs may become lapdogs instead of watchdogs!

28. The importance of accountability • 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

29. 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. Has to explain and justify conduct SGB Executive body Ethics committee Can pose questions and pass judgement

30. 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) • without referral by the executive body/ president

31. 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!

32. Participation Participation of the governed in their government is, in theory, the cornerstone of democracy. No participation

34. 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 certainty • Including stakeholders in decision making process gives them sense of “ownership” • They will come to see the decisions of the SGB as their own decisions -> less likely to contest these before legal courts

35. Executive body Members Nationality issues • Anachronistic dominance of European continent • Can decisions be devised in the overall global interest? NaCaCa: North America, Central America and the Caribbean

36. Executive body Members Nationality issues NaCaCa: North America, Central America and the Caribbean

37. Executive body Members Gender inequality Overwhelming overrepresentation of male members within SGBs executive bodies However, 16 SGBs have some form of regulation in place assuring female representation

38. Executive body Members Tenure 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

40. 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.