Good governance in international sports organisations drs. Arnout Geeraert arnout.geeraert@kuleuven.be dr. Michael Groll groll@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 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

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

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)

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? 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

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 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

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

Examples Gomez, Opazo & Marti (2008)

Hybrid Governmental Global Primary purpose: promotion of participation & specific values/services Examples: CIFP, CAS, ICSSPE, AIOWF, ASOIF Primary purpose: managing/organising sport, athletes and events Examples: FIFA, UCI Primary purpose: event organising Examples: IOC, IPC Primary purpose: regulation Examples: WADA, ICSSPE Primary purpose: regulation & utilisation Examples: UNESCO, WHO Regional/ Selective Examples: Confederation Europeanne Santé Primary purpose: managing/organizing sport, athletes and events Examples: UEFA, EHF Examples: Pan American Sports Organisation Examples: WADA Regional Offices Examples: EU, Council of Europe National Examples:BASES, Youth Sport Trust Examples: domestic sport federations Examples: British University Sports Associatiuon Examples: some national Anti-Doping Organisations Examples: UK Sport, Sport England

Sawyer, Bodey & Judge (2008)

Solo Sports Governing Bodies Sport Event Governing Body Typology of Global Sport Organisations (GSO) Team Sports Bodies Solo Sports Governing Bodies Sport Event Governing Body Specialist Bodies IOC WADA FIFA FIS IAAF FIMS IHF ... ... ICAS ... Forster & Pope (2004)

International Non-Governmental Sport Organizations (INGSOs) Typology of International Non-Governmental Sport Organizations (INGSOs) Sport Governing Bodies Sport Event Governing Bodies Special Task Bodies Representative Bodies

International Non-Governmental Sport Organizations (INGSOs) Typology of International Non-Governmental Sport Organizations (INGSOs) Sport Governing Bodies Sport Event Governing Bodies Special Task Bodies Representative Bodies Team Sports Bodies Solo Sports Bodies Bodies of Olympic /Paralympic Events Bodies of Non-Olympic Events Governing Relevance Informational Relevance Sport Bodies Stakeholder Bodies

International Non-Governmental Sport Organizations (INGSOs) Typology of International Non-Governmental Sport Organizations (INGSOs) Sport Governing Bodies Sport Event Governing Bodies Special Task Bodies Representative Bodies Team Sports Bodies Solo Sports Bodies Bodies of Olympic /Paralympic Events Bodies of Non-Olympic Events Governing Relevance Informational Relevance Sport Bodies Stakeholder Bodies FIFA FIS IOC IWGA WADA* FIMS ASOIF Supporters Direct IHF IAAF IPC FISU ICAS ICSSPE FIFPro ... ... ... ... Global Level ... UEFA EAA OCA EUPEA EOC FARE EHF UEG ANOCA ... EPFL ... ... ... ... Continental / Regional Level PGA CGF Other * = Hybrid Organisation

AGGIS Research Area Typology of International Non-Governmental Sport Organizations (INGSOs) Sport Governing Bodies Sport Event Governing Bodies Special Task Bodies Representative Bodies Team Sports Bodies Solo Sports Bodies Body of Olympic Events Bodies of Non-Olympic Events Governing Relevance Informational Relevance Sport Bodies Stakeholder Bodies FIFA FIS IOC IWGA WADA FIMS ASOIF Supporters Direct IHF IAAF 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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.