Governance in sport has been a topic of
concern for some time. But amidst ongoing reforming efforts in this field, an
issue that has flown somewhat under the radar is the high level of conflicts of
interest in the political leadership of sport federations. However, conflict of
interest in the leadership can be a real blocker to the success and the development
of the organisation and the sport it governs.
Further complicating the issue is that there
is not just risk of one type of conflict of interest, but at least two: one on
the personal level and one on the institutional level. As both are the direct
result of the typical composition of the leadership bodies of sport federations,
solutions are not as easy as they might seem.
Go deeper with GlobalData
First, the risk of conflict of interest on the personal level. More often than not, the members of the sports federation’s executive board or council (the body tasked with ‘overseeing the daily business of the organisation’ or ‘governing the sport’ between congresses) have been involved in the sport for a long time, either as a former athlete, coach, national federation administrator or closely-related enterprise. On the one hand, this long-time involvement in the sport naturally ensures a high level of specialised knowledge. On the other, it also often results in a lack of independence.
Research into international sports federations published in 2015 found that only 17 per cent of federations had clear conflict-of-interest rules in place
Of course, conflict of interest rules are
an obvious solution for this issue, but sports federations have yet to catch up
with standards prevalent in other industries. Research into international sports
federations published in 2015 found that only 17 per cent of federations had
clear conflict-of-interest rules in place, including disclosure requirements
and the duty to abstain from voting in particular cases (Arnout Geeraert,
Sports governance observer 2015. The legitimacy crisis in international sports
governance, Play the Game 2015).
The research also showed that 20 per cent
of federations did not have any conflict of interest rules in place. Work here
is still to be done, but if implemented and applied correctly the issue can be
overcome.
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataSecond, the risk of conflict of interest on
the institutional level, which is more problematic. It is common practice in
sports governing bodies that many executive board/council members are appointed
to represent a specific group of members or stakeholders (e.g. reserved seats
for confederations).
In addition, those board members who are not reserved a seat are generally put forward by a national federation (or club when looking at the national level). The result of this composition is predictable – members defending the interests of their ‘constituent’ rather than those of the governing body and the sport in general.
Ideally, the leadership of a sports federation – an umbrella organisation whose objective is to govern and develop the sport in a specific country or worldwide – ought to be both knowledgeable and independent
The answer to this issue could be to elect more (or solely) independent members to the executive board/council. However, with this solution another issue arises: the more independent the member, the less knowledgeable they are likely to be, often lacking daily contact with the sport. Ideally, the leadership of a sports federation – an umbrella organisation whose objective is to govern and develop the sport in a specific country or worldwide – ought to be both knowledgeable and independent.
Or does it?
Perhaps the solution lies in a more profound structural overhaul. What if sports federations reformed their executive board/council to become a board with supervisory powers only? Decision-making could be (almost) completely delegated to the professional administration. As in the business world, this leaves room for the supervisory board to be composed of independent members that are elected by the membership – just as shareholders do.
With this system, the need for specialised knowledge
would be covered by the administration whose task it is to act in the interest
of the federation and liaise with different stakeholder groups (perhaps through
topical advisory boards/steering groups). This would not only eliminate the
need for board/council members to have detailed operational knowledge, but also
clear up the somewhat blurred interests of executive board/council members
wearing multiple hats.
If sports leaders really care about their
sport and its development, a good start would be to have a serious discussion
on how to best tackle the issue of conflicts of interest. By putting the sport and
the success of the organisation above all other interests, there is no telling
what can be accomplished.
