Paper Example on Sports Governance

Introduction

Good governance is extensively acknowledged as one of the attributes of any successful organization with clean track records of delivering and sustaining high-quality results or products. While it may not guarantee or promise success, its absence is a surety of failure. The sporting world is not exceptional to this virtue and impacts on the relevant sport and the entire sporting industry. (Hums 2004) Explains governance in sports as the employment of authority and power in sports organizations, that is, determining the organizational mission, policy making, membership, regulatory power and eligibility within the sporting body 's appropriate local, international or national scope. His definition encapsulates four ideas that are a key to governing sports including direction, power, regulation, and control. Governing sports thus includes granting authority to chosen personalities within the sports organization to conduct stipulated activities. The authorized is charged to give strategies, or directions that are designed to achieve the set goals with a controlled perspective that ensures the activities done are congruent with the body's interest and ensure that the laid down regulations are followed to the letter (Hoye 2007). Over the years hard questions revolving around sports governance standards have surfaced among members of public due to the accumulation of serious scandals in the various sporting fields threatening its credibility and further shaking organizations concerned to a great extent. The public has also to a given extent lost their trust in the sport as a tool for positive cultural and social values in many democracies (Geeraert 2013).

It has resulted to calls for noble governance to the traditionally unchecked sporting world that has unlike many other sectors been treated with autonomy, that is, it has been subjected to nearly self-regulation and governance (Council of Europe 2012). Since commercial aspects of sports have remained marginal for a long time, many sporting bodies have been able to employ its self-regulations with no intrusion from governments and their operatives. The autonomy has been partly applied by the ability of international organizations regulating sports to pick the context under which they regulate their setups and suitable environments as their home base for their stipulated worldwide activities (Palazzo & Scherer 2011). Presently, however, the self-regulated hierarchic networks that in the past constituted the sports world are continuously facing attempts by authorities, especially because of the increasing commercialization of sports and an increasingly empowered stakeholder movement interfering in their policy strategies.

Governments and concerned institutions are scaling to greater heights and are closely scrutinizing the various practices being applied to ensure that all relevant bodies are following the set international standards. They are required to become more transparent and adopt professional standards with an accountability attitude in their operations (Hums 2004). With this in mind, it has become increasingly important for all researchers, professionals, and students anxious to develop sports to comprehensively understand what governance is a need and how it must be achieved. Research is mainly driven by the need to understand the suitable governance structures, the emerging models of operations and the dynamics attracting new strategies of the global organisations. Various global bodies deal with sports include the International Olympic Committee (IOC), International Federation of Football Associations (FIFA) and the International Association of Athletic Federations (IAAF) among others. These bodies exist to offer sport related services and products in the sporting industry.

With this background, this essay will focus on the governance of the International Olympic Committee, analyze its organization, power, policies and its influence on transformational issues relating to gender, ethnicity, race among other social interest issues.

The Olympic movement is founded on the Olympic Charter that addresses the legal standing of the International Olympic Committee, stipulates the duties of the International Federations and that of the National Olympic Committees, the Olympic emblems, flame and motto, the flag, the anti-doping agency code among others. The charter also dictates that any dispute that arises about the Olympics be exclusively submitted to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (International Olympic Committee 2015).Since inception in the mid 80's the scope of Olympic Games has continuously changed and expanded due to several inter-related elements. Firstly, the Olympic movement has grown from the initial male-dominated set up to a global movement consisting more than 200 culturally diverse member states with numerous levels of stakeholders. Secondly, the games have attracted an increasing internal political appeal to many governments of different ideological persuasions. Thirdly, the games have enhanced commercial capabilities through the selling of the Olympic Games TV rights and sponsorship programmes. These factors have changed the International Olympic Committee governance concerns, especially those that are related to board composition, national representation, its manner of handling relationships with authorities, governments and athletes (Palmer 2013). They have been complemented by other evolving issues such as compliance with societal and environmental issues, doping control, academia collaboration, internet regulations and addressing legacy and security requirements.

The Olympics has three major organizations: the International Olympic Committee, the National Olympic Committee, the International Sports Federation and Organising Committees for the Olympics Games. Its composition and governance are institutionally congested, multi-layered and inherently complex by involving international, national and local actors with an array of public and private interests. These major constituents groups have over the years been joined by new emerging actors including multinational companies who act as sponsors such Coca-cola, Visa, and Kodak. They have also been joined by inter-governmental organizations like the European Union, national sponsors of the respective National Olympic Committees and Professional teams of athletes such Professional Golfers, Association of Tennis Players and many more. More notably, the Olympic Movement governance is drawn from its visions, operations, and structures as well the relations between it and international political issues. (IOC 2009) Gave for their prominence to the governance of the Olympic Games when the Congress recognized governance as a key pilar and certified in a document ( IOC 2008) christened the Basic Universal Principles of Good Governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement. The document stipulated that the basic principles of the Olympic Committee, that is, responsibility, accountability, and transparency must be respected at all times by all the Olympic Movement stakeholders. The report maintained that the autonomy of sports must be maintained while interacting with government entities (IOC 2009).

For a better comprehension, the Olympic governance is also referenced to the core mission of the movement, that is led by the International Olympic Committee and underpinned by principles of Olympism. The games represent a high manifestation of Olympism which is the social change that customs sports and education as its major tools. Additionally, the movement uses sport for the greater benefit of the globe through soliciting energy and support of societies and governments. The games thus stand for governance issues because they pursue several aspects such as politics, equality, inclusion, developmental projects aimed at promoting a universal vision for the citizenry and attract international development which requires forging partnerships that are later deposited to the existing local and national governance systems. For instance, the (Coe 2012) London report records that more than 200 stakeholders across international, national and local levels of governance and at leat 75000 contractors were involved in the delivery of the 2012 Olympic Games.

But how do the games evoke political ideals such as inclusivity, equality, and more so sustainable development? The Council of Europe in its parliamentary resolutions (United Kingdom Parliament 2016) recommended that all member states refocus on their sports policies and highlight the impact of sport to the overall achievement of other directives and policies such as those on social cohesion, health, integration of all migrants and discrimination. Focusing on the 2012 London Olympic Games, political leadership was a great condition of the games happening as well as a source of risk. Politicians who were involved Including Tessa Jowell and Ken Livingstone offered political leadership for the success of the Games. They provided all the necessary leadership for the success of the games, build coalitions, persuaded their colleagues, participated in promotional campaigns as well as providing critical leadership and kept the public on board ( Norris 2012).

The games were extraordinary by virtue of the cross-party support they enjoyed, that is, the ruling and the opposition parties working together, and the eventual continuity of political personnel, which used political transition of power later on. That was established by creating an atmosphere of trust and transparency between the opposition and the government, a virtue that would later be replicated to other developmental projects. This underscores the importance of political continuity as a result of sports (Hoye 2007)

(Norris 2012) argues that politics sits at the core of delivering any projects for the development of any nation. Failure to align all interests including political interests at the start of the project is listed as one of the major causes of project incompletion and collapse of noble ideas. However, politics can also be a source of risk. When elections are done, and leaders chosen their leadership is vital. The 2012 London games portrayed this with her leaders. As mentioned earlier, Ms. Tessa Jowell played a principal role in bridging and building a coalition of support within the central government by persuading Tony Blair, the then Prime minister of the essence of holding Olympic Games in the country. It proves that Olympics and generally all games can be used to build political bridges amongst differing political leaders and opinions.

Again, the games introduced transparency and openness among the leaders across the political divide became united for a common cause. As one of the regulations by the International Olympic Committee, there had to be clear commitment and openness of the games by all political parties and key players. Failure to showcase and prove the unity is a great deal breaker especially during bidding to host the most popular athletic games. In itself, it develops political stability within the host nation and its environs.

Political openness and stability lead to sustainable economic development which is human-centered. It means meeting the expectations of the current society without in any way lowering the targets of the future generations (Universitas 2001). Well designed sporty programmes like the Olympics work to aid meeting the objectives of political and economic sustainability and human development by contributing to the social and economic development and environmental sustainability. Olympics have over the years been an effective stimulus for economic growth especially in all host countries may it be through job creation, manufacture of sporting goods, employment, and training as well as the growth of infrastructure (U...