![Sample our Sports and Leisure journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5949/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Sports-Leisure.jpg"})
Abstract
This article examines FIFA's and the IAAF's different approaches to doping in sport. Through access to documents of their respective departments working on doping issues and by applying a new institutional theoretical perspective, it is shown that until the mid 1990s FIFA considered doping to be a problem primarily found outside football while the IAAF considered it to be one of the most serious problems facing athletics. These different approaches impacted how the two federations viewed the process leading to the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Accordingly, the IAAF is termed an “institutional entrepreneur”, while FIFA has greater reservations about the new agency. Circumstances such as the close interrelations between the IOC and the IAAF, the competitive relationship between the Olympic Games and the FIFA World Cup, power-relations in the organizational field and intra-organizational dynamics are examined as decisive factors.
Notes
1. In this article the term football is used to refer to “European-style” soccer.
2. Not a totally dominant position; for instance, North American sports still exist outside the Olympic movement.
3. Original italics by DiMaggio.
4. This Charter was agreed upon at the First Permanent World Conference on Anti-Doping prior to the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games and was the IOC's first attempt to harmonize anti-doping efforts within Olympic sports (Verroken, 2005).
5. The IOC Medical Code was an attempt to introduce a uniform code that was intended to bring together rules and regulations governing the whole Olympic Movement (Verroken, 2005).
6. For instance the 1989 Council of Europe Anti Doping Convention (Houlihan, 2002, p. 233) or the Dubin Commission appointed in 1988 by the Canadian government to investigate drugs in sport (Todd & Todd, 2001).