Political protest and Rule 50: exploring the polycentric governance of international and Olympic sport

ABSTRACT

Over the past two decades, there has been increasing academic interest in examining the governance of international and Olympic sport (IOS). Common governance approaches applied to sport include federal/unitary governance, systemic governance, collaborative governance, stakeholder governance, and network governance. Despite its attention to system-level governance including multiple decision centres with overlapping jurisdictions, polycentric governance has yet to be applied to sport. This paper examines the IOC’s Rule 50 as an empirical case to evaluate the potential of the theory, and more specifically, to analyse how the multiple governing authorities in IOS create and maintain regulatory control. In considering the conceptual characteristics of polycentric governance, the paper finds that it has value in illuminating several key features of IOS and has the potential to add conceptual rigour to the study of a number of different sport systems. The paper finishes with ideas for future research where polycentric governance could be used to garner further insights in IOS and other sport sectors.

KEYWORDS:

• Sport governance
• Polycentric governance
• International and Olympic sport
• Rule 50

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Before 1978, the IOC’s documents pertaining to the rules were variously titled Annuaire (French only), Reglements et protocole (French only), and Statutes, Rules, and/or Protocol. From 1978 onwards the IOC have consistently used the title Charter.

2. Article 19 states that ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’ (United Nations 1948, p. 5).

3. This assessment of three coalitions is predicated on the IOC AC consultation process whereby statements from the NOCs of Australia, Germany, Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, Belgium, China, Russia, US, Lithuania, New Zealand, and France were made publicly available by the IOC AC. There was no explanation provided by the IOC AC as to why these statements were made publicly available when others were not. See https://olympics.com/athlete365/what-we-do/voice/athlete-expression-rule−50/ for further information.

4. …