Global sport governance: globalizing the globalized

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to discuss the changing global sport governance environment in a globalized society. To do so, it focuses on the various international actors who participate in modern global sport governance. Taken into consideration the special global governing features of world sport, the paper aims at discussing the globalization of sport governance in relation to the emergence of the multi-actor perspective in global governance with emphasis given to the operation of the Olympic Movement as the perceived legitimate governing authority in sport politics. Aspects of the impact of sport globalization as discussed in this paper are evident in recent developments in the governance of a number of global sport organizations.

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

Notes

1. The lack of a commonly applied definition for NGOs in the framework of international legal instruments (Ecologic 2002; Martens 2002) does neither hinder their activity nor impede their expansion.

2. As a result, sport literature in the past few years has focused on the issue of good governance in sport organizations (see among other Geeraert, Alm, and Groll 2014; Chappelet 2015), issue which is mentioned but not further elaborated in the present article.

3. Similarly, Porter and Ronit (2010, 9) suggest that the idea of democracy possesses three dimensions: participation, transparency, and accountability.

4. There is now an extensive literature on globalization and governance including Evans (2000), Fuchs (2002), Stiglitz (2006), Palumbo (2015) etc.

5. Few exceptions include the works of Houlihan (1994), Allison (1986, 1993, 2005), Levermore and Budd (2004), Markovits and Rensmann (2010).

6. About the beginning of the discussion on international organization see among other, (Karns and Mingst 2004; Ellis 2010).

7. The IOC, originally reluctant to grant a key role to the EU in the field of global sport governance, has gradually come to terms with EU involvement and acknowledged its significance in a number of sport issues including match fixing, the dual careers of athletes and doping but with respect to sport autonomy. As the then Vice-President, now President of the IOC, Thomas Bach stated in February 2013, ‘Sport is the only social sector that has actually achieved what political philosophy calls ‘universal law’ and what moral philosophy calls ‘global ethos.’ The rules of sport, based on the principle of fair play, apply to every athlete all over the world. These rules can only be enforced by an autonomous sporting structure, which also created them. They help to protect fair competition and promote the competitiveness of athletes and federations’ (2013).

8. On 9 May 2017, EPAS has expressed its concern on the un Secretary General decision to close the UN Office on Sport for Development and Peace because it is concerned that this UN decision might send ‘ a problematic message’ to society regarding the societal role of sport in a period when the UN, a number of governments and numerous civil society organizations are focusing on ways to best use the potential of sport to the achievement of 2030 Sustainable development Goals (Play the Game 2017).

9. In the sport world, examples such as the Nike policy in South Asia, which aimed at the minimization of labor costs (Albareda 2008; Sage 2010, 119, 120), have resulted in increased public scrutiny and criticism in the 1990s and promoted the adoption of the principle of CSR in the framework of for profit governance (Carroll 1999; Schwartz 2011), including sportswear corporations. For example, Nike and Adidas, which in 2008 made profits of US$1.88 billion and US$800million, respectively, signed in 2011 the ‘new Freedom of Association Protocol’ in Indonesia in order to promote corporate accountability (Oxfam 2011).

10. The Adidas Group set up in 2007 the ‘Workplace Standards’, which describe the position of the group on a number of labor issues, including freedom of association, child labor, discrimination etc., as well as the way that the group conducts business in order to protect the environment.

11. For more on the operation of CAS, see Chappelet and Kübler-Mabbot (2008, 128–132), and/or visit http://www.tas-cas.org/en/index.html.

12. For more on the Claudia Pechstein case, see Wittinghofer and Schenk (2016), Ruiz (2016).

13. Which, according to Ruiz (2016) is still debatable.

14. For more on WADA see among other, Chappelet and Kübler-Mabbot (2008, 132–153), Haas and Healey (2016) and/or visit https://www.wada-ama.org.

15. For more on the modern anti-doping regime see, among other, Gleaves and Hunt (2016) and Byrnes (2016) in Haas and Healey, 81–106.

16. The Essendon Football Club was investigated by AFL and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) over allegations about illegal use of supplements. Even though the AFL Anti-doping Tribunal found the Club not guilty in 2015, WADA appealed the decision to CAS. The Court overruled the AFL decision, suspended 12 of Essendon’s 2015–2016 players and the Club finished last in the Australian Football League.

17. Association of IOC Recognised International Sports Federations (ARISF), http://www.arisf.org/news/news-arisf/66-un-ioc-forum4. Accessed 18 May 2015.

18. For the 2024 and 2028 Olympic Games, there were only two candidate cities Paris and Los Angeles; so the IOC approved unanimously a plan to award them both the Games. The cities have to decide between them which one will host which Games. If they cannot reach a decision, the IOC will vote and grant only the 2014 OG. At the moment , it is reported that there is a collaboration between the two City Mayors. Retrieved July 17, 2017 from http://www.archdaily.com/875587/paris-and-los-angeles-selected-as-2024-and-2028-olympic-hosts.

19. A good example of cooperation among INGOs is the IOC invitation to Greenpeace, a global environmental organization, to monitor environmental practices pursued for the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games (Kidd 2010, 908).

20. As Stetter (2013) argues, the EU – and other IOs – are institutions that operate within an environment and the political system is defined as the environment which creates stimuli and expectations defining the role, power and actorhood of the organization.