A scoping review of sport organisations’ accountability

ABSTRACT

Purpose/Rationale

Stakeholders of sporting organisations have expressed a myriad of concerns regarding sport organisations’ accountability. Despite growth in the literature, a review and examination of this scholarship remains missing. This paper provides a scoping review on the accountability of sport organisations, and in doing so, map the research field and determine future research opportunities.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Based on the scoping review guidelines of Arksey and O'Malley (2005), four databases were comprehensively searched. Following a thorough search process, 44 articles relating to sporting organisation accountability were reviewed.

Findings

Our analysis reveals a dominance of conceptual and theoretical-based studies with a varied approach to accountability, and evidently a pre-eminence of case study methodologies and lack of explicit theoretical perspectives. International sport organisations, national sport organisations, and government agencies were among the most studied.

Practical implications

Future studies should pursue an integration of discourses, and greater generalisability among organisations. This has the potential to strengthen the theoretical perspectives and guide research that improves accountability practices of sport organisations.

Research contribution

We have mapped the sport organisation accountability literature, as well as identifying research gaps to direct future research. Overall, the results reveal sport organisations’ accountability is a nascent topic with unrealised interdisciplinary potential.

KEYWORDS:

• Accountability
• sport organisation
• scoping review
• research agenda

JEL CLASSIFICATION:

• M49
• L83
• Z20

1. Introduction

Major scandals in the twenty-first century have raised a myriad of concerns among sport organisation stakeholders. Unethical and sometimes illegal practices including corruption (Jennings, 2011), fraud (Kihl et al., 2021), bribery (Philippou, 2022), and athlete abuse (Willson et al., 2022) are seemingly omnipresent. These issues are widely reported in the media and occur in many countries across multiple sports and sport organisations (Geeraert, 2019; Pielke, 2013). Accountability is often regarded as a panacea of all these ills and difficulties (Ebrahim, 2003; O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2008; Williams & Taylor, 2013). With adverse publicity and growing public accountability expectations (Busuioc & Lodge, 2017; Lefebvre et al., 2024; Slack & Shrives, 2008; Tweedie, 2016), axiomatically the public ask for accountability (Morgan & Wilk, 2021). Important questions are raised regarding the nature of sport organisations’ accountability for who and for what. Principal amongst these concerns is the perception that problems are fundamentally rooted in a lack of accountability (Han, 2020; Nelson & Cottrell, 2016; Pielke, 2013).

Despite the almost ubiquitous calls for more accountability in sport organisations, there exist problematic variations in defining, framing, and conceptualising accountability both in sport organisations, and of sport organisations. This may be somewhat unsurprising given the ever-changing, or “chameleon-like”, nature of the accountability concept (Sinclair, 1995, p. 231). The social construction of accountability results in an obfuscated and ambiguous meaning (Dubnick, 2005; Newman, 2004; Williams & Taylor, 2013) challenging the navigation of effective accountability studies (Pilon & Brouard, 2023). Accountability practices are often contested and conflicting (Lee, 2022; Messner, 2009; Rana et al., 2021), hence research examining accountability practices, mechanisms, and frameworks to complement sport organisations remains fragmented.

With increasing attention and pressures for organisations to be held accountable (Carman, 2010; Meenaghan, 2013; Morrow, 2013), a review of studies examining the accountability of sport organisations is timely to take inventory of the knowledge and guide researchers towards addressing the unethical concerns and practices that are becoming more apparent in sport. Therefore, this paper undertakes a scoping review of research investigating sport organisations’ accountability to provide a stocktake of the key issues and opportunities relating to sport organisations’ accountability and based on our findings, determine future research opportunities. In doing so, we employ the five-stage scoping review protocol outlined by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) to determine:

1. What characterises the literature investigating organisational accountability in sport?

2. What do we know regarding sport organisation accountability and how accountability in sport is understood?

3. What future directions are there for sport organisation accountability research?

A scoping review is well suited to reviewing prior literature on accountability and sporting organisations because this approach offers a wide-ranging and transparent method of mapping a research field (Pham et al., 2014) and the opportunity to yield insight into emerging topics (Dowling et al., 2018). Scoping reviews are increasingly prevalent in the sport management literature (Baxter et al., 2021; Inoue et al., 2015; Robertson et al., 2021; Shaw & Cunningham, 2021; Stegmann et al., 2021) and sport governance literature (Dowling et al., 2018). These reviews reveal a recent increase in sport governance research and initial attempts to conceptualise sport governance literature, and related concepts, in its entirety. However, we note that previous reviews of the sport governance literature have not adequately addressed the concept of accountability and the wider “accountability and sport” literature. For example, the governance in sport scoping review by Dowling et al. (2018) only mentions accountability twice in the text, and identified only seven articles related to accountability. A surprise finding given accountability is a mainstream concept in accounting and other literature reviews (e.g. Agostino et al., 2022; Aleksovska et al., 2019; Parker, 2011; Williams & Taylor, 2013).

There is a rising interest in understanding accounting related practices (Cooper & Johnston, 2012) and accountability, along with regulation and commercialisation, are key themes at the nexus between business and sport (Andon & Free, 2019). In recent sport governance reviews (Thompson et al., 2023) accountability was the most cited governance principle, consequently highlighting future studies should begin with accountability, transparency, and democracy to address non-profit organisation problems. The principles need to be robust and defined for researchers wishing to advance governance (Thompson et al., 2023). Yet, the widely used governance principle of accountability has not been reviewed, let alone examined further. Accountability – and its related concepts of transparency, liability, controllability, responsibility, and responsiveness (Koppell, 2005) – warrants consideration as a stand-alone concept, and not lost in the all-encompassing governance reviews (e.g. Dowling et al., 2018). Governance research in sport is often inspired by corporate governance best practices, but these are not always suited to sport organisations where an imposing universal prescription of sport governance is neither appropriate nor effective, and accountability demands extend across organisational hierarchies (Chappelet & Mrkonjic, 2019; Tweedie, 2016).

This study makes several contributions to the literature on sport organisations’ accountability. First, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first scoping review examining accountability practices, mechanisms, and frameworks of sport organisations. The wide-ranging and transparent nature of the scoping review approach will enable researchers to better understand a range of issues associated with organisational accountability in sports. Second, the study provides enhanced conceptual clarity regarding accountability in the context of sports organisations to locate mechanisms that improve accountability, that in practice have appeared largely ineffective. Third, this review identifies emergent themes, research gaps, and a research agenda, that inspires researchers and increases the visibility of accountability issues; enticing scholars to embed themselves in pressing, topical, and timely studies.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The next section provides a brief overview of the accountability concept and describes the approach to framing accountability in the present paper. The third section provides the research approach (i.e. methodology). Then we present the findings and analyses of key thematic issues arising from the review. Section five discusses the implications of our findings and proposes avenues for future research, followed by our conclusion in section six.

2. Notions of accountability

Accountability is an omnipresent concept throughout organisations and society. However, agreement on the precise meaning of accountability remains elusive (Dubnick, 2005). Definitional ambiguities exist because accountability has numerous dimensions that are both context dependent and context defined (see, for example: Rana et al., 2021).

We situate accountability within the broader concept of governance (Dowling et al., 2018; Tacon et al., 2017). Whilst we agree that accountability intersects with and is a cornerstone of governance, (Geeraert et al., 2014), accounting and accountability mechanisms shift how sport is governed (Siddiqui et al., 2019). Accountability is even considered a fundamental element for organisations in all societies to act with regard to the consequences imposed by others (Hall et al., 2017). Thereby accountability is considered a relational concept between external constituents and the organisation that impact priorities, pressures, decision making, and influence what is deemed legitimate (Andon & Free, 2019), while governance is a broad concept capturing managerial, systemic, and political processes (Dowling et al., 2018).

A commonly accepted premise of organisation accountability is the principal-agent relationship. Accountability imposes the obligation of the agent to report back to their principal(s) (Bovens, Schillemans, & Goodin, 2014; Shaoul et al., 2012). The obligation is also referred to as the agent’s responsibility to undertake actions and to account for their actions (Deegan, 2009; Gray et al., 1996). These accounts assert that individual and collective actions, resource allocation, and results were appropriate and/or successful. Accountability enables an organisation to demonstrate that resources are used for their intended purpose(s) and the appropriateness of resource-allocation decisions (Dubnick & Frederickson, 2014). Thus, accountability encourages appropriate (Bovens, 2007) and ethical behaviours (Governance Institute, Ethics Index, 2021, 2021), leading to enhanced confidence, trust, and support from stakeholders (Dubnick, 2005).

Etymologically, accountability is associated with accounting and the provision of financial reports (Bovens, 2007). The provision of funds creates a legitimate and formal right to demand an account (Lloyd, 2005). Owners and funders are keenly interested in financial information and reporting (Edwards & Hulme, 1996). There are a variety of organisational accountability mechanisms that provide for information sharing, taking account, and imposing sanctions on an organisation, with the annual report being the traditional communication medium for discharging financial accountability to the dominant stakeholder group (i.e. shareholders) (Arunachalam & McLachlan, 2015). Other mechanisms include regulations, reporting, disclosures and audits (Brennan & Solomon, 2008).

Financial accountability is commonly associated with the concepts of transparency (i.e. being open with information) (e.g. Ortega-Rodríguez et al., 2020; Williams & Taylor, 2013), and disclosure (i.e. providing information to align the organisation and stakeholder interests) (e.g. Coy & Dixon, 2004; El-Halaby & Hussainey, 2015; Greiling & Spraul, 2010). Financial accountability obligations are legally mandated and formalised via nuanced and evolving accounting standards (e.g. International Financial Reporting Standards). However, the dominant focus on financial accountability may be unsuited in some sectors (De Villiers & Hsiao, 2017; Van Staden & Heslop, 2009).

Accountability is thus seen to be an “ever expanding concept” (Mulgan, 2000, p. 556) that has transitioned from a shareholder-centric approach towards a more complex, stakeholder-orientated concept (Brennan & Solomon, 2008). Stakeholders are “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievements of the organisation’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). Increasingly, they are concerned with the environmental, social, and ethical dimensions of organisations (Hackston & Milne, 1996). Hence, accountability is increasingly more than financial accountability (Gray et al., 1996; Van Staden & Heslop, 2009) and is concerned with being held to account to all stakeholders (Waddock et al., 2017), for wider objectives of provision of goods, services, or other resources for communal social benefit (Van Staden & Heslop, 2009). A variety of accountability conceptualisations are possible. These include bureaucratic, professional, political, managerial, or market (Burke, 2005), strategic, fiduciary, financial, or procedural (Dhanani & Connolly, 2012), or business, transparency, responsibility, or regulatory (Mahmood & Uddin, 2021).

In the sport sector, there is the dichotomy of on-field success and off-field financial performance (Perechuda & Čater, 2021; Terrien et al., 2017). Secondly, there is uncertainty of outcome and difficulties of ensuring constant quality (Stewart & Smith, 1999). Third, there is the complexity of the sport ecosystem within which sport organisations are embedded, replete with divergent stakeholders and their divergent objectives (Buser et al., 2022). Fourth, many sport organisations are nonprofit, lacking identifiable ownership and profit motives (Van Staden & Heslop, 2009), creating multiple accountabilities and ambiguities regarding who/what these organisations are accountable to and accountable for (Ferkins & Shilbury, 2015). For profit sport organisations have their own accountability challenges, caught between the pursuit of profit and sport success. Additionally, sport provides high levels of partisan and loyalty, high levels of stakeholder engagement and activism, enduring connections with geographical communities, and strong emotional attachment (Baxter et al., 2019b), which may be difficult to capture via financial reporting alone.

Based on the sport context and notions of accountability above, our scoping review of studies examining accountability in sports organisations is guided by a broad and expansive conceptualisation of accountability. In this paper, accountability is taken to mean “the duty to provide an account (by no means necessarily a financial account) or reckoning of those actions for which one is held responsible” (Gray et al., 1996, p. 38). The following section describes the scoping review methods used in this study.

3. Methods

3.1. Scoping review approach

Scoping reviews examine the nature, extent, and range of research activity to map key concepts underpinning a research area and deciding if a subsequent systematic review is necessary. This is achieved by summarising previous research, drawing conclusions, and identifying research gaps. For the purposes of this study, a scoping review is defined as a type of research synthesis that aims to “map the literature on a particular topic or research area and provide an opportunity to identify key concepts; gaps in the research; and types and sources of evidence to inform practice, policymaking, and research” (Daudt et al., 2013, p. 8).

Our scoping review follows the approach outlined by Arksey and O'Malley (2005), which is the most common method used in scoping reviews (Pham et al., 2014). The method is a framework to achieve transparency and reproducibility including the stages of identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, establishing study selection criteria, charting, and sorting data, and reporting. The following subsections describe the method and protocol of the review based on the stages of determining data sources and search strategy, managing citations and study selection, charting the data, then collating, summarising, and reporting results.

3.2. Data sources and search strategy

To ensure a comprehensive coverage of the accounting, sport management, public administration, and other relevant disciplines, four databases were searched: ABI/Inform, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and SportDiscus. Two of the databases contain most of the highly ranked accounting journals, while the other two databases contain most of the highly ranked sport journals. The initial search was conducted in June 2021 and a follow-up search of the four bibliographic databases was conducted in December 2023 to identify any additional studies published after the initial search.

Many sport-management-focused scoping reviews use “sport” as a search term (e.g. Baxter et al., 2021; Dowling et al., 2018; Roberts et al., 2020; Schulenkorf et al., 2016; Thomson et al., 2019; Walzel et al., 2018). To capture the variety of sports, and determine which sports researchers are investigating, the search terms employed in this study were “sport” and “accountability”. This combination of terms was searched for amongst the title, keywords, and abstract of published papers in three databases (ScienceDirect, Scopus, and SportDiscus) and anywhere in the article, except full text, in one database (ABI/Inform). Grey literature was excluded using the electronic database limiters. The full-text search strategy was not delimited to dates. Non-English studies were translated to English with an electronic translator.

3.3. Citation management and study selection

After an initial search, all citations were imported into Microsoft Excel. Here duplicate and remaining non-peer-reviewed articles were removed. Citations were then imported into Covidence, a web-based tool that facilitated relevance screening of title, abstract and full article, as well as data characterisation each article. Covidence provided a transparent means of screening articles for eligibility by multiple reviewers.

The process of developing inclusion and exclusion criteria was Iterative. The criteria were piloted many times to create a broad, yet consistent and common understanding across the review of constituting organisation accountability. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guided the presentation of the screening and eligibility process. A preparatory database search generated 3258 articles. The exclusion of both non-peer reviewed and grey literature reduced the number of articles. These articles were further screened to remove duplicates and non-English articles. After this process, 490 articles remained.

Titles and abstracts of the 490 articles were then reviewed. Given the widespread use of the word accountability in journal articles, we excluded studies without a focus on accountability, thus emulating the approach of Grossi et al. (2019). Additionally, the focus of accountability was validated with a full-text frequency count of accountability and key-word-in-context for each article. All retained articles used the word accountability at least 10 times. Five studies used the word accountability more than 100 times – Tacon et al. (2017) (n = 190), Torchia et al. (2023) (n = 118), Nelson and Cottrell (2016) (n = 113), Parent (2016) (n = 109), and Millar et al. (2023) (n = 101).

Further, only studies focused on organisational accountability, rather than individual accountability (e.g. athletes, coaches), were retained. Hence, articles were excluded if they focussed on athlete performance, athlete’s health disorders, physical education, nutrition, psychology, coaching or training, or other non-sport or non-management focus. The full list of inclusion and exclusion criteria is summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Scoping review: inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Peer-reviewed journal articles Full text Accountability prominent within article Investigates accountability in sport Organisation centric	Grey literature (e.g. reports, white studies) Theses Conference articles or abstracts only Books or book chapters Studies of accountability only in non-sport context(s) Studies that discussed sport without discussing accountability Accountability not prominent in article Non-organisation centric

This part of the study selection process resulted in the exclusion of 361 articles and the retention of 104 articles.

The lead author then reviewed the full text of all 104 remaining articles with consultation from another team member on abstruse articles. Following our thorough search process (see Figure 1), a final total of 44 studies as listed in Appendix 1, broadly consistent with other reviews (Schulenkorf et al., 2022), were retained for detailed analysis.

Figure 1. Flowchart diagram of search process.

3.4. Charting the data

Data extraction and synthesising key information from the 44 articles involved collecting standard information. The following information was extracted: publication year and authors, academic field, study location, study type (e.g. qualitative, quantitative, theoretical, or conceptual) and data collection (e.g. questionnaires, interviews, annual reports), study population (e.g. national sport organisations, clubs), sport type (e.g. football, basketball), study context issue, and theoretical perspective.

3.5. Collating, summarising, and reporting results

Consistent with previous sport management scoping reviews (Dowling et al., 2020; Dowling et al., 2018; Inoue et al., 2015), a frequency and thematic analysis was conducted on the data. The method of frequency analysis shows the number of occurrences for each variable (Dowling et al., 2018) to provide a numeric summary of the nature, extent, and distributions of the studies reviewed. Thematic analysis classifies reviewed studies into common themes based on the proposed research questions, and then presents in a narrative form. In this study, themes were derived through an inductive and iterative open-coding process (Dowling et al., 2018), deliberately avoiding pre-existing themes within sport management literature as these would have limited the scope of the findings. An initial set of themes were derived from reviewing all 44 studies. Next, representative studies of each theme were checked (Inoue et al., 2015). Subsequently, all studies were reviewed for the existence of each theme. Themes were then amended and refined accordingly and repeatedly compared with all 44 studies. For example, the contextual justification theme identified in Bekker and Posbergh (2022) was amended to “human rights” with the comparison to Cooper (2023). Final themes were discussed and agreed among the authors. The next section presents the findings of the 44 studies analysed.

4. Findings

4.1. Descriptive analysis

This section provides the frequency analysis results based on year, author, academic field, journal, location, research study type, organisation type, sport type, and theoretical contribution.

4.1.1. Publication year

An analysis of articles published over time revealed a gradual increase in the number of articles of organisation accountability in sport (see Figure 2). Since 2011, there has been at least one article published in each year with six articles published in 2019 and ten articles published in 2023.

Figure 2. Number of studies examining organisation accountability in sport by year.

4.1.2. Author frequency

Authorship of sport organisation accountability research is not concentrated. The most published authors are Milena Parent (n = 5), Michael Sam (n = 4), Michael Naraine (n = 3), Barrie Houlihan (n = 2), Russell Hoye (n = 2), and Geoffrey Kohe (n = 2), with 78 other (co-)authors.

4.1.3. Academic field

Articles were categorised according to Australian Business Dean Council (ABDC) disciplines. The 44 articles were published in marketing/tourism/logistics (n = 19), accounting (n = 9), management (n = 3), and other (n = 2). Eleven articles were published in journals outside of the ABDC list. The concentration of articles in non-accounting disciplines shows an interest in accountability beyond the accounting discipline.

4.1.4. Journals

Six journals have published more than one sport-organisation accountability article. These were Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (n = 6), European Sport Management Quarterly (n = 3), International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics (n = 4), Sport in Society (n = 3), and Sport Management Review (n = 3), and Accounting History (n = 2). Given the two accounting journals identified here had special issues devoted to issues of sport, sport management journals are more likely to feature sport-organisation accountability studies. Refer to Figure A1 of the Appendix 2 for more details.

4.1.5. Study location

The study locations examined were diverse. Research was conducted on sport organisations from 12 different countries. The United Kingdom (n = 7) and Canada (n = 4) were the most frequent. There were 17 other articles spread across 10 other country locations, and three articles with multiple countries. The Canadian and New Zealand studies are predominantly authored by Milena Parent and Michael Sam respectively. Ten articles did not explicitly state a country as these were largely theoretical or conceptual studies. Refer to Figure A2 of the Appendix 2 for the frequency and range of all study locations.

4.1.6. Study type

Twelve articles were theoretical or conceptual in nature, including review articles introducing journal special issues identifying accountability themes in the content (Andon & Free, 2019; Hyndman et al., 2023). The remaining 32 articles (73%) used some form of empirical data. Only five articles used a quantitative methodology exclusively and three articles used a quantitative and qualitative methodology. The high number of articles that used a qualitative methodology (n = 27) reflects the popularity of case studies. Diverse primary and secondary data sources were utilised for the qualitative designs, most commonly using the following: organisation documents (other than annual reports) (n = 19), interviews (n = 12), press/media/news (n = 7), web pages (n = 7), and annual reports (n = 7). All study sources are listed in Figure A3 of the Appendix 2.

4.1.7. Organisation type

Five articles examined a single international governing organisation including the International Olympic Committee (IOC) (n = 2), the Youth Olympic Games Organising Committee (n = 1), Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (n = 1), and International Association of Athletic Federations (n = 1). Four articles examined the IOC and another organisation: IOC and FIFA (Henne, 2015), IOC and World Athletics (Bekker & Posbergh, 2022), the IOC, Commonwealth, and Pan American Games (Parent, 2016), the IOC, provincial, municipal, and federal government (Parent et al., 2011). One article examined the interrelationships between international and national organisations (Siddiqui et al., 2019). The most studied organisations were national sport governing organisations (n = 13). Other articles included clubs (n = 5), government agencies (n = 3), leagues (n = 2), and community charities (n = 1). Refer to Figure A4 of the Appendix 2 for the list of all organisations.

4.1.8. Sport type

Fifteen articles studied single sports and six articles studied multiple sports, with the IOC and football appearing heavily in the multiple sports. The articles studying single sports were football (n = 6), athletics (n = 4), cricket (n = 2), and the cognate rugby and football sports (i.e. rugby union (n = 1), American football (n = 1), and Australian football (n = 1)). Twenty articles did not explicitly state the sport. Refer to Figure A5 of the Appendix 2 for sport type frequencies.

4.1.9. Theoretical perspectives

The 44 articles utilised 14 theoretical perspectives. The most frequently cited theories were principal agency theory (n = 5), institutional theory (n = 5), institutional logics (n = 6), stakeholder theory (n = 2). To avoid conflict, principal agency theory asserts that a principal has a contractual power to align an agent’s goals and interests to that of the principal and (Halabi, 2021) uphold an agent’s behavioual standards. To better understand accountability tensions within the context of sport, an institutional logics perspective is pertinent. Logics refer to “socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organise time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality” (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999, p. 804). While organisations must respond to the expectations of different institutional logics representing these prevailing belief systems, few studies examined how organisations are held accountable to the norms and pressures associated with different institutional logics. Ten other terms were used by authors as their theoretical perspective. There were no explicit statements of theory in the 24 remaining articles. Refer to Table 2 for a broad categorisation of theoretical perspectives.

Table 2. Theoretical perspectives explicitly referred to within sport organisation articles.

Theoretical perspective	Author (year)
Feminist Theory	Bekker and Posbergh (2022)
Foucault	Bekker and Posbergh (2022)
Framing	Stenling and Sam (2020)
Global accountability framework	Chappelet (2011)
Institutional logics (6)	Tacon et al. (2017), Sam and Ronglan (2018), Sam and Macris (2014), Siddiqui et al. (2019), Clune et al. (2019), Millar et al. (2023)
Institutional Theory (5)	Parent et al. (2018), Sam and Ronglan (2018), Houlihan and Preece (2007), Sam and Macris (2014), Siddiqui et al. (2019)
Organisational change	Parent et al. (2018)
Organisational legitimacy	Sam and Ronglan (2018)
Principal Agent Theory (5)	Tacon et al. (2017), Geeraert et al. (2014), Sam and Macris (2014), Nelson and Cottrell (2016), Halabi (2021)
Public Administration Theory	Parent et al. (2011)
Silent accounting/Shadow accounts/Critical accounting (2)	Morrow (2013), Torchia et al. (2023)
Stakeholder Network	Parent (2016)
Stakeholder Theory (2)	Houlihan and Preece (2007), Parent et al. (2021)
Stewardship Theory	Tacon et al. (2017)

4.2. Thematic findings

The thematic analysis coalesced around five emergent themes: evolution of accountability research (trends), conceptual justification, accountability definitions, related concepts, and government policy. These themes are discussed in more detail below.

4.2.1. Evolution of sport accountability research

For purposes of this section, evolution of sport accountability research refers to the overall trends in studies of sport and organisational accountability. While diffuse, these articles may be thought of as growing in three broad phases. The early accountability articles in the field of sport management addressed divergent topics whilst each using a single type of data collection (Burger & Goslin, 2005; Edwards et al., 2004; Havaris & Danylchuk, 2007; Houlihan & Preece, 2007). The second phase of accountability studies in sport management used more eclectic data collections with more pre-eminence of performance and governance concepts (Chappelet, 2011; Geeraert et al., 2014; Nelson & Cottrell, 2016; Parent, 2016; Pielke, 2013; Sam & Macris, 2014). In the third phase, sport organisation accountability studies began appearing in accounting journals (Baxter et al., 2019a; Clune et al., 2019; Halabi, 2021; Hyndman et al., 2023; Millar et al., 2023; Rika et al., 2016; Siddiqui et al., 2019; Torchia et al., 2023; Urdaneta et al., 2021), continued to feature transparency, governance, and performance topics, with more studies featuring disclosure (Clune et al., 2019) and legitimacy (Baxter et al., 2019a; Stenling & Sam, 2020). Quantitative methods began being used (Muñoz et al., 2023; Raiola et al., 2023; Svensson & Naraine, 2023).

Interestingly, studies published in accounting journals (ABDC code: 1501) and sports management journals (ABDC codes: 1504-1507) showed little evidence of interdisciplinarity insofar as they tended to cite studies from only within their own disciplines. For example, the only accounting study to cite key papers published from sport management journals (Morrow, 2013; Pielke, 2013) is Urdaneta et al. (2021). Likewise, studies in the sport management journals (Nelson & Cottrell, 2016; Parent et al., 2021; Parent et al., 2018; Sam & Ronglan, 2018; Stenling & Sam, 2020) cite others within sport management journals (e.g. Chappelet, 2011; Geeraert et al., 2014; Pielke, 2013; Sam & Macris, 2014), but do not cite any articles published in accounting journals. The belated accounting research in sport accountability, lack of research outside of marketing and accounting indicated above, and apparent lack of interdisciplinary research among some disciplines limits the exchange and cross-pollination of ideas.

4.2.2. Contextual justification

The contextual justification for each study was identified. Scandals (incorporating match fixing, laundering, corruption, or antidoping) were the most common accountability issue (n = 9) in sport management journals, with human rights, ethics, and integrity (Bekker & Posbergh, 2022; Cooper, 2023; Kihl, 2022; Morales & Schubert, 2022) increasing as study contexts. In the context of scandals, studies examined whether organisations, especially international organisations, can be held accountable. Within these studies, accountability is considered as the means to improve internal processes of management and governing boards. Findings showed a limited ability to hold sport organisations to account (Bekker & Posbergh, 2022; Chappelet, 2011; Geeraert et al., 2014; Nelson & Cottrell, 2016; Pielke, 2013; Renfree & Kohe, 2019). Difficulties in holding international organisations to account, on political or economic accountability (Cooper, 2023), continues to provide a fruitful topic area of accountability discussion.

Other justifications to examine sport included positive outcomes (i.e. sport value, popularity, health, economics, identity, cultural, or uniqueness) or tensions arising from emotions and passion, participation, and elite performance, economic and social, development of amateur to professional, and commercialisation. These situations provide the appropriate opportunity to examine the tensions between government policy and organisation performance.

4.2.3. Accountability definitions

Most of the studies (n = 18) provided no accountability definition, a finding that is consistent with social enterprise accountability research (Burga & Rezania, 2015). The accountability definitions and literature sources provided in 14 articles are summarised in Table 3, while Parent (2016) provides definitions from interviewed stakeholders. Sport management journals published 10 articles that provided a definition. Interestingly, defining accountability was one of the few places where sports management scholars cited articles in accounting journals. The common, but not universal, elements to the accountability definitions were (a) giving an account, (b) justifying one’s actions, (c) the actor being held to account with judgement to be made of the actor, and (d) possibility of sanctions on the organisation, with a mix of emphasis on accountability as obligation or response.

Table 3. Accountability definitions used in sport organisation articles.

Author (year)	Accountability definition
Tacon et al. (2017, p. 689)	“The way in which an organisation is held to account for its actions”
Sam and Ronglan (2018, p. 554)	“To inform, explain, and justify one’s actions” (Bovens, 2007)
Morrow (2013, p. 299)	“Accounts should provide information how effectively and efficiently management has discharged its responsibilities to use and manage the entity’s existing resources”.
Geeraert et al. (2014)	“A relationship between an actor and forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgement, and the actor may face consequences” (Bovens, 2007, p. 450)
Parent et al. (2017)	“Involving ‘giving an account and … being held to account: having an obligation to explain and being liable for decisions’” (Stewart, 1994)
Ghai and Zipp (2021, p. 838)	“Considered a mixture of giving an account and being held accountable”. (Alm, 2013: in Winand & Anagnostopoulos, 2019)
Pielke (2013, p. 256)	“Some actors have the right to hold other actors to a set of standards, to judge whether they have fulfilled their responsibilities in light of those standards, and to impose sanctions if they determine that those responsibilities have not been met” (Grant & Keohane, 2005). “Accountability requires that: (1) People are given certain objectives; (2) There is a reliable way of assessing whether they have met those objectives; (3) Consequences exist for both the case in which they have done what they were supposed to do and the case in which they have not done so” (Stiglitz, 2003)
Houlihan and Preece (2007, p. 387)	“Involving ‘both giving an account and … being held to account’” (Stewart, 1994, p. 75). “The process of being called to account”. “A relationship that involves social interaction and exchange insofar as ‘one side, that calling for the account seeks answers and rectification while the other side, that being held accountable, responds and accepts sanctions’” (Mulgan, 2000, p. 555)
Nelson and Cottrell (2016, p. 438)	“A condition and process in which an actor answers for its conduct to those it affects” (Scholte, 2011)
Chappelet (2011, p. 320)	“The process through which an organisation makes a commitment to respond to and to balance the needs of its diverse stakeholders in its decision-making processes, and activities, and delivers against this commitment.”
(Millar et al., 2023)	“the giving and demanding of reasons for conduct” (Roberts & Scapens, 1985, p. 447)
(Morales & Schubert, 2022)	“The obligation of an individual or organisation to respond internally to how they have conducted their affairs (Hood, 2010)”. “A social relationship between an actor and a forum” (Bovens, 2007)
(Svensson & Naraine, 2023)	“Means through which individuals and organizations are held externally to account for their actions and as the means by which they take internal responsibility for continuously shaping and scrutinizing organizational mission, goals, and performance” (Ebrahim, 2003, p. 194)
Urdaneta et al. (2021, p. 4)	“How organizations are held responsible for their actions” (Edwards & Hulme, 1996)

Three articles were explicit regarding the type of accountability with reference to internal and external (Parent, 2016; Parent et al., 2017), and upward and downward (Houlihan & Preece, 2007). However, Nelson and Cottrell (2016) and Pielke (2013) utilised the most comprehensive accountability typology (i.e. hierarchical, supervisory, fiscal, legal, market, peer, and public reputational accountability). The use of typologies, and the explicit reference to types of accountabilities in sport organisation accountability research, is rare. Therefore, while there is a common understanding that accountability involves holding organisations to account, most studies are vague regarding to whom, and for what.

Arguably, the focus on holding organisations responsible has come at the expense of other accountability purposes. While accountability is commonly considered a universal remedy, the goals of accountability or theoretical mechanism of accountability are rarely used to explain how organisational behaviour is impacted. For example, while Havaris and Danylchuk (2007) refer to accountability goals, there is little description of their case study organisation’s accountability goals. This is important, given that accountability is central to the pursuit of a variety of desirable objectives. Stenling and Sam (2020) and Baxter et al. (2019a) discuss pursuits of legitimacy, while others (Chappelet, 2011; Clune et al., 2019; Ghai & Zipp, 2021; Henne, 2015; Parent, 2016) refer to transparency. Potential accountability goals include liability, controllability, responsibility, responsiveness, and learning (Williams & Taylor, 2013). Consistent with Pielke (2013), this review calls for future studies of sport accountability to explicitly state the accountability goal and type of accountability investigated.

4.2.4. Related concepts

This review identified a variety of concepts related to sport accountability. While these terms are not sufficient to define accountability (Bovens, 2007), they are relevant to understanding organisation accountability and thus often discussed together (Parent, 2016). In order of prominence, related topic areas identified in the review include governance, performance, transparency, power, and responsibility. Concepts of liability, control, and response were almost non-existent. A mapping of the related accountability concepts is demonstrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Map of sport organisation accountability literature.

Governance featured in 20 (49%) of the accountability articles. Studies considered accountability as one principle of governance (Chappelet, 2011; Morales & Schubert, 2022; Muñoz et al., 2023; Parent, 2016; Parent et al., 2021; Parent et al., 2011), relating to the way in which organisations are accountable to their internal and external stakeholders. These studies highlight the importance of accountability in achieving governance of organisations.

Performance featured prominently in all writings of the most prolific authors (Parent, 2016; Parent et al., 2021; Parent et al., 2017; Parent et al., 2018; Parent et al., 2011; Sam, 2012; Sam & Macris, 2014; Sam & Ronglan, 2018). Studies that referred to organisation performance implied the requirement of measures to be accountable and vacillated between performance generally (Parent, 2016; Parent et al., 2021; Parent et al., 2017; Parent et al., 2011), financial efficiency, and on field sport or elite performance providing performance accountability (Sam, 2012; Sam & Macris, 2014; Sam & Ronglan, 2018).

Accountability has been linked frequently with transparency (Ghai & Zipp, 2021; Henne, 2015; Parent, 2016; Parent et al., 2017; Urdaneta et al., 2021) and disclosures (Clune et al., 2019). Unsurprisingly, this intersection occurred within studies of financial reporting (Clune et al., 2019; Urdaneta et al., 2021), and accountability stakeholders (Parent, 2016).

Power has also been associated with accountability (Geeraert et al., 2014; Nelson & Cottrell, 2016; Rika et al., 2016; Siddiqui et al., 2019). Some have argued that accountability mechanisms serve to maintain and enhance the positions of the most powerful especially during times of commercial expansion or shift from amateur to professionalism. Accountability mechanisms serve to protect and advance certain specific interests (Siddiqui et al., 2019). For example, stakeholders have exerted hegemony through accounting reports and control of financial resources to hold management responsible for financial losses (Rika et al., 2016). Additionally, sport organisations’ public and private position and social power from the humanitarianism and altruistic symbolism of sport provides difficulties to hold organisations to account (Nelson & Cottrell, 2016).

Responsibility has been associated with accountability in terms of financial costs (Baxter et al., 2019b) and organisational stakeholders (Parent, 2016). In the case of stakeholder perceptions, accountability was being responsible for one’s actions of performance, to superiors or external stakeholders.

4.2.5. Government policy

Impacts of government organisation policy on national sport organisations (NSOs) is another salient research theme in the prior literature. A number of studies (Ferguson et al., 2023; Houlihan & Preece, 2007; Tacon et al., 2017) referred to neoliberal and New Public Management (NPM) reform reshaping the context of sport organisations and that government funding imposed obligations and fiscal accountability that required NSOs to report to the government agencies, usually in the context of elite sport (Havaris & Danylchuk, 2007; Sam & Macris, 2014; Sam & Ronglan, 2018; Stenling & Sam, 2020). These studies suggest that the demand of accountability derives legitimacy for the government agency, and simultaneously impact NSOs which then demarcate elite and community sport. The performance accountability requirements of reporting in response to receiving government funds, accentuated and perpetuated competition among NSOs, creating “game playing”. While Parent et al. (2018) found legislative changes enhanced the NSO focus on accountability, there are indications that reporting is an “accountancy” approach – minimal reporting, manipulations to meet funder requirements, financial emphasis, and little or no concerns for responsibility to obtain objectives (Havaris & Danylchuk, 2007). Outcomes are also restricted at the intersection of policy and practice (Ferguson et al., 2023).

5. Discussion and avenues for future research

Sport organisation accountability research is characterised by conceptual studies with the majority of studies lacking explicit theoretical perspectives. One decade-old criticism remains prescient – there is “no ambition of advancing academic theories of accountability” of sport organisations (Pielke, 2013, p. 256). This statement, made at a time of few academic articles examining sport organisations’ accountability, resonates with the approach of later studies that continue to omit an explicit naming of accountability related theories. Instead, researchers are content to apply a theory to explain or otherwise analyse a case. Explicit discussion of theoretical perspectives and greater use could be made of quantitative evidence, and greater debate on how accountability can be empirically measured in the context of sport organisations.

This section discusses future research on sport organisations’ accountability, in order of priority and significance. We structure this section according to theoretical perspectives, organisation responses, public reputational accountability, managerial accountability, accountability consequences, and finally organisation contexts.

5.1. Theoretical perspectives

The limited employment of theoretical perspectives discussed above, provides opportunities to develop those already used, as well as utilise additional theoretical perspectives. The foremost principal agency theory for corporate profit organisations has been applied less than institutional approaches in the sport setting containing nonprofit organisations. The interacting effect of logics and accountability remains largely unchartered, so provides another rich research opportunity to examine the interaction of accountability and other institutional logics. The related institutional theory of organisations responding to institutional norms to maintain legitimacy was also applied in five of the studies. Additionally, the institutionalism of increased commercialisation of sport (Geeraert et al., 2014; Morrow, 2013; Muñoz et al., 2023; Siddiqui et al., 2019), accountability shift towards greater managerial accountability (Clune et al., 2019; Renfree & Kohe, 2019) and New Public Management (Ferguson et al., 2023; Houlihan & Preece, 2007; Sam & Ronglan, 2018; Tacon et al., 2017) provides an opportunity for further examination. As part of this, we encourage researchers to consider (a) What accountability logics exist within sport organisations and why? (b) How is accountability connected with various institutional logics?

5.2. Organisation responses

Despite judgement, and response or answerability as requirements for full and fair accountability, these accountability components were rarely stated in the literature. Tacon et al. (2017) and Stenling and Sam (2020) have initiated some analysis of enactment and defensive conduct of organisations. Given the number of sport-accountability articles related to corruption, greater examination could be made of organisation responses and legitimising tactics in various forums, using concepts already used in the literature: legitimacy, framing, and silent/shadow/counter accounts. As part of this, we encourage researchers to consider the unique features and network that sport offers for a broader discourse of organisation responses to answer: (a) How do sports organisations react to threats of legitimacy or integrity? (b) How are verbal legitimation tactics used to justify organisational behaviour and choices in sport? (c) What accountability mechanisms have enabled sport organisations to acquire and maintain legitimacy?

5.3. Public reputational accountability

Despite the literature highlighting the inability to hold governing organisations to account, studies have not yet embraced public reputational accountability. “Public reputational accountability refers to the reputation of an organisation among superiors, supervisory boards, courts, fiscal watchdogs, markets and peers” providing a mechanism to hold organisations to account (Pielke, 2013, p. 260). Greater investigation of public reputational accountability is called for. A formal, and reasonably public source of legal and fiscal accountability is the annual report. Given the promise of public reputational accountability, and the ubiquity of annual reports, we encourage researchers to consider: (a) What the annual report provides for holding organisations accountable? (b) What is the role of the media in enhancing the accountability of sport organisations? (c) Are public reputational accountability or members and athletes (elsewhere referred to as participatory) accountability legitimate forms?

5.4. Managerial accountability

Many studies demonstrate how sport organisations are unable to be held accountable. This raises the need to examine the processes of organisation accountability and determine the impact of external accountability on internal management and operations of sports organsiations. The relationship between public organisational accountability and individual decision making in sport management studies is neglected in the sport management literature (Kellison, 2013). Further research could investigate managers’ perceptions of organisation accountability. The challenges of multiple and excessive accountabilities is an opportunity for sport accountability researchers (Behn, 2001; Campbell, 2002; Ebrahim, 2003; Lee, 2004; O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2008). More research or systematic reviews are needed to understand the relationship between organisation accountability and both decision making and behaviour. Some specific questions are as follows: (a) What gives rise to behavioural consequences of organisation accountability? (b) What theory (or theories) can best model multiple accountability? (c) How do sport managers, broadly defined, perceive organisation accountability and its associated requirements? (d) How do sport managers, negotiate the demands of multiple accountabilities? (e) How does external accountability impact internal hierarchical accountability?

5.5. Accountability consequences

Accountability is seen as a positive instrument while other research has found accountability systems have unintended behavioural consequences (e.g. lack of trust or dialogue (Swift, 2001), overburden (Lee, 2004), compliance and proceduralism (Bovens, 2005), mission drift (Yang & Northcott, 2019), accountability dilemma (Behn, 2001; Campbell, 2002), accountability paradox (Campbell, 2002; Dubnick & Frederickson, 2014), crowding out (Ebrahim, 2003; O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2008), or accountability gaps (Hooks et al., 2002; Lee, 2004)). Sport organisation accountability research has additionally found accountability legitimises organisations (Siddiqui et al., 2019), reinforces the elite sport organisation community (Sam & Macris, 2014), and provides hegemony over athletes (Bekker & Posbergh, 2022). Sport organisations held to account attempt to defend (Kellison, 2013), and protect their interests (Siddiqui et al., 2019). Thus, accountability issues may not be solved with more disclosure, or more transparency (Henne, 2015). On this basis we encourage researchers to explore the following questions: (a) What factors underpin the consequences of accountability? (b) What is the ideal balance of accountability for sport organisations?

5.6. Organisation contexts

The review highlighted that international sport organisations, national sport organisations, and government agencies were among the most studied. Given the complexity of the sport ecosystem (Buser et al., 2022) and accountability as a relational concept, there is value in conducting comparative studies and amongst organisations within the sport ecosystem. This can include comparisons between elite and non-elite organisations, and those with high and low levels of dependency on government funding. There is value in understanding accountability between and amongst organisations, especially those within nested hierarchies (i.e. multi-level governance) (Dickson et al., 2010), and more specifically clusters (Gerke et al., 2020), federated networks (Millar et al., 2022) and cliques (Meiklejohn et al., 2016).

6. Conclusion

Our scoping review of accountability in sports organisations demonstrates the nascent nature and unrealised interdisciplinary potential. Despite the accepted accountability movement (Carman, 2010), accepted neoliberal accountability movement in the public sector of society, accountability “frenzy” (Cooper, 2023), and demands of account giving and checking referred to as an “audit culture” (Tacon et al., 2017), the research community have been slow to examine sport organisations’ accountability. The abundant stakeholder concerns of sport organisation practices related to a lack of accountability is “not controversial” (Pielke, 2013), with resulting situations declared an accountability crisis (Millar et al., 2023; Pielke, 2013; Torchia et al., 2023), there remains opportunities for research of sport organisation accountability as proposed by our future research agenda.

Extant studies were found to be predominately conceptual, and more specifically, conceptually, and theoretically heterogenous. Their efforts to describe and explain accountability has not yet motivated researchers to pursue theoretical advances. This paper identified a variety of accountability definitions. The absence of a unified definition contributes to fragmented literature where researchers focus on different aspects of accountability. The diversity of definitions also creates conceptual confusion, leading to a lack of generalisability across studies. The need for further research in this area can inform consistent theory development and future systematic reviews. We also found that corruption and scandals are common justifications to pursue research of accountability (Chappelet, 2011; Jennings, 2011; Pielke, 2013). There are many other equally significant justifications to study accountability of sport organisations. Future research should consider using equality, participation, development, integrity, athlete wellbeing, and social outcomes to justify their accountability studies.

Moving forward, based on the themes and issues emerging from our scoping literature review, future research should carefully define the meaning of accountability. This review calls for open and explicit definitions of accountability. When applying the concept, researchers should continue to apply the argument of Gray et al. (1996) to be specific to whom accountability is owed and for what purpose. Such actions would help to clarify conceptual elements in the research including performance, transparency, power, responsibility, and accountability logic.

Future research on sport organisations’ accountability should move beyond conceptual accounts and descriptive case study methodologies to use quantitative methodologies, and large sample sizes for identifying patterns, relationships, and trends across the sector. These approaches aim to generalise findings to reduce the complex concept of accountability into specific dimensions. Importantly, targeted dimensions using single variable sources may facilitate a deeper insight of the context dependent concept and facilitate clearer interpretations to gain a greater understanding of accountability nuances. For example, inquiries about accountability with stronger theoretical foundations such as that provided by institutional logics, as well as a consideration of public reputational accountability especially via annual reports, organisational responses, managerial implications, and the unintended consequences of organisation accountability can be considered.

In closing, we acknowledge the limitation of a scoping review provides no assessment of the quality of papers reviewed. This limitation has been addressed by selecting peer reviewed journals only to ensure a minimum standard of quality. We also again acknowledge the overlap between accountability and governance, a well-researched topic within the sport management literature. However, accountability is a concept of sufficient importance to justify more accountability-focussed studies. We also call for this research to better integrate research from multiple discipline perspectives. Integrating discourses is timely and has the potential to strengthen the theoretical perspectives of each discipline to positively guide the accountability practices of sports organisations, especially for those organisations that are currently struggling with such concepts and expectations as reported by the media globally.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Appendices

Appendix 1: Sport organisation studies

Table

Author(s), year	Research question(s)/Objective	Research design	Summary of findings
Andon & Free, 2019	To examine prominent issues and knowledge contributions from research exploring the nexus between accounting and the business of sport, overview the other papers presented in the Special Issue and draw from the work to scope out future impactful research opportunities in this area	Methodology Review of literature	Three key themes identified in the literature: financial regulation and assurance; commercialisation and professionalism; and accountability and control. Call for four future impactful areas of research: integrity and accountability, strategic choices in the financial regulation of sport, valuation, and the rise of technology in sport
Baxter et al., 2019b	Who is to pay for policing costs of football matches?	Methodology Qualitative – case study Data Documents, 44 Interviews Context Football, League, Sweden	The accounting entity is a changeable and contestable construction. Distinctions informing contests about the accounting arena are materialised through accounting calculations and other devices. The community is important in mediating accounting practices. State actors are important in accounting and sport.
Bekker & Posbergh, 2022	To provide a critical reading across both the 2016 IOC Consensus Statement on non-accidental violence (harassment and abuse) in sport (IOCCS) and World Athletics’ 2019 Female Eligibility Regulation (WAFER) to interrogate their conflicting approaches and consequences, despite similar claims to uphold “safe sport”.	Methodology Qualitative – content analysis Data Documents content analysis of IOCCS and WAFER Context Frames; setting the scene, issues, implementation, transparency and accountability, outcomes. IOC & World Athletics	Safeguarding, with regard to “fairness” and women athletes, adopts a conflicting identify due to (1) lack of organisational accountability (2) focusing on interpersonal harms rather than systemic violence, (3) attention to science over athlete voice.
Burger & Goslin, 2005	To determine the level of compliance with King II’s seven pillars of good corporate governance by South African sport governing bodies and if found lacking to propose recommendations for implementation by national sport federations to achieve optimum levels of compliance with principles of best-practice governance.	Methodology Quantitative Data Questionnaire 36 responses Context NSO South Africa	An overall mean compliance score of 3.77 (max of 5.00), for South African sport federations, with the pillars of good corporate governance. Areas of serious concern were regarding the elements of accountability, transparency, social responsibility, independence, fairness and discipline.
Chappelet, 2011	To overview the way in which accountability can be applied to the IOC and the Olympic system	Methodology Conceptual Data Global Accountability Framework dimensions examined; Transparency, participation, Evaluation, Complaints Context IOC	For the four facets of accountability: Transparency of IOC has improved since 1999 with document publication, Participation is in place and could be extended, Evaluations as part of management system are in place, Ethics commission is in place for complaints. A mechanism of an independent entity responsible for monitoring IOC, and scholars providing constructive criticism would be useful improvements.
Clune et al., 2019	How organisations engage in logic assimilation? How forms of accounting mitigated tensions of logic assimilation?	Methodology Qualitative – case study Data 14 interviews, podcasts, documents, newspaper, annual reports Context Amateur NSO, Hurling & football, Ireland	Financial reporting plays a conflicting role within the GAA whereby it was used by the GAA’s management to ease member concerns surrounding logic assimilation while simultaneously being ignored by clubs and counties to facilitate payments to managers thereby eroding the amateur status of Gaelic Games.
Cooper, 2023	To evaluate the Court of Arbitration of Sports approach of human rights concerns, and whether the review of discrimination justifications was sufficient?	Methodology Conceptual Context IAAF, Sport governing board, Athletics	Important wider concerns raised about possible accountability gap for sport governing bodies regarding decisions that result in human rights infringements.
Edwards et al., 2004	To explore what sport managers believe are the core issues that can contribute to successful sport management practice	Methodology Qualitative Data Group meetings Context Narrative experiences of 4 male & 3 female sport managers	Research methods such as “story”, “narrative” and “voice” can provide rich descriptions of the sport environment and at the same time provide an alternative to the positivistic approach. Sport managers issues centred on experience and power, accountability, demands of the job, professional development, ways of knowing, collegiality, and critical reflection.
Ferguson et al., 2023	To explore the success of sport for development programmes transitioning positive outcomes from a micro and meso level to the macro level in Northern Ireland. To explore the implications of introducing Outcomes-Based Accountability to public sector sport for development. What supports the transition of process and individual outcomes across the micro, meso and macro levels? What was achieved, how was it achieved and what impacts were generated? What is the impact of modernisation in the public sector on sport for development?	Methodology Qualitative Data Semi structure interviews Context Sport for development, Northern Ireland	There are areas of conflict between policy and practice limiting project outcomes. The ambiguity of purpose combined with the absence of a population level evaluation model and financial reliance perpetuates task-based projects at the expense of sectoral outcomes.
Geeraert et al., 2014	To determine if the situation is as problematic as the literature and different pressure groups often suggest by identifying certain governance aspects that particularly deserve quality improvement	Methodology Qualitative Data Statutes, constitutions, websites Context Examined democratic, constitutional, & learning perspectives, participation, executive, gender, tenure. 35 Olympic SGBs	There is a lack of accountability arrangements in SGBs. The watchdog function of SGB member organisations is severely undermined by the general absence of objective criteria and transparency in the distribution of funding to members. There is a complete lack of independent ethics committees. Most SGBs have institutionalised athlete participation, without formal decision making power. There is an anachronistic dominance of the European continent and preponderance of male officials and a lack of term limits of executive body members.
Ghai & Zipp, 2021	To examine whether BCCI is meeting good governance practices? Is the organisation accountable and transparent to stakeholders? Are conflicts of interest and corruption undermining the mission of BCCI? What reforms can help the BCCI meet good governance standards?	Methodology Qualitative – case study Data 5 interviews, annual reports, documents Context BCCI, Cricket, India	The BCCI needs to make significant reforms to better align with good governance principles. There are concerns of transparency, accountability, managing conflicts of interests, structural problems and policies and processes.
Halabi, 2021	To outline how the roles of the AGM were evidenced in individual clubs. Examine whether accountability leads to a theatrical issue or whether theatrical issue leads to greater accountability.	Methodology Qualitative Data 93 narratives in newspapers of AGMs in 1890s Keyword search “annual general meeting”, “AGM”, “annual meetings”, “annual report” Context Club, Football, Australia	The AGM highlighted the connection between accountability and theatre. Entertainment extended beyond the game and was demonstrated in the formality of the AGM. The AGM added to the social culture while providing the formal accountability and informational content.
Havaris & Danylchuk, 2007	To what degree is government rhetoric influencing change at NSO level. To assess effectiveness of framework. What is the nature of the accountability relationship shared between differently funded NSOs and its Sport Canada consultants? What impact has the SFAF had upon NSOs of different funding levels in the nine years that it has been active?	Methodology Qualitative – case study Data 16 interviews & documents Context NSOs from each of 4 funding categories	Differences in internal accountability processes and the quality of the accountability relationship shared with Sport Canada existed within NSOs relative to its funding category. The SFAF was deemed an effective tool. Negative implications such as competition between NSOs and a tendency towards accountancy (minimal reporting, compliance) were noted.
Henne, 2015	To illuminate how transnational governance arrangements informs global sport. Whether and how transparency agendas address the taken-for-granted alliances in ways that can yield meaningful reform?	Methodology Conceptual Context IOC & FIFA Olympic & Football	Capitalistic underpinnings and distinct hybrid arrangements complicate the task of transparency. Transparency by audit cannot overcome the power dynamics in sport. Public-private relationships are unchecked and invisible to public. Acts of corruption are enabled from entanglements between individual state, corporate, and sport actors.
Houlihan & Preece, 2007	To identify and evaluate the arguments surrounding the demand for an independent anti-doping organisation	Methodology Qualitative and quantitative – case study Data Documents, online surveys, 39 interviews, reviews, evaluations, academic reviews. 9 NGBs responded. 31 responses. Context UK	With the location of the NADO within UK Sport there is less concern of athletes and NGBs, but with questions of accountability and communication. Enhanced independence no guarantee of either neutrality or effectiveness, or efficiency. Elite athletes and NGBs are marginal in accountability relationships risking erosion of trust.
Hyndman et al., 2023	To provide an analysis of the key perspectives that emerge in the AAAJ special issue as a basis for determining the existence or otherwise of a Soccer Society, as well as reflecting on the challenges that evidence of corruption in soccer that has had on the game to date	Methodology Conceptual Review Context Football	The reviewed papers illustrate an overwhelming sense of joy and pleasure from the game and evidence of general societal good. Concerns are highlighted from weak, pliable governance, regulatory, and accountability regimes that provide for corruption and sportswashing
Kay, 2012	To examine how monitoring and evaluation systems may materially affect delivery of Olympic “legacy”.	Methodology Conceptual Context UK	Despite the rhetoric of “partnership” that surrounds sport in development and Olympic legacy programmes, monitoring and evaluation systems play a major role in constructing the donor-recipient relationship as hierarchical. Monitoring and evaluation procedures are shaped by funders’ information requirements, emphasise external accountability, limit local programme learning, compromise data quality and impose burdensome forms of data collection and reporting that undermine relationships.
Kellison, 2013	To discuss contributing factors to ethical decision-making process of sport managers (EDMP) charged with the responsibility of overseeing highly visible sports organisations, and to present a theoretical EDMP framework that can be empirically tested in research	Methodology Conceptual – single case Context NSO, NFL	When reactions to a decision is positive, managers will accentuate the decision. However, when reaction is negative, managers will defend their EDMP to allay the concerns of the public or organisational members.
Kihl, 2022	To offer a “narrative-based” theorising approach in conceptualising national sport integrity systems that aims to promote and safeguard integrity within NSOs	Methodology Conceptual Context NSO	A national sport integrity system is conceptualised composed of the institutions, accountability, and actors.
Lefebvre, et al., 2024	To explore the potential configurations of governance, brand governance and social media strategies leading to effective organisational performance	Methodology Qualitative Data Survey 28 NSOs Context NSOs, Canada	Accountability was important for effective organisational performance in terms of budget per capita, while transparency was more important for higher athlete numbers. Condition specificity is paramount in non-profit organisations that often have multiple objectives.
Millar et al., 2023	To provide a general theoretical framework for interdisciplinary accounting scholars interested in these performances of accountability to live audiences. What are the processes underpinning successful and unsuccessful performances of accountability?	Methodology Qualitative – case study Data Organisation documents, blog posts, newspaper, podcasts, video, observation Two fan Q&A events Context Professional club. Falkirk, Football, Scotland	Practical and symbolic dimensions of accountability need to be aligned when responding to questions. Performance accountability needs to cover the different conflicting logics within a field. Performance of accountability will fail when audience rejects unpalatable definitions
Morales & Schubert, 2022	To investigate whether leagues must undertake reforms to comply with good governance principles of democracy, transparency, and accountability to reduce the risk of being unprepared to deal with ethically sensitive issues that may arise	Methodology Review of literature Context Professional leagues, North America	Professional leagues need to recognise stakeholder interests, implement innovative participation mechanisms, and apply diversity and inclusion policies. Internal regulations and financial information publishing is required. Professional leagues should separate their disciplinary and executive branches to avoid the concentration of power and potential conflict of interest in the relationship between the commissioner and team owners.
Morrow, 2013	To provide critical evaluation of conventional business financial reporting. How to report on finances?	Methodology Qualitative Data Part of wider study drawing on Interviews Context Football. UK	The focus of financial reporting on rational economic decision-makers results in football club financial reports being of limited use to many football club stakeholders. Consideration of the social and organisational context of football, as takes place in FFP, can be used as a catalyst to consider broader approaches to football club reporting.
Muñoz et al., 2023	To expand the literature on sport governance by assessing Catalan sport federations (CSFs) on the implementation of good governance practices	Methodology Quantitative – correlation Data Organisation reports, websites, questionnaire 38 sport organisations. Context Sport governing bodies, Spain	Improvements can be made in organisation governance areas democracy and participation, ethics and integrity, and accountability and transparency. Correlation found between organisation size and accountability and transparency.
Naudí, et al., 2019	To analyse the main characteristics of charity runs and walks in Barcelona Province, attending at the format of the event, at the organising agents and, with a particular emphasis, at the level of accountability in the management of charitable giving at such events	Methodology Qualitative – plurimethodological – action research Data 189 websites Context Community charities Spain	Growing popularity of events within the context of an ever-increasing diversity of event types and organisating agents. A considerable variability observed in the criteria used for charity management, together with a very low awareness of the need to render account to stakeholders through the website of the events analysed.
Nelson & Cottrell, 2016	Why is it that so few stakeholders have engaged in serious efforts to hold the IOC accountable for its actions? Is there something about the nature of the IOC and the space that it occupies in international society that makes accountability particularly difficult? What can the experience of the IOC tell us about accountability in global governance more generally?	Methodology Conceptual Context IOC	Social position of IOC dilutes the base of potential accountability holders and exacerbates collective action problems, while its social power allows it to maintain a reputational shield to guard against meaningful accountability efforts.
Parent, 2016	How different event stakeholders view the principles of democratic governance? How informative governance principles are for sports events. How can a sport event be governed effectively and accountably?	Methodology Qualitative – exploratory of 3 events Data 55 Interviews Context IOC, common, Pan American Canada, England	Governance principles were generally like definitions found in the literature. Accountability, transparency, and participation should be divided into internal and external aspects to better understand and enact the governance of sport events
Parent et al., 2011	To understand the government stakeholder group’s coordination issues and strategies in mega-events: 2010 Olympic Games	Methodology Qualitative – case study Data 250 documents, newspaper, committee documents, websites, 35 interviews. Context Olympic event. Municipal, host province, federal government Canada	Stakeholder groups highlighted five contextual-based issues of time, geography, funding, other resources, and politics and 11 other types of issues of accountability, leveraging, knowledge management, legal, operational, planning, power, relationships, social issues, structure, and turnover. Strategies addressed issues with communication, decision making frames, engagement, flexibility, formalised agreements, human resource, strategic planning, and structural framework
Parent et al., 2017	What is the relationship between good governance principles & knowledge management? What extent does knowledge management in Youth Olympic Games compare with Olympic Games?	Methodology Qualitative – case study Data 13 interviews until saturation, 174 pages of documents, observation, website. Context Olympic event, Norway	Horizontal as well as hierarchical accountability is significant. Different event logics for the event rights holder-organising committee relationship. Culture as well as structure in relation to governance is important. Tacit knowledge, person-to-person informal knowledge transmission, and knowledge transfer timing is significant.
Parent et al., 2018	To begin exploring the impact of environmental changes on Canadian national sport organisations; To determine the types of governance changes within NSOs that may have occurred compared with the governance archetypes reported by Kikulis and colleagues more than 25 years ago and their impact on stakeholder relationships, and suggest a research path to further understand these changes	Methodology Qualitative – case study Data Strategic plans, policies, annual reports, press, meeting minutes, web pages, interviews Context Athletics, badminton, canoe kayak, TenPin, waterski & wakeboard. Canada	Organisations coordinated with both traditional (athletes) and nontraditional (social media public) stakeholder groups as well as renewed their focus on accountability and transparency.
Parent et al., 2021	What governance archetypes exist based on the use of more contemporary criteria? How easily can an NSO’s archetype be determined? What are the Implications of these new archetypes for researchers and practitioners?	Methodology Qualitative and quantitative – case study Data Online survey Context Compared 21 NSO archetypes with 11 NSO archetype categories. Canada	The archetype taxonomy fitted the four clusters of board-led, executive-led, professional, and corporate based on key organisational values, complexity, capacity, revenue sources, and governance variables.
Pielke, 2013	How can FIFA be held accountable?	Methodology Qualitative – case study Data Documents, media Context FIFA, Football	FIFA sits free from the formal mechanisms of accountability that are employed to hold international organisations to accountability to their own stated goals. FIFA demonstrated that it has essentially no hierarchical, supervisory, peer or public reputational accountability, and minimal fiscal accountability.
Raiola et al., 2023	To understand the stakeholders’ perceptions concerning the issues of youth football and the accountability that football produces in local communities.	Methodology Quantitative Data Survey of presidents and trainers of 112 clubs Context Club. Amateur Football, Italy	Significant stakeholder perceptions: see football as a vehicle for social inclusion, top league football club contributes to the practice of, clubs’ intention to revitalise, critical issues related to youth academy.
Renfree & Kohe, 2019	To discover how national sport policy informs the relationship between the key stakeholders of UKA and grassroot athletics clubs; and investigate how power manifests itself and provide a basis for organisational identity formation within athletic clubs in England	Methodology Qualitative – single case study Data Questionnaire, correspondence, public documents Context 21 grassroots clubs Athletics, UK	Clubs’ conflicts effect their ability to formulate clear identities (mass participation, elite success, development) and meaningful relations and shared focus with UKA. This has led to sport policy directed more at elite level and mass participation and dwindling attention for grassroots recreational participation. Greater accountability is desired at national level.
Rika et al., 2016	To examine the changing role of accounting in transition from amateur to professional sport, revealing how accounting enables powerful interests to exert control over sporting bodies	Methodology Qualitative – case study Data Documents, minutes of board meetings, annual reports Context FRU, Rugby Union, Fiji	FRU initially had no public accountability in amateur period. Losses originating in amateur period through diseconomies of scale, inequitable arrangements, unsustainable funding models. In the professional period donors required more financial reporting and audit monitoring. Powerful stakeholders exert hegemony over sporting bodies through accounting and control of financial resources and governance. Accounting reports hold management responsible for losses.
Sam, 2012	What are the potential implications of targeted allocations in the context of elite sport? What extent can targeting resources be sustained given that the performance regimes have a tendency to deplete over time?	Methodology Conceptual Context Central government, Sport New Zealand, New Zealand	Performance based targeting generates unintended consequences of the paradoxical tendency for the central agency to be blamed for having too much control over sport and for not being sufficiently accountable for results, and the propensity for NSOs to become less innovative over time due to increased accountability requirements and tighter monitoring.
Sam & Macris, 2014	To investigate the actions and interpretations of national sport organisations in relation to a performance regime	Methodology Qualitative – case study Data Documents & 10 interviews from 9 NSOs, report statements, plans annual reports, media releases, government documents, investment schedules. Context 4 elite NSOs, 5 non-prioritised, New Zealand	Performance measurement and monitoring reinforce the demarcation between elite and community sport due to the relative clarity of the performance measures. The effect of performance measurement is for the demand for indicators to “mushroom” and “gaming” behaviours to develop.
Sam & Ronglan, 2018	To compare how central agencies create, build, sustain legitimacy through accountability regimes. How do central agencies build credibility for policies & programmes?	Methodology Qualitative – multiple cases Data Annual reports, strategic plans, media releases. Context Central sport organisations, New Zealand & Norway	Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports draws legitimacy from its representative membership structures and status as a social movement. Sport New Zealand claims legitimacy based on achieving targets and outputs. There are emerging pressures to recast input-output legitimating narratives.
Siddiqui et al., 2019	To analyse the shifting nature of governance reforms, both at global and national levels, in the increasingly commercialised game of cricket. To examine if governance can be viewed as a solution/ management response to commercialisation of the cricket game.	Methodology Qualitative Data Annual reports, reports, online media, reviews, website, newspapers Context NCBs & ICC, Cricket	The adoption of a dominant market logic by cricket administrators has resulted in a shift in the balance of power in favour of non-western nations. India has emerged as the clear leader and driving force shaping the way cricket is globally governed. The scale of the Board of Cricket Control of India’s financial and operational control over the ICC has not only led to an increasingly commercialised game but engendered divergent and highly questionable standards of governance at the level of NCBs.
Stenling & Sam, 2020	To analyse strategic representations & legitimacy production in sport policy advocacy process. What legitimising accounts are produced and deployed by the SSC during hearings? What wider systems of meaning are those legitimising accounts connected and how?	Methodology Qualitative Data Verbatim hearing transcripts Context Central government, Sweden	Three sets of legitimising accounts of the Swedish Sports Confederation: A lack of access to sports facilities, Increased control of public support to sport, Government agencies failing to recognise voluntary sector.
Svensson & Naraine, 2023	To examine the virtual accountability of the nonprofit subgroup sport for development and peace. How do SDP organisations utilise their websites? What factors influence virtual accountability in SDP?	Methodology Quantitative Data Websites Context 532 Nonprofits, Sport for development and peace	Accessibility the strongest dimension of virtual accountability, followed by mission, engagement, performance, governance. Geographical location and sport type are critically important for web-based accountability practices.
Tacon et al., 2017	To understand how non-profit organisations deal with issues of accountability. How is accountability constructed and enacted within boards of non-profit organisations that are very highly dependent on a single, public funder?	Methodology Qualitative – case study – longitudinal observational Data 14 Meetings 36 h, 11 interviews, 39 organisation documents Context NSO, UK	There was a high level of financial dependence on one main funder that meant a great deal of time enacting upward, instrumental accountability to the funder. Board members work to construct broader forms of accountability beyond accountability to the funder, but then struggle to enact them.
Torchia et al., 2023	To extend research on boundary making and breaking through alternative football clubs. To explore how alternative organisations in the sport sector can challenge or transform the boundaries imposed by dominant neoliberal forces. To identify the set of values at the base of these transformations, and address the circumstances under which specific accounting, and accountability practice can contribute to radical forms of management. To critically discuss the characteristics of the accounting and accountability dialogue to protect organisations from a degeneration of their core principles	Methodology Qualitative – ethnographic Data Participant observation of 6 years, documents, 20 interviews, Facebook pages Context Football, club, England, Manchester FC.	The research shows that the pillars of the club’s ethos, pushing its critical performative interventions towards setting new boundaries, are democratic governance and accountability, favouring participation and inclusion, and strictly linked to this, a responsibility to local communities. However, the study also highlights the difficulties of maintaining these boundaries when core values are threatened by degeneration
Urdaneta et al., 2021	To contrast the influence of financial performance on the transparency of clubs	Methodology Quantitative – regression analysis of transparency Data Financial reports, Transparency International Index, Context 28 professional clubs, Football, Spain	The implementation of Transparency Law (TL) and Financial Fair Play (FFP) has improved transparency and accountability of clubs. Transparency Law has facilitated access to financial information and FFP has improved balance and financial viability of clubs. Financial performance influences transparency.

Appendix 2. Descriptive analysis of reviewed literature

Figure A1. Journal.

Figure A2. Location.

Figure A3. Data source.

Figure A4. Organisation type.

Figure A5. Sport type.