New research: National sports federations still need better governance

Despite repeated global calls for better governance of sport over the past ten years from within and outside the Olympic movement, many sports federations still have a long way to go just to reach average standards of governance.

A new round of Play the Game’s National Sports Governance Observer research covering more than 100 sports federations across 15 countries in Europa, Asia, and the Americas, shows an overall average index score on governance of 40% which is in the lower end of what the survey describes as 'moderate' quality.

The report builds on benchmarking made by national expert researchers using the National Sports Governance Observer (NSGO) tool that was first applied to nine European countries and Brazil in 2018. The tool covers 274 yes/no indicators spread over 46 principles within four dimensions of governance: Transparency, democratic processes, internal accountability and control, and societal responsibility.

In the second round the survey has been carried out in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Georgia, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Lithuania, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine, and the US. The average score represents a great variation reflecting the various cultures and types of legislation, where Serbia (59%), the US (53%), and Bosnia and Herzegovina (51%) come out on top, and Indonesia (28%), India (27%), and Georgia (21%) have the lowest scores.

All the national results were reviewed by Play the Game, 12 of them by Sandy Adam, PhD candidate at the Leipzig University, and three by freelance policy advisor Christina Friis Johansen.

Figur 1 shows how the countries perform within each of the four dimensions.

“Some may argue that the current group of countries and federations score lower than in our 2018 survey because they have more socio-economic challenges on average. However, most of the governance measures we ask for can be introduced at little or no cost, so money is not really an excuse for failing to live up to what society demands,” says Jens Sejer Andersen, international director of Play the Game, and points to some key flaws.

“It is not expensive to strive towards gender equality, it is not expensive to include athletes and other stakeholders in decision-making, and it is not expensive to publish remuneration of officials, nor to prevent conflicts of interest.”

A few extracts from the 2021 NSGO report:

• With regard to transparency, most federations manage to publish their legal and policy documents. More than 80% publish statutes, board members organisation chart and sports rules. However, only 25% inform on the remuneration of their board members, and only 2% publish an overview over conflicts of interest.
  
  
• Whereas the federations in general have formal procedures for convening general assemblies and electing board members, they do not secure diversity in the involvement of stakeholders. Only one out of three find ways to involve athletes in their policy making, and only one in ten fulfils the gender equality principle.
  
  
• Only 10% has a mechanism whereby individuals can file anonymous complaints.
  
  
• Only 17% ensure that a board member cannot be employed by a company that has business arrangements with the federation.

Societal challenge
The biggest challenge for the sports federations lies in their relationship with the surrounding society.

Even the principle of anti-doping policies has an average score of only 59% in spite of the obligations all Olympic sports have to live up to the rules and regulations of WADA.

And it is noteworthy that less than half of the sports federations (41%) who often claim exclusive rights over sport have a policy for promoting sport for all.

Perhaps less surprising are the low scores for the principles related to environmental sustainability (10%), dual careers (13%), social inclusion (24%), sexual harassment (24%), anti-matchfixing (27%), and anti-discrimination (31%).