Marymount University Sport Governance Research Paper

User Generated

Enlna2020

Writing

Marymount University

Description

Unformatted Attachment Preview

The main issue with your paper is that you have not fulfilled the task. The task was to recommend some governance principles for Sport Larsutland. Instead, you seem to have produced a general discussion of governance, sometimes relating it to sport. Much of what you say in your assignment is relevant to the task but you must structure it to show the relevance, which you have not done. You have large sections with headings but these have not been explicitly identified as principles and it is not evident to me that they are; it may also not be evident to your lecturer. Because you have not substantially addressed the task, your lecturer may not pass your assignment. What you have been asked to do is to produce the following structure: 1) Executive summary (200 words) – not present in your assignment, but write it last so that it reflects what you have actually written. 2) Introduction (200-300 words). Here you should firstly provide the rationale for the report, which should briefly address the need of Sport Larsutland for a code of sports governance, what governance is, issues faced in the governance of sporting bodies, why governance is necessary in sport, and that you will be recommending to Sport Larsutland some key principles on which to base their code of sports governance. Then, still in the 200-300 words of the introduction, list the principles (I think a numbered list is ok). You can word this like, “The key principles of sports governance which you should consider are …” 3) Explain each principle. This requires you to explicitly identify some principles, which you have not done. Most of your assignment reads as a discussion about governance in general and rationales for why governance is needed in sport. This should have been briefly done in your introduction. On page 2 of the task sheet, the lecturer has listed some potential governance principles. You touch on some of them, like board composition and accountability, but they are obscured by other discussion and by a lack of structure. Identify the four to six governance principles in your assignment, like you see listed on page 2. You structure should then look like: a. Principle 1: “Z” i. Define the principle and key words. ii. Why does this principle represent good governance? What issues in sporting organizations does it address? Draw here on academic literature. iii. Is there a case study from an actual sporting organization to show this principle in action (should be a positive example)? Spend no more than two or three sentences describing this. b. Principle 2: “Y” i. Same structure as above. c. Principles “X”, “W”, “V”, etc. You will determine how many principles you think important based on your judgement and your word limit, since you will need about 500 words per principle. 4) Conclusion that summarises the report (much like the executive summary – in fact, write the conclusion and then change a few words to use it as your executive summary). Conclusions do not moralise or say any more than has already been said. This 200 words will not require any references since you won’t be saying anything new. You urgently need to restructure your work to reflect the structure above. The whole point of the assignment is to recommend some principles upon which to write a code of governance. Be explicit about the principles: the assignment is all about them. Make explicit links: your central topic is the need for sports governance and to develop specific principles. Anything you write in your assignment must be explicitly linked to this. Use linking words where necessary like “because”, “therefore”, “furthermore”. Everything must be explicitly linked to your central topics: if you do not make links explicit, your lecturer will assume that you do not really understand these links. Use headings that create explicit links. For example, your introduction should be entitled Introduction. Each principle of sports governance should be titled Principle 1, Principle 2, Principle 3, etc, with the name of the principle following. Referencing: One of the three assessment criteria is about your use of academic sources. Your assignment needs far more references. Most of what you write you will have read somewhere else. You need to reference where you read these. Do this especially for: 1. Facts that are not general knowledge. Any specific numbers or facts that the average person does not know should be referenced. This also includes the details of any case studies. 2. Opinions and ideas that are not your own. Many of the ideas in your assignment will have come from other authors. This is quite OK but you need to reference these. 3. When you write about how things work or situations, you need references. If you assert that something is or is not working, that there are few or many of something, or any such thing, you need to reference where you got that information. There are very many points in your assignment where you say something about how sports governance is or should be without any references. Your lecturer will ask, “How do you know” or “Where did you get this idea?” Show him/her by referencing. If you write a paragraph without a reference, you need to go back and see what you missed. No paragraph should be without references. A paragraph without references says to your lecturer one of the following: a) You read it somewhere but didn’t record where. b) You think this is how things work rather than relying on research. c) You made this up (you probably didn’t, but how does your lecturer know this?) None of this is good. 1 Sport Governance Research 2 Evolution of governance and leadership approaches within the sport industry and their impact As a topic of discussion in recent years, governance has gained prominence. A broad definition of governance is the management of an organization through the exercise of power. Responsibility, rules and policies, communication and transparency all play a role in governance; however, decision-making is the most important aspect of the process. In a nutshell, it is the process by which a group of people come together and agree on a course of action. Stakeholders in an organization's governance process articulate their interests, influence the decision-making process, and then finalize the actions that will be taken. When it comes to making decisions, decision makers need to take these inputs into account and be held accountable to the same stakeholders for the outcomes and the process by which they were produced, the way a company's board of directors sets and monitors its performance in order to make sure that it achieves its strategic goals, and the way in which the board acts in the members' best interests. In a broad sense, sport governance refers to the set of abilities required to organize, direct, control, budget, lead, and evaluate a company or department whose primary product or service is related to sports or physical activity in one way or another. Government, business and industry leaders, academics and civil society organizations are all involved in formulating, legitimizing, and putting into action sports policies and programs aimed at fostering excellence and progress in the sport. National sports are a source of pride, joy and honor for the country and its people thanks to sports governance. Preconditions and prerequisites for global prestige and reputation are essential in sports governance, as sports excellence strongly equates with socio-economic, political, and cultural growth and development, making countries a sports haven for tourists. Additional to this, sport governance envisions a world in which sport is 3 used to promote a sense of national and international unity as well as peace, solidarity and reconciliation among people of all nationalities. Students, researchers, and sports industry professionals must all learn about governance and how it can be implemented as sports organizations are under increasing pressure to uphold higher standards of professionalism and accountability in all aspects of their operations. Serious questions about the governance standards of sports have been raised periodically over the last several decades. Since a rash of scandals have engulfed the sporting world in recent years, the public's faith in sports as a vehicle for the advancement of positive social and cultural values has been seriously undermined (McLeod, Shilbury, et al., 2021; Zeimers & Shilbury, 2020). Governance literature has grown significantly over the past two decades. Because of this, the term "governance" has become a synonym for a variety of different concepts, leading to a lot of theoretical and conceptual confusion. A vertical chain of command from continental, to national, to local organizations places International Non-Governmental Sports Organizations (INGSOs) as sport's supreme governing body. If a governing body takes a particular position, the decisions made by any organization under its umbrella will be affected. Undemocratic because clubs and players who want to participate in competitions are bound by governing bodies' rules and regulations, often without any ability to influence them for their own benefit, under this hierarchic structure of command. There is also the fact that INGSOs have traditionally had a great deal of autonomy in terms of self-governance. As a result, neither national nor international public authorities have had much of an impact on how they operate. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the sporting network has been able to exercise its self-governance without significant interference from states or other actors, and the sports world generally eschews state intervention in its activities (Chappelet, 4 2016). As if that wasn't enough, INGSOs, like many other global corporations, have the option of picking the best regulatory environment for their operations, allowing them to base their global operations in a more favorable environment around the world. We've also seen a rise in the importance of stakeholder organizations in sports governance over the last few years. As a result of all of these changes, the traditional hierarchical self-governance of sports organizations has been replaced by a more networked governance model. Since the traditional vertical channels of authority have been replaced by new horizontal forms of networked governance, there has been a shift. While INGSO self-governance is still widely regarded as superior, the commercialization of sport has exposed governance failures such as bribery and corruption, as well as subjected sport to the more rapacious and predatory aspects of global capitalism. Due to the unique characteristics of the sport industry, researchers argue that strong governance is particularly important in this context (McLeod, Shilbury, et al., 2021; Zeimers & Shilbury, 2020).NSFs play a critical strategic and regulatory role in the sport ecosystem, and thus, good governance must begin in these organizations. Non-profit foundations are governed by a board of directors. It is critical that boards have the right makeup in order to effectively carry out their governance responsibilities (McLeod, 2020). The extent to which NSFs around the world are adhering to the standard of diversity and board size remains unclear, despite greater understanding and awareness. There have been numerous calls for better governance of sports organizations from both governments and independent agencies due to a lack of adequate checks and balances on board decisions, director misconduct, outdated or inequitable governance structures, and outright failure to govern (Chappelet, 2016). There has been an increasing number of suggested governance principles and guidelines developed by government, sport organizations, and independent agencies in response to 5 governance failures, such as democratic structures/democracy, accountability, transparency and professionalization. Critical reflection on the governance practices and models in contemporary sport organizations and systems Prior to developing formal policies that define the structure and roles of an organization, sports organizations can use the governance principles and guidelines to think about their broad mode of operation that best suits their mission and vision. A strong national community is built on shared values and a love of sports. For example, it can be used to improve education, health, leadership development and fair play. Its ability to connect the heart, mind, and body, connect individuals and inspire communities is unrivaled in the world today (McLeod, Shilbury, et al., 2021; Zeimers & Shilbury, 2020). Because of this, the Sport Governance Principles were developed in collaboration with stakeholders from across the sector. No matter how big or mature a sporting organization is, a clear message emerged from the code sign process: educational and approachable principles are needed to help organizations achieve good governance. Additionally, the Sport Governance Principles needed a direct link to education, support and resources so that the theory could be put into practice (Chappelet, 2019). A wide range of sport stakeholders and government actors are represented by sport governing bodies. Their members' organizations and a wide range of internal stakeholders, such as athletes, rely on them to carry out their responsibilities. They also perform public functions on behalf of governments, either explicitly or implicitly. Organizational sport is becoming increasingly commercialized and complex. As a result, there is a growing need for coordination, and stakeholders benefit from giving sport governing bodies more authority. Apart from overseeing 6 fundamental competition rules, these organizations have taken on various other duties, such as marketing commercial rights, formulating and enforcing rules against doping and match-fixing, resolving disputes, as well as encouraging social inclusion and a healthy way of life. While delegating authority to a central body may result in functional advantages, the rational choice approach holds that it always comes at a price. In more specific terms, it predicts that when given the choice, a sport's governing body will put its own interests ahead of those of its stakeholders, minimizing their efforts on their behalf. There are at least four reasons why the preferences of the sport governing body and its stakeholders may not always coincide with regard to motive. Although they may be wellintentioned, officials and key staff members may lack the information and knowledge necessary for effective policy implementation on behalf of their superiors (Chappelet, 2016). Assuming that individuals are self-interested, the rational choice approach assumes that they do not always have their stakeholders' interests at heart. Officials and staff may not be willing to put in the time and effort required for effective policy implementation, for two reasons. Third, they may be encouraged to serve the interests of a specific stakeholder or group of stakeholders at the expense of the common good because they are anticipating relatively higher benefits. A large and diverse group of stakeholders puts pressure on sport's governing bodies, and this puts them in a difficult position. It's possible that officials and key members of staff are motivated by their own financial gain and gain. Because of the wealth and power accrued by sports governing bodies, officials have an incentive to either abuse their positions of power or commit acts of corruption in exchange for bribes. Stakeholders are not afforded the same access to information as officials and other key employees (McLeod, Shilbury, et al., 2021; Zeimers & Shilbury, 2020). It is possible for the latter to engage in behavior that is not desired by their 7 stakeholders because of these information inequities. In addition to laws and increased oversight, sports stakeholders can form advocacy groups or take their cases to the public court. While monitoring and sanctioning are necessary to maintain order, it is also possible to foster a culture of trust and cooperation by engaging in social interactions. Stakeholders can ensure that sport governing bodies, their officials, and key staff is acting in their interests by implementing institutional reforms (Chappelet, 2019). In other words, rational decision-making is impossible without rules of the game that establish some degree of openness, accountability, and democracy. The clear lines of analysis provided by rational choice can help practitioners reflect on issues related to institutional design. However, they should be aware of the limitations of this method. So they shouldn't put too much faith in game rules to regulate behavior and thwart wrongdoing. In addition, they should avoid becoming enamored with formal rules and processes. Additionally, this could result in a lot of unnecessary paperwork. An emphasis on rational choice in governance practices risks encouraging distrust and stifling innovation and creativity. When it comes to finding a good balance between institutional control and trust-based governance that allows for individual autonomy, a critical eye is required. As a result, the moral, cognitive, ideational, and personal aspects of good governance must also be taken into consideration. It may be difficult, but even if it is, it is worth the effort because it will lead to better outcomes for all parties involved, regardless of how difficult it may be to implement the rules themselves. Board Dynamics It is not uncommon for sporting organizations to have a variety of governance models. An important recommendation of the ASC is that each organization's governance structure be 8 thoroughly documented, including a description of the boards and management's responsibilities and powers. The ASC recommends using a 'one member, one vote' voting system in a unified structure. Advisory councils that advise the board on issues relevant to a particular state can be established, but they have no formal authority. At least a majority of the board members should be elected by the members of a board that includes both appointed and elected directors. Votes taken at board or general meetings should be approved by a majority of directors/members and not be subject to a casting vote, it is also recommended that this be the case. If a majority of people cannot agree on an issue, then the issue should be thrown out. This principle is based on this premise. The board's primary responsibility is to ensure that the legal entity, the organization, is viable and effective in the present and the future (McLeod, 2020). Organizational strategic direction, core values and ethical framework, and key objectives and performance measures are all determined by the board of directors. The board's ultimate authority and responsibility for financial operations and budgeting is a critical part of this role in ensuring the accomplishment of strategic goals. It is the board's responsibility to oversee the organization in accordance with the organization's bylaws and constitution. As a board, they are responsible for making decisions that are in everyone's best interest, including the organization (McLeod, 2020). It is also responsible for approving and implementing the organization's vision and strategy. During the decision-making process, consider options in light of the organization's values and periodically review the values to ensure they remain current and relevant. Additionally, it recognizes examples of value-driven behavior within the organization and ensures that the board discusses values and expected behaviors as part of the induction process for directors. Members of boards or committees may occasionally feel the need to get involved in 9 the day-to-day operations of the organization in order to exercise their control and supervision responsibilities when their roles are not clearly defined and articulated (McLeod, 2020). There will always be tension between management and other employees whose job it is to carry out the tasks in question, because of this practice. In addition, the board has no authority to participate in the implementation of operational plans within the organization. In sports planning, the board plays a strategic role, and making the distinction between strategic and operational plans is critical. The CEO and his or her staff are responsible for implementing the company's operational plans. For example, if an organization's board of directors or committee gets too involved in operational planning, they may find themselves dealing with issues that are not their area of expertise. Their strategic planning duties are put on the back burner by this practice. Having the board of a sports organization establish operational plans rather than relying on management to do so prevent them from holding employees accountable for the role they are hired to perform (McLeod, 2020). Boards in sporting organizations that empower themselves instead of allowing management to set operational plans miss out on the chance of holding employees accountable for the tasks for which they have been hired. Conflicts over these kinds of issues will inevitably arise unless clear boundaries and role descriptions are established. It is critical for board members to step back from operational duties and allow the executive officer to carry out their duties when boundaries have been established. The loss of trust and the potential for decreased performance can be caused by intrusion and interference that crosses agreed-upon boundaries. An effective board of directors in a sport organization can contribute more value than just the executive officer or general staff. It is essential that good boards "make a difference" by providing superior results to those who rely on them, as demonstrated by their valued contributions to the organization's life (McLeod, 10 2020). Members and athletes are the most common focus for boards in sports organizations. Board members play an important role in making sure a sport organization's activities are effectively monitored, delivering benefits and contributing to the organization's success and sustainability. The board has a significant impact on a sports organization because effective decision making is one of the board's core competencies. It is possible to gain a better understanding of governance in sport and the roles, composition, and independence of the board by studying the literature on governance in sport and the various theoretical approaches to the subject. According to the ASC, it is a good practice to ensure that the organization's CEO does not necessarily sit on the board of directors as a member of the management team. But in this case, it is also a good practice to ensure that the CEO is aware of, and present at, board meetings so that he or she can provide information and advice to the board on the organization's operations and to understand the board's direction. To ensure efficient governance, each board should agree on and document a clear set of governance policies and procedures. Processes like these should be based on industry standards, and they should also be reviewed on a regular basis. The agenda-setting procedure for each board meeting should be outlined in the governance policy. In order to keep meetings on track, the board must make sure that each agenda item is given enough time. As a result, the board must ensure that agenda items are linked to the organization's strategic goals and that management's reporting and the board's approved key performance indicators are in sync. Governance policies should specify when and how board papers should be received, as well as the length, format, and level of detail that should be included. Within a week of a meeting, minutes should be made available to all participants and should be accurate records of the discussion. These must be agreed upon by the board and communicated to stakeholders in a 11 timely manner. Committees on the board allow directors to devote more time and attention to the organization's most pressing issues than the entire board can devote. In order to distribute the work among the directors and allow for more in-depth consideration of specific issues, board committees are a great way to do so. Each organization's board committees will be different in terms of their size, composition, and the challenges they face. Having a board committee is a good idea for sports organizations. Local and Global Issues Some national sports leaders and heads of sports governing bodies are fighting or wrestling for political power and authority at the national level. Deadlocks in politics can have dire consequences, such as the suspension or expulsion of athletes from sporting events or competitions, as well as sanctions and penalties such as suspension or expulsion from recognition or accreditation altogether. There must be an end to the internal political tension and conflict that exists among and amongst sports leaders, coaches, and trainers before these sanctions can be lifted. Theoretically, sports and politics should not mix, but in practice, this is exactly what happens. Competition, competition, and clashes between players as well as between sports administrators and policymakers are inherent in the very nature of sports itself. Sport, on the other hand, is a cultural and political artifact. That is to say, the definition of sport and how it is defined are the result of the conflicts, contests, and decisions that take place in specific societies at specific times. It is possible to remove politics from sports, but only if the level of commitment and sacrifice required to give up power, prestige, and position for the greater good outweighs the desire to gain power for selfish reasons. It's here that the loyal supporters and followers of long-standing 12 sports leaders are threatened by the emergence of new brand and innovative sports leaders (Parent, M. & Hoye, 2018). First, they would do everything they could in order to exert influence and power through their connections with national government leaders, as well as their charisma and connections with national sports associations and organizations affiliated with international sports governing bodies. There are some sports disputes that end up in the courts of law rather than the basketball, volleyball, baseball, and football courts; this is a competition that takes place in the courts of law, rather than in the courts of play. Corruption, doping, and match-fixing are just a few of the issues that keep sport governance in the news. For every well-known global sports governance body with huge commercial revenues, there are numerous lesser-known national or regional organizations dealing with very different issues – often struggling with limited public funds to keep grassroots facilities going.... The viability of each of these sports governing bodies is being called into question in different ways. It is expected that medical technology will advance significantly in the next few years, opening up new avenues for sports performance enhancement, including the potential use of human augmentation devices, both physical and mental, as well as new pharmacological compounds. "Biometric passports" may be necessary for athletes to keep track of suspicious changes in their physiology and performance. With regard to doping and how to prevent it, things are likely to get more complicated in the future. Globalization's long-term effects will continue to play out in sports, even as national identities are reasserted against it in the current political climate. There will be more and more debates about who has the right to represent what country, and the entire concept of 'national' competitions may begin to look outmoded (Parent, M. & Hoye, 2018). When it comes to making decisions, young people tend to be more impatient if there is a lack of 13 transparency in the process. This could lead governments to challenge the legitimacy of sporting organizations that are perceived to be unfit for their intended purpose. As the population ages and the economy stagnates, the public purse is under increasing strain. In order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of organizations’ use of grant money, governments are expected to adopt a more systematic approach that includes more stringent "key performance indicators." Ageing populations and tighter financial resources may shift the focus of sport funding from cultural to economic benefits, such as population health outcomes. Sports organizations may face increased competition for public funds if governments adopt a more comprehensive approach to encouraging physical activity. It's common for leaders of grassroots sports organizations to respond by saying, "We're doing nothing wrong; we're just doing our best to help the community." While these leaders are primarily engaged in charitable endeavors for the greater good, they do so for free or at very low cost, and the vast majority of them simply want to govern their organizations in a proper and appropriate manner. Communication must be made that good governance is not just about identifying and correcting current governance issues in grassroots sports organizations, but also about preventing future governance issues in an increasingly complex sports landscape. For one thing, practical examples can demonstrate that while many organizations believe they have no governing issues, the reality is that leaders of any sport club or governing body face situations and dilemmas every day that potentially involve risks, conflicts of interest and even undue advantages. There is a distinct lack of checks and balances and a clear separation of powers in sports administration bodies, which are in charge of enacting laws, hearing individual cases, and enforcing penalties. To meet the upcoming challenges, a shift to more effective models of sport governance is a must. Scandals will continue to occur if there is no effective 14 governance. It is imperative that sports organizations improve their management, transparency, and governance in order to attract more people to sports and avoid further scandals. Many of our local sports clubs—whether amateur or professional—need to act quickly if they are to survive in these difficult coronavirus times. Every sports club's board of directors needs to have an understanding of these specific challenges and the ability and experience to deal with them. Conclusion The world of sports has a lot to do with governance. The values, character, spirit, and excellence of a particular nation or society are reflected in sports. Sports management, governance, and administration are becoming increasingly important in light of current issues and challenges. Being aware of current issues in sports governance gives them an ability to regulate and moderate the excesses or absence of politics; decentralization; centralization; unification; or division; along with world and national public opinion; in other words, sports governance (Parent, M. & Hoye, 2018). This can be done through a form of governance that is participatory, stakeholder ship, deliberative, and consensual in which all voices are taken into account before making a decision on sports policy. Trust, accountability, transparency, and honesty in sports governance also reduces the likelihood of factionalism and divisiveness caused by differences in sports philosophy, culture, and geography. The principle of complementation can be used by sports policymakers to determine when a decentralized and a centralized system of sports governance can coexist (Parent, M. & Hoye, 2018). Finding an ideal balance between centralization and decentralization of sport governance will be critical to the success of a sports consultative assembly or sports summit that addresses this issue. To ensure that the community, people, and society are all on the same page, sports 15 stakeholders need to carefully weigh public opinion and sentiment before entering the bidding process for hosting an Olympic or World Games. All sports stakeholders must work together to ensure that all citizens benefit from a viable sport policy and programmer regardless of their socio-economic status or cultural outlook or geo-political arrangement or physical attributes. This is the ultimate goal of sports governance legitimacy. Sports governance that includes everyone and excludes no one is the true hallmark of its effectiveness and legitimacy, making sports accessible to everyone. 16 References Adriaanse, J. A., & Schofield, T. (2013). Analyzing gender dynamics in sport governance: A new regimes-based approach. Sport Management Review, 16(4), 498-513. Balduck, A. L., Van Rossem, A., & Buelens, M. (2010). Identifying competencies of volunteer board members of community sports clubs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 213-235. Chappelet, J. L. (2016). Autonomy and governance: Necessary bedfellows in the fight against corruption in sport. Global Corruption Report: Sport. https://www.transparency.org/files/content/feature/1.3_AutonomyAndGovernance_Chappelet_G CRSport.pdf Chappelet, J. L., & Mrkonjic, M. (2019). Assessing sport governance principles and indicators. In M. Winand & C. Anagnostopoulos (Eds.), Research Handbook on Sport Governance (pp. 10– 29). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332173755_Assessing_Sport_Governance_Principles_ and_Indicators Geeraert, A. (2018). National Sport Governance Observer. Play the Game. Retrieved from https://www.playthegame.org/theme-pages/the-national-sports-governance-observer/ Geeraert, A., Alm, J., & Groll, M. (2014). Good governance in international sport organizations: An analysis of the 35 Olympic sport governing bodies. International Journal of Sport Policy, 6, 281–306. 17 McLeod, J. Star, S. Shilbury, D. (2021). Board composition in national sport federations: A cross-country comparative analysis of diversity and board size. Managing Sport and Leisure. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354204723_Board_composition_in_national_sport_fed erations_a_cross-country_comparative_analysis_of_diversity_and_board_size McLeod, J., & Shilbury, D. (2020). Governance Convergence in Indian Sport. International Journal of Sport Management, 21, 26-53 Mcleod, J., & Star, S. (2020, July 1). In pursuit of good governance - analysing the main points of conflict in India’s draft Sports Code. Law in Sport. Retrieved from https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/in-pursuit-of-good-governance-analysing-the-mainpoints-of-conflict-in-india-s-draft-sports-code McLeod, J., Shilbury, D., & Zeimers, G. (2021). An institutional framework for governance convergence in sport: The case of India. Journal of Sport Management 35, pp.144-157. Parent, M. M., & Hoye, R. (2018). The impact of governance principles on sport organizations’ governance practices and performance: A systematic review. Cogent Social Sciences, 4, 1–24.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer:
20 Pages
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

View attached explanation and answer. Let me know if you have any questions.Here is the assessment, corrected as you asked. I did the best I could, although some corrections of the professors remain since they are related to citations and references for statements you made, and therefore you have the information to make them.Still, even if the time is over I am at the disposal to correct anything you need and for any observations.I wish you success in your assessment and more than may come.

The main issue with your paper is that you have not fulfilled the task. The task was to recommend
some governance principles for Sport Larsutland. Instead, you seem to have produced a general
discussion of governance, sometimes relating it to sport. Much of what you say in your assignment is
relevant to the task but you must structure it to show the relevance, which you have not done. You
have large sections with headings but these have not been explicitly identified as principles and it is
not evident to me that they are; it may also not be evident to your lecturer. Because you have not
substantially addressed the task, your lecturer may not pass your assignment.
What you have been asked to do is to produce the following structure:
1) Executive summary (200 words) – not present in your assignment, but write it last so that it
reflects what you have actually written.
2) Introduction (200-300 words). Here you should firstly provide the rationale for the report,
which should briefly address the need of Sport Larsutland for a code of sports governance,
what governance is, issues faced in the governance of sporting bodies, why governance is
necessary in sport, and that you will be recommending to Sport Larsutland some key
principles on which to base their code of sports governance. Then, still in the 200-300 words
of the introduction, list the principles (I think a numbered list is ok). You can word this like,
“The key principles of sports governance which you should consider are …”
3) Explain each principle. This requires you to explicitly identify some principles, which you
have not done. Most of your assignment reads as a discussion about governance in general
and rationales for why governance is needed in sport. This should have been briefly done in
your introduction. On page 2 of the task sheet, the lecturer has listed some potential
governance principles. You touch on some of them, like board composition and
accountability, but they are obscured by other discussion and by a lack of structure. Identify
the four to six governance principles in your assignment, like you see listed on page 2. You
structure should then look like:
a. Principle 1: “Z”
i. Define the principle and key words.
ii. Why does this principle represent good governance? What issues in sporting
organizations does it address? Draw here on academic literature.
iii. Is there a case study from an actual sporting organization to show this
principle in action (should be a positive example)? Spend no more than two
or three sentences describing this.
b. Principle 2: “Y”
i. Same structure as above.
c. Principles “X”, “W”, “V”, etc. You will determine how many principles you think
important based on your judgement and your word limit, since you will need about
500 words per principle.
4) Conclusion that summarises the report (much like the executive summary – in fact, write the
conclusion and then change a few words to use it as your executive summary). Conclusions
do not moralise or say any more than has already been said. This 200 words will not require
any references since you won’t be saying anything new.
You urgently need to restructure your work to reflect the structure above. The whole point of the
assignment is to recommend some principles upon which to write a code of governance. Be explicit
about the principles: the assignment is all about them.

Make explicit links: your central topic is the need for sports governance and to develop specific
principles. Anything you write in your assignment must be explicitly linked to this. Use linking words
where necessary like “because”, “therefore”, “furthermore”. Everything must be explicitly linked to
your central topics: if you do not make links explicit, your lecturer will assume that you do not really
understand these links. Use headings that create explicit links. For example, your introduction
should be entitled Introduction. Each principle of sports governance should be titled Principle 1,
Principle 2, Principle 3, etc, with the name of the principle following.
Referencing: One of the three assessment criteria is about your use of academic sources. Your
assignment needs far more references. Most of what you write you will have read somewhere else.
You need to reference where you read these. Do this especially for:
1. Facts that are not general knowledge. Any specific numbers or facts that the average person
does not know should be referenced. This also includes the details of any case studies.
2. Opinions and ideas that are not your own. Many of the ideas in your assignment will have
come from other authors. This is quite OK but you need to reference these.
3. When you write about how things work or situations, you need references. If you assert that
something is or is not working, that there are few or many of something, or any such thing,
you need to reference where you got that information. There are very many points in your
assignment where you say something about how sports governance is or should be without
any references. Your lecturer will ask, “How do you know” or “Where did you get this idea?”
Show him/her by referencing.
If you write a paragraph without a reference, you need to go back and see what you missed. No
paragraph should be without references. A paragraph without references says to your lecturer one
of the following:
a) You read it somewhere but didn’t record where.
b) You think this is how things work rather than relying on research.
c) You made this up (you probably didn’t, but how does your lecturer know this?)
None of this is good.


1

Sport Governance Research

2

Index










Executive Summary
Introduction
Evolution of governance and leadership approaches within the sport industry and their
impact
Governance Principles
o Integrity
o Diversity
o Vision and Mission
o Accountability and Transparency
o Board Dynamics
o Other principles
Critical reflection on the governance practices and models in contemporary sport
organizations and systems
o Local and Global Issues
Conclussion
References

3

Executive Summary
There is a misconception of governance where it is seen as the management of an organization
through the exercise of power; however it is the visible expression of a set of sociopolitical
processes, tensions between different actors that assume the work of governing (in local,
national, regional, and other types of governing) and most importantly is the recognizable
manifestation of ideological structures from which diverse visions of society are built upon. In
later decades as sports grow like important business with strong effects on a nation’s economy,
many scandals have come forward leaving the audience questioning the function of the
governance in sports.
It is then that the construction of principles inside governance gains attention and importance
inside sports, where different principles are proposed with the condition that each one should be
adapted according to the local context. Some principles are integrity, diversity, vision and
mission, accountability and transparency, board dynamics amongst many other; many of them
brought forward by national governments where sports are an important element in their culture

4

Introduction
Many authors define and speak of governance through metaphors. In ancient Greece, Plato asks
Socrates to describe in a detailed manner the metaphor of a ship’s captain, therefore illustrating
for Adeimantus why the philosopher was to be king instead of a subject. It is discussed how
governance would fail if filled with ambition, causing a failure to understand all the signs of
things around it. With the notion of a ship as a container of souls with a common destination,
puts governance in a perspective revolving around effort by or for a collectivity to mark the
direction and steer towards it (Janda, 2020).
Throughout the body of the following work an analysis of the governance and leadership will
take place, to then be able to analyze the application of governance inside sports and its
organization, commissions and many more. After than five principles that Sports Larsutland will
be defined and proposed for the incorporation into their sports’ governance, these being:
integrity, diversity, vision and mission, accountability and transparency, board dynamics and
more.

5

Governance and leadership approaches within the sport industry and their impact
As a topic of discussion in recent years, governance has gained prominence. In his 2016 work,
Beltramin defines governance as the visible expression of a set of sociopolitical processes,
tensions between different actors that assume the work of governing (in local, national, regional,
and other types of governing) and most importantly is the recognizable manifestation of
ideological structures from which diverse visions of society are built upon. A broad definition of
governance, provided by traditional media, is the management of an organization through the
exercise of power. However, the former definition omits the importance of the actors, their roles,
visions, and responsibility.
Responsibility, rules and policies, communication and transparency all play a role in governance;
however, decision-making is the most important aspect of the process. As said by Janda “The
term governance is now often deployed much more with that sense, suggesting that we must
come to acknowledge and in some degree accept the way in which the organized whole, the
system, functions to govern us” (2020). In a nutshell, it is the process by which a group of people
come together and agree on a course of action. Stakeholders in an organization's governance
process articulate their interests, influence the decision-making process, and then finalize the
actions that will be taken. When it comes to making decisions, decision makers need to take
these inputs into account and be held accountable to the same stakeholders for the outcomes and
the process by which they were produced, the way a company's board of directors sets and
monitors its performance in order to make sure that it achieves its strategic goals, and the way in
which the board acts in the members' best interests. In a broad sense, sport governance refers to
organization, direction, control, budgeting, leading, and evaluating a company or department
whose primary product or service is related to sports or physical activity in way or another.

6

Government, business and industry leaders, academics and civil society organizations are all
involved in formulating, legitimizing, and putting into action sports policies and programs aimed
at fostering excellence and progress in the sport. National sports are a source of pride, joy and
honor for the country and its people thanks to sports governance. Preconditions and prerequisites
for global prestige and reputation are essential in sports governance, as sports excellence strongly
equates with socio-economic, political, and cultural growth and development, making countries a
sports haven for tourists. Additional to this, sport governance envisions a world in which sport is
used to promote a sense of national and international unity as well as peace, solidarity and
reconciliation among people of all nationalities. Students, researchers, and sports industry
professionals must all learn about governance and how it can be implemented as sports
organizations are under increasing pressure to uphold higher standards of professionalism and
accountability in all aspects of their operations.
Serious questions about the governance standards of sports have been raised periodically over
the last several decades. Since a rash of scandals have engulfed the sporting world in recent
years, the public's faith in sports as a vehicle for the advancement of positive social and cultural
values has been seriously undermined (McLeod, Shilbury, et al., 2021; Zeimers & Shilbury,
2020). Governance literature has grown significantly over the past two decades. Because of this,
the term "governance" has become a synonym for a variety of different concepts, leading to a lot
of theoretical and conceptual confusion. A vertical chain of command from continental, to
national, to local organizations places International Non-Governmental Sports Organizations
(INGSOs) as sport's supreme governing body. If a governing body takes a particular position, the
decisions made by any organization under its umbrella will be affected. The decision and actions
become undemocratic (does not follow democratic practices or ideals) because clubs and players

7

who want to participate in competitions are bound by governing bodies' rules and regulations,
often without any ability to influence them for their own benefit, under this hierarchic structure
of command.
There is also the fact that INGSOs have traditionally had a great deal of autonomy in terms of
self-governance. As a result, neither national nor international public authorities have had much
of an impact on how they operate. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the sporting network
has been able to exercise its self-governance without significant interference from states or other
actors, and the sports world generally eschews state intervention in its activities (Chappelet,
2016). As if that wasn't enough, INGSOs, like many other global corporations, have the option of
picking the best regulatory environment for their operations, allowing them to base their global
operations in a more favorable environment around the world.
We've also seen a rise in the importance of stakeholder organizations in sports governance over
the last few years. As a result of all of these changes, the traditional hierarchical self-governance
of sports organizations has been replaced by a more networked governance model. Since the
traditional vertical channels of authority have been replaced by new horizontal forms of
networked governance, there has been a shift. While INGSO self-governance is still widely
regarded as superior, the commercialization of sport has exposed governance failures such as
bribery and corruption, as well as subjected sport to the more rapacious and predatory aspects of
global capitalism. Due to the unique characteristics of the sport industry, researchers argue that
strong governance is particularly important in this context (McLeod, Shilbury, et al., 2021;
Zeimers & Shilbury, 2020). NSFs play a critical strategic and regulatory role in the sport ecosystem, and thus, good governance must begin in these organizations.

8

With these matters being exposed during the past decades, different commissions and
organizations have expressed their concern, and have declared three major pillars for governance
in sports according to three majors issues. These issues are: 1) how the organization defines and
creates strategic goals and direction, 2) how the panel of the organization supervises the
development and performance of the organization to assure the achievement of these goals, and
3) safeguarding that the board acts in the best interest of the members. Therefore, to guarantee a
good governance inside sports, the roles and responsibility of each actor have to be defined
clearly, and also depend on the transparency in which they are presented, identified, scrutinized
and enforced by the governing organization (Lam, 2014).
Non-profit foundations or commissions tend to be governed by a board of directors. It is critical
that boards have the right makeup in order to effectively carry out their governance
responsibilities (McLeod, 2020). The extent to which NSFs around the world are adhering to the
standard of diversity and board size remains unclear, despite greater understanding and
awareness. There have been numerous calls for better governance of sports organizations from
both governments and independent agencies due to a lack of adequate checks and balances on
board decisions, director misconduct, outdated or inequitable governance structures, and outright
failure to govern (Chappelet, 2016). There has been an increasing number of suggested
governance principles and guidelines developed by government, sport organizations, and
independent agencies in response to governance failures, such as democratic
structures/democracy, accountability, transparency, and professionalization.

9

Governance Principles
Before beginning to present the proposed principals for the governance, it is important to
understand that the imposition of universal recommendations of sports governance are not
appropriate or efficient since they often forget the expression of organizational, cultural, or
political priorities at a national or even local level. Secondly, many of the principles come from
the corporate sector, advocating the virtues of control mechanisms and regulations, therefore
cannot always be adapted to smaller sports organisations. Lastly, the sport system at an
international level is complex, reflecting many different realities, that the execution of these
approaches will reinforce particularism and diminish the idea of a harmonized and systematic
monitoring and evaluation process from the top or by an independent body (Mrkonjic, 2016).
Principle 1. Integrity
According to Sport Integrity Australia, “sports integrity means the manifestation of the ethics
and values that promote community confidence in sport”. When speaking about the sports’
integrity, there should exist three primary areas of focus, which are: 1) regulation, 2) monitoring,
intelligence, and investigations, 3) policy and program delivery (includes education, outreach,
engagement, and development).
A way to uphold the highest standards of integrity, the board of the organization should protect
and identify these standards all the time, not only when it comes to the responsibilities of the
board but in a wider environment. Integrity is not only key to the protection of human rights, but
from a corporate point of view, it is key to protecting the legitimacy and reputation of the
organization or commission.

10

This principle is mainly carried out by leading by example, setting out and maintaining ethical
values for the organization and welcoming new opportunities for transparency, ensuring a
competition is strong, honest, and accommodating with relevant rules and procedures of the
activity. Integrity not only comes with social aspects, but also with the mental and physical
wellbeing of the participants.
Through the search of this integrity, many new departments of this organizations can appear, like
Australia’s National Anti-Doping Organisation, where not only the physical wellbeing of the
athletes is looked out for, but also the fairness of the game for every participant. This department
looks for the achievement of fair and honest sporting performance, promote a positive conduct
by the athletes and any actor inside sports, achievement of safe, fair and including environments
at all levels, and enhancing the reputation of sports overall.
Principle 2. Diversity
The board of a sport’s organisation should be a diverse group of people who together can bring
forward different perspectives and experiences to make the process of decision-making easier
and more appropriate for every need and situation. To create a diversity inside the board, there
are questions one may ask according to Australia Sport Organisation (2020):


Do we have diversity in age, gender, cultural and linguistic background, and geography,
on the board?



How do we ensure our board has the skills needed to implement our strategy and provide
effective oversight to achieve our vision?



Are all our directors representing the organisation and its interests and not acting in
favour of personal or other interests?

11



How do we promote vacancies to actively seek diversity of directors?



Does the director nomination, appointment and election process consider diversity?



What opportunities exist to bring diversity to the leadership of our sport (e.g.,
committees or workgroups)?

When boards are diverse, better decisions can be made because a more robust debate created by
diverse perspective and because a mix of different appointed or elected directors can balance
institutional knowledge with fresh perspectives, new participants are attracted to the sports when
opportunities are highlighted outside the board, and lastly, boards can create, adapt or draw on
insights from other sports or even industries during what would be the decision-making process.
Principle 3. Vision and Mission
Creating a clear vision and mission is a key principle for an organisation in any area, even sports.
The creation of this vision and mission is a responsibility of the board inside the commission; it
is responsible for recognizing and assessing the values of the organisation and should work to
achieve its mission and vision through the creation of a strategic plan best suited to preserving
the long-term stability of the organisation (Sport and Recreation Alliance).
Some elements of the vision and mission are the objects and purpose, which are found in the
constitution of the organisation, but tend to be quite broa...


Anonymous
Really useful study material!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags