Social Science Discussion Thread: Responsibilities of Governing Bodies in Sport (Assignment 1)

Lam (2014) states the following: “The major responsibilities of sports governing bodies are to establish rules for the sport, to develop and promote it, to widen its popularity and to represent the sport and those involved in it. These goals can only be achieved through good governance and to ensure that the principles of democracy, independence, fairness, solidarity and transparency are respected. Governing bodies should recognize that they hold the power to govern their sports as trustees. This power is primarily vested in the members and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation. Governing bodies, therefore, should provide a clear statement of the roles and functions they perform to support their members and other groups with a legitimate interest in their activities” (p. 24).

Today’s sport governing agencies face a myriad of issues related to participation, integrity, and development. Select a sport governance organization from the following list: IOC, USOC, NCAA, NHL, NBA, MLB, NFL, NFHS, Pop Warner, USA Basketball (or another sport). Explain, providing specific examples, how the organization is fulfilling its responsibilities well.

SMGT 623

Discussion Assignment Instructions

The student will complete 1 Discussion in this course. The student will post one thread of at least 400 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of the assigned Module: Week. The student must then post 2 replies of at least 200 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of the following assigned Module: Week.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272789182

The roles of governance in sport organizations.

Article · January 2014

CITATIONS

17
READS

13,135

1 author:

Eddie T.C. Lam

Cleveland State University

61 PUBLICATIONS 1,161 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eddie T.C. Lam on 25 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272789182_The_roles_of_governance_in_sport_organizations?enrichId=rgreq-2da6bee764f541c20a45da9ef21a4d69-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3Mjc4OTE4MjtBUzoyMDA4MjY2NjU2MDcxNjhAMTQyNDg5MjIxNjM4MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-2da6bee764f541c20a45da9ef21a4d69-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3Mjc4OTE4MjtBUzoyMDA4MjY2NjU2MDcxNjhAMTQyNDg5MjIxNjM4MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eddie-Lam-2?enrichId=rgreq-2da6bee764f541c20a45da9ef21a4d69-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3Mjc4OTE4MjtBUzoyMDA4MjY2NjU2MDcxNjhAMTQyNDg5MjIxNjM4MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Cleveland_State_University?enrichId=rgreq-2da6bee764f541c20a45da9ef21a4d69-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3Mjc4OTE4MjtBUzoyMDA4MjY2NjU2MDcxNjhAMTQyNDg5MjIxNjM4MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

Journal of Power, Politics & Governance
June 2014, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 19-31

ISSN: 2372-4919 (Print), 2372-4927 (Online)
Copyright © The Author(s). 2014. All Rights Reserved.

Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development

The Roles of Governance in Sport Organizations

Eddie T. C. Lam1

Abstract

In recent years, governance has become a popular topic of discussion. In its broad
meaning, governance is the exercise of power in the management of an
organization.

Though governance involves such concepts as responsibility, rules and

policies, communication, and transparency, the central component of governance is
decision-making. It is the process through which a group of people make decisions
that direct their collective opinions and efforts. The decision-making process of
governance is that stakeholders, on one hand, of an organization articulate their
interests, influence how decisions are made, and finalize actions to be taken. The
decision makers, on the other hand, should acknowledge these inputs and put them
into consideration during the decision-making process, and they are accountable to
those same stakeholders for the organization’s outputs and the process of producing
it. Governance concerns three major issues: how an organization develops strategic
goals and direction, how the board of the organization monitors the performance of
the organization to ensure it achieves these strategic goals, and how the board acts
in the best interests of the members. Good sport governance should include such
principles as (a) the role of the governing body, (b) structure, responsibilities and
accountability, (c) democracy, elections and appointments, (d) transparency and
communication, and (e) solidarity.

Keywords: decision-making; policies; responsibility; transparency; governing bodies

1. Introduction

In the 20th century, subjects on governance received little attention. Not until

1997, for example, Play the Game started to raise awareness about governance in

sport organizations; whereas the Eastern Regional Organization for Public

Administration (EROPA) World Conference on Governance in Manila, Philippines

attracted over 600 participants from countries all over the world (e.g., Cariño, 2000).

1 PhD, Department of Health & Human Performance, Cleveland State University, 2121, Euclid Ave.,
JH 143, Cleveland, OH 44115-2214, USA. Phone: 216-687-5051, E-mail: t.lam@csuohio.edu

20 Journal of Power, Politics & Governance, Vol. 2(2), June 2014

In the new millennium, however, articles on governance have been escalating

in exponential rate. According to Simpson and Weiner (1989), governance refers to

“the office, function, or power of governing.” However, some researchers attempted

to distinguish governance from governing. Kooiman (1993) considers that governing as

a purposeful action that aims at guiding, controlling, or managing societal activities

while governance is emerged from the governing activities of social, political, and

administrative actors. At one point, The World Bank (2002) had used the term

governance to illustrate how power was exercised (i.e., the rule of the rulers) in the

management of a country’s economic and social resources. In its broad meaning,

governance is the exercise of power in the management of an organization. One thing

has to make clear is that the power mentioned here is not referred to the personal

power at a certain management level, but the power to coordinate and facilitate the

managerial functions at different levels of the organization.

Though governance involves such concepts as responsibility, rules and

policies, communication, transparency, and so on, the central component of

governance is decision-making. It is the process through which a group of people

make decisions that direct their collective opinions and efforts. When it is applied to

the public sector, “governance is the process whereby, within accepted traditions and

institutional frameworks, interests are articulated by different sectors of society,

decision are taken and decision-makers are held to account” (Plumptre & Graham,

2000, p. 3). An example is the campaign led by soccer supporters, most notable the

Independent Manchester United Supporter Association and its sister organization

Shareholders United, to prevent the proposed takeover of Manchester United by

Rupert Murdoch’s BSkyB satellite television company (Hindley, 2003). In fact,

governance exists whenever a group of people comes together to accomplish a

common goal. If the group is too large to efficiently make all necessary decisions, an

entity can be formed to facilitate the process. If that is the case, group members will

delegate a large portion of the decision-making responsibility to this entity. In

voluntary sector organizations, this entity is called the Board of Directors. For

example, the Board of Directors of the YMCA is a group of persons chosen to

govern the affairs and monitoring the long-term direction of the organization.

The decision-making process of governance is illustrated by Figure 1. On one

hand, stakeholders of an organization articulate their interests, influence how

decisions are made, determine who the decision-makers are, and finalize actions to be

taken. These are the inputs of the stakeholders and they are addressed to the decision

Eddie T. C. Lam 21

makers. The decision makers, on the other hand, should acknowledge these inputs

and put them into consideration during the decision-making process. Decision makers

are accountable to those same stakeholders for the organization’s outputs and the

process of producing it.

Figure 1: The Decision-Making Process In Governance

Stakeholders

Outputs/

Accountability
Inputs/

Proposition

Decision Makers

22 Journal of Power, Politics & Governance, Vol. 2(2), June 2014

2. Governance of Sport

According to the Australian Sports Commission (2002), governance concerns

three major issues: (1) how an organization develops strategic goals and direction, (2)

how the board of the organization monitors the performance of the organization to

ensure it achieves these strategic goals, and (3) ensuring that the board acts in the best

interests of the members. To guarantee good governance in sports, the roles and

responsibilities of all participants should be clearly defined. Good governance also

depends on how transparent these roles and responsibilities are defined, monitored

and enforced by the governing organization (European Olympic Committee, 2003).

Since the Olympic Charter (International Olympic Committee, 2013) is

recognized as the constitutional charter for the world sports community, it is logical

to examine its requirements on the governance of the International Federations (IFs):

 to establish and enforce, in accordance with the Olympic spirit, the rules

concerning the practice of their respective sports and to ensure their

application;

 to ensure the development of their sports throughout the world;

 to contribute to the achievement of the goals set out in the Olympic Charter, in

particular by way of the spread of Olympism and Olympic education;

 to express their opinions on the candidatures for organising the Olympic

Games, in particular as far as the technical aspects of venues for their

respective sports are concerned;

 to establish their criteria of eligibility for the competitions of the Olympic

Games in conformity with the Olympic Charter, and to submit these to the

IOC for approval;

 to assume the responsibility for the technical control and direction of their

sports at the Olympic Games and, if they agree, at the Games held under the

patronage of the IOC;

 to provide technical assistance in the practical implementation of the Olympic

Solidarity programmes;

 to encourage and support measures relating to the medical care and health of

athletes (p. 54).

Eddie T. C. Lam 23

In the national level, the sport governing bodies in each country are just

subordinate to their respective IF and the most concrete expression of this is the

requirement for their statutes to be compatible with those of the IF. For this reason,

the sport governing bodies should develop their sports in their territorial jurisdiction

and to ensure implementation of the rules and regulations of the IF.A good example

of good governance by the IOC was the creation of the IOC 2000 Commission. The

major purpose of this Commission was to prepare and propose reforms to the IOC’s

structure, rules, and procedures. As a result, key reforms were adopted on the

composition, structure and organization of the IOC, its role and the designation of

the host of the Olympic Games. The creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency

(WADA) in 1999 was another example of good sport governance.Instead of funded

entirely by the IOC, WADA is now received its funding equally from the Olympic

Movement and governments of the world. The main mission of the WADA is the

coordination and promotion of an effective fight against doping in sports under the

World Anti-Doping Code. Both the 38-member Foundation Board and the 12-

member Executive Committee of WADA are composed equally of representatives

from the Olympic Movement and governments (World Anti-Doping Agency, 2014).

Effective governance of sports is particularly complex because of the wide

range of participants involved. These participants include players and clubs, local,

national and international organizations, spectators, the media, commercial (sponsors)

and non-commercial interests, and educational and training bodies. These groups

typically have different priorities and inter-relationships within and outside the sport.

Individual sports are typically characterized by multiple interests and roles, and a

complex combination of legal, regulated and self-regulatory frameworks, contractual

relationships, practices, implicit relationships, and tacit understandings. The role and

legitimacy of governing organizations depends on continuing and widespread

confidence in their institutional structures, governance arrangements, rules and

dispute mechanisms. Without this confidence, the value of the sports, events and

championships for which they are responsible may be adversely affected (European

Olympic Committee, 2003; McKenzie, 2002).

24 Journal of Power, Politics & Governance, Vol. 2(2), June 2014

3. Principles of Sport Governance

A sport governance working group in Belgium developed some statements of

good governance principles for sport entities. These principles are detailed in the

following nine different areas: (1) the role of the governing body, (2) structure,

responsibilities and accountability, (3) membership and size of the governing body, (4)

democracy, elections and appointments, (5) transparency and communication, (6)

decisions and appeals, (7) conflicts of interest, (8) solidarity, and (9) recognition of

other interests (The Rules of the Game, 2001). The four dimensions of good

governance (i.e., transparency and public communication, democratic process, checks

and balances, and solidarity) proposed by Geeraert (2013) coincidentally overlapped

most of these nine governance principles.

3.1 The Role of the Governing Body

The major responsibilities of sports governing bodies are to establish rules for

the sport, to develop and promote it, to widen its popularity and to represent the

sport and those involved in it. These goals can only be achieved through good

governance and to ensure that the principles of democracy, independence, fairness,

solidarity and transparency are respected. Governing bodies should recognize that

they hold the power to govern their sport as trustees. This power is primarily vested

in the members and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of

representation. Governing bodies, therefore, should provide a clear statement of their

roles and the functions they perform to support their members and other groups with

a legitimate interest in their activities. In April 2014, National Basketball Association

(NBA) Commissioner Adam Silver announced at a press conference that Donald

Sterling would be banned for life from any association with the Clippers or the NBA

because of his violation of league rules (i.e., through his expressions of offensive and

racist views). The Commissioner also fined Mr. Sterling $2.5 million, the maximum

amount allowed under the NBA Constitution. The Constitution of the NBA outlines

clearly the rules and requirements of a team member, including relocation, application

for membership, and termination of ownership (National Basketball Association,

2012). Specifically, Article 14(g) of the NBA Constitution indicates that if at least

three-fourths of the owners sustain the charges against a team owner for violating

Article 13 of the league’s constitution, the team’s membership in the NBA would be

terminated.

Eddie T. C. Lam 25

3.2 Structure, Responsibilities and Accountability

Proper and well-defined structure provides a solid foundation for any

successful sport entity. Sports organizations and governing bodies at the local,

national, and international levels have similar roles and responsibilities as those of

corporate boards, governments, or the judiciary. Accountability can take many forms,

includingaccurate reporting of financial data, the publication of annual reports, and

the responsible use of resources. In general, an organization or an institution is

accountable to those who will be affected by its decisions or actions (Mercy Corps,

2010). Good governance requires a separation between the roles of: (a) making and

amending of sporting rules as the primary legislative function, and (b) making and

reviewing executive decisions regarding the management of financial resources and

organization of sporting events. Moreover, other than listing the relative positions,

roles and responsibilities of all assemblies, committees, commissions and all other

groups which make up the governing body, a clear chain of accountability and

responsibility should be established among them. In this way, members in the sport

organization know what to achieve and what is expected from them. Organizations

should be accountable to the public and to their stakeholders, and to those who will

be affected by its decisions or actions. Transparency is mentioned here because

accountability cannot be enforced without transparency and the rules and regulations

formulated by the organizations.

3.3 Membership and Size of the Governing Body

To maintain good governance, governing bodies should post the term of

appointment and biographical information (including their commercial interests in the

sport) of each of the officers involved. In addition, the membership size of the

governing bodies should be regulated to an appropriate level to achieve organizational

efficiency.For example, before 1990, the United States Olympic Committee (USOC)

had used a three-tiered governance (i.e., House of Delegates, Executive Board, and

Administrative Committee) with over 100 members. At the 1990 House of Delegates

meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, the USOC completed a two-year restructuring process.

Now the USOC is governed by the Board of Director (16 members) and a 16-

member executive team which includes a Chief Executive Officer and a handful of

Chief Officers and Managing Directors (United States Olympic Committee, 2014).

26 Journal of Power, Politics & Governance, Vol. 2(2), June 2014

3.4 Democracy, Elections and Appointments

Democratic processes can also be considered as accountability arrangements

(Geeraert, 2013). Accountability constitutes the processes whereby those who hold

and exercise power are held accountable (Aucoin & Heintzman, 2000). The best way

in which members can hold their sport organization accountable is through the

executive body that governs the organization. However, the process of member

selection or nomination to this executive body should be clearly stated and be

transparent. If the selection is not organized according to democratic processes, this

will result in corruption, the concentration of power and the lack of accountability

and effectiveness (Aucoin & Heintzman, 2000; Bovens, 2007; Mulgan, 2003).

Therefore, to encourage and facilitate new persons to the governing body, key

positions shall be subject to a limited term of office. Candidates standing for election

should provide statements to support their candidacy. The election process should be

fair and reflects the opinions of the voters. Block voting should be avoided. After

elections, voting levels and the votes cast for each candidate should be promptly and

widely addressed (The

Rules of the Game, 2001).

3.5 Transparency and Communication

Transparency in governance means that information is freely available and

accessible to the public, particularly to those who will be affected the most by such

decisions and their enforcement. This demonstrates that the decision process is

followed the rules and regulations and is conducted in a professional and an unbiased

manner. On the other hand, the lack of transparency is always vulnerable to

corruption within the organization (Schenk, 2011). Effective communication is

important for all governing bodies. Members should be regular informed of the

governing body’s activities, financial condition, policy decisions, elections, approach

to governance, and other business (e.g., executive, legislative, judicial, commercial). A

two-way communication, which provides channels for feedback from the members, is

encouraged. If all the members of the organization are encouraged to share their

ideas, they would feel like they are an essential part of the organization. Members

should be informed of policies, procedures, financial responsibilities, and new

marketing adventures. Reports which are targeted at the needs of specific groups can

be sent more frequently. By means of modern technology (such as the internet),

information can be more accessible to members and interested parties. When

information is freely available and accessible to affected members or to the general

Eddie T. C. Lam 27

public, then the governing body is said to be transparent (Sawyer, Bodey, & Judge,

2008).

3.6 Decisions and Appeals

Governing bodies or sports organizations will provide sufficient justification

for all of their actions and decisions, and the primary responsibility for avoiding and

resolving sporting disputes lies with these governing bodies or sports organizations

and their subsidiary organizations such as clubs and leagues (Mew & Richards, 2005).

Since the authority to act and make decisions depends on the constitution and by-

laws, it is in the best interest of every organization to have sound policies relating to

the areas of governance that are often most contentious (e.g., proper procedures

should be established for resolving disagreements). Such procedures might include

access to internal/external appeals and/or arbitration. In any case, procedures should

be fair, transparent, accessible, and efficient, and must not benefit any person

involved in the dispute. In addition governing bodies should not intervene any party

from seeking further remedy under national or international law. In the United States,

for example, the Amateur Sports Act mandates arbitration to resolve disputes and

requires all national governing bodies from each sport to agree to submit all disputes

within the scope of the Act to binding arbitration with the American Arbitration

Association. The Act also entitles Olympic athletes to review grievances with the

United States Olympic Committee via the North American Court of Arbitration for

Sport (Mew & Richards, 2005).

3.7 Conflicts of Interest

Governing bodies might occasionally be involved in commercial aspects of

sport. A clear boundary must be set between the functions of the governing body and

any commercial activities. The USOC has instituted a Conflict of Interest Policy that

requires that any conflicts of interest, whether actual or apparent, be reported

promptly to the Ethics Officer. For example, a conflict of interest arises when there is

an interest in, obligation to, or relationship with any business, property, or person that

could affect one’s judgment in fulfilling his/her responsibilities to the USOC (United

States Olympic Committee, 2014). One recommendation to avoid any conflicts of

interest is to allocate various roles to different committees or bodies. Each committee

or body should have clearly defined responsibilities and reporting lines. An example

28 Journal of Power, Politics & Governance, Vol. 2(2), June 2014

of fair practice in business is to use open tenders for any commercial contracts (The

Rules of the Game, 2001).

3.8 Solidarity

Fair and effective distribution of financial revenues encourages the

development of talent and contributes to balanced and attractive competitions. A

clear policy for the redistribution of income is essential. Sports governing bodies

therefore should acknowledge the following general principles for redistribution of

revenues: (a) redistribution must be based on principles of solidarity (between all

levels of the sport), and (b) redistribution policies must pursue aims that are objective

and justifiable. Resources should be distributed equitably (International Olympic

Committee, 2008). Moreover, the redistribution process must be transparent,

accountable, and objective. For example, the aim of the Olympic Solidarity is to assist

all the National Olympic Committees, particularly those with the greatest needs, to

develop their own structures and to facilitate the expansion of sports in their country.

One of the many ways to achieve these goals is to assist the NOCs in gaining access

to financial, technical, and administrative assistance, such asOlympic Games subsidies,

which complement the range of programs, and offer financial support to NOCs

before, during, and after the Games (International Olympic Committee, 2014).

3.9 Recognition of other Interests

Furthermore, governing bodies should be sensitive to other interest groups

which are likely to be affected by their decisions and actions. In particularly, sports

governing bodies shall recognize and pursue the aims of cultural and social cohesion

through their sports. Any discrimination based on any grounds such as sex, race,

color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or

other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age, or

sexual orientation should not be tolerated (The Rules of the Game, 2001). As

mentioned earlier, NBA Clippers owner Donald Sterling was banned from the league

for life by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver following racist comments he made in a

private conversation. In the 2012-13 season, African-Americans made up 76.3% of all

players on NBA rosters, and nearly half (43%) the league’s head coaches.

Eddie T. C. Lam 29

The punishments followed an outcry from players and fellow team owners

that Sterling’s hateful rhetoric should not be a part of the league, and the

Commissioner agreed. “The views expressed by Mr. Sterling are deeply offensive and

harmful,” Silver said. “We stand together in condemning Mr. Sterling’s views. They

simply have no place in the NBA” (Welsh, 2014). The league concluded that Sterling’s

words contributed to “significantly undermining the NBA’s efforts to promote

diversity and inclusion” and proved to be “damaging [to] the NBA’s relationship with

its fans.” Such conclusion was based on reviewing the report completed by Dr.

Richard Lapchick, Director of The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport

(University of Central Florida), who was hired by the league to analyze the effect that

Donald Sterling’s words have had on the league and his report was included in the

charges presented to Sterling.

4. Conclusion

To provide good or effective governance in sport organization is a challenging

task because of the wide range of participants involved. These participants include

individuals and clubs, commercial and non-commercial organizations, educational and

training bodies at local, national, and international levels. These groups typically have

different interests and priorities within and outside the sport. All groups involved in a

sport need to have confidence that the sports in which they are involved are

effectively and fairly governed at every level. To this end, good governance in sport is

based, inpart, on clearly defined roles and responsibilities of all participants and

transparency (a form of communication) as well as the way these roles and

responsibilities are defined, monitored and enforced by governing organizations.

References

30 Journal of Power, Politics & Governance, Vol. 2(2), June 2014

Aucoin, P., & Heintzman, R. (2000). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the

American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.
Australian Sports Commission. (2002, May). Governance: Principles of best practice.

Retrieved from www.ausport.gov.au/asc/corpdocs/governance
Bovens, M. (2007). Analyzing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework.

European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468.
Cariño, L. V. (2000). The concept of governance. From government to governance:

Reflections on the 1999 World Conference on Governance. Quezon City,
Philippines: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration.

European Olympic Committee. (2003). Governance in sport. Retrieved from www.
governance-in-sport.com/home.html

Geeraert, A. (2013). The governance agenda and its relevance for sport: Introducing the four
dimensions of the AGGIS sports overnice observer. In J. Alm (Ed.), Action for good
governance in international sports organisations (pp. 9-21). Copenhagen, Denmark:
Play the Game/Danish Institute for Sports Studies.

Hindley, D. (2003). Governance and sport. Retrieved from www.brookes.ac.uk/ltsn/
resources/governance.html

International Olympic Committee. (2008). Basic universal principles of good governance of
the Olympic and sports movement.Retrieved from http://www.olympic.org/
Documents/Conferences_Forums_and_Events/2008_seminar_autonomy/Basic_Un
iversal_Principles_of_Good_Governance

International Olympic Committee. (2013). Olympic Charter. Lausanne, Switzerland:
International Olympic Committee.

International Olympic Committee. (2014). Olympic solidarity commission. Retrieved from
http://www.olympic.org/olympic-solidarity-commission

McKenzie, J. (2002). Key governance principles for sports. Retrieved from www.titansports.
co.uk/marketing/pres/8-keyogv.htm

Mercy Corps. (2010). Guide to good governance programming. Retrieved from http://www.
mercycorps.org/sites/default/files/mcgoodgovernanceguide

Mew, G., & Richards, M. J. (2005). More than just a game: Resolving disputes in modern
sport. Unpublished paper presented at the 14th Commonwealth Law Conference,
London, England.

Mulgan, R. (2003). Holding power to account: Accountability in modern democracies. New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

National Basketball Association. (2012). Constitution and by-laws of the National Basketball
Association [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/
mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws

Plumptre T., & Graham, J. (2000). Governance in the new millennium: Challenges for
Canada. Ottawa, Canada: Institute on Governance.

Rovell, D. (2014). Dr. Richard Lapchick advising NBA. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/
los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10987473/nba-retains-dr-richard-lapchick-help-donald-
sterling-fallout

Sawyer, T. H., Bodey, K. J., & Judge, L. W. (2008). Sport governance and policy development:
An ethical approach to managing sport in the 21st century. Champaign, IL:
Sagamore.

http://www.olympic.org/

Eddie T. C. Lam 31

Schenk, S. (2011). Safe hands: Building integrity and transparency at FIFA. Berlin, Germany:
Transparency International.

Simpson, J., & Weiner, E. (Eds.). (1989). The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). Cary, NC:
Oxford University Press.

The Rules of the Game. (2001). Brussels, Belgium: Governance in Sport Working Group.
The World Bank. (2002). What is governance? Retrieved from http://go.worldbank.org/

G2CHLXX0Q0
United States Olympic Committee. (2014). Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.teamusa.

org/About-the-USOC/Inside-the-USOC/Leadership
Welsh, T. (2014). Views you can use: A swift reaction to Donald Sterling’s racism. Retrieved

from http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/04/30/reaction-roundup-on-
nba-banning-clippers-owner-donald-sterling-for-racism

World Anti-Doping Agency. (2014). Governance. Retrieved from http://www.wada-ama.
org/en/About-WADA/Governance/

View publication stats

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272789182

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Social Science Discussion Thread: Responsibilities of Governing Bodies in Sport (Assignment 1) ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now