Download Thematic Areas of Sport Science

Thematic Areas of Sport Science
Athletic Training and Therapy
Catherine Ortega and Michael S. Ferrara
Comparative Physical Education and Sport
Ken Hardman
Doping in Sport
Lauri Tarasti
Health Enhancing Physical Activity
Pekka Oja
Physical Education
Richard Bailey
Sport and Development
Jackie Lauff, Bert Meulders and Joseph Maguire
Sport and Human Rights
Mary A. Hums, Eli A. Wolff and Meghan Mahoney
Sport Governance
Laurence Chalip, Mary Hums and Anastasios Kaburakis
Women and Sport
Darlene Kluka
Sport Governance
Laurence Chalip, Mary A. Hums and
Anastasios Kaburakis
1. General Information
The study of sport governance has emerged through hybridization of several disciplines, each of which
boasts its own community of discourse. These include sport law, sport policy, sport sociology, sport
economics and comparative studies of sport. Although each discipline contributes its particular insights, the
growth of sport governance knowledge has been hampered by the challenges of obtaining appropriate
information, often from governments and organisations that dislike scrutiny, and by the difficulties that arise
when scholars from disparate fields endeavour to communicate across their respective paradigms.
1.1. Historical Development
Formal systems or sport governance can be traced to the earliest eras of recorded history, and seem to
have emerged first as religious functions. The ancient Olympic Games, which were organised to honour the
gods, are the best known and the most studied. Archaeological evidence suggests that formal sport
competitions were also organised as religious functions by some pre-Columbian civilizations in the
Americas. As the Olympic Games declined during the Roman era, other competitions, including chariot
racing and gladiatorial combat emerged as popular but secular entertainments governed by systems of
commerce, rather than the clergy. Sport remained secular during the middle ages, but governments became
increasingly involved as sport was expected to serve as preparation for combat, rather than mere diversion.
Royal families consequently saw sport as their jurisdiction and some monarchs went so far as to outlaw noncombat games. Secularization was fortified during the Protestant Reformation, as some Protestant sects
discouraged sport participation. Nevertheless, competitions between clubs and villages required agreement
on rules. Groups of aficionados came together to agree upon rules and ultimately to record and govern
them. European games, rules and their systems for sport governance were spread to other continents by
colonial administrations. As sport was also encouraged in some school systems, particularly in Britain and
her colonies, systems for governing sport in schools became increasingly formal during the 19th century. By
the late 19th century, a small group of European aristocrats formed what became the International Olympic
Committee (IOC) to administer a quadrennial international sport festival. Since international competitions
required national systems of governance to field teams, and international systems of governance to
coordinate the rules of play and eligibility, additional governing bodies began to form, including National
Sport Federations (sometimes called by other names, such as National Governing Bodies or National Sport
Organisations), international sport federations (IFs) and National Olympic Committees (NOCs). To enable
and enhance communication among these organisations, multi-sport associations were subsequently
formed, including the Association of National Olympic Committees (ANOC), the General Association of
International Sports Federations (AGFIS) and the International University Sports Federation (FISU).
Additionally, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) emerged as the international governing body for
elite sport for athletes with disabilities. The increasingly salient presence of national and international sport
governance organisations piqued government interest, particularly during the latter half of the 20th century,
with the result that many national, state and city governments passed laws to regulate (and sometimes to
fund) sport in their jurisdictions. Some national governments established ministerial-level portfolios to
oversee national sport development. The United Nations, through UNESCO, grew its sports initiatives during
the 1970s, and today maintains Sport Development for Peace under the United Nations Fund for
International Partnerships. Because sport has an environmental impact, the United Nations (in conjunction
with the IOC) also has incorporated sport into its Environment Programme. Although sport organisations
have typically welcomed government funding, they have been less willing to embrace government authority.
Consequently, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and a number of associated national-level, sportspecific dispute resolution systems have been established since the 1980s as an alternative to public courts.
At the start of this century, the emergence of sport-run international systems to police sport has been
heralded by creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and a growing number of its national-level
counterparts. Today, sport governance is characterized by a complex array of loosely networked national
and international sport governing bodies, and emerging systems for sport-specific policing and arbitration.
1.2. Function
The study of sport governance endeavours to map and to understand the growing array of organisations and
networks, as well as their internal systems of management and policymaking. There is not yet any
commonly agreed set of research foci (or, for that matter, an agreed definition of sport governance).
Researchers have been guided by their own intuitions and by the paradigms of their home disciplines.
1.3. Body of Knowledge
To date, there has been increasing work on legal issues, government policymaking, the challenges of
developing sport and the economic rationale for sport policies. The mix of organisations and the complexity
of networks have required a substantial amount of descriptive study simply to map the territory, but that work
remains hampered by systems of academic prestige which award it scant status and few publication
opportunities. The challenge has therefore been to theorize the work that is undertaken. To date, there has
been little effort to develop sport-specific theories of governance, so theorization remains derivative from the
home discipline of the researcher. Although the majority of studies focus on individual national cases or
particular international organisations, an increasing number of comparative studies have trickled forth. Legal
research is arguably the most adequately developed, insomuch as its volume of scholarship is greatest, and
the requisite data are generally public. Work on specific government policies and policymaking has also
grown in recent decades, although slowly. However, work on sport systems and networks remains
problematic as the official public positions and descriptions of public and private sport organisations are
often at odds with their actual practices of governance, and sport organisations (particularly the more
powerful) are careful to promote their official face while concealing their inner workings. Indeed, one of the
most significant contributions to the field has been work that identifies gaps between the official face and the
actual practice of sport governance. Multi-disciplinary work has also contributed new synthetic insight,
although multi-disciplinary studies remain rare.
1.4. Methodology
There is no established methodology or collection of methodologies for the study of sport governance.
Researchers typically adopt methods that are familiar to their home disciplines. Studies have utilized
surveys, interviews, participant and non-participant observation, and review of documents (particularly policy
discourse and legal cases). Given that there can be a gap between a sport organization’s official claims and
its actual practices, there are grounds for being wary about the accuracy of survey and interview studies that
are not bolstered by observation and/or review of documents. The best studies incorporate multiple
methods.
1.5. Relationship to Practice
Although the study of sport governance holds significant promise for eventual contribution to the practice of
sport governance, the field is not yet mature enough to boast a record of contributions to practice. The study
of sport law, which is the most mature component of the field, has generated a substantial number of
published cases and analyses that can and do have an impact on sport jurisprudence. The study of sport
policy draws on the toolkits of policy analysis, which have demonstrated substantial utility for governance in
other realms, but have not yet rendered an impact in sport (with the arguable exception of some work on
sport economics, particularly work having to do with public subsidy of sport). In the early 1990s, there was
an acrimonious debate among sport sociologists regarding the appropriateness of seeking to apply sport
sociology to sport policymaking. Although some sociologists retain an interest in sport governance, those
who inveigh against practical relevance have had the upper hand. Similarly, sport historians have remained
wedded to narrative history, despite the demonstrated value of applied history to policymaking.
1.6. Future Directions
Sport governance is becoming ever more complex. Government and private organisations are increasingly
intertwined and the international intricacies of sport governance are intensified by globalization. New
organisations continue to emerge as new sports (e.g., paragliding, disc-golf, floorball) develop governance
systems, as new sport events are created and as sport-specific policing and arbitration systems spread. The
need to understand the dynamics of sport governance is consequently growing apace. To flourish, the field
(as an area of study) requires a greater degree of cross-dialogue among contributing academic disciplines,
and a more substantial commitment to multi-disciplinary and multi-method research.
2. Information Sources
2.1. Journals
Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal (Australia / New Zealand)
Causa Sport (Switzerland)
DePaul Journal of Sports Law & Contemporary Issues (USA)
Derecho Deportivo (Spain)
Desporto & Direito (Portugal)
European Sport Management Quarterly (EU)
Entertainment and Sports Law Journal (UK)
Entertainment and Sports Lawyer (USA)
International Journal of Sport Policy
International Review for the Sociology of Sport
International Sports Law Review
IUSPORT (Spain)
Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport (North America)
Journal of Sport Management (North America)
Journal of Sports Economics (North America)
Les Cahiers de Droit du Sport (France)
Marquette Sports Law Review (USA)
Nieuwsbrief Sport en Recht (Belgium)
Revista di Diritto ed Economia dello Sport (Italy)
Seton Hall Journal of Sport Law (Seton Hall University School of Law) (USA)
Sociology of Sport Journal (North America)
Sport Management Review (Australia / New Zealand)
The Journal of the Business Law Society (USA)
The Sports Lawyers Journal (USA)
Villanova Sports & Entertainment Law Journal (USA)
World Sports Law Report (UK)
Zeitschrift für Sport und Recht (Germany)
2.2. Reference Books
Chalip, L., Johnson, A. and Stachura, L. (Eds.). (1996). National sport policies: An international handbook.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Green, M. and Houlihan, B. (2005). Elite sport development: Policy learning and political priorities.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Hoberman, J. and Møller, V. (Eds.). (2004). Doping and public policy. Odense: University Press of Southern
Denmark.
Houlihan, B. and Green, M. (Eds.). (2008). Comparative elite sport development: Systems, structures and
public policy. Oxford: Elsevier.
Hoye, R. and Cuskelly, G. (2007). Sport governance. Oxford: Elsevier.
Hums, M.A. and MacLean, J.C. (2004). Governance and policy in sport organizations. Phoenix, AZ:
Holcomb-Hathaway.
Kluka, D., Stier, W. and Schilling, G. (2005). Aspects of sport governance. Berlin: ICSSPE.
Levermore, R. and Budd, A. (Eds.). (2004). Sport and international relations: An emerging relationship.
London: Routledge.
Riordan, J. and Kruger, A. (Eds.). (1999). International politics of sport in the 20th century. London: E & FN
Spon.
Thoma, J.E. and Chalip, L. (1996). Sport governance in the global community. Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Zintz, T. (2005). Manager le changement dans les federations sportives en Europe. Brussels: de Broeck.
2.3. Book Series
None available.
2.4. Conference Workshop Proceedings
Play the Game 2007 – Creating Coalitions for Good Governance in Sport.
www.playthegame.org/Home/Conferences/Play_the_Game_2007/presentations.aspx
Play the Game 2005 – Governance in Sport – The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
www.playthegame.org/Home/Conferences/Play_the_Game_2005/Conference_presentations.aspx
2.5. Data Banks
None available.
2.6. Internet Sources
Association of National Olympic Committees
www.acnolympic.org
Court of Arbitration for Sport www.tas-cas.org
Court of Justice of the European Communities
http://curia.europa.eu/
EurActiv
www.euractiv.com/en/sports
General Association of International Sports Federations
www.agfisonline.com
International Olympic Committee
www.olympic.org
International Paralympic Committee
www.paralympic.org
International University Sports Federation
www.fisu.net/site/medias/accueil.html
Sport and EU
www.sportandeu.com/
Sport for Development and Peace (UN)
www.un.org/themes/sport/
Sport Links Central
www.sportslinkscentral.com
Sport and the European Union
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/index_en.html
Sport for All
www.tafisa.de/
WADA
www.wada-ama.org
3. Organisational Networks
3.1. International Level
Association of National Olympic Committees
Association of Summer Olympic International Federations
Association of Winter Olympic Sports
General Association of International Sports Federations
International Sport Management Alliance
International Olympic Committee
International Paralympic Committee
International Sociology of Sport Association
International Sport Lawyers Association
International University Sports Federation
TAFISA
3.2. Regional Level
Association for the Study of Sport and the European Union
Asian Association for Sport Management
European Association for Sport Management
North American Association of Sports Economics
North American Society for Sport Management
North American Society for the Sociology of Sport
Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand
Sport and Recreation Law Association
Union of European Leagues of Basketball
3.3. National Level
National Collegiate Athletic Association (USA)
National Federations (each country; see relevant IF site for contacts)
National Olympic Committees (each country; see the IOC website for a list)
3.4. Specialised Centres
ASSER International Sport Law Centre, The Hague, The Netherlands
Centre d’Estudis Olímpics, Barcelona, Spain
Centre for Sport and Law Inc., Canada
Centre International D’Etude Du Sport, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Forschungsstelle für Sportrecht, Institut für Recht und Technik (IRUT), Germany
LA84
Foundation,
Los
Angeles,
National Sport Law Institute, Marquette University, USA
USA
3.5. Specialised International Degree Programmes
Anglia Ruskin University: LLM International Sports Law, England
Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Sports Law for those with non-U.S. law degrees, Marquette University, USA
MSA specializing in managing sport governing organisations: International Academy of Sports Science and
Technology, Switzerland
4. Appendix Material
4.1. Terminology
There is not yet an agreed set of definitions in the field. Hums and McLean (2004) define sport governance “
the exercise of power and authority in sport organizations, including policy making, to determine
organizational mission, membership, eligibility, and regulatory power, with the organization’s appropriate
local, national, or international scope.”
4.2. Position Statement(s)
Not applicable.
4.3. Varia & 4.4. Free Statement
Not applicable.
Contact
Dr. Laurence Chalip
Sport Management Program
University of Texas
Bellmont Hall 222; D3700
Austin, TX 71712
U.S.A.
Phone: +1 512 471 1273
Fax: +1 512 471 8914
Email: [email protected]
Dr. Mary A. Hums
University of Louisville
Dept. of Health & Sport Science, Sport Administration
107 HPES/Studio Arts Building
Louisville, KY 40292 USA
Phone: 1-502-852-5908
Fax: 1-502-852-6683
Email: [email protected]
Dr. Anastasios Kaburakis
Lawyer
Assistant Professor of Sport Law and Sport Management
Director of Sport Management Graduate Program
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Department of Kinesiology
Vadalabene Center 1023, Campus Box 1126
Edwardsville, IL 62026-1126
Phone: +618 650-2033, (618) 650-3252
Fax: +618 650-3719
Email: [email protected]