Recently in conversation with an elite athlete they asked a question that could not be answered.
‘We as athletes get judged on our performance, if we fail individually we get dropped from the squad or the elite program. If the team we are playing for fails to maintain a certain world ranking or deliver a set number of tournament wins or medals our funding gets cut, and life becomes harder for all concerned. The program suffers as there have to be cuts on training and matches, as a result all involved in the program suffer. Yet while the athletes and coaches are all judged solely on their performance why is it that the administrators of the sport are not?’
(This was the gist of the question, it was not written down verbatim at the time it was asked).
It is a question that requires a great deal of thought. Should Sports administrators be judged on their performance?
As we have made quite clear in the past, sport is now a business and in some cases a very big business. Yet are these businesses being structured correctly, to ensure the best outcomes? Are they being run as lean efficient companies maximising revenues, or are they seeing the chosen few ‘living off the fat of the land?’ That “fat” frequently coming from Government coffers.
An opinion was put forward by a top level coach recently was that it should be compulsory that at least fifty percent of all sponsorship monies raised be passed onto the athletes. As after all without the athletes there is nothing to sponsor, no game to watch, no contest to be enthralled by.
These thoughts from those at the coalface show that all is not well in the World of Sport. That there needs to be a change or at least dialogue; but sadly frequently talk is cheap.
There is a word that is rarely used these days but it is one that seems to be becoming more and more relevant within the sporting landscape, that word is “quango.”
So what does this word mean? The term from which the word originates was created in 1967 by Alan Pifer of the US-based Carnegie Foundation, he referred to “quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation” in an essay on the independence and accountability of public-funded bodies that are incorporated in the private sector. In its early days the term Quango referred to a ‘non-governmental organisation performing Governmental functions, and often in receipt of funding or other support from government.’
There are many sporting bodies across the globe that fit Alan Pifer’s reference. Many are run separately from Government, but that are heavily reliant on that Government’s financial support. The way these organisations are being structured and the politics that prevail within them has seen many raise more than a eyebrow and maybe they have become quangos
As was witnessed within the walls of the International Football Federation (FIFA) there were and are huge benefits if you are elected to the Executive Board. As an example one such Board member received an annual payment of USD$300,000 from FIFA as well as USD$500/day allowance and first-class travel and accommodation while on FIFA business.
Obviously there are limited places at the top table in every sport, and those who are not seated there in many cases yearn to be invited. Some may do everything possible to undermine those sat at that esteemed table, which creates a very dangerous situation. So not just FIFA, but many other sporting bodies have found ways to keep the hoards at bay and pacify them.
What we are seeing amongst many Sporting bodies are sub committees or specific boards being set up to deal with a key area within sport, or as they are sometimes called commissions. Whether there is a genuine need for these committees and commissions is truly questionable.
What we are also seeing is either existing Board members being appointed to chair these subcommittees; is that once again to keep an eye on potential troublemakers? If it is not an Executive Board Member heading up the committee it will be those with aspirations to make it onto the Executive Boards. Clearly given such a role to keep them on-side.
This is all very well, but in many cases these organisations are in fact paying “consultancy fees” to some – not all – of these people. All receive expenses and allowances. In some cases the sporting organisation has applied for and obtained funding from their Government for work to be done in this specific area. All of, or most of the funds that have been applied for have then been spent on those who, to the outside world are acting in the best interests of the sport, and giving up their time voluntarily.
The International Olympic Committee revealed in its 2017 Annual Report that IOC Members and Honorary Members receive USD7000 a year in “administrative support.” There is also a Daily indemnity for the IOC Members for all types of meetings, including commissions, Sessions and Olympic Games (to cover the time of travel, the days before and after the meetings are compensated) of USD $450 per day. This daily indemnity is also extended to IOC commission chairs for their own commission meetings and the IOC Executive Board members for Executive Board meetings.
The IOC President “has the function of an Executive President. Therefore, the President is on mission for the IOC 365 days a year.” As a result “The Ethics Commission decided a single annual fixed amount linked to inflation of EUR 225 thousand as indemnity, which is included in the President’s expenses disclosed below.”
“In line with the policy, the IOC covers the cost of the President’s expenses which amounted to USD 286 thousand in 2017 and USD 305 thousand in 2016,” the report states. It then adds “Consistent with past practice, an annual amount of USD 109 thousand is paid by the IOC to cover the income tax expense related to the IOC President’s activities in Switzerland.”
Obviously the President of the IOC is a very prestigious and exalted position in sport, and he would travel a great deal. However just like the President of FIFA and some other sporting bodies it is unlikely that he is going to have to pay for dinner too often! Does his role justify such high levels of expenses and having his income tax paid?
The problem is other sports have looked at the IOC and FIFA and seen the financial rewards available at the top, and regrettably many are trying to emulate them. The sad truth is few generate the same revenues as the IOC and FIFA.
If these sums are becoming the norm at the top then surely the comments made by the elite athlete and the coach mentioned at the start have a great deal of merit. Administrators, like athletes should have to perform, if they do not they too should feel the pinch. As for sponsorship money being split on a 50/50 basis with the athletes who are the focal point of the sport, few would argue with that.
One thing that needs to happen though, is Governments if they are going to continue to hand out large sums of money to Sporting bodies need to take a closer look at the Governance of that sport and where that money actually goes.
After all aren’t many Sporting Bodies non-governmental organisations performing functions – not necessarily Governmental, yet used by Government, as witnessed in the recent Australian election, – and often in receipt of funding or other support from government? Which means that many Sporting bodies are becoming very close to being a Quango.
At the start of this century The Times newspaper described the various Quangos in the UK as being “of bureaucratic waste and excess.” Does this ring true with some Sports administrations?
