Being Democratic Is the Right Thing.

Where has the democracy gone in sport? Why is it so hard to do what is right?

The sporting environment has had alarm bells ringing loudly in some sports for over a decade. Why have they been ignored? Is it vanity? Is it because those at the top simply do not know what do in an emergency? Or is it incompetence?

In Australia we have seen a number of Government inquiries into the running of major sports in the past decade. Clearly the fact that these investigations took place told us that something was wrong. The outcome was the same in all of them. The Board had failed in their duties, and the lack of knowledge and experience to oversee an organisation was highlighted. In each case there was poor management within the organisations.

As a player, a coach, an official or a follower of any of these sports at any level the findings brought a sigh of relief, that finally what many knew had been made public. The problem was nothing changed. Those on the various Board’s still failed to do the honourable thing and step aside. That being the case the stakeholders should be in a position to speak up and demand their removal. For some reason the administrative mechanics in sport do not allow that to happen. How many sports allow the stakeholders to force an Extraordinary General Meeting?So those at the top continue to sit at the top table, and in some cases continue to make decisions that are flawed.

There are many sports that will tell you that Covid has changed everything. However, how many sports have changed the way that they operate due to Covid? One sport springs to mind that was advertising for Events staff during the covid period when they were not organising or hosting any events. How does that make sense? Surely in these times rather than employing staff in such a role you would hold off or outsource it to a company that specialises in events? After all so many events never went ahead.

In football we saw Frank Lowy step aside as Chairman of the then Football Federation of Australia, but he then parachuted his own son into the role. Steven was elected unopposed to replace his father in 2015. How many of those voting and supposedly representing the state’s actually canvassed their stakeholders and asked them how they wanted them to vote at the AGM? Who gave the right to these representatives to make their own decisions without talking to the stakeholders?

We saw it at Football West too in 2017 where constitutional changes were approved prior to the AGM to allow the then current Chair to stay on for another term. These changes were approved by the FFA. Once again many of those who represented the clubs via a Zone Representative role or a place on a Standing Committee discussed the situation with those that they were representing. There were other issues at play in this sorry affair as were highlighted in “Time For Accountability.”

When you look at those who are supposedly elected to represent everyone involved in the sport, you have to question the governance. The record keeping, the minute taking is almost non-existent. Requests to read Board minutes are frequently denied even though the stakeholders have a right to read them. Is this for fear of exposing incompetence?

Taking Football West as an example the aforementioned changes made to their constitution to allow the Chair to be re-elected were made in March 2017 yet the Constitution still has not been changed back to the original constitution! Five years on and Mr Twigger who has since resigned as Chairman is still bizarrely named in the constitution! The National Premier Leagues competition has been in place since 2014 but the top clubs constitutionally still have no voting rights at an AGM. Why has that not been corrected in the past eight years?

The Rugby playing public found themselves in a similar situation. The Rugby Australia Board made decisions regarding the expansion of Super Rugby that damaged them and has ultimately damaged Australian rugby. Those involved at club level, the grassroots of the game could see the potential impact, but their advice and protestations fell on deaf ears. Once again the findings following a Government inquiry asked for more transparency. (A Loss Of Faith in The Game They Play in Heaven) Just like with football there are people electing members to boards without consulting the stakeholders. Why is this still happening?

As the president of one Rugby club suggested, with computers and technology today why isn’t every registered club given a vote? They suggested that each club be given a unique sign in code on the day of the election and they then be given the chance to vote for the individual they believe is the best, or on a decision that could have a far-reaching impact on them and their survival. It is hard to argue against such a system.

Yet even when clubs do have a say things still don’t follow the rules of democracy in some sports. In the Hockey WA Premier League promotion and relegation to and from the top division were put on hold during the Pandemic, because it was unlikely that a full season of fixtures would be played. At a recently convened meeting of Club Presidents it was taken to a vote as to whether promotion and relegation should return in 2022. The vote it is claimed went 11 to 7 in favour of promotion and relegation. However, rather than being democratic and going with the majority, the CEO is alleged to have said that the vote was “too close” so they will revisit the issue at their next meeting. Which is a week out from the start of the season.

The vote was taken, why does it need another vote? The delay now opens the process up to being accused of corruption. Not that this is likely to happen, but individuals could canvas clubs they perceive as weak and try to turn them before the next vote. Should the vote change, then accusations will no doubt come to the surface that incentives were offered or deals done. This is not good for the competition or the sport.

In England it appears that they too are facing similar issues in club hockey. Although the clubs are facing a similar issue to the one football faced almost three decades ago, that of Club V Country. There is no doubt every player if asked to play for their country will nine times out of ten opt for that privilege. If they knock back the opportunity there will be another player more than happy to take it.

Surbiton coach Mark Pearn took to twitter to explain that England selecting five players from his club for their Pro League matches versus Argentina had meant that he only had 11 fit players for their first team fixture, and two of those were goalkeepers. He was facing having to call up five under 18 players to play, all of whom had no first team experience. There were cynics who commented that “you have to expect this if you poach the best players,” but what about the integrity of the club competition, which is where international players are developed? Surely in such circumstances the right thing to do would have been to postpone the fixture? If as many as five players are absent representing their country, it would appear to be a valid reason for such a move.

This is another reason why, if Hockey is going to persist with the FIH PRO League they need to have International weekends when matches are played. Or there needs to be better co-ordination with the respective national competitions when planning fixtures. However it is the National bodies that are the ones who sign off on the fixtures, so why are they not talking to the clubs and planning around their own domestic competitions? Surely better planning and liaison means more support for the all fixtures? The current situation sadly benefits no one.

So why is it that sport seems to fail to want to follow the democratic process? Why is it many in sports administration fail to grasp that they are there to serve their members. They are employed to administer the game.

In the last century it was a given that you could rely on the majority to do what was ‘right.’ Not everyone would always do what was ‘right,’ but the majority did.

What is ‘right’ today? History has shown that this changes over time, due the social, political and economic times. So how do we now determine what is acceptable, and what is ‘right?’

What was undesirable before does not suddenly became acceptable today. Clearly cumulative influences erode and chip away at those standards. We have seen it in every sport on the field of play, ‘professional fouls’ in football, arguing with line judges in tennis, surrounding officials, feigning injury, calling for a video referral when a team is on a counterattack, claiming a catch that never carried.

Once those administering the game started to allow those playing the game to get away with not doing what was ‘right,’ did they not open the door for those on the other side of the fence to do the same? After all who was going to hold them accountable? Some would say that it started with the administration not doing what was ‘right’ and that was why the unsporting acts on the field of play went unpunished. A case of let he who is without sin cast the first stone…

Self-interest, and in some cases survival in a role that is beyond an individual’s capabilities comes ahead of loyalty to the sport, the club, or the game. (The Fear of Speaking Up In Sport) It was prophetically said many years ago that “attitudes on the field are reflected in attitude round the field and in commentary,”

In other words winning and the rewards that come from winning, in the main money, enable many to justify their behaviour. Instead of not accepting such behaviours on the pitch, which would have been the case in the mid last century, now people ask what is wrong with these actions, Why shouldn’t a player harangue an official? Back then it was not ‘right’ now it is accepted as normal. Just as the governance issues in sport have started to be accepted as normal.

The board, the administrators and the players all have a responsibility to set the standards. Fame, and prestige are the consequence of doing a job well, they are never guaranteed. Sport whether you play it, administer it ,or govern it gives you an appreciation of responsibility, for by your performance you can inspire and initiate development of the game, the team or your club.

If you look at sport as a commercial venture, or a political tool, or even view it as a vehicle for self promotion, then clearly you are changing the boundaries of what is ‘right.’ This has in some ways come about due to so many sports becoming professional. For now in many sports a deliberate infringement to prevent your opponent scoring is no longer cheating, it is seen as ‘a necessary business decision.’ That infringement could win not only the game, but the tournament, which will result in more prize money, a new contract, more sponsors, etcetera.

The problem that many of the National and State sporting associations have is the practises that they claim are necessary are only applicable to the smallest percentage of those playing the game. These practices and the principles that they are operating under are not applicable to the majority who continue to play sport for the sheer thrill it gives them.

How many of these players are impacted by commerce or politics, by television deals, sponsorship contracts, or player agents? How often are the fees of the average player being used to support the elite programs?

If you are working in this elite performance space is what is ‘right’ different to what is ‘right’ for the majority? Is that why the decision making and the governance has gone so awry? Is what is good for one section of the game good for all?

Clearly it is not, and hasn’t been for a while. In so many sports if match officials were to adhere to the rules as administered at elite level the same way at junior level, the children would walk away from the sport, for they would constantly be penalised. In so many cases the commercial decisions made at elite level are intolerable at other levels.

These different aims and purposes are damaging many sports, but most damaging of all is the lack of understanding when it comes to what is deemed as ‘right,’ what is acceptable behaviour. Sadly across too many sports, those in power hear but choose not to listen. There is an inability or unwillingness to stand up against conflicts of interest, and say that they are unacceptable. There is an inability to recognise that to succeed you have to be democratic, you have to give your stakeholders a voice, and you must listen.

Surely that is doing what is right?