Guarding The Future of Sport

Politicians love sport. By donning the team scarf or shirt of a certain team they immediately, so they believe, connect with the thousands of fans who genuinely support that team. 

If they make a public announcement related to much needed funding for a particular sport then their party looks to gain in terms of votes from not only fans of that sport, but also all those thousands who play the sport; or so they believe. 

Government departments in Australia and the world over throw money at sport to try and win votes. Yet few actually monitor the way that money is being spent.

Rarely does the money end up where it is intended as funds get chewed up in “administrative costs.” In many cases far more than half of the allocated funds. 

One of the reasons that sponsorship money has tightened up at the lower levels of sports competition is for the very same reason. One long term sponsor of a semi-professional competition refused to hand over the money that they agreed to contribute to sponsor a tournament to the sports administrator, as they knew that the intended prize money would be diminished and a percentage kept by the administrator. They insisted that they hand the cheque for the agreed prize money directly to the winning team. Within two seasons they were advised that a new sponsor had been found, despite their long-standing sponsorship that had become synonymous with the competition. It came as no shock that with the new naming rights sponsor the prize money dropped by around fifty percent. 

Sponsorship like Government funding is becoming harder and harder to come by across all sports, so the last thing any sport needs is to see this money chewed up by those administering the games. 

Some would argue that if the Board’s of these various organizations were carrying out their duties the way they were intended, then such things would not happen. That they would be coming up with corporate structures along with their CEO’s to ensure that monies reach the intended areas and other forms of revenue-raising to cover administrative costs are created. 

Yet sadly Governance in sport has become a major issue, with many Board’s made of people not suitably qualified to carry out such an important role. Some are simply seeking such a position for the value it has in their careers and on their resumes, rather than to assist the sport. Some love the perks that come with being a Board member and the doors it opens for them to rub shoulders with the rich, the influential and the famous. 

Many countries have bodies such as the Australian Institute of Company Directors who run courses and supply information to prospective Board Members as to their responsibilities and liabilities. Should not any Board member be required to have attended such a course before taking on such a role? Should this not be a Government requirement before funding is given? 

Some may argue that this is not feasible, but surely a responsible Chairperson would make sure that at least fifty percent of Board members had achieved such training and that new Board Members attained the same within six months of being elected? That is surely not too much to ask?

Why do we need to implement such a structure? The reason is simple; many Boards have members ignorant in regards to their duties and responsibilities. Many Board members have clear conflicts of interest, which go undeclared, and which could influence their decision-making. Many Boards are bypassing the very statutes that are supposed to ensure that their sport is run according to very clear-cut guidelines.  

For example most sporting Constitutions are very clear that Board Members must have no links to clubs, or other sporting organizations under their control if they are an International or National body. This is an obvious requirement as once again an elected representative may find it hard to divorce themselves from an issue in their state or country, even if what is being proposed is for the good of that sport nationally or Internationally. Therefore all Board Members should have resigned those positions before standing for election to such a Board. However what is becoming a worrying trend are prospective Board Members not stepping down from their positions, standing for the higher role, and then when elected stepping down. Or, as no one challenged them at the time of the election, opting to stay on in both roles. Of course once that happens there is a Conflict of interest. 

It used to be that the majority of sporting constitutions also had a clause that did not allow sponsors of competitions or teams to hold a position on the Board. It should be fairly obvious as to why this should be the case. This condition has disappeared from several Constitutions, yet in a few cases no official change has been recorded.   

Attendance of Board members to Board meetings is another crucial area where there are very strict conditions in most Constitutions that should be applied. Most Board’s work on the rule that if a Board Member fails to attend two or three consecutive Board meetings then they must step down from their position, as obviously they do not have the ability to carry out such an important role. Of course with today’s technology members have many ways in which they can “attend” meetings remotely, and many do.  So you may not physically be able to attend but can still be at the meeting. However their attendance via Skype or video conference needs to be recorded as thus. 

What is worrying is how many organizations do not remove members who fail to attend. NTFS has been advised of one organization where a board member attended one meeting in seven. Yet they still hold a position on the Board. 

Another very worrying development was that on one Board when an elected member could not attend a meeting the member would not hand their vote by proxy to another Board Member but would send someone else to the Board Meeting in their place! This is a bizarre situation and one wonders how fellow Board members could countenance allowing this. It is like an elected politician realizing that he or she cannot attend Parliament as something else has come up, so they ask their neighbour to attend on their behalf and vote on issues that affect the nation or their constituency. 

If we think back to the demise of the Western Force, it was the Board of Rugby WA that made the decision to challenge the decision that saw the club dropped from Super Rugby through the legal system. As we all know they lost, and the cost was phenomenal. An announcement was made soon after that Rugby WA was going to declare itself bankrupt as a result of the costs incurred. Then there was a backflip. The reason was the Board were reminded that it was their decision to go down the legal path, and therefore having made that decision each and everyone was responsible for that financial loss, not the stakeholders in the game. (Twisting the Knife) They were fortunate that Andrew Forrest agreed to bail them out.  

The issues raised are just a few. They illustrate how a malaise has spread when it comes to the Governance of sport not just in Australia, but also in many countries across the globe.

Everyone hoped that when the arrests of FIFA Executive Board Members happened in Switzerland that there would be a revision of the way Football was governed. It never happened. 

Many wise people in sport point to this as the seminal moment when other sports, or opportunistic people, realized that short cuts could be taken when it came to the Governance of sport. Across the globe the corporate corruption watchdogs tend to be sniffing around the offices of big business, and sport is not seen as big business, so mismanagement goes undetected. 

Yet Sport is very big business.  If it weren’t Politicians would not even give it lip service.    

As it is big business, and involves so many millions of people nationally and internationally surely there need to be more checks and balances in place. Of course that is essentially the role of a Board, but if they are failing to carry out those duties then somebody needs to be checking them. Making sure that proper processes are followed when it comes to the election of Board members and that those Boards adhere to their own constitutions. 

In aviation there is the International Air Transport Association, which continually carries out rigorous audits on all airlines, covering a range of issues from maintenance, security, and including financial audits to protect the consumers and all of us who fly. Why can’t there be a similar body created for sport to do the same here in Australia and overseas?  To protect those who play the game or administer it. If such a body were created a failure to comply would of course come with penalties, for example funding from Governments and other such bodies being withheld. All done for the long term good of sport.  

Sport, whether we like it or not has a huge part to play in people’s lives, be it playing, coaching, refereeing, going to games or watching on television, a tablet or a phone.  It is important that we protect it and make sure that each and every sport survives.