Advertisement

Extending integrity to third parties: in search of a new model for anti-corruption in sports

  • Thomas Kruessmann
Article

Abstract

The founding of the International Partnership against Corruption in Sport in 2017 is evidence of a growing consensus among stakeholders that sports governing bodies (SGBs) have failed to re-organize in the wake of the recent corruption scandals. Therefore, the autonomy of sports must no longer be seen as an excuse for not interfering with the internal governance of SGBs. Against this background, the paper examines the various good governance standards that have been proposed by stakeholders, experts and scholars. It argues that in line with a standard of overall integrity, private-sector models of extending good governance to third parties should be more widely considered. And overall integrity should be based on law and not merely rely on ethics. To illustrate these challenges, this paper will offer a case study of the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC’s) new commitment to anti-corruption. It reveals that although the IOC is pronouncing sweeping reforms in its Agenda2020 and has upgraded the Host City Contract to create leverage over the Game’s host institutions, it remains vague on the issue of third party due diligence. It appears that the current search for good governance standards needs to become much more serious and less publicity-driven.

Keywords

Sports governing bodies Good governance Anti-corruption and integrity Compliance Risk management Third party due diligence 

References

  1. Chappelet J-L (2016a) From olympic administration to olympic governance. Sport Soc 19(6):739–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chappelet J-L (2016b) Autonomy and governance: necessary bedfellows in the fight against corruption in sport. In: International Transparency (ed) Global corruption report: sport 2016. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 16–28Google Scholar
  3. Chappelet J-L, Kübler-Mabbott B (2008) The international olympic committee and the olympic system. The Governance of World Sport, Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chappelet J-L, Mrkonjic M (2013) Existing governance principles in sport: a review of published literature. In: J Alm (ed) Action for good governance in international sports organizations, pp 222–239Google Scholar
  5. Gauthier R (2017) The international olympic committee, law, and accountability. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  6. Geeraert A (2016) Indicators and benchmarking tools for sports governance. In: International Transparency (ed) Global corruption report: sport. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 56–61Google Scholar
  7. Geeraert A, Alm J, Groll M (2014) Good governance in international sport organizations: an analysis of the 35 olympic sport governing bodies. Int J Sport Policy Polit 6(3):281–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Geeraert A, Mrkonic M, Chappelet J-L (2015) A rationalist perspective on the autonomy of international sport governing bodies: towards a pragmatic autonomy in the steering of sports. Int J Sport Policy Polit 7(4):473–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grell T (2017) Human rights as selection criteria in bidding regulations for mega-sporting events, asser international sports law blog of 20 December 2017. http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/human-rights-as-selection-criteria-in-bidding-regulations-for-mega-sporting-events-part-i-ioc-and-uefa-by-tomas-grell. Accessed 8 Oct 2018
  10. Horne J (2016) The planning and hosting of sports mega-events. Sources, forms, and the prevention of corruption. In: Transparency international (ed) Global corruption report: sport. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 163–168Google Scholar
  11. Mrkonjic M (2016) A review of good governance principles and indicators in sport. Published on 22 Sept 2016. EPAS (2016) INF20. https://www.icsspe.org/system/files/EPAS%20-%20Review%20of%20Good%20Governance%20principles%20and%20indicators%20in%20sport.pdf. Accessed 8 Oct 2018
  12. Pielke R (2016) Obstacles to accountability in international sports governance. In: International Transparency (ed) Global corruption report: sport. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 29–35Google Scholar
  13. Pieth M, Heller D, Handschin L (2011) Governing FIFA. Concept paper and report, 19 September 2011. University of BaselGoogle Scholar
  14. Schenk S (2016) What the anti-corruption movement can bring to sport. The experience of transparency international Germany. In: International Transparency (ed) Global corruption report: sport. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 359–363Google Scholar
  15. Serby T (2017) Sports corruption: sporting autonomy Lex Sportiva and the rule of law. Entertain Sports Law J 15(2):1–9Google Scholar
  16. Transparency International (ed) (2016) Global corruption report: sport. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  17. Wolf KD (2017) Patterns of legitimation in hybrid transnational regimes: the controversy surrounding the Lex Sportiva. Polit Gov 5(1):63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zimbalist A (2016) Corruption and the bidding process for the olympics and world cup. In: International Transparency (ed) Global corruption report: sport. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 152–156Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Johan Skytte Institute of Political StudiesUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations