The role of sports governance in the 2030 Agenda How can sports organizations be more responsible?

The demands that governments, and the multiple stakeholders [1] of professional and amateur sports have, increase in quantity and quality. The roles of sports organizations have basically been to govern a sports discipline and promote competitions. In the words of Professor Chelladurai, organize competitions and promote sporting excellence (Chelladurai, 2014) .

According to ASOIF ( The Association of Summer Olympic International Federations ), the traditional roles of organizations have changed, to the extent that they are required to have greater and better commercial performance, to have lawyers specialized in anti-doping issues, commercial law and human rights; that develop advanced operations in the transmission of their events; that they deal with sporting integrity (whatever that means to them); and much more advanced corporate governance, in line with the compliance systems [2] used in private corporations. They are asked to have effective measures against COVID-19, and to carry out harmonious relations with the development of e-sports [3] and virtual sport (ASOIF, 2022) .

Consequently, we see that the amateur nature of sports organizations needs to be re-evaluated by themselves and governments. In the style of the president of the International Olympic Committee, who recommends to his members and the international federations “we must change or we will be changed” (Bach, 2017) . The question would be how to achieve it?

On the other hand, there is quite a bit of literature that has been published on good governance and its multiple ways of quantifying it. We see that an industry has been created around the topic, as is the case with the “integrity industry” in which multiple NGOs, academics and moral entrepreneurs create indices, organize events, prepare statements, make recommendations, while their effectiveness is unquestioned. [4] (Gardiner, Parry, & Robinson, 2017)

Sports organizations can (should) be more responsible to their shareholders [5] and to their stakeholders as long as there is an effective accountability mechanism, and their actions are aligned with a development agenda. .

To put it simply: transparency alone does not guarantee anything, it needs effective mechanisms of accountability and social control. If these do not complement each other, a phenomenon known as the integrity industry is consolidated. Sampson says that the act of “transparenting” something implies making it invisible (Sampson, 2010) and there is a risk of falling into a culture of corporate compliance , or as Michael Power calls it, verification rituals (Power, 1997) .

Organizations can adopt accountability measures by reaction, cooperation, or adaptation. Some measures can be taken at zero cost, positive leadership is needed from some members of the organization at three internal levels and one external level: internally; Management or staff, the executive committee, and the assembly may decide to publish documents and reports relevant to their partners and interested parties. Let us keep in mind that the higher the level of decision, the longer the time of implementation and observation of its second and third degree effects will be. On the other hand, at the external level there must be pressure mechanisms (whether cooperative or adaptive) to have better accountability.

Colorado Boulder professor Roger Pielke suggests some accountability (CR) mechanisms that could well be adopted by sports organizations (Pielke, 2013) .

1. Hierarchical RC. The power that superiors exercise over their subordinates.

2. RC Fiscal. Control mechanisms over the use of resources.

3. RC Legal. Compliance with the laws in a certain territory.

4. Market RC. Influence exerted by clients and investors with market mechanisms.

5. RC In pairs. Evaluation and monitoring mechanisms by similar institutions.

6. RC Of public reputation. Control by citizens over the public image of the organization.

What is the connection between sports organizations and the 2030 Agenda?

While the preamble of the 2030 Agenda recognizes sport as "an important facilitator of sustainable development and peace", none of its objectives directly refer to sport, physical education, or physical activity. Therefore, at national and international levels, there is a high risk that SDG-oriented policy interventions in and through sport will be neglected, ineffective and/or insufficiently recognized. This can occur for several reasons. Firstly, sport and development are ambiguous and overused terms. The positive externalities of sport are overestimated and its risks are underestimated; while other related sectors such as leisure, physical education, and physical activity are overshadowed by competitive sports. Second, scientific evidence is skeptical in measuring the contribution of sport to generating development, in part, due to the methodological challenges of evaluating the impact of sport on mass populations, or the lack of adequate training and resources. And third, despite all the literature related to sport and development, there is no consensus on what to evaluate (indicators), how to do it (methodology) and where to report it (platform).

In conclusion, three ideas to move forward. While some organizations such as UNESCO reach a consensus on the indicators of what to measure and how to do it within the framework of the 2030 Agenda, the challenge is to incorporate them into the goals and indicators already formulated. Two, sports organizations need to make changes to their governance, aligned with a global development agenda but also with the demands of their stakeholders. And third, external actors at each level must exercise social control, as an accountability mechanism that helps sports organizations be more responsible.