The Specificity of Sport

Rob Tate considers calls for independent regulatory oversight of international sport in the wake of the recent tennis match fixing claims.

As far as multi-billion pound industries go, Sport gets away with an awful lot. The “Specificity of Sport” has served to exempt International Federations, NGB’s and major sports teams across Europe from the full force of European Law. This is on the basis that sport is a special case, in need of protection, and which, by its nature, requires different treatment. In a similar vein, international sport has thus far evaded any outside interference in its governance, and in many cases makes independence of sporting bodies a pre-requisite to recognition of national Olympic committees and sport governing bodies.

However, the legal sovereignty of sport has already come under attack over the last two decades (Think Bosman and Kolpak, amongst others) and now its regulatory independence is in question too. This is unsurprising, after sport’s annus horribilis made headlines across the world. We saw evidence that FIFA’s top brass were less than squeaky clean and that the top echelons of the IAAF had undermined the independence of their own anti-doping programmes for reputational and financial gain.

The latest chapter in the saga; allegations that Tennis’s world body has failed to take action against highly ranked players accused of match fixing; has further darkened the reputation of sport’s leadership and widened calls for reform. Writing in City AM, sports lawyer Mark Gay suggests outsourcing regulatory oversight of International Federations to an independent body as a way of preventing corruption.

It’s an interesting proposition, but one which raises many questions. How would such a body be created? Who would be responsible for it? How would it be funded? And what power would it have to compel co-operation and complicity with its rules?

Listed companies are regulated by the jurisdiction they’re registered in. For example; FTSE listed companies are regulated by the Financial Reporting Council, the UK’s Independent Regulatory Body. International Federations aren’t all registered in the same place, and there aren’t enough in many countries to warrant the creation of a full regulatory authority. Switzerland hosts the bulk of governing bodies, likely enough to justify such a body; but if it were to be setup there’d be absolutely nothing to stop them all moving to a sunnier tax haven elsewhere, and two of the major culprits unearthed so far, Tennis and Athletics, wouldn’t be covered at all since they’re based in London and Monaco respectively. What’s needed is an international solution to an international problem.

For an independent regulatory authority, as proposed, to be feasible it needs at least two things; International Scope and a means of compelling International Federations to do as it says. As a starting point, the body would need to be created under the auspices of an existing international organisation. The International Olympic Committee springs to mind in the first instance, but you needn’t think too far back to remember that its reputation isn’t so perfect either. With that in mind, putting the IOC in charge seems like the blind leading the blind; which is a shame, since there is little International Federations value more than IOC recognition.

Having excluded the IOC from the list we’re a little short of options. Off the top of my head, the UN seems to be the only organisation capable of fitting the “international Scope” requirement, as well as commanding some level of respect from International Federations. But as serious as this situation has become, it still seems like the UN might have more important things to be focussing on.

So, what other options do we have? Well, you’ll need to bear with me on this (and try to stifle your laughter), but what if International Federations just carry out their own governance reforms?

Okay, so it’s not exactly the pro-active approach you’d expect; and it’s hardly as if the current leadership of International Federations have done anything to suggest they’re interested in reform, never mind capable of such a thing. So far they’ve proven only that poor administration and a shortage of integrity are not isolated occurrences and there’s little doubt that there are more bad apples left in the barrel.

But we already know, more or less, what good governance should look like. There might not be a working model of best practice specific to International Federations, but all the overarching principles of such a model are outlined in numerous sources, including our own Voluntary Code of Good Governance. It might not be ideal, but we can do without someone telling IF’s what to do. All we really need is a mechanism of holding IF’s to account; making sure that what they need to do is actually being done.

Why can’t we do that ourselves, making IF’s accountable to the general public? Earlier, we said that a regulatory body needed two things: International Scope and a means of compelling IF’s to do the right thing; and we’ve immediately covered the first of those. With the continued help of the press, we have a fantastic platform from which to uphold the second requirement. Sport relies on its feel-good factor for commercial success; just think back to the positivity of London 2012 and what a great stage that set for the numerous headline sponsors. Already over the past year that image has become tarnished, and there have been signs of the impact this has had (such as FIFA losing some big name sponsors). If this coverage continues, and the bad news gets worse, then the IF’s in question will have no choice but to reform. Once one has admitted defeat the rest will surely have to follow, one by one, until accountable and transparent governance becomes the norm.

It’s not the panacea we were hoping for, but in a sector that relies on the size of its audience in the way sport does, the public holds a lot of power. What’s even better is that we’re already in place, and already paying attention; which is a huge benefit over a new regulatory body which could take years to set up. If we want a practical, affordable and feasible approach to making International Federations accountable then we’re as well doing it ourselves, en masse, than setting up another potential platform for maladministration and corruption.

Share this article:

Back to all news