Search

Given the plethora of governance principles proposed by academics, government agencies, and sport governing bodies, this study systematically reviewed the current landscape of governance principles in sport. Following the PRISMA, PIECES, and the University of Warwick protocols, a search of academic and grey literatures resulted in 594 unique records. After screening the records for relevance and quality, 73 records (12%) remained. Most sources were non-empirical, originating from academic working groups and sport governing bodies located predominantly in Europe. Overall, 258 unique governance principles were found. Transparency, accountability, and democracy dominated frequency-wise, while Board-related principles were the most popular focus, followed by stakeholder engagement. The list of principles was synthesized through an inductive thematic analysis into four categories: structure-based, process-based, outcome-based, and context-based. Empirical studies demonstrated governance principles' assessments in national and international sport organizations to be average at best. Findings highlight the systemic and multi-dimensional nature of governance. The four governance principles categories point to academics and practitioners seeing/enacting governance in different ways: structurally at different levels of the organization (i.e. including and beyond the Board), in the organization's managerial processes, as desired organizational outcomes, and according to their specific context. Researchers and practitioners should endeavour to be purposeful in their use of terms (e.g. 'principle' vs 'indicator'), define their terms, and offer greater details to present higher quality assessment outcomes. We encourage researchers to use more robust, evidence-based governance principles and sophisticated measures/advanced analyses in future assessments of governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper revisits our knowledge of sport organization governance design archetypes. To do so, we focus on Canadian national sport organizations (NSOs) and pose three research questions: (1) what governance design archetypes exist based on the use of more contemporary criteria; (2) how easily can an NSO's archetype be determined; and (3) what are the implications of these new archetypes for researchers and practitioners? We undertook a landscape study of 32 Canadian NSOs with data from an online survey, publicly-available information, and clarification calls. Archetypes were derived from 47 organizational and governance characteristics using a k-means cluster analysis. Our empirically-derived archetype design taxonomy showed the best fit to be four clusters (Board-led, Executive-led, Professional, and Corporate) based on key organizational values, complexity, capacity, revenue sources, and governance variables. Besides knowing NSOs are more heterogenous than in the past, researchers and practitioners can use capacity, efficiency, horizontal differentiation, broadcast revenue, political accountability, and social media information to derive an NSO's governance archetype. These findings imply researchers can (1) examine non-profit sport organizations' changes over time based on a set of archetypes reflecting contemporary realities, and (2) compare and contrast NSOs' governance more holistically. In turn, managers can better compare their NSO with other NSOs to optimize their organization's performance. Finally, national sport agencies/funders should support NSOs' governance improvement efforts through flexible guidelines and resources because of NSOs' governance heterogeneity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Questions: We explored if and how decision-makers of different types of national sport organizations (NSOs) govern their brand, considering the changing landscape and the role of stakeholders and social media. The three research questions were: (RQ1) Do leaders of NSOs include brand governance in their overall governance?; (RQ2) How important is the relationship between the NSOs and their stakeholders for NSOs' brand governance?; (RQ3) How does social media contribute to NSOs' brand governance? Research methods: Thirty-two chief executive officers (CEOs) and/or board members of 58 Canadian NSOs (RR = 55%) participated in an online survey. Data were collected about brand governance in the organization (8 questions), the interrelationship with stakeholders (4 questions), and the role of social media in brand governance (4 questions). Results and findings: Brand governance is absent in small NSOs, and in early stages of application by larger NSOs. NSOs deal with their brand primarily internally, with no operational involvement of stakeholders, missing opportunities for possible knowledge transfer and co-creation to help NSOs govern their brand. Social media is a cost-efficient way to brand the organization, but a lack of control and consistency indicates a need for brand governance related to social media. Implications: NSOs would benefit from actively involving stakeholders to co-create and strengthen their brand. Social media offers opportunities for branding, but governance regulations should help overcome major challenges. Future research should include interviews with NSOs' decision-makers to further understand how NSOs can engage more meaningfully with stakeholders and social media to strengthen their brand governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research question:This paper examined the impact of participation in YOG on Norwegian team members with a particular emphasis on differences between those who continued in elite sport and those that dropped out. Research methods:We used a retrospective survey design to collect quantitative and qualitative data from former Norwegian YOG participants (from 2010, 2012, and 2014), with 58 of the 64 athletes responding to the survey in December 2015. Results and findings:Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Roemer’s [(1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance.Psychological Review,100(3), 363–406] typology of constraints and their concept of deliberative practice provided the framework for the data analysis. Key findings include: (a) the dropout rate was lower than that reported for similar groups; (b) the main reasons for dropout were school pressures and poor relations with the coach; (c) there was little difference in the perceived level of support from schools, parents and coaches between those who dropped out and those who did not; (d) participation in the YOG was a significant motivating factor for staying in elite-level sport for some athletes; (e) medal winners were as likely to dropout as non-medal winners; and (f) the national context for elite youth development may play a larger role in deeper engagement in sport than YOG participation. We derive hypotheses/propositions based on our results, which should be tested in future studies. Implications: Our findings suggest the entourage’s support is critical for continued engagement in sport, but is not sufficient for preventing dropout. The national context, in terms of the sport and education systems, must align to ensure young athletes do not need to choose between elite-level sport and school. The national context may play a larger role in deeper engagement in sport than YOG participation/success. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]