Conference abstracts.

In this paper, structural issues with regard to the quality of the self-governance of 35 Sport Governing Bodies (SGBs) are treated. Firstly, this paper presents empirical evidence on the lack of accountability arrangements in SGBs. In particular, the watchdog function of their member organisations is severely undermined by the general absence of objective criteria and transparency in the distribution of funding to members. With regard to checks and balances, arguably the most topical issue is the total lack of independent ethics committees, if any, and their inability to conduct ex officio investigations. Secondly, our survey demonstrates that most SGBs have institutionalised athlete participation. However, in the overwhelming majority of the organisations, they have not been granted formal decision making power. Thirdly, with regard to executive body members, there is the rather anachronistic dominance of the European continent and also the preponderance of male officials. In addition, the general lack of term limits poses serious threats with regard to the concentration of power, which is evidenced for instance by the overall number of years SGB presidents are in office. The presented empirical evidence clearly supports the recent calls for good governance in sport. SGBs need to agree upon a set of well-defined criteria of good governance and take action towards compliance with those. Only then, the self-governance of sport will be credible and justifiable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]