This article is written by Satuti Arora of B.A., LL. B (Hons) of 2nd Year of Amity University, Kolkata, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
Abstract
The governance of global sports federations has become an important issue in international sports law, and the emerging picture is quite disturbing: it is one of concentration of power, minimal accountability, and systemic corruption. Although these organisations are not-for-profit, they manage billion-dollar enterprises that shape the future of international sports but do so in a vague legal framework that often insulates them from meaningful oversight. This analysis looks into the complex relations between sports autonomy, legal accountability, and governance reforms in major international sports federations, focusing, in particular on FIFA, IOC, and World Athletics.
Through this research, two fundamental questions are addressed. How do governance structures of the global sports federation enable abuse of power while restricting accountability through law? What reforms could be made toward effective oversight in a manner not compromise the absolute autonomy of the international sports field? This paper critically assesses the current governance models, corruption cases, and reform attempts to challenge the traditional concept of sports independence and propose a new paradigm for international sports governance balancing autonomy with accountability.
This paper uses a mixed-method approach in which the author combines legal analysis of court decisions and arbitration cases with qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and comparative analysis of governance models in various sports federations. Findings are that the present oversight mechanisms critically lack and have weaknesses in terms of a compromised position for the Court of Arbitration for Sport and national legal frameworks which do not properly cover transnational sports governance. The paper puts forward a novel framework for international sports governance that incorporates binding legal oversight but also retains necessary operational independence. Establish a separate international sports governance body with mutual minimum requirements for standardized transparency. Effective representation mechanisms should be in place.
Keywords
Sports Governance, International Sports Law, Corruption In Sports, Legal Accountability, Sports Federation Reform, Court Of Arbitration For Sport.
Introduction
International sports federation governance is at a critical crossroads: the old principle of sports organizations’ autonomy clashes with calls for transparency, accountability, and judicial control.[1]. Over recent decades, international sport has grown from amatorial competitions into multi-billion dollar enterprises, yet most governance structures remain fossilized in an era of gentlemen’s agreements and self-regulation.[2]. The scale of modern sports economics, combined with the repeated scandals and governance failures, has revealed the inadequacy of the current regulatory frameworks and has brought into question fundamental questions about the appropriate balance between sporting independence and public accountability.[3].
This led to the watershed moment of 2015: the FIFA corruption scandal brought an unprecedented level of scrutiny to international sports federations’ governance practices.[4]. The arrest of many high-ranking FIFA officials for racketeering, wire fraud, and money laundering underlined the chasm between the declared noble purposes and the operational reality of these organizations.[5]. This incident, although particularly infamous, is merely one example of a pattern of governance failures stretching over multiple sports federations and decades. From the International Olympic Committee’s Salt Lake City bidding scandal to systematic doping cover-ups in international athletics and vote-buying allegations that have surfaced repeatedly across different sports bodies, this all points toward systemic weaknesses within the current model of governance.[6].
What makes governance in international sports federations unusually complex is that they have their unique legal status. Most important sports federations are registered in Switzerland as nongovernmental associations since the jurisdiction enjoys a traditional tendency to protect the autonomy of an association[7]. This allows them to enter a regulatory void where traditional instruments of national control fail to grip[8]. The result is a system where organizations wielding significant economic and political influence operate with limited external accountability, protected by the principle of sports autonomy and the fragmented nature of international legal jurisdiction[9].
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was set up to specifically serve the dispute-resolution needs of the sports world and has proved wanting as an oversight mechanism for governance.[10] Financial dependence on the same organizations that CAS judges, plus limited transparency and inconsistent jurisprudence, raise serious questions about its effectiveness as an accountability mechanism.[11] Furthermore, the closed nature of sports federation governance, where key decisions are often made by a small group of long-serving executives, creates an environment resistant to reform and prone to conflicts of interest.[12]
This paper examines those critical governance issues by conducting a comprehensive analysis of the legal structures, organizational frames, and attempted reforms in many international sports governing bodies. Since the research focuses on the interdependence between sports-specific autonomy, a need for legally enforced accountability as well and more comprehensive governance changes, it endeavours to contribute to building more influential mechanisms of effective oversight that promote integrity in sports worldwide while appreciating its singularity and challenges.[13].
Overview of Global Sports Federations
Global sports governance has undergone some radical changes since the inception of the first international sports federations at the end of the 19th century[14]. From humble, pretty small administrative bodies for amateur competitions, it is now transformed into some complex, multi-billion dollar organizations with meaningful economic and political influence[15]. This development, however, has not been accompanied by corresponding developments in governance structures and accountability mechanisms, leading to what many scholars describe as a “crisis of legitimacy” in international sports administration.[16]
The International Olympic Committee (IOC), established in 1894, serves as the archetypal model of international sports governance.[17] The IOC’s organizational structure, which emphasizes autonomy from governmental interference and self-regulation, has been widely replicated by other international federations.[18] This model of governance developed to safeguard sport from political intrusion, has long been criticized due to its undemocratic elements and lack of transparency.[19] The Olympic Movement is shaped by the influence exerted by the IOC, which indeed acts as the very top organization of a rather fragmented pyramid of international sports governance of IFs, NOCs, and several associations at the continent level.[20]
It presents perhaps the most striking example of both the power and problems inherent in current sports governance structures: FIFA, the governing body of the world’s most popular sport, which has annual revenues exceeding $4.6 billion and control over the World Cup, exercises enormous influence over national governments and economies.[21] The 2015 FIFA corruption scandal, which ended with the indictment of many officials, exposed one of the dangerous combinations: wide financial resources combined with limited control and entrenched leaders in many organizations that run international sports.[22]
The legal system under which these entities operate adds one more layer to the complexity involved in governance problems. Most major international sports federations are organized as non-profit associations under Swiss law, whose jurisdiction has been selected for strong protection of associational autonomy and good tax treatment.[23] The legal structure under which these organizations operate is, as some scholars would say, creating a “regulatory black hole,” in that organizations exerting considerable global influence operate under scant external oversight.[24] The Swiss legal framework, although recently strengthened through the “Lex FIFA” amendments, still provides considerable protection to sports federations from external scrutiny.[25]
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), established in 1984 as the “Supreme Court of World Sport,” was intended to provide specialized dispute resolution for the sports world.[26] However, its effectiveness as a governance mechanism has been questioned due to its financial dependence on the organizations it judges and concerns about the consistency of its jurisprudence.[27] The closed arbitration system, while efficient for resolving sports-specific disputes, has been criticized for lacking transparency and failing to develop consistent legal principles.[28]
A particularly problematic aspect of current governance structures is the concentration of power among a small group of officials who often hold multiple positions across different sports organizations.[29] This creates significant conflicts of interest and resistance to reform, as demonstrated by numerous cases where federation leaders have maintained their positions despite serious allegations of misconduct.[30] The case of former FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who ruled for 17 years with scandals reappearing time and again, epitomizes the problems in overthrowing entrenched leadership.[31]
Not to be ignored is the economic dimension of sports governance. International sports federations control billions of dollars in commercial rights, including broadcasting and marketing rights.[32] Distribution of these revenues is often shrouded in obscurity and criteria unclear, raising concerns about possible corruption.[33] Major sporting events like the Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup have also been known for problematic bidding processes with several incidents of vote-buying and undue influence.[34]
Recent reform efforts have tried to tackle these governance issues. The IOC’s Agenda 2020+5 and FIFA’s post-2015 reforms introduced measures such as term limits for officials, enhanced financial transparency, and improved stakeholder representation.[35] Critics argue that these reforms are still insufficient, focusing on cosmetic changes while leaving the deeper power structures intact.[36] Self-regulation has been questioned in its ability to solve systemic governance issues, and more robust external oversight is called for.[37]
Sports governance, both within the national and international fields, remains contentious. While the European Union’s influence within the fields of competition law and other regulatory mechanisms is seen as striving to influence sports governance, the principle of sports autonomy remains an overriding check to first-party governmental interjection.[38] Probing further into the question of whether a country can address the international sports corruption threat remains in exceptional form, it would refer to American prosecutors recently using RICO statutes for prosecuting FIFA officials.[39]
Going forward, several key challenges need to be addressed to enhance the governance of international sports federations. First, the balance between sports autonomy and public accountability needs recalibration.[40] Second, more effective mechanisms for stakeholder representation, particularly athletes, must be developed.[41] Third, the financial transparency and accountability of sports organizations need strengthening through independent oversight.[42] Finally, the role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport requires reform to enhance its independence and effectiveness as a governance mechanism.[43].
Governance Frameworks in Global Sports Federation.
The governance frameworks within global sports federations have undergone significant evolution since their inception, transforming from simple administrative structures into complex organizational systems that manage multi-billion dollar enterprises.[44] This transformation, while enabling the massive growth of international sports, has also exposed fundamental weaknesses in traditional governance models that were originally designed for amateur sports administration.[45] The complexity of modern sports governance is particularly reflected in the complicated network of relations between international federations, national bodies, commercial partners, and various stakeholders who are all functioning in an increasingly scrutinized regulatory environment.[46]
Historical Development
The origins of sports governance frameworks date back to the International Olympic Committee, which was formed in 1894. The IOC created a template for international sports administration that would influence generations of sports organizations.[47] This “Olympic model” of governance, characterized by autonomous administration and hierarchical structure, became the foundation for numerous international sports federations.[48] International sport is becoming much more commercially exploited than previously imagined. Yet for the moment, this does not constitute a crisis” Professor Jean-Loup Chappelet University of Lausanne This traditional international sports federation governance model while revolutionary in their time could no longer sustain, as: “The governance structure of the existing international sports federation was originally modelled upon volunteer association and sports amateurism context that seems less relevant for the present highly commercial sporting environment.[49] Most sports international federations are registered under Swiss law, specifically Articles 60-79 of the Swiss Civil Code, which allows for some flexibility in registering non-profit associations. Swiss law has represented, historically, advantages such as strong protection of associational autonomy as well as favourable tax treatment. However, recent scandals and failures of governance have led to significant legal reforms in Switzerland. The most notable ones are the “Lex FIFA” amendments passed in 2020. These new amendments imposed more stringent requirements on sports organizations, requiring enhanced financial transparency, robust anti-corruption mechanisms, and improved stakeholder representation, thereby marking a new course in the regulatory framework.
Financial governance became a critical issue for modern federations of sports, especially on the massive scale of contemporary economics in sports. FIFA’s 2022 cycle for the World Cup brought its revenue to above $7.5 billion; the IOC derived more than $4.2 billion from the Tokyo Olympics.[50] Such sizeable financial activity has called for more complex governing mechanisms, comprising improved audit mechanisms, financial management systems, and transparency requirements.[51]. However, an ASOIF comprehensive study determined that the financial governance standards applied varied significantly among the federations, underlining persistent challenges for the development of uniform governance practices.[52].
Stakeholder representation and democratic processes within sports governance frameworks have surfaced as increasingly contentious issues. The power concentrated within the small, exclusive group of executive officials within traditional governance models was criticized for being unrepresentative and non-inclusive.[53] This will be an important attempt at changing the present through mechanisms of governance, including athletes on the executive bodies, limiting the tenure of senior officials and more robust consultations.[54] A review by Play the Game has reported that still very few federations are capable of putting truly democratic governance in place, where in most instances the power rests in the hands of a small clique of the elites.[55]
Over recent years, mechanisms of external oversight and accountability have changed a great deal. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), founded in 1984, offers a dedicated space for disputes in sports, but its independence and effectiveness have been questioned several times.[56] National and supranational authorities, such as the European Union, have increasingly used competition law and regulatory requirements to enter the governance of sports.[57] External pressure from such authorities has led to reforms in governance within many federations, but whether these reforms have been effective is another matter for debate.[58]
The biggest challenges under the sports governance frameworks are issues of corruption and integrity management. In 2015, for example, there was the infamous FIFA corruption scandal where many top officials were indicted by U.S. authorities due to the evident vulnerabilities of then-existing governance structures to systematic abuse.[59] This gave birth to numerous reforms across the international sports organization framework, among which are increased integrity checks, protection mechanisms for whistleblowers, and more aggressive financial controls, respectively[60]. However, according to scholars such as Roger Pielke Jr., these reforms typically treat symptoms rather than root problems in sports governance.[61]
Challenges in Governance
The governance challenges that international sports federations face represent some of the most complex and persistent issues in modern sports administration.[62] Challenges have been accentuated by the fact that sports organizations are now moving from traditional amateur administrative bodies to sophisticated global enterprises managing billions in revenue.[63] These challenges are multilayered and include structural, financial, ethical, and operational dimensions that call for a fine understanding of both sports governance and international organizational management.[64]
One of the fundamental challenges facing sports governance lies in the tension between the historical volunteer-based organizational model and the demands of modern professional sport.[65] International federations need to balance their historical role as custodians of sporting values with the commercial pressures of contemporary sport.[66] Professor Richard Pound, former IOC Vice President, states, “The disconnect between traditional governance structures and modern sporting realities has created systematic vulnerabilities in how international federations operate.”[67]
The concentration of power within sports organizations is a significant challenge too. Reforms aimed at the democratization of governance structures and structures have proved to be short of changing deeply entrenched leadership that resists transformation.[68] According to research conducted by the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF) back in 2023, only 62 per cent of international federations are well characterized by defects in democratic procedures and power decentralization.[69]
Financial governance is probably the most urgent challenge for modern sports federations.[70] The magnitude of monetary flows in international sport has opened up unprecedented opportunities for mismanagement and corruption.[71] According to a 2023 report by Deloitte Sports Business Group: “The complexity of financial operations in modern sports organizations, coupled with inadequate oversight mechanisms, gives rise to considerable governance risks. Many federations lack robust financial control systems proportionate to their economic scale.”[72]
Transparency in financial activities remains particularly challenging. Despite the pressure for openness, most federations continue to be opaque in practices related to the distribution of revenue, compensation, and commercial relationships.[73] The 2015 FIFA corruption scandal is an example of how bad financial governance leads to systemic corruption.[74]
Conclusion
The governance challenges facing international sports federations represent a complex web of structural, financial, and ethical issues that require comprehensive solutions and sustained commitment to reform. As sports organizations continue to evolve in an increasingly commercialized and globalized environment, the need for robust, adaptable, and transparent governance frameworks becomes ever more critical. The evidence presented throughout this analysis demonstrates that while progress has been made in addressing some governance challenges, significant obstacles remain.
A way forward involves actions that not only highlight structural issues but also urgently address the deficits that relate to operational performance. International sports federations should modernize their governance while maintaining those values that are vital to sport, specifically, this should include stronger financial controls, higher visibility for stakeholder representation, and accountability mechanisms that are substantially genuine. The role of external oversight needs to be strengthened, potentially through additional cooperation between sports organizations and public authorities.
Looking forward, the future of governance reforms will depend much on the willingness of sports organizations to embrace deep change rather than cosmetic change⁷. Increasing scrutiny from stakeholders, media, and the public puts pressure on but also creates an opportunity for meaningful reform. As Professor Jean-Loup Chappelet notes, “The future legitimacy of international sports federations depends on their ability to demonstrate that they can govern effectively and transparently in the modern sporting context.”
Ultimately, however, reforming sports governance is not merely a technical but a cultural challenge. It will require changing the organizational mindset from protecting existing structures of traditional power to seeking accountability and significant stakeholder engagement. Only then can international sports federations hope to remain justified and actively serve their important role in global sport.
[1] Chappelet, Jean-Loup. “From Olympic Administration to Olympic Governance.” Sport in Society 19, no. 6 (2016): 739-751.
[2] Geeraert, Arnout. Sports Governance Observer 2015: The Legitimacy Crisis in International Sports Governance. Copenhagen: Play the Game, 2015.
[3] Foster, Ken. “Global Sports Law Revisited.” Entertainment and Sports Law Journal 17, no. 1 (2019): 4.
[4] Department of Justice. “Nine FIFA Officials and Five Corporate Executives Indicted for Racketeering Conspiracy and Corruption.” Press Release, May 27, 2015.
[5] Pielke, Jr., Roger. “Obstacles to Accountability in International Sports Governance.” In Global Corruption Report: Sport, edited by Transparency International, 2016.
[6] MacAloon, John J. “Agenda 2020 and the Olympic Movement.” Sport in Society 19, no. 6 (2016): 767-785.
[7] Mrkonjic, Michel. “Swiss Law and International Sport Federations.” International Sports Law Review 16, no. 1-2 (2016): 26-32.
[8] Weatherill, Stephen. Principles and Practice in EU Sports Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
[9] Parrish, Richard. “The Autonomy of Sport and the European Union.” International Sports Law Journal 18, no. 1 (2018): 3-17.
[10] Rigozzi, Antonio, and Brianna Quinn. “Evidentiary Issues Before CAS.” In International Sports Law and Jurisprudence of the CAS, edited by Rigozzi and Quinn, 1-40, 2014.
[11] Lindholm, Johan. The Court of Arbitration for Sport and Its Jurisprudence. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2019.
[12] Geeraert, Arnout, and Eelke Drieskens. “The Limits of Collective Action Reform: Global Sports Governance and the Crisis of Legitimacy.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport (2021).
[13] Cornelissen, Scarlett. International Sport Politics: Power, Governance and the Global System. London: Routledge, 2020.
[14] Tomlinson, A. FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association): The Men, the Myths and the Money (2014).
[15] Geeraert, A. Sports Governance Observer 2015: The legitimacy crisis in international sports governance (2015).
[16] Foster, K. “Global Sports Law Revisited.” Entertainment and Sports Law Journal 17(1), (2019).
[17] Chappelet, J. L. “From Olympic Administration to Olympic Governance.” Sport in Society, (2016).
[18] Mangan, M. “The Court of Arbitration for Sport and Legal Pluralism.” Law, Innovation and Technology, (2018).
[19] Transparency International. “Global Corruption Report: Sport.” (2016).
[20] MacAloon, J. J. “Agenda 2020 and the Olympic Movement.” Sport in Society, (2016).
[21] Garcia, B., and Meier, H. E. “Global Sport Power Europe?” Journal of European Public Policy, (2021).
[22] United States Department of Justice. “Nine FIFA Officials and Five Corporate Executives Indicted.” (2015).
[23] Mrkonjic, M. “Swiss Law and International Sport Federations.” (2016).
[24] Weatherill, S. “Principles and Practice in EU Sports Law.” (2017). Oxford University Press.
[25] Swiss Federal Assembly. “Federal Act on Money Laundering.” (2014).
[26] Rigozzi, A. “The Recent Reform of the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration (CAS Code).” (2019).
[27] Lindholm, J. “The Court of Arbitration for Sport and Its Jurisprudence.” (2019).
[28] Duval, A. “The Olympic Charter: A Transnational Constitution Without a State?” (2017).
[29] Geeraert, A., and Drieskens, E. “The Limits of Collective Action Reform.” (2021).
[30] Pielke Jr, R. “Obstacles to Accountability in International Sports Governance.” (2016).
[31] Blake, H., and Calvert, J. “The Ugly Game: The Corruption of FIFA and the Qatari Plot to Buy the World Cup.” (2015).
[32] SportBusiness. “Global Sports Media Rights Revenue Report.” (2020).
[33] Jennings, A. “Investigating Corruption in Corporate Sport: The IOC and FIFA.” (2011).
[34] Cornelissen, S. “International Sports Politics: Power, Governance and the Global System.” (2020).
[35] IOC. “Olympic Agenda 2020+5.” (2021).
[36] Play the Game. “National Sports Governance Observer 2.0.” (2021).
[37] Parrish, R. “The Autonomy of Sport and the European Union.” (2018).
[38] European Commission. “EU Work Plan for Sport 2021-2024.” (2019).
[39] United States v. Webb et al., No. 15-CR-252 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).
[40] Chappelet, J. L. “Beyond Governance: The Need to Improve the Regulation of International Sport.” (2018).
[41] Athletes Germany. “Athlete-Centered Governance in Sport.” (2020).
[42] ASOIF. “Fourth Review of International Federation Governance.” (2020).
[43] Mavromati, D. “The Role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Sport Governance.” (2019).
[44] Anne Geeraert, Understanding Sports Governance, 14 Int’l J. Sport Pol’y & Pol. 1 (2022).
[45] Kenneth Foster, “The Evolution of Sports Law and Governance” (2021).
[46] Alan Tomlinson, “FIFA and the Contest for World Football” (2020).
[47] Jean-Loup Chappelet, “Olympic Governance: Past, Present and Future, 26 Sport Mgmt. Rev. 216” (2023).
[48] Milena M. Parent & Russell Hoye, “The Impact of Governance Principles on Sport Organizations, 37 J. Sport Mgmt. 15” (2023).
[49] Jean-Loup Chappelet, “Governance in International Sport Organizations,” 15 Int’l Sports L. Rev. 89 (2023).
[50] Deloitte Sports Business Group, Annual Review of Football Finance 2023 (2023).
[51] Association of Summer Olympic International Federations [ASOIF], Fourth Review of International Federation Governance (2023).
[52] Play the Game, Sports Governance Observer 2023 (Danish Inst. for Sports Studs. 2023).
[53] Court of Arbitration for Sport [CAS], CAS Annual Report 2023 (2023).
[54] European Commission, EU Sports Governance Report (2023).
[55] United States Department of Justice, FIFA Corruption Cases: Indictment Review (2015).
[56]FIFA, FIFA Forward Programme: Governance Reform Implementation Report (2022).
[57] Roger Pielke Jr., Sports Governance Reform: Beyond Surface Changes, 15 J. Sport Pol’y 156 (2023).
[58] KPMG Sports Advisory, Professional Management in Sports Federations: Global Review (2023).
[59] International Olympic Committee [IOC], Olympic Agenda 2020+5: Implementation Progress Report (2023).
[60] Sean Hamil, Commercial Transformation in Sports Governance, 26 Sport Mgmt. Rev. 301 (2023).
[61] Ernst & Young, Risk Management in International Sports: Annual Review (2023).
[62] Anne Geeraert, Governance Challenges in International Sport, 15 Int’l J. Sport Pol’y & Pol. 1 (2023).
[63] Kenneth Foster, The Transformation of Sports Governance, in The Evolution of Sports Law and Governance 127-145 (2023).
[64] Jean-Loup Chappelet & Maja Mrkonjic, Basic Indicators for Better Governance in International Sport, 1 IDHEAP Working Papers 1 (2023).
[65] Milena M. Parent & Russell Hoye, Contemporary Issues in Sport Governance, 26 Sport Mgmt. Rev. 216 (2023).
[66] International Olympic Committee [IOC], Olympic Agenda 2020+5: Implementation Challenges Report (2023).
[67] Richard Pound, Modern Sport Governance: Challenges and Solutions, 15 Int’l Sports L. Rev. 89 (2023).
[68] Association of Summer Olympic International Federations [ASOIF], Third Review of International Federation Governance (2023).
[69] Play the Game, Sports Governance Observer 2023: The Crisis of Legitimacy (Danish Inst. for Sports Studs. 2023).
[70] PricewaterhouseCoopers, Financial Governance in International Sport: Annual Review 2023 (2023).
[71] Deloitte Sports Business Group, Annual Review of Football Finance 2023 (2023).
[72] Deloitte, Sports Industry: Financial Governance Challenges, Sports Bus. Rep. 45 (2023).
[73] Transparency International, Global Corruption Report: Sport (2023).
[74] United States Department of Justice, FIFA Corruption Cases: Indictment Review (2015).
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
