Sports reforms follow scandals rather than prevent them, says integrity chief

Governance structures are often reviewed after confidence has been damaged, while independent mechanisms are only considered after internal mechanisms have proved insufficient, says Sport Integrity Global Alliance chief Emanuel Macedo de Medeiros.

Sports reforms follow scandals rather than prevent them, says integrity chief

GENEVA: An advocate of sports integrity questions whether leadership is being exercised when it matters most, as the world of sports grapples with poor governance and trust issues.

Sport Integrity Global Alliance (SIGA) global co-founder and global chief executive officer Emanuel Macedo de Medeiros also stressed that, for decades, reforms in sport had too often followed scandals rather than prevented them.

“Rules are strengthened after failures become public. Governance structures are reviewed after confidence has been damaged. Independent mechanisms are considered after internal mechanisms have proved insufficient,” de Medeiros wrote in his latest article published on SIGA’s website.

“Then everybody asks how it was allowed to happen. We should be asking that question before it happens.”

Fifa hogged the spotlight for the wrong reasons following the proposed Fifa Forward Enterprise project, which has since been abandoned after opposition from confederations, including UEFA, CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation, over a lack of consultation. The dispute has fuelled demands for changes to the world football body’s governance.

In Malaysia, more than a year has passed since Fifa sanctioned the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) and seven footballers over the doctored documentation saga that made international headlines. Yet, to date, no one has been hauled up over the episode.

He added that leadership was not primarily about managing the consequences of a crisis, but about recognising vulnerabilities early enough to prevent one in the first place.

“That requires something particularly difficult from those who exercise power: the willingness to question the systems from which their own authority derives,” he said.

“It requires institutions to recognise weaknesses before their critics expose them. And it requires leaders to accept scrutiny precisely when they believe they do not need it.”

He pointed out that the power exercised by major sporting organisations was no longer merely sporting.

“Their decisions affect governments, economies, cities, investors, broadcasters, sponsors, athletes, and billions of citizens and fans. They award competitions and major events. They regulate access to markets. They determine how enormous financial resources are distributed. And their decisions can have consequences extending far beyond the field of play.

“That reality changes the equation. The greater the power, the stronger the scrutiny must be.”

De Medeiros added that autonomy remained essential to sport.

“I have defended it throughout my professional life and will continue to do so. But, as I often say, autonomy is neither unlimited nor unconditional. It cannot mean that organisations exercising enormous global power should remain the ultimate judges of whether that power is being exercised properly.

“No serious system of governance should depend upon that proposition.”

De Medeiros added that there was still a deeply rooted tendency in institutional life to believe that scrutiny became necessary only when something had gone wrong.

“That gets the principle backwards. The purpose of scrutiny is not to embarrass institutions. It is to strengthen them.

“Independent scrutiny should not be regarded as the punishment for failure. It should be part of the protection against failure. Nor does it undermine autonomy.

“Properly designed, it reinforces autonomy by giving institutions something that self-assessment alone can never provide: credibility beyond themselves.”

He added that this was why SIGA had always advocated “Name and Fame”, not “Name and Shame”. The objective of independent scrutiny was not to catch institutions out, but to help them become stronger.

“Sports have spent decades defending its right to govern itself. That right carries a corresponding responsibility to demonstrate that it governs itself well. Otherwise, autonomy becomes increasingly difficult to defend.

“Autonomy without accountability eventually loses legitimacy. This is not a theoretical debate. It goes to the heart of the institutional challenges now confronting global sports,” he added.