Democracy in sports

Democracy is a system of political governance in which power is held by the people (Greek: demos-people, kratos-power). Each country has its own unique democratic model, but the main features are similar: a multi-party system, active citizen participation, power-sharing, free and democratic elections where political pluralism is respected, public debate takes place and every vote is considered equal regardless of status or influence.

The current institutional environment has created a normative framework and organisational structure that restricts the democratic functioning of sports organisations (Bergovica, et.al., 2020, p. 1). The decision-making process in sports federations is far from democratic and is concentrated in the hands of a few senior officials. Strong control combined with an elitist ideology promotes a narrow focus on national teams, linking the social appeal of sport to political and commercial interests (Girginov 2008, p. 44). The concentration of huge amounts of capital in the hands of a few individuals, not subject to democratic control, is one of the most pressing problems of sports governance. It calls for strengthening the political status of athletes themselves and transforming the ‘democratisation’ of sport into a flexible and functional sports democracy (Meeuwsen, Kreft 2023, p. 352).

This is why the Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)12 on good governance in sport stresses the need for democratic governance in sports organisations to prevent the dominance of oligarchs. Democracy is not a static concept, but a continuous process that includes the fight against oligarchy (Drochon, 2020, p. 192).

As researchers (Lipset, Trow, Coleman 1962) have concluded, oligarchic governance is caused by two main reasons: 1) managers’ monopolistic approach to governance and 2) members or stakeholders of the organisation are often passive and do not engage in power struggles because they lack time, resources and knowledge (Enjorlas, Waldahl 2010, p. 216). This constellation, mainly due to the long and failed transition process from socialist to capitalist systems, has led to a hybrid political regime – illiberal democracy (Zakaria, 1997), creating authoritarian sport governance systems that incorporate some elements of democracy. Such a political model implies a calculated and privileged process of power and decision-making (Bergovitz, et.al., 2020, p. 8). After independence, many post-socialist countries moved to a democratic model of governance de jure, but their de facto political systems still contain totalitarian features. This institutional environment also affects sports organisations, which adapt to the prevailing political context. As Meyer and Rowan (1977) have pointed out, the institutional context determines the normative frameworks, values and principles of sport organisations, thus exposing them to political pressures (Bergovitz, et.al., 2020, p. 2). For example, it was concluded that the institutional environment of the Montenegrin sport governance system, which was then going through a period of socialist transition, had created a bureaucratised decision-making structure based on political interests and various forms of favouritism in decision-making and financial resource allocation (Bergovica, et.al. 2020. p. 12). To improve and democratise the system, it was proposed to limit the term of office of the President to four years, without the possibility of re-election, and without a formal status of superiority over other members of the governing bodies; The main weaknesses in the governance of the sport system were noted as: (1) a system of delegation – delegated representatives make decisions in isolation from stakeholders without taking their interests into account; (2) athletes themselves have no right to direct representation in decision-making bodies; (3) inadequate organisational culture – lack of strategic planning, accountability and transparency (RSIZ 1985) (Bergovica, et. al.al. 2020, p. 6).

In Hungary, Orbán’s political party has undermined the independent media, which has a direct impact on democratic principles. A study on the context of illiberal democracy in Hungary found that social status influences attitudes towards the existing political system. People of lower status do not support the current order, but it is easier to persuade them to change their position at election time, as the 2018 elections demonstrated. High-status individuals, who benefit directly from the current regime, are the most supportive of the current authoritarian system, while high-status members of the opposition are the most difficult to win over to the incumbent. Research has found that individuals may support social systems that conflict with their personal or group interests, especially if they experience cognitive dissonance and a need to justify their problems (Lönnqvist, Szabó, Kelemen, 2021). Research suggests that prolonged presidency in a public sport governance organisation may be undesirable and ineffective for several reasons: Prolonged presidency may lead to concentration of power and abuse of power. To prevent such scenarios, it is important to set term limits, as seen in cases such as Jack Warner’s 21-year tenure at CONCACAF, which resulted in numerous corruption allegations.

The debate on time limits has a long history, dating back to ancient Athens and Rome. Term limits are seen as a means to reduce the risk of an individual accumulating excessive power and beginning to exert authoritarian influence over all decision-making. This problem is particularly acute in international sports organisations such as FIFA, where long-serving presidents such as Sepp Blatter have taken advantage of their tenure to stay in power. Long-term leadership can hinder innovation and the introduction of new ideas, as the same person can continue to pursue familiar, profitable and conservative strategies without making any attempt to adapt and understand new and changing circumstances. Although some studies suggest that longer tenure may be associated with better performance due to accumulated experience, this should be seen more as an exception. In many cases, new managers can bring new energy and strategies that improve organisational effectiveness and performance (Geeraert et.al., Danish Institute of Sports Studies, 2023). The specific formats of term limits used in sports governance vary widely, but the most common model is a three- to four-year tenure with a maximum of eight years.

While democracy has been criticised as imperfect and unwieldy, any other system of government devised by humankind is worse (Parry, 2015 p. 29). A democratic working environment is the foundation that ensures rational and progressive development (Reich 1970, p. 311). In the governance of organisations, an ethical and democratic decision-making model is essential for all actors to have a voice and be supported in conflict resolution (Maclagan 1996, p. 647). Public involvement in different organisations is indicative of the level of democracy in a country (Secretariat of the Minister for Special Assignments for Public Integration 2008, Paiken 2019, pp. 44). It is important for those demanding better conditions and change to realise that without their recognition and inclusion as political subjects in the political process, they may only succeed episodically, but in the long run they will never be able to overcome their lack of political power and inability to influence decision-making. In order to achieve sustainable and meaningful progress, these groups must not only be able to make demands, but also to gain permanent participation and a real chance to participate in political processes. Such inclusion and cooperation allow for mutual understanding, compromise and the development of long-term solutions that satisfy the interests of all stakeholders (Meeuwsen, Kreft 2023, p. 351).

In Finland, the Centre for Sports Integrity, a non-governmental organisation that monitors ethics and fair play in sport, was established in 2016. Although it does not constitute a full-fledged integrity system, the organisation’s initiatives are an important first step in protecting sport against destructive practices (Kihl 2022, p. 169). Such organisations draw the attention of governments and legislators to violations of fair play, promote the necessary improvement of legislation, encourage whistleblowers and support the politically and financially weaker parties, thus contributing to a democratic working environment in sport.

“The Bottom Up concept is a way for society itself to defend democratic values in sport. Democracy is not static – it needs to be defended and fought for all the time, and no governing body can do this better than civil society itself. In Swedish sports governance, for example, the ‘Bottom Up’ approach is an essential part of defending democracy. Swedish sports organisations, operating as voluntary associations, sustain democracy through participatory and public engagement structures, allowing elected representatives of sports organisation members to legitimately participate in sports policy processes. Members of sports organisations at local level thus have power in decision-making and governance. The Bottom Up concept in sports governance is considered as a guarantee of democracy (Stenling et.al, 2023).