Suchergebnisse

PurposeTo identify the organisations that provide global governance within the sports industry, to discuss their role, and to suggest that they have self‐governance problems due to both their evolution and the massive commercialisation of sport of recent decades.Design/methodology/approachAn empirical‐based argument is conducted. Standing at the apex of a hierarchy of national governing bodies and playing organisations, global sports organisations (GSOs) are defined and classified in terms of their governance functions, their commonalities and differences and their interconnections described and analysed. The GSOs for soccer, the Olympics and athletics are used as illustrative cases. Deficiencies in the small sports governance literature are identified. It is argued how the GSOs have maintained their authority as governance organisations despite being private organisations. Hirschman's "Voice, exit and loyalty" model is offered as a partial theoretical interpretation of their situation.FindingsAlthough one of the GSOs' original major functions of formalising international sport is now complete, they have retained not only their sport governance monopolies and authority but also the original structures designed for amateur sport. This creates problems when the governance monopoly can be used as a revenue device.Originality/valueSport is an important part of global culture and an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars where accusations of corruption are common but global governance is little examined. The GSOs, present‐day commercial roles and enormous revenues create unresolved governance problems and these are described.

Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- Brit. 208 ef

The nature of the settlement of Australia and New Zealand created, in the first half of this century, a society marked by its homogeneity. In the last quarter-century the range of alternatives has been widened and both countries have taken on the attributes of all modern economically developed nations. As a result, the images of the past have become de creasingly relevant to the contemporary way of life. However, the national identity of both countries is strongly developed and the institutional structure well established. Although many strains are likely to be apparent in the social structure over the next decades, it is difficult to foresee any fundamental shift in the character of the two countries.

The nature of the settlement of Australia & New Zealand created, in the first half of this cent, a society marked by homogeneity. In the last quarter-cent the range of alternatives has been widened & both countries have taken on the attributes of all modern econ'ly developed nations. As a result, the images of the past have become decreasingly relevant to the contemporary way of life. However, the nat'l identity of both countries is strongly developed & the instit'al structure well established. Although many strains are likely to be apparent in the soc structure over the next decades, it is difficult to foresee any fundamental shift in the character of the 2 countries. HA.