This paper sought to examine the stakeholder network governance structures of two international and two domestic multisports events focusing on (a) exploring the structural connectedness of these networks and (b) illuminating powerful stakeholders vis-à-vis centrality and the ability to control the network’s flow. An exploratory, comparative case study design was built by means of 58 interviews and 550 archival materials. Findings highlight international sports events are sparsely connected networks with power concentrated in the organizing committee, government, and venue stakeholders, who broker coordination with other stakeholders. In contrast, domestic sport event organizing committees appear more decentralized as coordinating actors: Sport organizations, sponsors, and community-based stakeholders emerged as highly connected, powerful stakeholders. Domestic event governance decentralization highlights a potential imbalance in stakeholder interests through network flow control by multiple actors, while the governments’ centrality in international events demonstrates not only mode-dependent salience but also visibility/reputational risks and jurisdictional responsibilities-based salience.
Michael L. Naraine, Jessie Schenk, and Milena M. Parent
Mathew Dowling, Becca Leopkey, and Lee Smith
Governance in sport has become a central concern to sport management academics and practitioners in recent years as evidenced by the number of keynotes (e.g., Shilbury, 2016 ), special issues (e.g., Dolles & Söderman, 2011 ), and books (e.g., Hoye & Cuskelly, 2007 ; King, 2017 ) dedicated to
Callie Batts Maddox
between the IBAF and ISF, an untidy process that revealed schisms in the ways that each organization approached its sport and envisioned its future. As a response to the challenge and threat of Olympic exclusion, the WBSC offers a unique model of international governance in which two different sports are
Ian O’Boyle, David Shilbury, and Lesley Ferkins
With an increase in public attention being placed on the issue of leadership in sport, and in particular the sport governance setting, this article argues that there is a need to establish, as an initial step, a working model for leadership in the nonprofit sport governance setting. Leadership
Joshua McLeod, David Shilbury, and Géraldine Zeimers
sector ( Dowling, Edwards, & Washington, 2014 ). Changing governance practices are also a key outcome of professionalization. Studies have illustrated the development of board roles, board strategic capability, and board leadership in this evolving context ( Ferkins & Shilbury, 2010 , 2012 ; Hoye, 2006
Lisa A. Kihl and Vicki Schull
Globally, sport governance systems have experienced a democratic shift in terms of expanding the forms and mechanisms of athlete representation across international, national, and local sports’ governing bodies (e.g., Geeraert, Alm, & Groll, 2013 ; Jackson & Richie, 2007 ; Thibault, Kihl
Lucy V. Piggott and Jordan J.K. Matthews
Researchers from a wide range of nations and regions have identified sport leadership and governance as being gender-imbalanced and gender-inequitable. This includes scholars from Africa ( Titus, 2011 ), Australasia ( Adriaanse & Schofield, 2013 , 2014 ), Europe (see a range of chapters in Elling
Milena M. Parent, Michael L. Naraine, and Russell Hoye
Significant changes have occurred in the sport system landscape since Slack and his colleagues (e.g., Kikulis, Slack, & Hinings, 1992 ; Slack & Hinings, 1992 , 1994 ; Thibault, Slack, & Hinings, 1991 , 1992 ) examined the governance and management of Canadian national sport organizations (NSOs
Eddie T.C. Lam
By Mathieu Winand and Christos Anagnostopoulos. Published 2019 by Edward Elgar , Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA. $260.00 . 479 pp. ISBN 978-1-78643-481-4 The Research Handbook on Sport Governance has 28 chapters from 47 contributing authors and is divided into seven sections: “Principles of
Steve Booth Marston
article addresses the racial politics of sport management through a discourse study of NBA gameplay governance. I focus on the 1990–2006 period, during which officials instituted a series of policies that narrowed permissible bodily contact and increased penalties for violations. The rule changes occurred
