Search Results

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.

This study explores how trust is manifested and impacts on the levels of collaboration that take place in sport governance networks. A case study approach was used as the guiding method to examine the contributing factors that facilitate or inhibit trusting relationships between boards within sporting networks. Three sports from Australia were employed as the population for the study and 36 in-depth interviews were conducted with participants from national and state organizations operating within those networks, two federated and one partially unified. Interviews were analyzed using an interpretive process, and a thematic structure relating to the issues and impact of trust and distrust within the three networks was developed. Extant levels of trust, transparency, the capacity to build trust, and leadership emerged as the key themes in the study. The degree to which each of these dimensions was embedded in the cultures and processes of each network varied significantly. Leadership specifically, as a key finding, was shown to be an important factor in fostering collaborative relations at the governance level of these systems. A number of implications for sport governance practice and possible extensions for sport governance research based on these findings conclude the article.

This paper presents the outcomes of an 18-month developmental action research study to enhance the governance capability of a national sport organization. Bowls Australia, the national governing body for lawn bowls in Australia, includes nine independent state and territory member-associations. An intervention was designed and implemented with the Bowls Australia Board. The purpose of the intervention was to enact collaborative governance to overcome a perceived cultural malaise in the governance of the sport. This study is one of the first to examine collaborative governance in a federal sport structure. Results demonstrate the utility of collaborative governance to overcome adversarial national, member-state relations for the purpose of establishing a common and unifying vision for bowls, while also enhancing governance capability. This study identified the importance of collective board leadership in governance decision-making throughout the sport. It also highlights future research directions in relation to collective board leadership in federal governance structures.