Badminton World Federation: A Winning Model for Democratizing Sport in the 21st Century? – Michael Pedersen
July 17, 2013
Besides the member associations, the following stakeholder groups have the right to speak (but not vote) at the general assembly:
>Regional federations
>Regional or special interest members or associate members
>Council members
>Honorary life-long vice presidents
>The Secretary General of Badminton World Federation
Nominees for election not otherwise authorized to vote or speak can attend the general assembly, during which the election takes place. However, they are not permitted to speak, unless authorized by the chair. Also, the chair has authority to admit observers to attend the general assembly. Such observers are not permitted to speak unless authorized by the chair.
Except for particular legislative matters such as approving revisions to the Constitution and Laws of Badminton, which are the sole responsibility of the general assembly, the Council of Badminton World Federation both oversees executive, legislative as well as judicial matters. Accordingly, on one hand the Council is entitled to devise internal, athletic, event and ‘sport in society’ governance standards, i.e. in the form of specific policies and processes. On the other hand, the Council is also entitled to monitor and investigate the adherence to such standards and to eventually sanction proven cases of wrongdoing.
There is a particular governance system in place to consider and sanction breaches of rules. It is designed to ensure checks and balances and a high degree of independence in the process of considering specific cases. On one hand, a particular Disciplinary Committee is mandated to sanction member federations, players, coaches, competition officials and others for infringement of rules. On the other hand, a particular Appeals Panel is mandated to consider appeals to sanctions imposed by the Disciplinary Committee. Members of the Disciplinary Committee are appointed by the Council and can be Council members too. Members of the Appeals Panel are independent arbitrators in the sense that (1) they are elected at the general assembly upon nomination by member associations and (2) Council members and staff of Badminton World Federation as well as council members and staff of regional federations are not eligible for election. Furthermore, potential national and regional conflicts of interests are structurally evened out by ensuring a minimum of two members in the Appeals Panel from each of five regions.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport is the only competent judicial authority external to Badminton World Federation. Its rulings are final with no possibility for further appeal. Appeals, complaints and dispute-resolution processes must be fully exhausted within the Badminton World Federation governance system, before a case can be referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Some challenging questions for sport leaders to consider
Besides being an inspiring case of change, the democratic governance system of Badminton World Federation offers an interesting opportunity for sport leaders across the world to rethink sport democratization, as they start modernizing their governance standards to get fit for purpose in the 21st century. A non-exhaustive list of key questions is as follows:
- >Which are the strengths and weaknesses of the democratic governance system that characterizes Badminton World Federation?
- >To what extent do all member associations that form part of the democratic governance system of a sport governing body consider a ‘one member association, one vote’ governance system legitimate and fair in ensuring equality, freedom and rule of law? – What are the characteristics of member associations ‘losing’ and ‘winning’ in such a democratic governance system?
- >Acknowledging the importance of the separation of executive, legislative and judicial bodies in the democratic governance system of a country, what could be the nature of similar independent checks and balances to be introduced in the governance system of a sport governing body? – Which are the strengths and weaknesses in having a person wear one hat only vs. two or three hats as far as executive, legislative and judicial matters are concerned? – Which are the potential conflicts of interest to handle for a person wearing one hat vs. two or three hats?
- >How to best ensure a high rate of member associations represented at a general assembly?
- >How to best avoid the risk of member associations ‘selling’ and ‘buying’ votes for a general assembly?
- >How to best give all key stakeholders of a sport the opportunity to have their voices heard at a general assembly?
- >Which are the pros and cons in having transparent voting vs secret ballots at a general assembly?
- >How to best ensure that the candidates most fit for the job have a fair chance of getting nominated for the board and eventually elected?
- >Which are the pros and cons in having a general assembly directly elect the president/chairman of the board?
- >How long should a term-in-office be for a board member? – How many times should it be possible to re-elect a board member? – Should there be different rules for the president/chairman of the board vis-à-vis other board members?
- >Which should be the criteria and the process for raising a censure and subsequently expelling a president/chairman, another board member or the entire board before the end of the term-in-office that they have been elected for?
- >What would a model democratic governance system of a sport governing body look like, which makes it fit for purpose in the 21st century? – What would be different compared to existing governance standards?
Links to my previous contributions for iSportconnect’s expert column on sport governance:
2. ‘The Business Case for Good Governance in Sport’
1. ‘Sport Governance – What Are We Actually Talking About?’
Michael Pedersen, Founder of M INC., is an internationally recognized expert and leader in good governance, transparency, ethics and integrity.
