The paradox of autonomy for sports organizations

Home > Opinion > Columns

The paradox of autonomy for sports organizations

Published: 20 Nov. 2024, 20:06 Updated: 20 Nov. 2024, 23:31

Kim Ki-han
The author is a professor of sports management at Seoul National University.

Korea’s sports associations seem to enshrine the principle of autonomy, as they are convinced they should be allowed to make decisions without any outside intervention. Gold medalist An Se-young’s emotional demand for the Badminton Korea Association to advance its sports management upon returning from the 2024 Paris Olympics still reverberates. At that time, many people sympathized with her strong complaints about the outmoded athlete management by the badminton association. Nevertheless, the Korean Sports & Olympic Committee (KSOC) — the mastermind of all sports in Korea — stressed the spirit of autonomy stipulated in the Olympic Charter, warning that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was closely watching the case in Korea.

As the dubious process of recruiting the manager of the national football team came under scrutiny, public distrust in the Korea Football Association (KFA) is deepening further. The KFA even claimed that FIFA could disqualify Team Korea from competing in the World Cup because raising such issues infringes on the autonomy of KFA. Regrettably, the football association still seems to be stuck in their own world.

But apparently, Korean sports associations are also not aware that their autonomy includes good governance. The IOC drew up the Code of Ethics in the aftermath of the 1999 bribery scandal in the lead-up to Salt Lake City’s hosting of the 2002 Winter Olympics. The IOC’s governance failure led to reform measures such as limiting the chairman’s term in office to a maximum of 12 years. In the same context, former IOC Chairman Jacque Rogge underscored the importance of transparency, democracy and responsibility in a speech to the European Olympic Committees after his election as the chairman in 2001.

In a 2007 seminar on the autonomy of sports, the IOC defined “good governance” as a basic requirement to secure autonomy for the IOC and other sports organizations. This declaration led to the establishment in 2008 of “Basic Universal Principles (BUPs) of Good Governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement,” which highlighted the significance of maintaining autonomy while sustaining harmonious relations with governments.

The IOC Congress in 2009 made it clear that autonomy doesn’t mean unfettered rights for sports organizations, stressing that they deserve respect only when backed by the highest-level moral standard and good governance. The IOC also made it mandatory for Olympic-related organizations to apply the guidelines to themselves. In 2011, “good governance” was inserted into the Olympic Charter as one of the basic principles of the Olympic Spirit.

In a speech to the UN General Assembly in 2013, current IOC President Thomas Bach underlined “responsible autonomy,” which refers to “law-abiding autonomy,” as “perfect autonomy” that hardly exists in the real world. The “IOC Doctrine” was reflected in the “Olympic Agenda 2020,” a road map laid out in 2014 for the long-term development of the Olympic body.

Many Koreans and sports fans demand the KSOC and KFA to implement the road map swiftly due to their failed governance. And yet, the two are still obsessed with “noninterference” under the cover of autonomy for sports. But we wonder how many people would sympathize with their novel attempt to portray themselves as crusaders against repression.

Autonomy without responsibility only invites more interventions from outside. The government plans to change the way it hands out subsidies to the KSOC and its local branches — from giving the money to the KSOC to distribute to directly delivering the subsidy to local branches.

The government also intends to designate sports organizations as “public office-related entities.” In that case, the Ministry of Sports will be able to directly oversee them. The ministry also plans to establish a system to monitor sports organizations 24/7 by making a decree to check how the subsidy was spent by them. Given the massive size of the subsidy for the KSOC — nearly 500 billion won ($349.5 million) per year — tightening government oversight is natural. The legislature is also pushing for a revision to the related law to allow the government to monitor cases of sports ethics violations when they are reported to the Sports Ethics Center under the ministry.

Nevertheless, the Sports Fairness Committee of the KSOC endorsed a request from its controversial chairman to extend his term again. The current chairman has been criticized for appointing members of its fairness committee to create assessment standards favorable to him. If the head of the KSOC has a third term, the autonomy of our sports and sports associations will weaken rather than grow.

Translation by the Korea JoongAng Daily staff.