1.1 Research Background
The initial fundamental roles of international sports federations (IFs) have been mainly regulatory and restricted to the matter of the international competitions at a global level. The modern functions of IFs, however, are expanding dramatically (ASOIF, 2019, p. 16). In fact, while IFs are substantively constituted through self-governing private norms (Casini, 2015), their institutional actions have an impact beyond the international competitions they organise.
For example, the Olympic Charter or the World Anti-Doping Code are traditionally referenced in sports related national laws, which demonstrates a interpenetration of private norms and public authority from the regulatory, institutional and procedural perspectives (Casini, 2015).
The examination of elite sports policy is no longer confined within national boundaries, rather it should take the “international influence” more into account (Houlihan & Green, 2005, p. 9).
Against this background, the international sports federations (IFs) can reasonably be regarded as regimes of international sports policy (Houlihan, 2009). Houlihan (2009) observed some unique regime features that are generally shared by these IFs: they demonstrate stable stakeholder relations and have processes in place enabling stakeholders’ voices to be heard (or ignored); they have the institutional capacity to set agendas, monitor policies, and review, verify, or enforce compliance; they also vigorously promote or police their own values. Moreover, their actions constitute at large the international influence observed at the domestic scene of
public policymaking (Houlihan, 2009). Given this observed influence exerted by international sports federations, it is particularly relevant to examine systematically, and in more detail, in what ways IFs exert their influence over the national actors.
While there is a divergence of opinions in the academic discussion of international regimes regarding the extent to which institutionalism matters (Hasenclever et al., 1997), this research assumes an institutionalist point of view that acknowledges the significant role IFs play in setting the norms of their international sports community through their institutional actions.
Effectively, while modern IGBs interact with various stakeholders across private and public sectors (Chappelet, 2016; Henry & Lee, 2004), the majority of their policies and rules are affecting their national federations, and subsequently the individuals (coaches, athletes, competition officials, etc) and organisations (clubs, regional federations, schools) affiliated with the national federations. The researcher further argues that most national federations are inclined to comply, and the majority of non-compliance cases arises from a lack of resources.
As a result, it is particularly intriguing to examine the ways in which the international sports policy regimes manage to exert their influence on the presumably autonomous jurisdiction of their national federations.
In general, scholarly investigations into the roles of international sports federations as a collective community are scarce, both in the field of International Relations (IR) and Sports Policy studies (Budd & Levermore, 2004; Keys, 2009), and too often the focus is placed on
unicorn organisations, such as the International Football Federation (FIFA) or the International Olympic Committee (IOC) (Clausen, 2018; Forster & Pope, 2004).
Furthermore, it is perhaps not only the lack of academic attention that causes this field being under-researched. Haas (1998) commented that the extent to which national actors comply with an international regime is particularly difficult to measure, and the causality between an international regime’s institutional actions or international rules and national compliant behaviours is also difficult to prove.
However, one notable exception to the past lack of academic attention on international sports regimes is the increasing amount of research on the regime effectiveness of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in the last decade (Fincoeur et al., 2015; Gray, 2019; Hanstad
& Houlihan, 2015; Houlihan, 1999, 2004, 2014; Tan et al., 2018; Ulrich et al., 2018;
Westmattelmann et al., 2018). These studies about the international anti-doping policy regime offer a great starting point and inform the complexity and scope of international regime theory for this research. While the studies about the international anti-doping policy regime (Gray,
2019; Houlihan, 1999, 2014; Tan et al., 2018) may have a different focus from this research, their theoretical groundwork can certainly be extended to this research, particularly concerning the challenges of ensuring the effectiveness of and the compliance within a sports policy regime, as well as national actors’ responses to an international sport regime’s compliance requirements.
1.2 Research Questions
Two specific research questions are outlined as followed:
a. How do international sports federations induce their member national federations’
compliance?
b. What are the theoretical implications of these strategies utilised by IFs with regard to the applicability of international regime theory in the context of international sports?
1.3 Research Aim and Objective
This research aims to examine the operation of IFs interfacing with their national federations in order to deepen the understanding of IFs’ role as the sports policy regimes and the ways in which they exert their influence over their national federations. The objective of this research is to explore the strategies of international sports federations to induce compliance by their member federations, through the application of international regime theory, specifically the theoretical concept of compliance. Thereby, this research attempts to theorise the distinctive features of regime influence in the context of international sports.
1.4 Research Contribution
This research sheds light on an under-explored field of international relations and international sports. Using the perspective of international regime theory, it enhances the understanding of international sports federations’ operation specifically concerning the ways in
which they interface with their national federations. Empirical evidence into the day-to-day operations of IFs is gathered to inform the theorising of IFs’ role as sports policy regimes, and in the global development of sports worldwide.
Thereby, this research will also map out the distinctive features of regime influence in the context of international sports. These findings not only lay the groundwork for future research into international sports policy regimes, but also contribute to two practically dimensions for policy actors. First, from the perspective of international sports federations, the enhancement of knowledge towards compliance inducement may contribute to a more robust overall programme of regime governing, specifically with regard to the interactions with their memberships, and subsequently to more effective policy regimes. Second, national actors may also benefit from an enhanced understanding of interfacing with the international sports policy regimes. In the case of Taiwan, for example, these insights may inform the critical reflection on the effectiveness of its current international policy of sport aiming to “take immense stride to the world” (Sports Administration of Taiwan, 2017, p. 46), assist in formulating a national strategy, and help position sports at the heart of the state government’s pursuit of a meaningful national presence in the international community.