Modernising sports governance without corporatising

Daniel Taylor says the world of sport has much to learn from corporate governance – and good reason to resist parts of it

Few phrases provoke as much anxiety in UK sport as ‘corporate governance’. For many volunteers and long-serving officials, it conjures images of remote boards, managerial jargon and a loss of identity. The fear is not unfounded; there are examples of reform that have professionalised process while hollowing out purpose.

And yet the alternative, resisting modernisation altogether, is no longer credible. Sports governing bodies operate in a world of public funding, safeguarding expectations, media scrutiny, and political oversight. Governance arrangements that once relied on trust and familiarity must now withstand external challenge.

The task, then, is not to decide whether to modernise, but how. The anthology The Political Economy of the Company, edited by law professor John Parkinson and politics professor Andrew Gamble, is helpful here precisely because it refuses easy answers. It distinguishes between necessary institutional evolution and the uncritical importation of corporate forms.

Sport has much to learn from corporate governance. It also has good reason to resist parts of it.

What sport can learn

The first lesson is that governance is about judgement, not just representation. Corporate governance reforms emerged not because shareholders wanted more voice, but because institutions needed boards capable of holding executives to account and thinking beyond immediate interests.

In sport, the parallel is clear. As organisations professionalise, boards must be able to make decisions that are unpopular in the short term but essential in the long term. That requires skill, independence of thinking, and clarity of role.

Second, sport can learn the value of clear accountability. One of the enduring insights of Parkinson’s work on non-executive directors is that independence exists to serve the institution, not to arbitrate between factions. Independent directors bring perspective, not neutrality.

Where sports bodies have embraced this idea, boards tend to function better. Where independence is treated as symbolic, frustration follows.

Third, corporate governance has shown the importance of role clarity between ownership, oversight, and management. Sport often collapses these distinctions, to the detriment of all three.

What sport must resist

At the same time, sport should resist the idea that it is simply another industry. Its legitimacy does not derive from capital investment but from participation, tradition and social value.

Corporate governance models that prioritise efficiency above all else risk eroding precisely what makes sport distinctive. Volunteer engagement, community identity and moral authority cannot be engineered through structure alone.

The danger lies in mistaking form for substance. Adopting corporate language, committee structures and reporting formats does not automatically improve governance. In some cases, it works to disguise unresolved tensions.

As Gamble cautions, governance models must fit institutional purpose. Importing mechanisms without understanding the problem they are meant to solve often creates new dysfunctions.

The false binary of tradition versus professionalism

Much of the resistance to governance reform in sport rests on a false choice: remain true to tradition or become corporate. This framing is unhelpful.

Tradition itself was once innovative. Many governance arrangements now defended as sacrosanct were pragmatic responses to past conditions. Honouring tradition means stewarding its underlying values, not freezing its forms.

Professionalism need not mean detachment. Boards can be skilled without being remote. Structures can be robust without being bureaucratic. The question is always: what kind of institution are we trying to govern?

A practical tool: the modernisation test

Before adopting any major governance reform, sports bodies would benefit from applying a modernisation test:

Problem clarity – What specific governance problem are we trying to solve?

Institutional fit – How does this reform support the governing body’s role as steward of the sport, not just as an organisation?

Cultural impact – What behaviours does this change encourage or discourage?

Voice and legitimacy – How are member and participant voices preserved or enhanced?

Reversibility – If this reform proves unhelpful, can it be adapted without destabilising the institution?

Used consistently, this test helps organisations modernise thoughtfully rather than defensively. It creates space for learning, not just compliance.

Modernisation as stewardship

Ultimately, modernising sport governance is not about becoming more corporate. It is about becoming more conscious of what the institution is and what it exists to protect. The Political Economy of the Company reminds us that governance is never neutral. It reflects choices about power, purpose, and responsibility. In sport, those choices matter not just to members, but to the communities and generations that follow.

The challenge is to modernise in a way that strengthens stewardship rather than diluting it. That is not a technical task; it is an institutional one.