2014 North American Society for Sport Management Conference (NASSM 2014)
!
Emerging Trends in Corruption in Sport: Implications for Sport Management
Samantha Gorse, Centre for the International Business of Sport, Coventry University
Simon Chadwick (Advisor), Centre for the International Business of Sport, Coventry University
Terri Byers (Advisor), Centre for the International Business of Sport, Coventry University
Governance
Abstract 2014-125
Friday, May 30, 2014
11:10 AM
20-minute oral presentation
(including questions)
(Allegheny)
Academic attention on corruption in sport has focused on two lines of enquiry: defining corruption (Maennig, 2005;
Hughes & Coakley, 1999) and identifying the impacts of corruption on the business of sport (Gorse & Chadwick,
2010; Connor & Mazanov, 2010). Gorse & Chadwick (2010) argue that corruption in international sport undermines
the integrity of sporting competition and impacts on the foundations of the sport ethic–fair play and the concept of
uncertainty of outcome. Developing from Neale’s (1964) Louis-Schmelling-Paradox, with a foundation of
Rottenberg’s (1956) theory of competitive balance, the uncertainty of outcome hypothesis is based on the principle
that the more unpredictable the result of a sporting competition is, the greater the demand will be for that
competition (Alavy et al, 2006). As suggested by McLaren (2008: 15), the integrity of sporting competition is pivotal
to its success – once lost, “it is very difficult to ever retrieve”. Knowing the result of a game or race, or discovering
afterwards that the winner had used performance enhancing substances, can impact on television viewing and
attendance figures of sporting events (Preston & Syzmanski, 2006), potentially effecting the revenue generated from
media organisation in television rights. Sponsors may not want to be associated with athletes, teams, sports or events
that have a history tarnished by cheating due to the potential impact on brand equity and perception and, as a result,
on sales. Advertisers and media organisations may not want to be seen as being associated with those associated with
a scandal and major challenges are presented to the gambling industry (Forrest & Simmons, 2006), governing bodies
and legal entities, like the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in managing of these cases.
One of the fundamental issues in defining corruption is the understanding that behaviour deemed corrupt needs to
deviate from normal duties or to be seen as violating rules. Collins et al (2009) state that “at least three key issues
confound the study of corruption; it is difficult to define, difficult to observe, and difficult to measure” (90). Jain
(2001) further states that “how corruption is defined actually ends up determining what gets measured and
modelled” (73). The literature on corruption in sport is underdeveloped, although there is a significant body of
literature on corruption in other settings, for example in business (Eicher, 2009; den Nieuwenboer & Kaptein, 2008)
and in politics (Heidenheimer, 2007) in particular. In the limited published research in the area of corruption in
sport, there is a lack of consensus about the behaviours that actually constitutes it. From a sociological perspective,
Hughes & Coakley (1999) suggest that corruption, and in particular doping, is seen as a form of positive deviance
and overconforming to the sport ethic in that athletes choose to adopt this kind of behaviour to enhance their status
as an athlete by doing everything they can to be successful. Conversely, the economic perspective, as discussed by
Maennig (2005), suggests that it is actively allowing an opponent to win a sporting competition in return for financial
reward (i.e. bribe or payment) that is defined as corruption. The contention here is that neither perspective offers a
true representation of corruption in sport and further argues that these definitions are at odds with one another –
how can an athlete be doing everything to overconform to the sport ethic, to be seen as an athlete, and allow an
opponent to win? Gorse & Chadwick (2010) offer a new definition of corruption in sport as “any illegal, immoral or
unethical activity that attempts to deliberately distort the outcome of a sporting contest (or an element within the
contest) for the personal material gain of one or more parties involved in the activity”, and includes activities such as
doping, tanking, match fixing and spot fixing. It is based on this definition that a thorough analysis of the prevalence
of such behaviour is conducted, an examination missing in current corruption literature. This examination of the
prevalence of corruption in sport is vital to developing an understanding of the scope and magnitude of the issue at
hand and recognising the impact of such behaviour on stakeholders, and in particular sponsors, in the sport industry.
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the prevalence of corruption in sport in order to identify emerging trends and
key issues presented by these cases of corrupt behaviour for sport management. In order to operationalise the
proposed definition of corruption in sport and develop a thorough understanding of the prevalence of such
behaviour, the authors have compiled a unique database of cases of corruption in different sports and from across
Pittsburgh, PA
May 27 – 31, 2014
Page 143
2014 North American Society for Sport Management Conference (NASSM 2014)
!
the sporting world. These cases have then been coded into category-sets (Guetzkow, 1950), recording the year in
which the incident occurred (where the incident spanned for more than one year, the earliest date from which the
corrupt activity began was recorded), country of origin (home country of the athlete, team or official involved in the
corrupt behaviour), type of sport, name of the athlete, team or official involved, type of corruption and outcome of
the activity (punishment or details of outside influences) of each case, to identify key themes and patterns of
corruption in sport. This paper presents the findings of a preliminary analysis of 2,089 cases of corruption in sport
that occurred between 2000 and 2010. Of these cases recorded on the database in the given timeframe, 95.64% are
doping cases, where athletes have used substances banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Of these
doping cases, 76.58% occurred in Europe and North America and more than 80% occurred in athletics, cycling and
American sports. The remaining 4.36% is split: betting related match-fixing (1.58%), non-betting related matchfixing (1.15%) and the misuse of inside information (1.63%).
This paper presents further findings focused on the changes in corruption in the database and some characteristics
of individuals engaging in corrupt behaviour. The implications of this analysis of the prevalence of corruption in
sport are far-reaching for governance and management of sport organisations and the wider sport industry. This
paper will go on to discuss these implications further for all stakeholders in the sport industry, with a particular
emphasis on sponsors and the management of sponsorship programmes.
References
Alavy, K., Gaskell, A., Leach, S. & Szymanski, S. (2006) On the Edge of Your Seat: Demand for Football on
Television and the Uncertainty of Outcome Hypothesis, International Association of Sports Economists Working
Paper Series, Paper No. 06-31: 3-42
Collins, J.D., Uhlenbruck, K. & Rodriguez, P. (2009) Why Firms Engage in Corruption: A Top Management
Perspective, Journal of Business Ethics, 87: 89-108
Connor, J.M. & Mazanov, J. (2010) The inevitability of scandal: lessons for sponsors and administrators,
International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, April 2010: 212-220
Den Nieuwenboer, N.A. & Kaptein, M. (2008) Spiralling Down into Corruption: A Dynamic Analysis of the Social
Identity Processes that Cause Corruption in Organisations to Grow, Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2): 133-146
Eicher, S. (ed.)(2009) Corruption in International Business: The Challenge of Cultural and Legal Diversity, Farnham,
UK: Gower Applied Research
Forrest, D. & Simmons, R. (2006) Sport and Gambling, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19(4): 598-611
Gorse, S. & Chadwick, S. (2010) Conceptualising Corruption in Sport: Implications for Sponsorship Programmes,
The European Business Review, July/August 2010: 40-45
Guetzkow, H. (1950) Unitising and Categorising Problems in Coding Qualitative Data, Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 6(1): 47-58
Heidenheimer, A.J. & Johnston, M. (2007)(eds) Political Corruption: Concepts & Contexts, 3rd edition, New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers
Hughes, R. & Coakley, J. (1991) Positive Deviance Among Athletes: The Implications of Overconformity to the
Sport Ethic, Sociology of Sport Journal, 8(4): 307-325
Jain, A.K. (2001) Corruption: A Review, Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(1): 71-121
McLaren, R.H. (2008) Corruption: Its Impact on Fair Play, Marquette Sports Law Review, 19(1), available from <
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol19/iss1/3>
Neale, W.C. (1964) The Peculiar Economics of Professional Sports, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 78(1): 114
Preston, I. & Syzmanski, S. (2006) Cheating in Sport, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19(4): 612-624
Rottenberg, S. (1956) The baseball player’s labour market, Journal of Political Economy, 64: 242-258
Pittsburgh, PA
May 27 – 31, 2014
Page 144