At the political discussion held during the Labour Party meeting in Ħamrun, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat spoke of the need for sports federations in Malta to start becoming more professional in order for athletes to be better equipped to compete at an international level.

Muscat spoke about the government’s intention to pledge funds to those sports federations who come up with clear targets on how they will use such funding to raise the level of the sport.

While such a strategy, at first glance, seems to be a step in the right direction to having sports professionalised across the spectrum, at the same time this could also be interpreted as a threat to the traditional sport autonomy enjoyed by sports federations.

The foundation principle for the development of international sport law is the autonomy in the decision-making process of international sporting federations.

The principle of autonomy can take various forms; among them legal autonomy, political autonomy, financial autonomy and pyramidal autonomy.

Such a principle allows sport governing bodies (SGBs) to establish, amend and interpret their rules freely, without any undue political or economic influence, hold free elections within their respective bodies and to obtain public funding, which helps to achieve their objectives and goals, without having to abide to any external influence or conditions.

The traditional view of SGBs has been that they enjoy a wide range of autonomy when it comes to decision-making and modus operandi. The concept of sports autonomy is an assertion that the sports movement alone understands the unique characteristics and therefore knows best how to govern and regulate sport.

The understanding of sports autonomy has always been that there should be no undue influence from external bodies, with any disputes that arising within being resolved internally. At the same time, this does not mean that such SGBs are free to override national or international law based on such autonomy as has been confirmed in judgments delivered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In the words of Lord Moynihan himself: “The autonomy of sport is important but must be earned; it is not a right.”

Such shift from the traditional concept of sports autonomy is leading to sporting federations having to adhere to principles of good governance

The International Olympic Committee is still considered to be one of the largest believers in the sporting autonomy principle, so much so that they consider it to be a prerequisite for sport to function.

On a European level, the European Union has failed to address the issue of sports autonomy in a harmonious manner due to the fact that such a principle differs from one member state to another.

Jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, have introduced principles of good governance which seek to regulate the autonomy of such SGBs to a certain extent, such as the granting of public funding to such sport federations. As a matter of fact, in early 2017 the European Parliament adopted the ‘Integral Approach to Sport Policy: good governance, accessibility and integrity’, which among other matters, makes good governance a condition for the autonomy of sports organisations as well as urging member states “to make public funding for sports conditional, subject to compliance with established and publicly available minimum governance, monitoring and reporting standards”.

Such a shift from the traditional concept of sports autonomy is leading to sporting federations having to adhere to principles of good governance, which in return will entitle them to public funding, something which is essential for their respective operations.  

While the ‘National policy for sport in Malta & Gozo 2017-2027’ does not mention the term “autonomy” directly, a recommendation has been put forward for sporting organisations to adhere to principles of good governance for such organisations to be run “in the most transparent, open and responsible manner”.

One possible way of going about this is for national sport federations, especially those that are heavily active, to create numerous specialist committees that will help to enhance such associations’ compliance with principles of good governance.

Such specialist committees can collaborate with other specialist committees, both national as well as international, which brings together more stakeholders and a broader range of expertise and discussions.

Among such proposed committees, there could be a commercial committee to deal with sponsors, broadcasters and marketing issues, a finance and budgetary committee to draw up the budget, a legal, ethics and governance committee to provide basic legal advice concerning key legal issues and review of principles concerning good governance and the creation of a supporters’ committee which will be able to reflect the views and opinions of those with a passion for their respective games.

The traditional notion of sporting autonomy has changed significantly from its inception, often due to executive (governmental), legislative and judicial external influence. Sport can never be completely autonomous due to it somehow being infiltrated at some level.

At the same time, the principle of sport autonomy must never die, for with its death sport will come to an end.

Robert Dingli is a sports lawyer and vice-president Swieqi United FC.

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece