Being a sports administrator comes with many perks, so it's no surprise that many people want to stay in the job for as long as possible.
A recent trend among sports leaders calling for the extension or elimination of term limits (rules that limit the length of time an athlete can be active) has raised serious questions about standards of governance.
Several major sports organizations are participating. The Asian Football Confederation last week voted to remove term limits for presidents and councilors.
This follows reports that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is considering amendments that would allow Thomas Bach to serve beyond the 12-year limit.
European football's governing body, UEFA, made headlines after pushing through a rule change that would extend Alexander Ceferin's term as president, although he ultimately decided to resign.
This trend raises two important questions. That's why we should care about term limits in sports. How long is too long for a sports administrator?
Why do sports need term limits?
The debate over term limits is an old one. Around 500 BC, the Republic of Athens imposed a limit on members of its governing council to one-year terms and no more than two terms. In Rome it was even stricter, with a maximum term of one year.
The debate over term limits back then was much like the debate in sports organizations today.
Simply put, term limits reduce the risk of one individual accumulating too much concentration of power. The longer a leader remains in position, the more power they accumulate.
This is because, over time, they can gain greater control over resources and establish deeper connections within their networks of influence. This creates a cycle of increasing influence over decision-making and power reinforcing itself.
Term limits therefore help ensure that power is distributed more evenly. It also provides a safeguard against leaders who may abuse their power indefinitely.
Take the example of Jack Warner, who was elected president of the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Football (CONCACAF) in 1990. Mr. Warner served for 21 years, but his tenure was marred by allegations of corruption.
A 2013 report by CONCACAF's Integrity Commission concluded that Warner committed fraud against both CONCACAF and FIFA. Amid the FIFA corruption crisis in 2015, the FIFA Ethics Committee permanently banned Warner from football, and US prosecutors indicted him on 12 charges, including extortion and bribery.
Mr. Warner has denied the charges, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently dismissed the case on grounds of excess of jurisdiction.
However, the controversy surrounding Warner has caused significant damage to CONCACAF and FIFA. If a time limit had been set, the damage might not have been as great.
Advantages of current position
The longer a manager remains in power, the more he or she may benefit from “incumbency advantage.” It explains how long-serving leaders can use their power (such as funding promises) to build important constituencies within key voting blocs.
Such maneuvers can make elections almost ceremonial, as it becomes very difficult for challengers to pose a real threat to the incumbent's position. Without a term limit, the leader would effectively become a president for life or a quasi-monarch.
Again, this may all sound familiar to those who follow international soccer.
There is no organization where the advantage of incumbency is more pronounced than in FIFA, the world governing body for soccer. Former longtime president Sepp Blatter is said to have shrewdly used development funds at his disposal to ensure his re-election.
As FIFA's 211 national football associations vote equally in the FIFA presidential election, Blatter has strategically mobilized support in some regions, including Africa and the Caribbean, to ensure continued leadership. Although this political maneuvering was not illegal, he created a system in which it would be extremely difficult to remove him through elections.
Since its founding in 1904, FIFA has had nine presidents (excluding interim presidents). The incumbent has only lost an election once. The winner of that election was Joan Havelanger, who, according to Swiss court documents, accepted millions of dollars in bribes during his time as president. Two presidents have resigned after being impeached, and two have resigned voluntarily. Three people died while in service.
Therefore, it may be no exaggeration to say that current FIFA president Gianni Infantino's decision to leave his post is more his decision than the outcome of the election.
lawsuit against
However, term limits also have obvious drawbacks. The most obvious is the potential loss of experienced and capable leaders. Frequent turnover can also lead to instability.
This is the argument presented by the IOC member regarding Mr. Bach. Between global conflicts and declining interest in the Olympics, they believe the organization is facing a particularly tough time. From their point of view, stability and experienced leadership are most important.
Term limits can also prevent selfish leaders from long-term planning, choosing to prioritize short-term gains. Political science research has tested this theory. Research shows that shorter government terms are associated with higher budget deficits and a disregard for long-term investment.
Nevertheless, the consensus among experts is that the benefits of implementing term limits significantly outweigh the potential drawbacks.
This is especially true in sports, a field with prestige and status. In such an environment, people are especially likely to stay engaged.
How long is too long?
So if term limits are generally accepted as good governance practice, what exactly should those limits be?
This issue is far from an exact science, and there is considerable variation in the scope and form of term limits across sports.
Our recent research into sports governance in Victoria highlights this diversity.
The graph below shows the frequency of different term limit forms used by the 40 state sporting bodies in Victoria surveyed. The size of the red dot indicates the frequency.
As shown, a three-year term with a maximum of three terms is the most common model, adopted by 14 organizations.
In our experience working with these organizations, the optimal term limits depend on the nature of the organization. Smaller sports often require more flexibility due to limited interest in volunteer positions.
For large organizations, three-year terms are most common, although four-year terms are probably more appropriate for strategic planning and Olympic cycles.
Whether eight or 12 years or anything in between, term limits are a cornerstone of good governance, and it is essential to protect them from further erosion or abolishment altogether. .
