Whistleblowing determinants and the effectiveness of reporting channels in the international sports sector

Highlights

• Sport organisations increasingly set up internal reporting systems.

• Whistleblowing determinants have been analysed by research outside of sport.

• Several specificities of the sports sector may inhibit whistleblowing behaviour.

• Managerial and cultural changes are needed to facilitate whistleblowing.

Abstract

International sports institutions have started to set up internal reporting mechanisms to allow actors in the sports sector to provide information on ethical wrongdoings occurring around them, such as match-fixing or doping. Analogous compliance mechanisms have been implemented for years in non-sport sectors and are the subject of a vast quantity of literature analysing notably the determinants of whistleblowing behaviour. In order to assess the potential effectiveness of reporting channels in sport, the author reviews the literature on whistleblowing determinants and discusses their weight in the sport sector. Findings identify several sport specificities which undermine the likelihood of whistleblowing, with, in particular: the weak power position and moral reasoning of athletes, intense organisational loyalties and non-supportive organisational culture. The paper concludes with a number of managerial recommendations for international sports organisations that want to infuse ethical values and promote reporting behaviour.

Introduction

Over the last ten years, the international sports sector has witnessed a multiplication of internal reporting mechanisms that enable actors in the sports sector to securely inform authorities about fraudulent behaviour they witness, are a victim of or are responsible for. This managerial trend grew without external legal pressure. Most reporting systems in sport have been implemented to address critical integrity issues, such as match-fixing, doping, institutional corruption, violence or harassment, often following public scandals which have damaged the image and credibility of sport organisations. On an international level, the first formal reporting mechanisms emerged as a response to the phenomenon of match-fixing. The International Cricket Council (ICC) installed an anti-corruption unit and a reporting channel as early as 2000 (Transparency International, 2013a), following scandals and rising online betting activity. In 2008, the Tennis Integrity Unit (TIU) was created by the international tennis authorities (with a similar model to the ICC anti-corruption unit), which included a reporting mechanism and a duty to report for all tennis players (TIU, n.d.). The International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) followed in 2013, not only for manipulations, but also for any breach of its regulations (FIFA, 2013), the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 2015, for all “matters which fall under the IOC’s jurisdiction” (IOC, 2018) and, among other examples, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) launched a platform (“Speak Up”) to report doping violations in March 2017 (WADA, 2017).

Managerial literature presents internal reporting systems as an effective tool of self-regulation, risk-management and organisational efficiency (Callahan, Dworkin, Fort, & Schipani, 2002; Brown, Mazurski, & Olsen, 2008). Organisations that fix internal problems also find an increase in loyalty and organisational culture (Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2009). Regarding the sports sector specifically, a number of scholars have underlined the lack of robust and reliable whistleblowing systems (Chappelet & Mrkonjic, 2013). Following a theoretical experiment on the fight against doping, Berentsen, Bruegger, and Loertscher (2008) concluded that the existence of whistleblowing schemes (including leniency programmes) reduces incidences of doping and lowers regulation costs since fewer controls are needed. Whitaker, Backhouse, and Long (2014) and Erickson, Patterson, and Backhouse (2018) also suggested that whistleblowing systems should be implemented, as athletes are at the forefront of the fight against doping and often feel powerless.

However, whistleblowing is still very often a challenging task. According to past research in companies and public agencies, about half of individuals state that they remained silent when they witnessed wrongdoings within their organisation, although estimates vary depending on the parameters (Olsen, 2014). Observers of wrongdoing may face strong ethical dilemmas between conflicted identities, loyalties and personal values. The whistleblowing decision-making process involves a high level of emotion and uncertainty, as well as potential personal risks for the whistle-blower, in the form of ostracism, threats, or career damage (Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2008). Considering these hardships, one wonders if actors who are invited, if not legally obliged, by sports authorities to signal breaches of regulations, will trust and use these mechanisms. The aim of this article is to examine the extent to which reporting channels can be effective in attracting whistle-blowers within the sports sector.

Although no quantitative research has been conducted in the sports sector to measure the propensity of actors to blow the whistle, many publications have been covering the subject in corporate and public agencies over the past 35 years. Therefore, I review this literature and identify the key determinants of whistleblowing that have emerged from it. These determinants are individual, contextual, cultural and organisational factors or variables that, according to empirical research, influence wrongdoing observers to report it. After having synthesized these conditions, I discuss to what extent they are met in the sports sector and, on this basis, draw preliminary conclusions on the potential effectiveness of sport reporting mechanisms to indeed attract whistleblowing behaviour. I conclude by proposing theoretical and empirical grounds that could be explored by future research in this new scientific field and operational recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of these reporting tools.