Sport is one of the most rapidly growing industries in the world presently. Sport is made up of diverse governing bodies. Sports Governing Body (SGB) refers to an organization in sports that ensure that a sport achieves its mission and vision in the environment in which it is operating (Sawyer, Bodey & Judge, 2008). SGB arises from vast forms and serve diverse regulatory functions. Such functions may be disciplinary oriented whenever certain rules are infringed and a change in the rules that govern a particular sport. SGB’s have diverse ranges that might cover an array of sports nationally and internationally (Sawyer, Bodey & Judge, 2008).
Notably, the various sports have their own governing bodies that spell out how that particular sport is regulated. This is mainly because each sport has its own hurdles and expertise. Thus, the various governing bodies aim at ensuring that the participants in their sports activity play based on their physical abilities and in some cases by age. SGB’s can be in charge of one sport or a couple of related discipline. Their main goal is to set common rules and regulations to provide fairground competitions (Sawyer, Bodey & Judge, 2008). They are also involved in the promotion of the sport that they govern both at the national and international level. In most learning institutions, sports have also been highly embraced to explore on students’ talents.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Schools participate in various games such as ball games, swimming, and athletics among others. Such sports have specific bodies responsible for setting rules that act as their guiding principles. For instance, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) governs student athletics in colleges (Hosick, 2015). The NCAA provides college students with a chance to indulge in NBA without risking their careers. It is apparent that most students have the dream of playing particular sports in colleges and even beyond. Thus, the NCAA provides many students with an opportunity to realize their dreams. Hitherto, about eight million students in the United States are actively indulging in high school athletics courtesy of NCAA (Hosick, 2015). Out of that population, an estimated 480,000 will have a chance to participate in the school's completion organized by the NCAA (Hosick, 2015). In so doing, it is clear that the selected group will have a chance to realize their dream of becoming professionals in athletes.
The NCAA is vital in school athlete arena. It is designed such that their activities revolve around achieving the main objective in their environment of operation. Nevertheless, they will always face a challenge of maintaining consistency as well as stability time and again. However, the board is required to exhibit responsiveness to any changes in their field of operation (Sawyer, Bodey & Judge, 2008). Typically, there is the need for the involved parties to understand how a particular SGB operate for it to be effective. In that regards, the organization theory has been on the forefront of establishing the designs of organizations. Various researchers examine the various organizational structures with an aim of evaluating the consequences the bear in a sport. Importantly, once the mission and vision of an SGB have been formulated, there would be the need to harmonize the human and physical resources together (Sawyer, Bodey & Judge, 2008). This is because the ability of any SGB to govern effectively is largely influenced by its structure.
The decision-making process in humankind has shown tremendous diversity. Thus, it would be essential to establish robust ways that would govern conflict resolution, control unwanted behaviors, and achieving the coveted goal of a sport (Sawyer, Bodey & Judge, 2008). In that respect, SGB’s prevail to make decisions in a particular setting of the sporting industry. The NCAA, for instance, opted to change the structure to form a new governance model (Hosick, 2015). The new model seeks to ensure that the council is provided with current affairs in sports specifically within higher education. In the model, the Presidential Forum was the newly incorporated arm that replaced the Presidential Advisory Group (PAG). The PAG’s presidents did not have a permanent seat on the board. However, in the new model the presidents in charge of the Presidential Forum ought to have representatives in every conference (Hosick, 2015).
The president in charge of the Presidential Forum will be assisting the board in making meaningful decisions that would spearhead the improvement of college athletics as well as the experience of the student-athletes (Hosick, 2015). In addition, that move provides an appealing package to student athletes. First, student-athletes who stand the risk of not completing their degrees will be provided with support from the NCAA. Secondly, the board aims at setting a flexible system in relation to degree rules to students who might graduate early or those who are academically (Hosick, 2014). Notably, smart students will be given scholarships and internships abroad in an attempt to prepare them for their careers once they are through with their college. Thirdly, the NCAA aims at ensuring that the student-athletes are satisfied in their academic or rather education realm. This is done by ensuring that a balance exists between academics and athletics (Hosick, 2015). Fourth, the change in Division I paved the way for students to have a say during decision-making exercise (Hosick, 2014).
Despite the significant role played by the board of directors, is apparent that they also pose a significant threat to sport through mismanagement (Barham, 2012). Mismanagement is a critical problem that could lead to financial instability in many clubs. Such instabilities are the chief reasons why many sporting activities collapse after their initiation (Dougherty, Goldberger, & Carpenter, 2007). In that respect, laws need to be put in place to help shun such vices. The law in sports or rather any physical activity is paramount when it comes to dealing with mismanagement (Dougherty, Goldberger, & Carpenter, 2007).
There is the need to set laws that would hinder breaching of rules. Laws should not be seen as the source of the problem (Barham, 2012). Nevertheless, it should be seen as one of the mechanisms that would prohibit individuals from engaging in unlawful acts. For instance, the coach can influence an athlete to convince the director to purchase new equipment that would help to meet the acceptable safety measures. In that case, the athletic director cannot fail to get that equipment for the athlete because he/she will not want his/her client to be subject to injuries. Vast opinions may exist in this scenario. However, there must be a possibility that the coach might be doing that to fulfill his/her personal goals instead.
Additionally, instances of gender-related law breach also exists (Dougherty, Goldberger, & Carpenter, 2007). This happens where an individual may be prohibited from joining a particular program owing to gender inclination. In such instances, laws have to be implemented to guarantee that students are not locked out of opportunities regardless of their gender. In order to better their programs, professionals explore on the same legal framework that is used to condemn poor programs. Therefore, the evolution in the NCCA is purposely meant for enhancing the experience of student athletes as well as strengthening their welfare. In addition, the setting a Board of Directors that runs the routine activities in colleges that involve athletics is a great honor and a milestone to ensure that the student-athletes are not disadvantaged in their academics.
References
Barham, R. (2012). Corporate Governance in Professional Sport. Law in Sport . Retrieved from http://www.lawinsport.com/blog/snr-denton-blog/item/corporate-governance-in-professional-sport.
Dougherty, N. J., Goldberger, A. S., & Carpenter, L. J. (2007). Sport, Physical Activity, and the Law (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.
Hosick, M. (2014). Board Adopts New Division 1 Structure. NCAA . Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/board-adopts-new-division-i-structure.
Hosick, M. (2015). Board Completes the Restructuring of Major Governance Bodies. NCAA . Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/board-completes-restructure-major-governance-bodies.
Sawyer, T. H., Bodey, K. J., & Judge, L. W. (2008). Sports Governance and Policy Development : An Ethical Approach to Managing Sport in the 21st Century . Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore Publishing, LLC.
