Farrer & Co Women in Sport - Report - Page 22
Driving governance change
Words by Tom Bruce & Emily Jamieson
Many factors have been driving a recent
focus on governance in the world of
sport, but without a doubt the biggest
milestone was the publication of Sport
England and UK Sport’s “A Code for
Sports Governance” in 2016.
For bodies in receipt of funding
from Sport England or UK Sport, that
income was made conditional on their
ability to meet the requirements of the
Code – making the Code effectively
mandatory for those organisations
reliant on such public funding.
Gender and diversity are addressed
within the Code, which requires
organisations to “adopt a target of,
and take all appropriate actions to
encourage, a minimum of 30% of each
gender on its Board” and “demonstrate
a strong and public commitment to
progressing towards achieving gender
parity and greater diversity generally on
its Board, including, but not limited to,
Black, Asian, minority ethnic diversity,
and disability”. Arguably, these are bare
minimum requirements when it comes
to diversity, and they set targets rather
than mandatory thresholds – such as
in the case of the gender target, which
more than a quarter of UK Sport and
Sport England funded boards still do
not meet.
However, the Code did go further
than any previous requirements, and
its approach has now been mirrored
elsewhere, such as in the Sport and
Recreation Alliance’s “Principles of
Good Governance”. The Principles are a
flexible set of actions which bodies can
apply to their organisation as they see
22
fit and, in common with the Code for
Sports Governance, they state that
boards should include a minimum of
30% of each gender, as well as a goal
to “work towards gender parity”.
Among sports governing bodies,
the reaction to the Code has been
mixed. Some have looked to do
just what they needed to do in order
to become compliant and continue
to receive funding. Others have
seen the Code as an opportunity to
undertake a wholesale review of their
internal structures and procedures,
aiming to be “best in class”.
75%
In such a scenario, a 75% threshold
suddenly seems quite high. Certainly,
approval for changes must not be
taken for granted. Table Tennis
England had its funding suspended in
July 2017, when its members failed to
approve the proposed changes (they
passed on a second attempt a month
later), and British Cycling came close
to failing to pass the changes when
regional representatives voiced
serious concerns about the
centralisation of decision-making
authority. Ultimately, however, the
Code prompted changes throughout
the world of sport and undoubtedly
kick-started a focus on governance
within UK sports organisations that
has continued to date.
of members are needed to
approve any changes in articles
One consistent theme, however, is that
the Code has forced sports bodies to
engage with their membership, who
have approval rights over any
constitutional changes. Many of these
organisations are built on decades of
history and tradition, and making
changes in the way they are run is a
sensitive task. Incorporated bodies need
75% of their members to approve any
changes to their articles. Some of the
changes introduced by the Code took
powers away from members who
had the right to, for example, elect
a majority of the board.
Tom Bruce
Partner,
Farrer & Co
Emily Jamieson
Associate,
Farrer & Co
Women in Sport – Levelling the playing field
