The impact of governance principles on sport organisations’ governance practices and performance: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to determine what impact governance principles and guidelines have had on sport organisations’ governance practices and performance.Methods: Following the PRISMA, PIECES and Warwick protocols, we conducted a search of academic, grey literature and theses in sport and broader social sciences and humanities databases. We excluded studies that only proposed governance principles and did not actually measure their use by sport organisations, as well as those studies which did not consider the governance principles in relation to organisational performance.Results: From the initial 2,155 studies reviewed, 19 met the inclusion criteria. A wide range of governance principles or guidelines have been considered by the relatively small number of studies included in the analysis. We did find a variety of researchers from mainly developed countries examining the issue, often using case studies as a means to explore the topic. Although the link between board structure and organisational performance has been empirically found, the link between other governance principles and organisational performance remains lacking.Conclusions: Despite an increased interest in good governance principles and guidelines in sport, there is a clear need for both the international sport community and researchers to develop an agreed set of governance principles and language relevant for international, national, provincial/state and local level sport governance organisations. The multidimensionality of the concepts of governance and organisational performance, as well as their interrelationship and the potential positive and negative impacts of implementing governance principles render this need all the more critical.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.153 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".