This Article Was Downloaded By: On: 25 December 2009 Access

This article was downloaded by:
On: 25 December 2009

Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Public Management Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713926128
European Sport Governance, Citizens, And The State

Margaret Groeneveld a
a
School of Sports Studies, University of Ulster, Jordanstown, Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland
To cite this Article Groeneveld, Margaret(2009) 'European Sport Governance, Citizens, And The State', Public
Management Review, 11: 4, 421 — 440
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14719030902989516
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719030902989516
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Abstract
EUROPEAN SPORT
Theoretical debates surrounding relation-
ships between government, Third Sector GOVERNANCE,
organisations, and the citizens they engage
with have focussed on managerial concepts CITIZENS, AND THE
of co-production, co-management, and co-
governance in the delivery of services.
Considering European sport governing fed-
STATE
erations (specifically those of football/soccer) Finding a (co-)productive
within the Third Sector, the scale of mana-
ging service delivery invites a closer look balance for the twenty-first
at co-involvement with citizens and the
State along these theoretical dimensions.
century
Co-production, in this case, can be defined
Downloaded At: 11:28 25 December 2009
as citizens acting together with federations in Margaret Groeneveld

developing and implementing service provi-
sion, for example, volunteers actively in-
volved with organising local level initiatives
Margaret Groeneveld
and activities. Co-management exists when
School of Sports Studies
federations work together with the State and
University of Ulster
citizens in the daily management of their
Jordanstown
sport governance role. Finally, co-governance
Newtownabbey
actively involves government, federations and
Northern Ireland
citizens in creating public policy and practice.
E-mail: m.groeneveld@ulster.ac.uk
These elements can co-exist; what matters
for sport governance is that they involve a
deep level of sustainable co-involvement and
sharing of responsibility between federations,
the State, and the citizens they represent..
Key words
Co-production, football, sport governance,
public management
Vol. 11 Issue 4 2009 421–440

Public Management Review ISSN 1471-9037 print/ISSN 1471-9045 online
Ó 2009 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/14719030902989516
422 Public Management Review
Sport is the largest voluntary non-governmental organisational activity throughout Europe with more
volunteers than any other activity.
(Council of Europe 2006: 7)
Football as an international cultural phenomenon, alongside de Coubertin’s initiative of the Olympic

celebration of international competition, was a remarkably resilient and sustained case of the supra-
national growth of the administration and governance of cultural practice.
(Sugden and Tomlinson 2005: 27)
the crossroads for the nonprofit sector is brought about by a combination of growth in economic size
with qualitative repositioning in its political and social contributions, involving ‘internal’ and ‘external’
factors. This in turn represents responses to complex combinations of historical and current patterns of
social and political continuity and change. All this creates uncertainties and new challenges that are
changing the policy position of the third sector (emphasis in the original).
(Anheier et al. 2001: 14)
One of the major challenges facing the development of a twenty-first-century

understanding of sport governance, besides acknowledging the sheer scale of overall
participation in the sport, is the multitude of ways in which football federations in
particular (ostensibly Third Sector organizations) perceive the nature and importance
of their role in relation to the State. This article presents a discussion on these issues
using examples from the variety of management approaches taken by these
federations, of the linguistic, cultural, legal, and political frameworks within which
they conduct their business, and of the levels of impact that they have had on the
basic fabric of our social life. Considered from a broader public management
standpoint, despite their differences, the central activity of each of these organizations
is identical: the governance of sport in the twenty-first century and its sustainability
into future centuries.
This article is a discussion of the differences in the ways in which football (soccer)
federations relate to the State using the framework of recent theoretical discussion on
the relationship between government, Third Sector organisations, and the citizens with
whom they engage at every level. This will be achieved through the lens of the public
management concepts of co-production, co-management, and co-governance in the
delivery of services (Osborne and McLaughlin 2004; Brandsen et al. 2005; Brandsen and
Pestoff 2006; Pestoff 2006; Pestoff et al. 2006). According to Evers (2005: 740), ‘the
participation of citizens is characterised foremost in terms of their active social
participation, that is, their roles in service associations, school boards, voluntary work,
community life, and similar activities’.
Considering football federations within the Third Sector, the sheer scale of
conceptualizing and managing this type of service delivery invites a closer look at their
co-involvement with the State, citizens, players, fans, and club owners alike along the
three theoretical dimensions. Co-production, in this case, can be defined as people
Groeneveld: European sport governance, citizens, and the state 423
taking an active role together with federations in the development and implementation
of service provision, for example, volunteers actively involved with organizing local-
level initiatives and activities, or the co-ordination of premier-level professional
competition. Co-management exists when the federations work together with the State
at every level as well as with citizens in the daily management of their sport governance
role. Finally, co-governance actively involves government, federations, and/or citizens
in the creation of public policy development. These elements can co-exist; what
matters for football governance is that they involve a deep level of co-involvement and
sharing of responsibility between federations and those they represent, both on the
professional and amateur sides of the game.
In summary, this article investigates wider issues of how federations, the State, and
citizens together consider and enable the governance of football, from grassroots to
the top levels of international competition. At each level of the football system,
regardless of nation or federation, the examples featured here reveal that, despite
different orientations of agenda-setting maturity and different styles of federation/
citizen relationships, the governance of sport generally, and football specifically,

certainly requires co-involvement and shared commitment to the legacy and the
future of the game. The public management theory of co-production, co-
management, and co-governance allows for greater insight into the nature of this
managerial structure. Football is unequivocally part of the fabric of society in the
twenty-first century, and the understanding that this article sheds on its governance is
of indelible importance culturally, politically, and, perhaps most importantly, for its
sustainable future.
PUBLIC GOVERNANCE, THE THIRD SECTOR, AND THE ROLE OF FOOTBALL

FEDERATIONS
while policy areas such as the environment and social welfare have been subject to extensive
analysis . . . sport has remained on the margins. This marginalization contrasts with the recognition of
sport by many governments as an increasingly important area of policy.
(Houlihan 2005: 163)
For those familiar with the realities of football governance at all levels, it may seem
something of a surprise that a review of public management and administration
scholarship reveals that the relationship between sport federations and government has
been almost entirely ignored. For clarification on this point, there has been precious
little academic research on the internal actualities of how the State administers,
manages, and governs sport. There is a broad emerging body of research on the
outward application of state-generated sport policy (see Chalip et al. 1996; Sam and
Jackson 2004, 2006; Henry 2005; Houlihan 2005; Sam 2005; Bergsgard et al. 2007;
Coalter 2007; Green 2007), yet the administrative machinations which developed these
policies are still very much under-researched. That said, as Green (2007: 921–2) aptly
described,
Governments increasingly utilise sporting programmes and initiatives to realize an array of objectives in a
range of policy arenas. These policy objectives include social inclusion, crime reduction, urban
regeneration, raising school standards, reducing obesity and international prestige. The key point is that,
today, sport as a cultural institution is a significant contributor to the vitality, vibrancy and international
profile of a nation.
However, there does exist a broad body of research in the area of public management
that examines the relationship between the State and Third Sector, non-profit
organizations (NPOs).1 It has been long established in the field of public management
that NPOs have special relationships with all levels of government, and that the nature
of these relationships is varied and complex. Typically, they concern forms of co-
involvement relating to the provision of social services and the delivery of social policy:
‘these developments, implying both greater economic importance and at least symbolic
political recognition, have turned nonprofit organisations from somewhat marginal
actors to more central, sometimes even major, policy players’ (Anheier et al. 2001: 1).
Surprisingly, the enumeration and consideration of sport federations within this area of
research is very rare indeed. Considering that there are more volunteers engaged in
sport in Europe than in any other sector together with the sheer scale of the financial
impact of football in Europe, this lack of consideration for sport federations,
particularly football, points to a clear need for a deeper and broader awareness of this
field.
Public management, governance, and policy
To develop this further, we need to look more specifically at a public management

understanding of governance. From a research perspective, the public governance of
sport is something of a black box: we know it exists but we lack research insight as to
how and why it functions. More importantly in the context of football there exists a
need to develop a clear understanding of the particular dynamics of the relationships
between the State and sport federations. We also need to be cognisant of FIFA’s
reticence towards government involvement in the sport. To begin, however, we need
to build a solid framework for understanding the potential application of public
management scholarship to this situation.
Stephen Osborne’s (2006) discussion on the emergence of a New Public
Governance, explains that the field of public management study has matured from a
focus on mechanical public administration to that of public management, taking an active
interest in the functioning of the administration and to developing and changing
administrative practices. This was followed by more recent theories of New Public
Management which feature cross-overs in managerial approaches and advancements

from the private sector. Osborne contends that this has now matured into what could
be termed the New Public Governance, taking into consideration an approach to the
outward effects of public management and administration.
The realities of New Public Governance are familiar territory for those involved in
sport research and governance. This theory focuses outwardly from government to
citizens, and seeks answers to the application of public management decisions. This area
overlaps with the body of sport policy research in terms of implementation of
government decisions. This could be construed as a form of resource dependence
theory (RDT) approach: ‘the individual’s aim of welfare-maximization is transformed
within the inter-organizational context into the ultimate institutional objective of
safeguarding long-term organizational survival’ (Bauer 2006: 720). This is mitigated by
the fact that individuals in this model are not always reactive, but often proactive. Poor
implementation of (sport) policy, therefore, means risk for government and society.
However, the application of policy is only one side of this coin; to understand public
governance fully we also need to consider implementation practices within government,

an area which Brian Head (2008) recently referred to as studying a ‘swamp’:
governance research needs to be made more relevant to those who practise it within
said swamp.
So what is governance from this perspective? Kjaer (2004: 10) states that, ‘a broad
institutional definition would thus refer to governance as the setting of rules, the
application of rules, and the enforcement of rules’ (emphasis in the original). In particular she
states that, ‘new governance has more to do with how the centre interacts with society
and asks whether there is more self-steering in networks.’ (2004: 11). This builds on
the more classical definition from Pierre and Peters (2000: 1): ‘Governance is the
capacity of government to make and implement policy, in other words, to steer
society.’ Rhodes (2000) gives us a typology of seven different approaches to governance
from the perspective of government, which also takes on board the idea that governance
requires an interorganizational network between public, private, and non-profit actors.
Governance, certainly in the case of sport, more specifically relates to approaches to
stakeholder engagement, establishing and implementing equalities agendas, enforcing
ethical and honest behaviour, developing methods for transparency and accountability,
addressing issues of social and environmental sustainability, and strengthening
relationships with civil society organizations (Bovaird and Loffler 2003). The inherent
question in all of these approaches is not only how to steer but also how to improve
methods of interaction and effectiveness across these networks of governance.
In practical terms, every European government has, at a minimum, an office at
federal level responsible for the oversight of sport. The level of power and autonomy
these offices have for the public governance of sport is multiple and varied. In many
countries, the responsibilities and budgets are also sub-divided to regional- and local-
level governments. Each country has its own model for the public management of sport
and its own approach to the public governance of sport. What is most relevant to this
article, however, is the nature of the relationships between the public governance of
sport and the governance of football.
Towards a theoretical frame for discussion
In 2006, Brandsen and Pestoff introduced a theoretical and somewhat ideological

discussion on the role of Third Sector, civil society organizations which were becoming
increasingly co-involved with the State in the delivery of public services. In this case,
social services ‘is meant to describe those services to which a political community
attributes not only an individual value but at the same time a considerable value for
groups, settings, and, finally, society at large’, and ‘civil society is about the presence of
politics in the social life of a (republican and democratic) political community’ (Evers
2005: 737). Based on a typology inspired by Osborne and McLaughlin (2004), Brandsen
and Pestoff identified three core types of relationships for analysis: co-production; co-
management; and co-governance. They considered these three perspectives as a typology

for overlaps in public service delivery between citizens, NGOs, and the State.
In the resulting matrix, co-production can be defined as the delivery of a public
service by citizens and NGOs, acting at arm’s length from the State. Co-management
features managerial co-ordination between the NGO and the State in the development
and implementation of the service itself. Co-governance is active co-involvement in the
internal public sector policy development and implementation processes jointly
between the NGO, citizens, and the State.
Admittedly, there is overlap between the three types of interaction and the
distinctions can become quite blurred. However, what this theoretical distinction
allows us to do is to consider discrete moments in the nature of and rationale behind
these interorganizational network interactions. When considering the public govern-
ance of sport and the relationship between football federations and government, the
utility of the model becomes particularly relevant. First, it provokes the question of
sport as a social service to be considered as a deliverable of government. Second, it
engages with the concept that sport is ‘delivered’ by government-sanctioned (and most
often also financially supported) non-profit organizations with monopolies over the
organization and development of their particular sport (or bundle of sports in the case
of multi-sport federations). Third, it focuses attention on the layers of interaction
(local, regional, federal, international) and the differing types of state/federation/
citizen engagement which each layer features.
Framing football federations as NGOs and sport providers
The purpose of this article is to discuss this model using the governance of football
and its federations as a central example. Placing football-governing organizations
within the construct of public services may seem to challenge the professional game,
but taken in combination with the grassroots level, the whole football system is
unavoidably connected with the public governance of sport. This may seem to be in
conflict with FIFA’s mandate of autonomy from government, however, here we are
discussing co-involvement not control. The multiplicity of stakeholders for a
federation is increasingly complex, creating basic managerial challenges within these
organizations themselves. However, it is also important to understand and to place
these challenges within their national contexts, including the relationship(s) between
the federations and the State. Football federations have an obvious role to play within
this system, as guardians and controllers of the game, as representatives of the many
citizens whom they govern, and as NGO-stakeholders in a public governance
framework for service provision.
Some sport scholars have recently looked specifically at the nature of interorganiza-
tional relationships between public, private, and non-profit sport organizations (see
Green and Houlihan 2004; Sam and Jackson 2006; Babiak 2007). Putting this in the
frame of a public sector approach to analysis reveals that the governance of social
services (which here would include sport) and of the interorganizational network
relationships in which sport is ‘delivered’ requires support for innovation. Osborne and
Flynn (1997) discuss structural characteristics required for innovation in the NGO/state
relationship, the fact that managers (from all sides) need ‘to take a deliberate strategic
approach to the relationship of their organization to its environment’ (1997: 36), and
that they need to be ‘aware of their institutional environment and its impact upon their
organization and its innovative capacity’ (1997: 37). This awareness is a critical issue
facing the governance of football for the twenty-first century. The next sections feature
a more in-depth discussion in which the frameworks of the co-production, co-
governance, and co-management model could be used to enrich the governance of
football, enabling a better understanding of the socio-political contexts in which these
federations perform and innovate.
EXPLORING THE CONCEPT OF CO-PRODUCTION
Co-production is perhaps the easiest of the three types of state–federation–citizen

interaction to consider in the context of football governance. In this case, the citizen is a
major actor together with the NGO in producing the ‘service’ remotely from the State.
The idea that football federations work closely with people involved in the game at all
levels to ensure the continued provision and development of the game is a basic tenet of
their activities. This model, however, considers this interaction in a slightly deeper
way, likening it to people taking it upon themselves to deliver what could be
understood as a public service, sometimes as a response to a lack from the State.
Granted, this model is ideologically based in the Third Sector, civil society concept that
the role of active citizenship is socially positive. This philosophical viewpoint has public
governance relevance in terms of how responsibilities for social services are assigned
and constructed, and more specifically when considering the role of federations in sport
governance agendas. However, across the spectrum of European football governance,
what is worth noting is the variability both of the levels of awareness federations and
states have of the nature of their relationship and the levels and nature of co-production
that result.
The basic foundations of football governance
Although it may seem overly simplistic, the role a football federation plays in
ensuring the existence of the game and providing individuals with the opportunity to
play it can very easily be understood within the definition of co-production. It is only
half the story, however, considering that the individual citizens at the grassroots
levels of the game who participate in the sport as volunteers, who manage
clubs, coach teams, play the sport, set up the pitches, and referee at weekends all
form the other half of the system. It is this co-involvement and commitment to the
production of the game itself that could be classified as ‘co-production’ within this
model.
Since co-production is so closely tied to the actualities of the game, we could
consider multiple examples within this definition. The basic provision of the game is the
most straightforward. The regulation of the game and match day competitions also fits
into this framework. Volunteer recognition and development throughout the game is
part and parcel of this activity. Elite footballer production and the development of
youth (including the promotion of positive social values) is also part of co-production.
The development of grassroots initiatives for increasing participation at all levels is core
to the concept of co-production of football within the category of social service. Efforts
at equalities agenda promotion, anti-discrimination, social inclusion, and the facilitation
of acceptance of all at every level of the game is an important example of the interaction
between football federations and the citizens with whom they engage. Traditionally,
football federations have by their very nature promoted health and fitness initiatives,
which is becoming an increasingly important public policy arena. Above all, in each of
these instances, the model of co-production is about blending social objectives with
sporting ones, enacted together by the football federation and the people active within
the sport.
Football governance, however, faces the challenges of confronting the mix of
grassroots and professional sides of the game. Here, the interpretation of the model of
co-production also applies. One might consider, narrowly, that all citizen–NGO
interaction in the production of public services is co-production. Following from this,
defining the professional game as a public service needs only to consider football’s place
as part of cultural heritage, national identity, and the scale of its economic impact as
part of a set of existing (arguably essential) elements in the national social fabric. In this
way, it is possible to frame the governance of the professional game as well as the
grassroots game as examples of co-production.
Anti-discrimination, social inclusion, and child protection policies: Whose

responsibility?
Current discussions of anti-discrimination policy and practice in football, on the pitch as

well as among the fans, evoke interesting responses by federations to their roles and
responsibilities in this area of social values and the promotion of civil society (see Elling
et al. 2001 for a broader discussion on integration). Anti-discrimination policies, and
the equalities agenda more broadly, can be assessed as having different levels of
development across European federations.2 Social inclusion on lines of faith, nationality,
gender, and disability are commonly discussed albeit not always comfortably, whereas
anti-homophobia policies have appeared in less than a handful of federations to date.
International agreement on sanctions has now been developed in the effort to

combat racist behaviour by fans and players alike. Within this policy bundle, child
protection policies have been and are being developed by some federations but certainly
not by all.
Looking at this through the lens of co-production and the collective promotion of
civil society, it appears universal that football federations have the ability to be on the
front lines of public service delivery regarding these social issues, and regarding their
potential for positive social impact. Because of the sheer number of participants at the
base of the game, and the broad exposure to the professional game, football
federations have a very strong position for delivering a social policy message. Anti-
discrimination policies and a strong equalities agenda are part of this, although they
require time and resources to implement. Child protection policies are equally
challenging as they require a careful balance between support for the network of
citizens upon which the game depends, and some form of screening and
accountability without the creation of conflict and over-bureaucratization. In the
English Football League, for example, all adults who come into contact with boys in
the clubs’ elite centres of excellence are required by the Football League to have
child protection clearance certificates.
What is interesting for this discussion, however, is to consider where the boundaries
are located between the role of the federation in developing, implementing, and
governing these practices versus the role of the State. A strict definition of co-
production would define this as a matter of the Third Sector organization working
directly with the citizens for whom they are responsible in performing and delivering
what could be considered to be a public service function. Mandating the behaviour of
federations in this area can also create conflict (Bairner 2004). There are national legal
frameworks that provide foundations for defining the core conflicts behind anti-
discrimination policy, equalities agenda setting, and child protection regulation; the
question for future discussion in terms of co-production is the nature of the state–
federation relationship in managing and governing these issues for football.
Further thoughts on football governance as public service co-production
football is also a major social and cultural phenomenon; a source of local, regional and national European
identities; and it plays a dual role in the formation of European citizenship as a site for social cohesion
and integration as well as a site of social and cultural division and exclusion.
(Brown 2000: 131)
Ideally, to fit the model, the system of football governance would be a cohesive
interaction of football’s citizens and federations actively considering their involvement
as a social/public service. For most governments, the responsibility for the game
itself and its continued development and existence is left to the football federations to
manage themselves; in this instance co-production is understood more narrowly.

There appears to be agreement in the nature of these state/federation relationships
that the stewardship of the individual game is in the hands of the federation. This
autonomy appears a vital part of the functioning of the game, and of the relationships
between federations and the individuals they represent. Shaw and Allen (2006: 224)
investigated interorganizational partnerships among sport organizations in New
Zealand and warn that while ‘under-management is of concern in nonprofit
partnerships, we also contend that over-management by one partner may be
problematic’. An awareness of governance issues seen through the lens of the co-
production model feature these stewardship-type issues: social sustainability;
promotion of social values; constant improvement and recognition of the importance
of stakeholder engagement; and the federations’ increased social accountability for
their governance actions.
UNDERSTANDING CO-GOVERNANCE
Whereas co-production is located at a distance from the State, co-governance involves

direct interaction within the public sector, between the State, federations, and citizens.
Co-governance is about meaningful co-involvement between these NGOs and
government in real terms within policymaking and implementation processes. Two
of the major shortcomings of the category of co-governance are that we have little
precise research available on these types of close interactions between NGOs and the
State, and also that for sport we are even further limited by a lack of research on sport
and public governance more specifically. This means that the theory remains somewhat
conceptual rather than practical. However, these interorganizational relationships do
exist, and are more visible when shifting the focus of attention from a federal or even
international level to that of regional and local activities where the proximity between
government and football can be closest.
Specifically for the purposes of this discussion, though, co-governance can be
considered as building the future of football as a joint effort of public service, through
policy and practice. To be categorized as co-governance, the interaction requires that
the State, the federations, and involved citizens together determine the future
governance priorities (or aspects thereof) of sport as social service delivery. This is
about more than consultative communication, however, and is instead seen as a
mechanism for developing a closer, more active recognition and partnership between
the federations and the State in how football is governed. Historically, in many
countries, this type of partnership has had a chequered and sometimes limited nature,
particularly when considering the regulation of the professional game. In some cases,
the question of autonomy of football federations from the State has formed in
opposition to this type of co-governance concept. However, here the discussion
attempts to shed light on positive opportunities to consider co-governance as a
mechanism for enhanced dialogue for football governance within a public governance
approach.
Working together towards football governance
Several studies have recently investigated the use of consultative processes in the
attempt to build a stronger interorganizational sport governance network. Co-
governance in theory looks at more permanent relationships, but consultation cannot be
ignored as a way to begin the process of bringing people together at the same table. Sam
and Jackson (2004: 206–7) studied consultative processes for building sport policy in
New Zealand, specifically looking at ‘the link between [policy] paradigms, power and
ideologies’. Adopting the public management theoretical framework of institutionalism,
Sam (2005) questions why taskforces exist in the first place. Researchers have also
considered various types of consultative processes, and recent research is able to
investigate some of the longer-term outcomes, both positive and negative, of these
often one-time events (Bairner 2004; Green and Houlihan 2004; Sam and Jackson
2006; Shaw and Allen 2006; Green 2007).
One important example of long-term co-governance, however, is that of the
relationship between the French state and French sport federations (Loret 1991;
Pigeassou 1991; Camy 1996; Michel 1996; Archambault et al. 1999; Amara et al. 2005;
Fusetti and Groeneveld 2007). First, it is written into French law that sport is a social
service, and this approach sets the stage for enduring engagement with the sporting
community. French federations (by law non-profit organizations) receive their funding
from the State on the basis that they uphold this tenet of delivering sport as a social
service. Federations also have to allow a public sector employee to work within the
federation as both a provider of technical and managerial support, and as a liaison with
the ministry responsible for sport. These individuals are specially trained through
university programmes authorized by the French government, and are referred to as
DTNs (national technical directors) at the national level of the federation. Their role is
replicated through the four main levels of French state and federation organization:
national; regional; departmental; and local. The role of the DTN at national level,
however, is also to accompany the elected volunteer head of the federation
(representing all French citizens involved in the sport) to direct discussion with
government. Annually, they sit down at the ministry to discuss the plans for the year
(written into a document referred to as the convention d’objectifs) and to pilot how, as
partners in the French sport system, they will ensure the best possible delivery of the
social service of amateur football, for example. In addition, a representative within
the federal government is assigned to each sport, and is responsible for ensuring that the
convention d’objectifs forms an integral part of the Ministry’s overall sport policy cycle.
Although this system may appear heavily bureaucratic, it represents a deep commitment
by all involved to the co-governance of French sport and to the role of sport as an integral
part of French society.
Further thoughts on co-governance
One challenge when discussing co-governance between a Third Sector organization and
the State is in finding the locus of the interaction. Another is to establish a clear view of
the development of the relationship between the federation and the State at all levels
that can facilitate this type of policy-level interorganizational communication. Agenda-
setting on both sides is also a key feature of this relationship: how close should
government and federations be? Perhaps, therefore, it is easier at local levels in which
there is already quite often a closer working relationship between government and sport
actors. This also points to the question of the role of the citizen (player, coach,
manager, parent, etc.) in this situation. In the co-governance model, the federation is
seen to act as a proxy for their interests as recognized by the State. However, in many
cases, active awareness of this communication pathway, both up through the federation
and down to the individual is not always transparent. The development of consultation
practices heralds a new beginning; the French model is an example of a mature system.
This presupposes some of the discussion to come later in the article, however, it is the
critical governance path chosen by individual football federations within these systems
in which we are interested for the future.
CO-MANAGEMENT: SHARING MANAGEMENT OF THE GAME WITH THE STATE
In the co-management type of interorganizational relationship, the State and the

NGO manage public service delivery together. This co-involvement is an active
collaboration in which policy objectives are operationalized, be they from the

federation or the State, with ideally an active and transparent sharing of managerial
expertise and practices in order to promote, develop, and deliver the service itself.
The locus of this relationship is typically within the federation, and can range from
the State supplying employees to the federation, to systems of accountability and
feedback, to shared management of discrete project implementation. This is about
management together rather than governance together; in other words, co-management
is about sharing and developing administrative competences.
One concern echoed in the literature on the management of federations is the shift
from a volunteer skills base to that of a more specific managerial skills base (Houlihan
2001; Cairns et al. 2005; Donaldson et al. 2005; Sharpe 2006; Harvey et al. 2007). The
question of organizational capacity is one of the core internal governance questions
facing both football federations and clubs on a global scale. In some countries, the State
has taken the decision to play a role in enhancing and developing the improvement of
these skill sets within the federations. In others, the Government has set a schedule of
reporting by federations to government in order to evaluate their activities

and address plans for future development. In still others, the federations have a high
level of autonomy without overall co-management, yet with separately co-managed
projects.
Looking at co-management possibilities from a theoretical perspective, it becomes
evident that sport is on the cusp of a major shift in federation/state responsibilities,
one which may be a positive move towards shared attitudes, or which could be a
negative move towards more control by the State. Recalling Osborne and Flynn’s
(1997) work on innovation discussed earlier, this is really a point at which managers
in the private, public, and non-profit arenas need to be alert to innovation and
positive opportunities for a sustainable future network. Bauer (2006) talks about the
question of a top–down approach using the concept of implementation management
capacity by government to NGOs, which implies a strategic usage of co-management
for a strong future. In the case of football governance in the twenty-first century,
there is perhaps more need for dialogue and learning between government and
federations in order to develop transparent competencies, communication, and
agenda-setting practices.
Feedback, autonomy, and accountability systems
One example of a co-management practice is that of increasing checks and balances on

the distribution of funds to federations: ‘the new importance of sport in social policy has
been accompanied by an emphasis on measurement, evaluation, and effectiveness. The
broad shift from the vague and imprecise management by objectives . . . to objective-led
management . . . has been reinforced’ (Coalter 2007: 25). Again, this is a question of
perception; at its heart, particularly for football is the need to consider knowledge
transfer processes in a nascent area of both federation management and public

management, between research and policymaking, between federations and government
(Almeida and Bascolo 2006).
In some federations with a history of kitchen-table management styles, feedback with
the State on managerial issues can create a vital, sustainable learning system. For other
federations with a mature, professional organizational structure, co-management in
terms of feedback systems with the State may be seen as interfering with their
autonomy. According to Foster’s (2005: 63) discussion on regulation of federations by
government, albeit legal rather than managerial, he points out that: ‘the autonomy that
allowed self-regulation by sporting bodies has weakened in the face of legal
intervention. The need for due process in decision making and the need to prevent
abuses of dominant power within the sport were two important consequences of this
legal intervention’, processes which were strongly influenced by globalization and
commodification. As Edquist (2006: 504) describes in her analysis of EU relationships
with the Third Sector, benchmarking and best practices are increasingly used as
managerial measurement instruments of the interorganizational process to the benefit of

both sides: ‘European NGOs’ increased social responsibility, combined with their
financial reliance on state and private-sector financing, suggests that role conflict risk is
real.’ Likewise, some measurement instruments, ‘blur NGO’s fealties by mixing up the
sources of support and project design; NGOs are answerable to multiple sectors of
society, and involve many sectors of implementation’ (2006: 504). However, much of
this, particularly with sport, relates to a need to improve upon information asymmetries
in governance across the still-developing interorganizational network between
governments and federations that affect co-management of policy implementation (see
Bauer 2006).
This confronts the issue of growth and change in the development of football
federations and their management and governance skills. In Osborne and Flynn’s
(1997: 34) ‘typology of organizational change in the human services’, they stress that
innovative capacity necessary for growth is not inherent in all voluntary non-profit
organizations, that these organizations need clarity for the type of innovation and the
implications for management, the structural characteristics needed for innovation,
the organizational and not individual nature of innovation, and the need to examine
their funding sources and patterns (1997: 34–6). Above all, they emphasize that
managers must be proactive. That said, one of the complications is that football
organizations as part of the Third Sector are difficult to segment for analysis, and for
developing appropriate co-management strategies. For instance, given a typology of
non-profit organizations such as that of Brandsen et al. (2005: 752) with four types
of non-profit organization divided by task orientation, football organizations fall into
all four. Segmentation therefore is a challenge, as is managing and governing
innovative practices. The risk, particularly with football organizations, is uneven
development.
Further thoughts on co-management in theory and practice
Returning to the earlier discussion on the perception of sport, particularly football, as

a cultural and social service, Coalter (2007: 11) describes in his summary of the
British situation that, ‘although the rhetoric of recreation as welfare was ideologically
potent, it remained politically weak and relatively marginal to core public policy
development’ (emphasis in the original). He also points out that, ‘funding became
increasingly dependent on an organization’s ability to illustrate (at least theoretically)
their contribution to the social inclusion agenda’ (2007: 18). It is this connection
between social service or public service delivery, public sector sport policy, and
(independent) federation activity which needs closer investigation.
Co-management, like co-governance, is understudied from a public governance
perspective, particularly when it occurs in a sport context. However, sport policy
research provides us with examples of the outward implementation of policy either by
government or by federations acting on government interests. In the sport policy area,
there are many examples of policy in practice, as well as feedback systems, although not
recognized as co-management as such. In most cases, it is also important to note that
co-management theories relate to a type of interorganizational interaction which is not
about regulation in the sense of control, but instead is very much about co-operative
sustainability and development in the delivery of the service. Still, ‘we find that
nonprofit organizations are being made subject to increased public scrutiny, and calls for
greater ‘‘efficiency’’ of operations and greater ‘‘accountability’’ to public authorities
and other constituencies are becoming more frequent’ (Anheier et al. 2001: 2).
However, as Foster (2005: 63) implies, the sporting context for the European state/
federation/citizen relationship is in and of itself a cultural practice; in the European
context, regulators consider sport ‘as a cultural commodity with unique social elements
and can be described as a European model of sport. It preserves the traditional
autonomy of governing bodies over purely sporting issues’. What needs to be explored
further is how the concept of co-management can best be applied as a positive approach
to innovation in the interorganizational network of football governance.
FOOTBALL GOVERNANCE, CITIZENS, AND THE STATE: FINDING A

(CO-)PRODUCTIVE BALANCE FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
Having considered these examples, placing football federations in the context of the
Third Sector sheds light on the important reality that as times change we need more
research that places federations within both public and non-profit contexts.
Additionally, considering them in relation to the public sector highlights not only the
same problems, but also that there is a wide variety of stakeholders required to support
and sustain the game of football. This shared commitment and co-involvement drive the
game forward. The private, public, and Third Sectors are all engaged here, as are the
individuals participating in the game itself. This article seeks to frame the public sector
side of the discussion, and to provoke more discussion on the contexts in which football
federations interact with government.
That said, the management theory of co-production, co-management, and co-
governance is one lens through which to study these relationships and their variability
from autonomous to symbiotic. One common governance theme in each type of
relationship is that of ensuring the sustainability of the sport. In the case of co-
production, the federation might be seen as either taking up the slack in a context
where the State is not active, or in delivering a public service under the framework
of the State but at arm’s length; both are cases for social sustainability. In the case of
co-governance, which forms the closest relationship between federations and the
State, the resources allocated to and required by this type of governance require a
commitment to the importance of sport and its future. Finally, co-management can
be perceived as a rescue plan, a support network, or a working space in-between co-
production and co-governance; regardless, the aim of co-management is to keep

football governance healthy and developing in terms of provision of this public service
for the future.
There is also a practical and relevant public governance question to address: is
football a public service? Is it an issue for state involvement? There is undoubtedly
increased involvement by government in sport as part of health and welfare agendas
(Bergsgard and Rommetvedt 2006; Green and Houlihan 2006; Coalter 2007). The
examples in this article present different contexts of football governance, and in each of
these cases the role of the public sector inevitably appears. How do these federations
approach state involvement and how do they perceive their Third Sector role? Applying
the co-production, co-governance, co-management model provides one lens through
which to develop a deeper analysis of these relationships.
Thinking on a global scale, Forster and Pope (2004: 10) explain that, organisations and forms of sports
governance, both in terms of their structures and processes, have the potential to be major points of
change in the political economy of sports . . . [but] . . . there is a concern with the governance and
accountability in global sports governing bodies.
In fact, some may consider this discussion of the state/federation relationship as

challenging some of the traditional tenets of football governance: ‘FIFA’s engagement
with state politicians usually only happens when it seeks to help one or more of its
member associations prevent political interference into its affairs by its national
governments’ (Sugden and Tomlinson 2005: 43). Public management and Third Sector
scholars would argue that this is perhaps an unsustainable approach:
There are, however, indications that the traditional clear-cut separation of market based, state-based, and
civil society bound/third sector-based service units has become increasingly insufficient; instead one
faces service systems and institutions that are shaped simultaneously by all three sectors, their values,
and their steering mechanisms.
(Evers 2005: 738)
In other words, at the outset of the twenty-first century, now is the time to build an
informed understanding of football governance, both from the public, private, and
Third Sector/federation perspectives: this network is an inevitable reality of sport in a
civil society framework. Hoye and Cuskelly (2007: 16–31) detail six key influences on
the governance of non-profit sport organizations, of which all are connected to the
federation/government relationship in one way or another. They highlight this
increasingly unavoidable reality, which is also a very public one in the case of football.
As Kjaer (2004: 5) points out, ‘the question of how to steer these self-organizational
networks becomes crucial’. Lester Salamon (1995) identifies three basic mechanisms for
these non-profit organization/citizen/government networks: bottom–up from the
citizens they represent, focused on outside effects and incentives, or top–down from
government. Ring and van de Ven (1992, 1994) pose fundamental questions in their
research which are relevant to the development of football governance along these
lines: what decisions have been made about governance? How have the different
relationships been entered into and through what sorts of formal or informal
relationships? The key task for managers engaged in football governance is to determine
where their organizations want to be within this interorganizational framework for the
future.
In summary, this article investigates wider issues of how federations and citizens
together consider and enable the governance of football, from grassroots to the top
levels of international competition. At each level of the football system, regardless
of nation or federation, the discussion in this article reveals that, despite different
orientations of agenda-setting maturity and different styles of state/federation/
citizen relationships, the governance of football certainly requires co-involvement
and shared commitment to the legacy and the future of the game, along four key
governance principles: legitimacy; efficiency; democracy; accountability (see
Kjaer 2004: 11). The public management theory of co-production, co-management,
and co-governance allows for greater insight into the nature of this
managerial structure. Football is unequivocally part of the fabric of European
society, and the understanding that this article sheds on its governance is of
indelible importance culturally, politically, and, perhaps most importantly, for its
sustainable future.
NOTES
1 For a discussion on the blurry nature of NPO/Third Sector terminology, see Brandsen et al. (2005).
2 Lucy Faulkner of the English Football Association is an outstanding proponent of the development of these
policies, both in the UK and abroad.
REFERENCES
Almeida, C. and Bascolo, E. (2006) Use of Research Results in Policy Decision-Making, Formulation, and
Implementation: A Review of the Literature, Cadernos de Saude Publica – Reports in Public Health. 22:
Supplement ppS7–S33.
Amara, M., Henry, I., Liang, J. and Uchimi, K. (2005) The Governance of Professional Soccer: Five Case Studies
– Algeria, China, England, France and Japan, European Journal of Sport Science. 5: 4 pp189–206.
Anheier, H. K., Carlson, L. and Kendall, J. (2001) ‘Third Sector Policy at the Crossroads: Continuity and
Change in the World of Nonprofit Organizations’ in H. K. Anheier and J. Kendall (eds) Third Sector Policy
at the Crossroads: An International Nonprofit Analysis, London: Routledge.
Archambault, E., Gariazzo, M., Anheier, H. K. and Salamon, L. M. (1999) ‘France: From Jacobin Tradition to
Decentralization’ in L. M. Salamon, H. K. Anheier, R. List, S. Toepler and S. W. Sokolowski (eds)
Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil
Society Studies.
Babiak, K. (2007) Determinants of Interorganizational Relationships: The Case of a Canadian Nonprofit Sport
Organization, Journal of Sport Management. 21: pp338–76.
Bairner, A. (2004) Inclusive Soccer – Exclusive Politics? Sports Policy in Northern Ireland and the Good Friday
Agreement, Sociology of Sport Journal. 21: pp270–86.
Bauer, M. W. (2006) Co-Managing Programme Implementation: Conceptualizing the European Commission’s

Role in Policy Execution, Journal of European Public Policy. 13: 5 pp717–35.
Bergsgard, N. A. and Rommetvedt, H. (2006) Sport and Politics: The Case of Norway, International Review for the
Sociology of Sport. 41: 1 pp7–27.
Bergsgard, N. A., Houlihan, B., Mangset, P., Nødland, S. I. and Rommetvedt, H. (2007) Sport Policy: A
Comparative Analysis of Stability and Change, Oxford: Elsevier.
Bovaird, T. and Loffler, E. eds (2003) Public Management and Governance, London: Routledge.
Brandsen, T. and Pestoff, V. (2006) Co-Production, the Third Sector and the Delivery of Public Services: An
Introduction, Public Management Review. 8: 4 pp493–501.
Brandsen, T., van de Donk, W. and Putters, K. (2005) Griffins or Chameleons? Hybridity as a Permanent and
Inevitable Characteristic of the Third Sector, International Journal of Public Administration. 28: pp749–65.
Brown, A. (2000) European Football and the European Union: Governance, Participation and Social Cohesion –
towards a Policy Research Agenda, Soccer and Society. 1: 2 pp129–50.
Cairns, B., Harris, M. and Young, P. (2005) Building the Capacity of the Voluntary Nonprofit Sector: Challenges
of Theory and Practice, International Journal of Public Administration. 28: pp869–85.
Camy, J. (1996) ‘Sport Management in France’ in J.-L. Chappelet and M.-H. Roukhadzé (eds) Sport Management:
An International Approach, Lausanne: International Olympic Committee.
Chalip, L., Johnson, A. and Stachura, L. eds (1996) National Sports Policies: An International Handbook, Westport,
CT & London: Greenwood Press.
Coalter, F. (2007) A Wider Social Role for Sport: Who’s Keeping the Score?, London: Routledge.
Council of Europe (2006) Feasibility Study on the Proposed Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport: Background
Document (MSL-IM17 (2006) 1). Council of Europe.
Donaldson, A., Lank, E. and Maher, J. (2005) Making the Invisible Visible: How a Voluntary Organization Is
Learning from Its Work with Groups and Communities, Journal of Change Management. 5: 2 pp191–206.
Edquist, K. (2006) EU Social-Policy Governance: Advocating Activism or Servicing States?, Journal of European
Public Policy. 13: 4 pp500–18.
Elling, A., de Knop, P. and Knoppers, A. (2001) The Social Integrative Meaning of Sport: A Critical and
Comparative Analysis of Policy and Practice in the Netherlands, Sociology of Sport Journal. 18: pp414–34.
Evers, A. (2005) Mixed Welfare Systems and Hybrid Organizations: Changes in the Governance and Provision of
Social Services, International Journal of Public Administration. 28: pp737–48.
Forster, J. and Pope, N. K. L. (2004) The Political Economy of Global Sporting Organisations, London: Routledge.
Foster, K. (2005) ‘Alternative Models for the Regulation of Global Sport’ in L. Allison (ed.) The Global Politics of
Sport, London: Routledge.
Fusetti, C. and Groeneveld, M. (2007) ‘French Sport Federations: Models of Co-Production?’ in EGPA Annual
Conference (Third Sector Working Group), March 2007, Madrid, Spain.
Green, M. (2007) Olympic Glory or Grassroots Development? Sport Policy Priorities in Australia, Canada and
the United States, 1960–2006, International Journal of the History of Sport. 24: 7 pp921–53.
Green, M. and Houlihan, B. (2004) Advocacy Coalitions and Elite Sport Policy Change in Canada and the United
Kingdom, International Review for the Sociology of Sport. 39: 4 pp387–403.
—— (2006) Governmentality, Modernization, and the ‘Disciplining’ of National Sporting Organizations:
Athletics in Australia and the United Kingdom, Sociology of Sport Journal. 23: pp47–71.
Harvey, J., Lévesque, M. and Donnelly, P. (2007) Sport Volunteerism and Social Capital, Sociology of Sport
Journal. 24: pp206–23.
Head, B. (2008) ‘Public Management Research: Towards Relevance’ in IRSPM XII, March 2008, Brisbane.
Henry, I. (2005) The Governance of Sport in Europe, European Journal of Sport Science. 5: 4 p165.
Houlihan, B. (2001) Citizenship, Civil Society and the Sport and Recreation Professions, Managing Leisure. 6:
pp1–14.
—— (2005) Public Sector Sport Policy, International Review for the Sociology of Sport. 40: 2 pp163–85.
Hoye, R. and Cuskelly, G. (2007) Sport Governance, Oxford: Elsevier.
Kjaer, A. M. (2004) Governance, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Loret, A. (1991) ‘Le sport en France: de l’utilité publique à utilité ludique’ in F. Landry (ed.) Sport. . . The Third
Millennium, Sainte-Foy, PQ: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.
Michel, A. (1996) ‘Sports Policy in France’ in L. Chalip, A. Johnson and L. Stachura (eds) National Sports Policies:
An International Handbook, Westport, CT & London: Greenwood Press.
Osborne, S. P. (2006) The New Public Governance, Public Management Review. 8: 3 pp377–87.
Osborne, S. P. and Flynn, N. (1997) Managing the Innovative Capacity of Voluntary and Non-Profit
Organizations in the Provision of Public Services, Public Money & Management. October–December
pp1–39.
Osborne, S. P. and McLaughlin, K. (2004) The Cross-Cutting Review of the Voluntary Sector: Where Next for
Local Government Voluntary Sector Relationships?, Regional Studies. 38: 5 pp573–82.
Pestoff, V. (2006) Citizens and Co-Production of Welfare Services, Public Management Review. 8: 4 pp503–19.
Pestoff, V., Osborne, S. P. and Brandsen, T. (2006) Patterns of Co-Production in Public Services: Some
Concluding Thoughts, Public Management Review. 8: 4 pp591–5.
Pierre, J. and Peters, G. (2000) Governance, Politics and the State, London: Palgrave.
Pigeassou, C. (1991) ‘Sport et économie: l’émergence de nouveaux acteurs en France, les collectivités
terrioriales’ in F. Landry (ed.) Sport. . . The Third Millennium, Sainte-Foy, PQ: Les Presses de l’Université
Laval.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2000) ‘Governance and Public Administration’ in J. Pierre (ed.) Debating Governance:
Authority, Steering, and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ring, P. S. and van de Ven, A. H. (1992) Structuring Cooperative Relationships between Organizations, Strategic
Management Journal. 13: 7 pp483–98.
—— (1994) Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships, Academy of Management
Review. 19: 1 pp90–118.
Salamon, L. M. (1995) Partners in Public Service: Government–Nonprofit Relations in the Modern Welfare State,
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sam, M. P. (2005) The Makers of Sport Policy: A (Task)Force to be Reckoned with, Sociology of Sport Journal. 21:
pp78–99.
Sam, M. P. and Jackson, S. J. (2004) Sport Policy Development in New Zealand, International Review for the
Sociology of Sport. 39: 2 pp205–22.
—— (2006) Developing National Sport Policy through Consultation: The Rules of Engagement, Journal of Sport
Management. 20: pp366–86.
Sharpe, E. K. (2006) Resources at the Grassroots of Recreation: Organizational Capacity and Quality of
Experience in a Community Sport Organization, Leisure Sciences. 28: pp385–401.
Shaw, S. and Allen, J. B. (2006) ‘It Basically Is a Fairly Loose Arrangement . . . and That Works Out Fine,
Really’: Analysing the Dynamics of an Interorganisational Partnership, Sport Management Review. 9:
pp203–28.
Sugden, J. and Tomlinson, A. (2005) ‘Not for the Good of the Game: Crisis and Credibility in the Governance of
World Football’ in L. Allison (ed.) The Global Politics of Sport, London: Routledge.

This Article Was Downloaded By: On: 25 December 2009 Access

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This Article Was Downloaded By: On: 25 December 2009 Access

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This article was downloaded by:

On: 25 December 2009

Public Management Review

European Sport Governance, Citizens, And The State

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

as citizens acting together with federations in Margaret Groeneveld

Vol. 11 Issue 4 2009 421–440

Football as an international cultural phenomenon, alongside de Coubertin’s initiative of the Olympic

One of the major challenges facing the development of a twenty-first-century

citizen relationships, the governance of sport generally, and football specifically,

PUBLIC GOVERNANCE, THE THIRD SECTOR, AND THE ROLE OF FOOTBALL

Public management, governance, and policy

To develop this further, we need to look more specifically at a public management

Management which feature cross-overs in managerial approaches and advancements

governance fully we also need to consider implementation practices within government,

Towards a theoretical frame for discussion

In 2006, Brandsen and Pestoff introduced a theoretical and somewhat ideological

management; and co-governance. They considered these three perspectives as a typology

Framing football federations as NGOs and sport providers

EXPLORING THE CONCEPT OF CO-PRODUCTION

Co-production is perhaps the easiest of the three types of state–federation–citizen

The basic foundations of football governance

Anti-discrimination, social inclusion, and child protection policies: Whose

Current discussions of anti-discrimination policy and practice in football, on the pitch as

International agreement on sanctions has now been developed in the effort to

Further thoughts on football governance as public service co-production

manage themselves; in this instance co-production is understood more narrowly.

Whereas co-production is located at a distance from the State, co-governance involves

Working together towards football governance

part of French society.

Further thoughts on co-governance

CO-MANAGEMENT: SHARING MANAGEMENT OF THE GAME WITH THE STATE

In the co-management type of interorganizational relationship, the State and the

collaboration in which policy objectives are operationalized, be they from the

reporting by federations to government in order to evaluate their activities

Feedback, autonomy, and accountability systems

One example of a co-management practice is that of increasing checks and balances on

transfer processes in a nascent area of both federation management and public

managerial measurement instruments of the interorganizational process to the benefit of

Further thoughts on co-management in theory and practice

Returning to the earlier discussion on the perception of sport, particularly football, as

FOOTBALL GOVERNANCE, CITIZENS, AND THE STATE: FINDING A

production and co-governance; regardless, the aim of co-management is to keep

In fact, some may consider this discussion of the state/federation relationship as

Bauer, M. W. (2006) Co-Managing Programme Implementation: Conceptualizing the European Commission’s

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen