TY  - JOUR
T1  - A STUDY OF SOURCES OF LAW OF SPORTS ORGANIZATION AUTONOMY - A CROSS COUNTRY COMPARISON BETWEEN TAIWAN AND TURKEY
AU  - Hsiang-yu, Hsiung
AU  - Tao-tien, Hsiung
AU  - Aslan, Murat
PY  - 2019
DA  - September
DO  - 10.18769/ijasos.592565
JF  - IJASOS- International E-journal of Advances in Social Sciences
JO  - IJASOS
PB  - OCERINT International Organization Center of Academic Research
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 2411-183X
SP  - 852
EP  - 859
VL  - 5
IS  - 14
LA  - en
AB  - The concept of sports governance hasbecome more and more popular in recent years and has received considerableattention in practice and academia. From institutional theory to environmentaldynamics, it is considered that the governance structure of the organization isto coordinate external pressures and interact with other organizations,regulatory environments, and systems, especially laws and regulations. Thepurpose of this study is to analyze the sources of law of sports organizationsautonomy in Taiwan and Turkey. Turkey and Taiwan are very similar in thestructure and environment of sports governance. And Turkey is better thanTaiwan in terms of the competitive performs participation of internationalsports and the holding of mega sports events. Therefore, this research analyzedthe content and changes of relevant laws and regulations of Taiwan and Turkeyon the basis of document analysis and uses relevant government documents andannouncements as a source of data analysis. This study found that Turkey haspassed the Sports Association Autonomy Act in 2004 and many associations havecompleted self-government. However, there are still rooms for Turkish Sportsorganizations of autonomy. There are two issues of autonomy of Turkish Sportsorganizations, board elections and funding. Turkish Sports organizations arestill highly relying on the funding of government and have thegovernment-appointed person in the supervisory members of the association. Incontrast, after the 2017 Taipei Universiade, Taiwan was under pressure frompublic opinion, and the government amended the National Sports Law. Itstipulates that the association should have a transparent electoral system,open participation for the whole people, and amendments to the player selectionsystem. It seems that the part of Taiwan's regulations is more perfect than theTurkish regulations and more in line with the spirit of good governance.However, such reforms are also worrying about the government's excessiveinvolvement in the association. Good governance is like a road without an end,and many developed countries are still moving towards this goal. Taiwan andTurkey have also undergone reforms and gradually move toward a good governancepath. However, in order to achieve the goal of good governance, in addition tothe improvement of the regulatory environment, what more important is theattitude of the leaders and the public to the sports organization. First ofall, we must publicize the concept of good governance, and establish a soundorganizational structure and organizational charter. Furthermore, through theconstraints of external stakeholders, the entire sports organization networkcan be more stable. The fulfilment of good governance of sports can also bepossible.
KW  - sport governance
KW  - law
KW  - reform
KW  - sports organization
KW  - NPOs
CR  - Australian Sports Commission (2012). Sports governance principles. Australia: Australian Sports Commission.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: Harvard University Press.
Chang, C. Y. (2002). An analysis of the development of folk sports groups in Taiwan. National Education Century, 203, 39-48.
Erturan, E. E., Brison, N., & Allen, T. (2012). Comparative analysis of university sports in the U.S. and Turkey. Sport Management International Journal, 8(1), 5-24.
Erturan, E. E., & İmamoğlu, A. F. (2011). Almanya ve Türkiye’deki spor kulüplerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi: Türkiye’deki spor kulüplerinin yapı ve işleyişine yeni bir yaklaşım [Comparative analysis of Sports Clubs in Germany and Turkey: A new approach to structure and function of the Sport Clubs in Turkey]. Hacettepe Journal of Sport Sciences, 22 (2), 54-68.
Erturan, E. E., & Sahin, M. Y. (2014). Political clientelism in Turkish sports federations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14(5), 556-566.
European Commission. (2013). Principles of good governance in sport. European Commission: Expert Group “Good Governance”.
Executive Yuan. (2017). The National Sports Act.
Ferkins, L., & Shilbury, D. (2010). Developing board strategic capability in sport organisations: The national-regional governing relationship. Sport Management Review, 13, 235-254.
Ferkins, L., & Shilbury, D. (2015). The stakeholder dilemma in sport governance: Toward the notion of “stakeowner”. Journal of Sport Management, 29, 93-108.
Ferkins, L., Shilbury, D., & McDonald, G. (2005). The role of the board in building strategic capability: Towards an integrated model of sport governance research. Sport Management Review, 8, 195-225.
Fişek, K. (1998). Devlet politikası ve toplumsal yapısıyla ilişkileri açısından dünya’da ve Türkiye’de spor yönetimi. Ankara: Bağırgan Yayınevi.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.
GSB. (2014). General information. Retrieved from https://www.sgm.gov.tr/
Hayhurst, L., & Frisby, W. (2010). Inevitable tensions: Swiss and Canadian sport for development NGO perspectives on partnerships with high performance sport. European Sport Management Quarterly, 10 (1), 75-96.
Huang, C. T. (2007). Research and development plan for the rule of law for sports groups. Report on the special research results commissioned by the Executive Committee of the Executive Yuan No.: sac-res-095-002). Not published.
Hsiung, T. T. (2015). A study of constructing and verifying a good governance principle for non-profit sport organizations in Taiwan (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Hsiung, T. T., Cheng, C. F. (2014). Intergovernmental mode in sport organizations: A case of Taiwan Sports Administration and Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee. Physical Education Journal, 47 (1), 275-290.
Nelson, R. E. (1989). The strength of strong ties: Social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 377-401.
Sawyer, T. H., Bodey, K. J., & Judge, L. W. (2008). Sport governance and policy development: An ethical approach to managing sport in the 21st century. Sagamore Publishing LLC.
Shilbury, D., & Ferkins, L. (2011). Professionalisation, sport governance and strategic capability. Managing Leisure, 16, 108-127.
Sport and Recreation Alliance (2011). Voluntary code of good governance for the sport and recreation sector. London: Sport and Recreation Alliance.
Sport New Zealand (2014). Nine steps to effective governance: Building high performing organisations. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
Sports Administration of the Ministry of Education of Taiwan. (2013). White paper on Sports Policy.
Tinaz, C., Turco, D. M., & Salisbury, P. (2014). Sport policy in Turkey. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 6(3), 533-545.
Yeh, C. M., Hoye, R. & Taylor, T. (2011). Board roles and strategic orientation among Taiwanese nonprofit sport organisations. Managing Leisure, 16, 287-301.
Yeh, C. M., Taylor, T. & Hoye, R. (2009). Board roles in organisations with a dual board system: Empirical evidence from Taiwanese nonprofit sport organizations. Sport Management Review, 12 (2), 91-100.
Wang, I. J. (2017). After the rectification of the "National Sports Act". https://www.twreporter.org/a/taiwan-athletics-problems-national-sports-act
UR  - https://doi.org/10.18769/ijasos.592565
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/800825
ER  -