Introduction

Corruption, doping scandals, inter-organizational conflicts, and gender equity issues persist within numerous international, national, and local governing bodies in sport. Unsurprisingly, many sport governing bodies (SGBs) have fallen short of achieving their anticipated outcomes in terms of effectiveness, social responsibility, equality, and organizational resilience due to governance-related issues. These issues include an inequitable governance structure, improper decision-making procedures, and leadership challenges (Parent & Hoye, 2018).

In response to these governance issues in sport, scholars have delved into various topics within sport governance, formulating principles and guidelines to enhance governance for better or good governance (Parent & Hoye, 2018; Thompson et al., 2023). Traditionally, sport governance is defined as a systematic process aiming to achieve strategic goals and objectives of sport organizations through monitoring, directing, managing, and controlling activities (Slack & Parent, 2006). As Cho et al. (2023) suggested, sport governance can be seen from a variety of perspectives, such as a goal-oriented managerial action (Slack & Parent, 2006), an exercise of granted power and authority (Hums et al., 2023), a system of compliance with regulations and law (Sawyer et al., 2008), and a system open to internal and external dynamics (Hums et al., 2023). The concept of sport governance has progressed from focusing on the internal process and mechanism to considering its wider contexts and interactions with various stakeholders (Hums et al., 2023). This emerging trend is supported by more sport governance literature that directly and indirectly covers traditional sport sociology topics. The current study also employed this broadened concept of sport governance.

Despite a growing number of research studies on sport governance, only a limited number of review studies exist that scrutinize research topics and trends in the sport governance literature. Notably, to our knowledge, there is no published bibliometric review on sport governance. Compared to other review methods (e.g., scoping review), bibliometric analysis could provide a more comprehensive and objective review on a given research field while proving quantifiable measurements of research impacts (Donthu et al., 2021). Therefore, the current study seeks to review the sport governance literature, explore research topics, and propose future research ideas in sport governance.

The exploration of literature on sport governance could be significantly enhanced through the introduction of review studies within this domain. Despite the pivotal role of good governance in shaping the sport industry, only three noteworthy review papers have systematically delved into research trends and synthesized meaningful topical areas in sport governance (Dowling et al., 2018; Parent & Hoye, 2018; Thompson et al., 2023).

Dowling et al. (2018) examined sport governance research published between 1980 and 2016 using a scoping review method. Guided by Henry and Lee’s three notions of governance (i.e., organizational, systematic, and political governance), their scoping review identified sport governance-related topics, research contexts, and social issues in the literature. Their study found that the vast majority of sport governance research has explored issues in systemic governance that are “concerned with the competition, cooperation and mutual adjustment between organizations in business and/or policy systems” (Henry & Lee, 2004, p. 24), while substantial studies explored organizational governance that is concerned with “normative, ethically-informed standards of managerial behavior” (Henry & Lee, 2004, p. 24) or socially acceptable norms and values of sport organizations (Dowling et al., 2018). To a lesser extent, fewer studies investigated political governance (i.e., how governments or governing bodies in sport steer the behavior of organizations; Henry & Lee, 2004) and explored such topics as changing relationships between state and sport, roles of governmental agencies and governing bodies on sport, and governmental involvement in sport (Dowling et al., 2018). In addition, their study identified popular topical areas in sport governance research, including sport for development (SfD), sport policy, law, partnerships, organizational change, and corporate social responsibility (CSR). They also found sport governance research often addresses some key social issues surrounding governance, such as gender, corruption, doping, and disability issues in sport (Dowling et al., 2018).

Parent and Hoye (2018) conducted a systematic review of the sport governance literature to understand the influence of governance principles and guidelines on sport organizations’ practices and performance. Analyzing 19 documents published between 2004 and 2018, their study identified key governance principles explored in the literature. These included membership-related aspects (e.g., board diversity, composition, size, and ownership structures), inter-organizational linkages (e.g., partnerships), regulatory structures impacting sport organizations’ governance, decision-making issues (e.g., accountability, transparency, procedural fairness, and decision-making protocols), shared leadership (e.g., collaboration between CEO and board members), and the board’s strategic focus (Parent & Hoye, 2018).

In a more recent examination, Thompson et al. (2023) conducted a systematic review of 73 documents published between 2002 and 2019 to delve into the contemporary landscape of governance principles in sport. This comprehensive study identified 258 governance principles, categorized into four groups: governance structure, process, outcome, and context. Notably, a majority of the explored principles focused on process-related topics, encompassing accountability, autonomy, board processes, democracy and decision-making processes, integrity, operation, stakeholder engagement, sustainability, and transparency. To a lesser extent, studies in sport governance delved into structure-related principles (e.g., board structure and composition, constitution and by-laws, organizational structure, and sport structure), outcome-related principles (e.g., CSR, effectiveness, efficiency, equality and inclusivity, and organizational resilience), and context-specific governance responsibilities such as bidding processes (Thompson et al., 2023).

While prior review papers offer valuable insights into the current status and research trends in sport governance literature, it’s important to note that all three studies employed systematic review or scoping review approaches, potentially introducing bias. To address this, the present study adopted a bibliometric analysis approach for a more comprehensive and objective analysis of sport governance literature (Donthu et al., 2021). This approach enables a nuanced exploration of the current status, research themes, and potential future research directions in this topical area. Specifically, the study aims to answer two key research questions: (1) Which research topics or governance principles have been discussed in the literature over the last three decades, and (2) what are the research gaps for future studies in this research domain?

Method

Results

Discussion

This study conducted a bibliometric review of sport governance research published in academic journals from 1995 to 2023 using the WoS database. The number of publications, frequently studied keywords and topics, citation structure, and h-index were considered. The results showed that research on sport governance has been progressively increasing over the past few decades, with a stronger publication record in the last decade. Overall, the majority of the published journal articles have focused on governance principles and practices in sport, while one of the major research domains is on gender dynamics in sport governance.

As mentioned above, this study found that there is a slow but steady growth in the number of publications per year on sport governance, especially in the last decade. While there were only sporadic studies in the 1990s and 2000s, the last nine years have seen a meaningful increase in publications. The increase in publications indicates a growing interest in the importance of good governance in sport. In the last three decades, IJSPP has been the primary source of scholarly articles, followed by ESMQ, SIS, and JSM, hinting at the prevalence of European influences in this research domain. However, the examination of core authors also suggests active research activities in Australasia.

This study also identified the most influential journal articles in this field. The top ten most cited articles covered such topics as sport policy on harassment and abuse (Mountjoy et al., 2016), good governance in international sport organizations (Geeraert et al., 2014), strategically able board (Ferkins & Shilbury, 2012), Olympic sport inclusion rules and esports (Parry, 2019), federated governance model (Shilbury et al., 2013), professionalization processes in sport organizations (Nagel et al., 2015), global sport organizations and their governance (Forster, 2006), gender dynamics in sport governance (Claringbould & Knoppers, 2008), board structure for national sport governing bodies (Taylor & O’Sullivan, 2009), and sport policy in Sweden (Fahlén & Stenling, 2016), indicating diverse research topics in sport governance research.

As identified through thematic mapping and factorial analysis, the conceptual structure of sport governance research is highly complex and diverse in terms of research topics and contexts. The results of thematic mapping suggest that core topics in sport governance (i.e., motor themes) include such topics as governmentality, instrumentality, board structure and composition, global sport governance, match-fixing, and sport betting. However, there are other niche and emerging topics in sport governance, such as gender equity, sustainable development and governance for emerging sports. Factorial analysis somewhat corroborates the results of thematic mapping as there is a distinct group of topics on diversity and gender-related procedural issues (e.g., elections and recruitment) for national sport federations (e.g., Adriaanse & Schofield, 2013, 2014).

As recognized by thematic mapping, sport governance as it relates to sport policy, board leadership, gender, football and Olympic were the common topics in the literature, given the strategic influence of board governance (e.g., Ferkins et al., 2009), the prevalence of gender inequity in sport leadership (e.g., Claringbould & Knoppers, 2008), and the contextual importance and spillover effects of football and Olympic (e.g., Geeraert et al., 2014; Pielke et al., 2020) in the context of sport governance. Other key topics and contexts identified in the literature included match-fixing, sport betting, globalization, commercialization, CSR, and sustainable development. Sport integrity is one of the critical guiding principles in sport governance and, thus, sport governance often focuses on ways to curb match-fixing, corruption, and unregulated sport gambling to enhance sport integrity (e.g., Gardiner et al., 2017; McNamee, 2013; Sam et al., 2023; Tak et al., 2018). For example, Sam et al. (2023) call for establishing integrity systems and governance to address a wide array of issues, including doping, match-fixing, harassment, bullying, exploitation, and abuse, suggesting the importance of sport integrity in the sport governance literature. While the majority of sport governance centers around non-profit or governmental sport organizations, some studies explored governance in commercialized sport organizations (e.g., Gammelsæter, 2010) or governance in the age of changing societal processes, such as commercialization, professionalization and globalization (e.g., Clausen et al., 2018). Also, sport organizations face increasing pressures to maintain profitability while making positive social contributions and behaving in socially acceptable ways. Consequently, sport governance researchers have explored sport governance as it relates to CSR and sustainability (e.g., Breitbarth et al., 2015; Chatzigianni, 2018).

Lastly, the intellectual structure of sport governance research was explored using co-citation analysis and historiographic mapping. Co-citation analysis resulted in two distinct clusters: voluntary board on sport governance (e.g., Hoye, 2007) and gender dynamics in sport governance (Adriaanse & Schofield, 2013). Historiographic mapping identified several seminal studies in this research area, such as studies on gender dynamics (Adriaanse & Schofield, 2013; Clarinbould & Knoppers, 2008), the federated government model (Shilbury et al., 2013), and the regulation of international sport (Chappelet, 2018).

Of the two clusters based on co-citation analysis, the literature in the ‘voluntary board on sport governance’ cluster mainly focuses on concepts, perspectives and governance principles on voluntary boards in sport organizations, given that board governance is critically related to strategic direction and decision-making of a given sport organization. Earlier studies in this area focused on the relationships between board governance and organizational effectiveness, such as to what extent board governance models, board compositions and board members influence organizational success (e.g., Ferkins et al., 2005; O’Boyle & Shilbury, 2016). Other related studies in this domain include collaborative sport governance (Shilbury et al., 2016), continuity and change in governance and decision-making (Kikulis, 2000), modernization on sport governance (Tacon & Walters, 2016) and structural issues regarding the quality of the self-governance (Geeraert et al., 2014). On the other hand, the literature on ‘gender dynamics’ focused on the status of gender equity and equality in sport leadership (Adriaanse & Schofield, 2013), gender equity policies in national governing bodies (Shaw & Penney, 2003), gender diversity in sport governance globally (Adriaanse, 2016) and gender order and power relations in sport leadership (Hovden, 2006). Given the current societal pressure on sport organizations concerning diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), there will be a greater number of forthcoming DEI-related studies in the sport governance literature.

Upon examining most recent studies in the sport governance literature, it seems that the above-mentioned two intellectual clusters are still relevant and important topical groups in the sport governance literature. For example, Stenling et al. (2023) explored nomination committees’ rule in shaping potential in national sport organizations’ board composition processes. McLeod et al. (2023) conducted a cross-country comparative analysis of diversity and board size in national sport federations, while Lesch et al. (2023) explored women’s representation and organizational characteristics in sport governance. Similarly, Pape & Schoch (2023) investigated whether meso-level fields of strategic action influence sport organizations’ actions on gender equality.

As reviewed above, diverse concepts and governance principles have been studied under the umbrella of sport governance. Notable publications in 2023 include such topics as governance design archetype (Parent et al., 2023), self-governance (Lehtonen et al., 2023), environmental policy and practice (Chatzigianni & Mallen, 2023), women representation (Lesch et al., 2023), and regulatory schemes and legal aspects (Cho et al., 2023). However, the current study found some noticeable research gaps in the sport governance literature. Further exploration is called for developing a comprehensive framework in sport governance as there is a lack of a consistent theoretical approach or conceptualization of governance principles (Parent & Hoye, 2018). Guided by Thompson et al.’s (2023) four different aspects linked to governance (i.e., structure, process, outcome, and context), the current study suggests that sport governance studies have focused on structure and process-related research topics such as voluntary board structure and composition, sport structure, autonomy, and governmentality while paid relatively smaller attention to outcome and context-related research topics. However, the results of the current study also identified that one of the outcome-related governance principles, namely (gender) equality and inclusivity, is getting greater attention from scholars in the field. Also, it was observed that there is a lack of empirical work in this research field, and thus, future studies should incorporate either qualitative or quantitative methodologies and scientific methods (e.g., Thompson et al., 2023).

Consistent with Geeraert’s claimed knowledge gaps in the literature, including “conceptual vagueness, unclear implementation rationale and unclear impact of good governance strategies” (Geeraert, 2021, p. 3), the current study also found that the concept of sport governance has been broadened over time and, thus, this change comes with conceptual vagueness. While the current study identified various studies and topics regarding the process (implementation) and outcome (impact) of governance strategies, the study also noticed the limited use of theoretical underpinnings and performance indicators. This collective issue is somewhat related to or escalated by the lack of efforts in quantifying good governance in sport (Girginov, 2023), given that many studies on sport governance extensively rely on case studies or anecdotal evidence to support assertions. Thus, future studies consider such issues in sport governance research.

Lastly, much of the literature focused on national and international levels and European sport governing bodies, and thus, future studies should consider studying sport governance at the regional or local levels and non-European contexts (Thomson et al., 2023).

Conclusion

Bibliometric analysis could provide the potential to explore the research trends and popular issues and identify possible areas of future research endeavors. This study has several theoretical and practical implications. First, the study provides an overview of how the sport governance literature (i.e., journal articles excluding review papers) has evolved over the last three decades since 1995. Secondly, this study helps researchers to identify relevant sources and recent topics to focus on. Lastly, the current study provides research gaps in this field that sport governance research could benefit from.