FAQ: Towards conceptualising an entity

Who should fund these efforts? 

Any entity that benefits from sport has a duty to protect it. This responsibility includes investing in integrity-related efforts. 

• Sports can fund efforts through membership fees, charging a fee for services otherwise offered by the private sector (such as specialised education, and/or training in good governance, crime prevention, and other integrity-related topics) or dedicating a portion of profits from sponsorship, broadcasting, or athlete transfer deals, particularly those with risks related to crime and corruption.
• Sports sponsors and broadcasters can also independently set aside a percentage of all their sports contracts for integrity purposes.
• Government authorities can contribute public funds to these efforts as an investment in the taxes that can be collected from regulating illegal markets and preventing and rectifying tax evasion and/or fraud.  
• Law enforcement agencies can reinvest seized assets as a preventive strategy against crime and corruption.
• Betting operators can dedicate a portion of profits to ensure the legal betting industry is a responsible and proactive advocate of regulated activity.

How would an entity be governed? 

Any entity would first need to be governed by defining principles including operational independence, transparency, accountability, responsibility, equity, stringency, democracy and clear separation of powers.

How would an entity be structured?

We drew inspiration from organisations with similar functions, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), and the International Labour Organization (ILO), to outline a potential governance structure. 

A chart of the entity could look like this:

For a more detailed description, please download the full report.

How could sport be involved? 

The entity should be established in accordance with the key principle of independence (see above). Two broad scenarios can be envisioned regarding the representation of sports governing bodies in the agency’s governance. 

Scenario 1: Sport in consultative capacity

In the first scenario, sports governing bodies serve a purely consultative role. They are represented in the advisory council but excluded from the agency’s decision-making bodies. The oversight body consists solely of member state delegates, appointed for their governance expertise. While sports governing body representatives may be invited to Working Groups (WG1, WG2, WGn...), the majority of members should remain independent of the sports movement.

Scenario 2: Sport as decision-maker 

In the second scenario, sports governing bodies would participate in key decision-making bodies alongside other sports movement stakeholders, such as athletes. To ensure balanced and inclusive representation, the agency’s oversight body could adopt a tripartite-plus model, inspired by the International Labour Organization (ILO). The general assembly could consist of four distinct groups, exemplified in this table: