Hind­sight is 20/20 vi­sion. Si­lence is be­ing com­plic­it.

Are sports or­gan­i­sa­tions or­gan­ised for yes­ter­day and not for to­day? To thine own self be true. It’s a rare ex­cep­tion for lead­ers to take ul­ti­mate re­spon­si­bil­i­ty for their de­ci­sions, to ad­mit they made a mis­take and take re­spon­si­bil­i­ty for do­ing some­thing about it. Be­cause of emo­tion­al com­mit­ment, it’s hard to make dif­fi­cult de­ci­sions. And be­cause of that re­luc­tance, or­gan­i­sa­tions run in­to avoid­able prob­lems with long-term con­se­quences.

Lead­er­ship mat­ters. Lead­ers set the tone. Lead­ers make a dif­fer­ence, ei­ther pos­i­tive­ly or neg­a­tive­ly.

Lead­er­ship is about gov­er­nance, and gov­er­nance is about de­ci­sion mak­ing.

Poor gov­er­nance and mediocre lead­er­ship can have a num­ber of im­pacts on a sports or­gan­i­sa­tion, which can, in cer­tain cas­es, be detri­men­tal to an or­gan­i­sa­tion’s rep­u­ta­tion and le­git­i­ma­cy.

A re­form/mod­erni­sa­tion ac­tion plan to ad­dress poor gov­er­nance prac­tices is an ur­gent pri­or­i­ty. At­tract­ing new sources of fund­ing and in­vest­ment will be com­pro­mised if the re­al­i­ty and or per­cep­tion of poor gov­er­nance is not ad­dressed.

To be fit for pur­pose for to­day, to­mor­row and be­yond, sports or­gan­i­sa­tions must put in place good gov­er­nance struc­tures which are fit for pur­pose for to­day, to­mor­row and the fu­ture. Sports or­gan­i­sa­tions will lose pub­lic trust and stake­hold­er trust. It’s not a case of if the breach of trust will hap­pen, it will hap­pen. Sport or­gan­i­sa­tions can’t main­tain the sta­tus quo sim­ply be­cause it’s easy and com­fort­able. Su­per­fi­cial ut­ter­ances and false nar­ra­tives will be to the demise of the in­tegri­ty of sport if left un­chal­lenged.

Too many in lead­er­ship po­si­tions dis­re­gard the im­por­tance of lead­er­ship re­spon­si­bil­i­ty.

To fu­ture-proof an or­gan­i­sa­tion, hard de­ci­sions and choic­es have to be made.

In 2014, the au­thors of the Fi­nal Re­port for the FI­FA Gov­er­nance Re­form Project stat­ed: “There can be lit­tle doubt that the rea­son for in­ap­pro­pri­ate con­duct can usu­al­ly be de­ter­mined. It is al­most al­ways a com­bi­na­tion of a break­down in sys­tems and con­trols.”

Lead­er­ship mat­ters. Lead­er­ship dri­ves gov­er­nance.

Be­cause of the re­spon­si­bil­i­ty of lead­er­ship, time is nev­er on the side of lead­ers. Lead­ers don’t have the lib­er­ty of time. Lead­ers are ex­pect­ed to get the im­por­tant de­ci­sions right. They must know the dif­fer­ence be­tween im­por­tant de­ci­sions and ir­rel­e­vant de­ci­sions.

The make-or-break point of the or­gan­i­sa­tion is de­ci­sion-mak­ing.

A lot of time is spent tack­ling the wrong is­sue. Ef­fec­tive de­ci­sions re­quire thought and know­ing the dif­fer­ence be­tween un­nec­es­sary de­ci­sions and nec­es­sary de­ci­sions. Rou­tine de­ci­sions are de­ci­sions that have no con­se­quences, or at least no fore­see­able con­se­quences.

Avoid­ing the re­al is­sues to fo­cus on triv­ial and su­per­fi­cial con­flicts will not make for ef­fec­tive de­ci­sion-mak­ing. Lead­er­ship de­ci­sions re­quire sep­a­rat­ing the nec­es­sary from the un­nec­es­sary.

De­ci­sions don’t make them­selves; ef­fec­tive peo­ple do; the tough­est de­ci­sions are peo­ple de­ci­sions. The con­flict to en­sur­ing com­pe­ten­cy and the need for com­pas­sion. No or­gan­i­sa­tion ben­e­fits when lead­ers are afraid to say, we made a mis­take, es­pe­cial­ly when mis­takes mean let­ting down both the or­gan­i­sa­tion and the cause. Good in­ten­tions and com­pas­sion alone don’t help an or­gan­i­sa­tion im­prove and do bet­ter as it strives to achieve gov­er­nance ex­cel­lence.

The on­ly test of per­for­mance in the lead­er­ship po­si­tion is per­for­mance in the lead­er­ship po­si­tion.

For sports or­gan­i­sa­tions, the hard ques­tion is, are we build­ing for to­mor­row or are we set­tling for the con­ve­nient and easy?

It takes courage to ex­press a con­trary view or opin­ion. Si­lence is choos­ing to be com­plic­it.

Can com­pas­sion, good in­ten­tions and hope ever jus­ti­fy gov­er­nance fail­ure?