Sport Governance Benchmarking Report
Evaluation and assurance of sporting organisations
The 2023 Sport Governance Standards (SGS) Benchmarking Report provides insights into how national sporting organisations (NSOs) and national sporting organisations for people with disability (NSODs) assess their governance maturity.
The standards bring the Sports Governance Principles to life and assist NSOs and NSODs to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of their governance systems and processes.
As well as informing individual Governance and Organisational Enhancement plans, the Benchmarking Report identifies the major development needs of NSOs and NSODs and helps the ASC prioritise support, education and resources for the sector.
Results are in
- 32 sports increased their governance performance in 2023.
Understand the rationale and data behind the SGS benchmarking report.
Background
Limitations of this report
The data in this report is self-reported by NSO/Ds. The ASC has reviewed the submitted data for obvious errors. However, due to the nature of self-reporting, the ASC is not able to independently verify all data in this report.
Due to the changes in the number of Standards measured in 2023 (see New Standards for 2023 and Principle 8 and the National Integrity Framework), the average scores for individual NSO/Ds are affected and should not be considered a direct like-for-like score. Consequently, these average scores should be treated as a guide and indicator of trends.
New Standards for 2023
The ASC annually reviews the SGS, ensuring the Standards and their corresponding measures continue to be fit-for-purpose in the evolving sporting environment. Further, the ASC seeks feedback from NSO/Ds on the relevance and effectiveness of the measures.
Based on this review and feedback, three new SGS were introduced in 2023:
- 1.3 – Demonstrated Values and Behaviours
- 2.4 – Member Collaboration
- 7.3 – Implementation of Risk Management
State and Territory adoption of the Sport Governance Standards
In a coordinated approach to drive national sport governance improvement, all State and Territory Agencies for Sport and Recreation (STASR) will have implemented the SGS with their respective SSOs by May 2024. Combining these results with the NSO/D data will provide the very first national benchmark for governance and enable a more coordinated approach to governance support for organisations across the country.
Principle 8 and the National Integrity Framework
Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) has assumed responsibility and support for the implementation of the National Integrity Framework by NSO/Ds. Consequently, activities in relation to Principle 8 (Standards 7.1 and 8.1 through to 8.8) are supported by SIA. The questions related to Principle 8 were removed from the Sport Governance Standards self-assessment in 2023 and will be directly supported by SIA.
Resources
An extensive suite of fact sheets, guides, tools and templates is available at the National Governance Resource Library to support sporting organisations on their continuous improvement journey.
Acknowledgements
The Sport Governance and Organisational Enhancement team would like to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of the STASR, as well as the NSO/D and state sporting organisation leaders who provided their time and expertise to the development of the Sport Governance Principles and accompanying standards.
Observations from the 2023 SGS benchmarking report.
Key insights
Improvement
Thirty-two sports increased their governance performance in 2023. The average score reported for a Standard across all funded NSOs in 2023 was 3.09 out of a possible 4.
Priority standards
To provide focus for the sector, the ASC and state and territory agencies for sport and recreation (STASR) identified the standards in the table below as specific areas of focus for 2022. The priority standards were selected based on the areas of greatest opportunity for improvement across the sector.
| Standard | 2022 avg. | 2023 avg. |
|---|---|---|
| 1.1 Code of conduct | 2.67 | 2.84 |
| 2.1 Engagement strategy | 2.75 | 2.64 |
| 4.2 Board diversity | 2.35 | 2.02 |
| 4.5 Nominations committee | 3.20 | 3.20 |
| 5.5 Board Charter | 2.94 | 3.15 |
Principles 1, 2, 4 and 7 have been identified as priority areas for governance improvement in 2023-24 based upon NSO/D SGS responses. This will provide a continued focus on these key areas of governance, including a sustained focus on Standards 2.1 and 4.2 which experienced a decrease in 2022, to deliver a positive impact in achieving greater maturity in these key governance areas.
Tier performance
All funded NSO/Ds are sorted into tiers, based on the financial investment from the ASC, and the revenue generated by the organisation. In this way, the ASC sets an expected governance maturity level based on resources available to the NSO/Ds.
| Tier | 2021 Ave | 2022 Ave | 2023 Ave |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sports funded > $3 million | 3.18 | 3.39 | 3.37 |
| 2. Sports funded > $1 million | 2.97 | 3.13 | 3.21 |
| 3. Sports funded > $500,000 | 2.83 | 3.00 | 2.83 |
| 4. Sports funded < $500,000 | 2.59 | 2.75 | 2.78 |
Sport Governance Principles – 3-year comparison
Year on Year (YoY) comparison of Principle performance highlights clear improvements have been made across the national sporting environment in:
- Principle 1: Values driven culture and behaviours, and
- Principle 3: A clear vision that informs strategy
Results also indicate consistent challenges in the following area:
- Principle 9: Embedded systems of internal review to foster continued improvement
*Principle 8 was not assessed in 2023, as Sport Integrity Australia has assumed responsibility for administering the Standards related to this Principle.
Explore the top and bottom performing standards and the biggest movers.
Performance trends
Top 5 Performing Standards
# 1 – Legal Entity (Standard 5.1)
The organisation should be a legal entity incorporated under the legislation which best fits its size, need and jurisdiction
Score out of 4: 3.95
# 2 – Vulnerable Persons and Children (Standard 7.1)
The organisation has a documented process to ensure compliance with working with vulnerable persons legislation (that reflects the varying legislative requirements of all States and Territories) including maintenance of relevant checks
Score out of 4: 3.67
# 3 – Director Term Limits (Standard 5.2)
The organisation should have a staggered rotation system for directors, with term limits and a maximum tenure of no longer than 10 years
Score out of 4: 3.62
# 4 – Member Communication (Standard 2.3)
The organisation proactively engages, communicates and collaborates with its members, ensuring accountability and transparency
Score out of 4: 3.61
# 5 – Director Independence (Standard 4.4)
The organisation’s directors should be independent, regardless of whether elected or appointed
Score out of 4: 3.61
Bottom 5 Performing Standards
# 35 – Succession Planning (Standard 9.8)
The board has a documented succession planning process for key personnel and the retention of corporate knowledge
Score out of 4: 1.89
# 34 – Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (Standard 4.2)
The board demonstrates a strong and public commitment to progressing towards achieving its diversity targets within its board composition including: Geographical locality, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, CALD, Age, SES, Disability, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Race, Religion
Score out of 4: 2.02
# 33 – Board Evaluation (Standard 9.1)
The board should regularly evaluate its performance and performance of individual directors. The board should agree and implement a plan to take forward any actions resulting from the evaluations
Score out of 4: 2.30
# 32 – Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Standard 2.1)
The board develops and publishes a strategy for engaging with, and listening to, the organisation’s members and stakeholders (including boards of their member bodies)
Score out of 4: 2.64
# 31 – Implementation of Risk Management (Standard 7.3)
The board has established a risk management system that is appropriate for the size and context of the organisation, aligns with strategy and enables organisation-wide decision making for the management of threats and opportunities
Score out of 4: 2.72
Biggest movers
The following table shows the Standards that had the biggest change year-on-year:
| Standard | 2022 Ave | 2023 Ave | % Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4.2 Board Diversity | 2.35 | 2.02 | -14% |
| 9.7 CEO Evaluation | 3.02 | 2.74 | -9% |
| 7.1 Vulnerable Persons & Children | 3.42 | 3.67 | 7% |
| 6.2 Chair Appointment & Evaluation | 2.97 | 2.79 | -6% |
| 1.1 Code Code of Conduct | 2.67 | 2.84 | 6% |
ASC Supporting resources
Results from the annual Benchmarking Report help inform governance resource development.
In 2022-23, several resources were released to support NSO/Ds align to the highest level of maturity against the Sport Governance Standards.
These included:
- The Defence – Risk Management course (supporting Principle 7)
- The Spirit of the Game – Organisational Culture course (supporting Principle 1)
- Board Stakeholder Engagement Plan (supporting Standard 2.1)
- Board Succession Planning (supporting Standard 9.8)
- Conflict of Interest and Director Independence (supporting Standard 4.4)
- Risk Management Process Implementation Guide (supporting Principle 7)
- Director Recruitment and Appointment (supporting Principle 4)
- Board Director Success Profile and Chair Success Profile (supporting Principle 4)
- Director Performance Evaluation (supporting Principle 9)
- Governance Committee Charter (supporting Principle 5)
- Finance, Audit and Risk Committee Charter (supporting Principle 5)
The full suite of free governance resources is located on the National Governance Resource Library.
Developed in partnership between the ASC, STASR and NSO/Ds, all resources are designed to be fit for purpose and reflect best practice in sport.
2023 results
NSOs and NSODs evaluated their governance maturity against each standard using a 4-point scale. A score of 1 represents low maturity and 4 represents high maturity. The average score across all sports and principles in 2023 is 3.09.
Note: Principle 8 is no longer measured by the ASC, as it is now managed by Sport Integrity Australia.
Values-driven culture and behaviours
Principle 1: The Spirit of the Game
Values-driven culture and behaviours
An organisation’s culture and behaviours should be underpinned by values, which are demonstrated by the board and embedded in its decisions and actions.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | 2023 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | The board have a directors’ code of conduct which outlines the high standards of professional and ethical conduct expected by directors in the interests of members | 2.4 | 2.7 | 2.84 |
| 1.2 | The organisation actively engages with its stakeholders to establish, define and publishes its core values and associated behaviours | 3.0 | 3.2 | 3.11 |
| 1.3 | Demonstrated Values & Behaviours | N/A | N/A | 3.11 |
- Standard 1.1 Code of conduct was a priority standard for NSO/Ds in 2022. This standard registered the second highest improvement across the 35 Standards, up from 2.67 to 2.84.
- Standard 1.3 Demonstrated values and behaviours is a new Standard for 2023, designed to measure the active demonstration of the organisation’s values. In 2023, it scored 3.11.
- Supporting this foundational Principle, the ASC launched The Spirit of the Game – Organisational Culture course in June 2023.
Aligned sport through collaborative governance
Principle 2: The Team
Aligned sport through collaborative governance
Across a sport, boards should work together to govern collaboratively and create alignment to maximise efficient use of resources and implement whole-of-sport plans.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | 2023 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 | The board develops and publishes a strategy for engaging with, and listening to, the organisation’s members and stakeholders (including boards of their member; bodies) | 2.9 | 2.8 | 3.54 |
| 2.2 | The board identifies and implements opportunities to meet with and collaborate regularly with the boards of their member bodies | 3.4 | 3.4 | 3.71 |
| 2.3 | The organisation proactively engages, communicates and collaborates with its members, ensuring accountability and transparency | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.61 |
| 2.4 | Member Collaboration | N/A | N/A | 3.16 |
- Principle 2 scored above the overall average (3.09), yet slightly lower than in 2022 (3.26), reflecting the continuous challenge to align sport through collaborative governance, particularly within a federated model.
- Standard 2.1 Stakeholder Engagement Plan (2.64) was a priority Standard for 2022, with a Board Stakeholder Engagement Plan resource developed to support NSO/Ds.
- In order to provide further direction for NSO/Ds, Standard 2.4 Member Collaboration (3.16) was introduced in 2023, reinforcing that best practice is for an organisation to collaborate with its member bodies and (where relevant) national body to engage in collective decision-making that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberate. Further, there is a focus on organisations collaborating to maximise efficient use of resources.
SPOTLIGHT ON SPECIAL OLYMPICS
Special Olympics Australia (SOA) sought feedback on engagement methods, activities and timing from members and stakeholders as part of the process of reviewing and updating their engagement strategy. The goal was an engagement strategy that is inclusive and fit for purpose, driving a high level of engagement.
As a result of the engagement process, SOA established a national council with state chairs and held virtual town hall meetings, which have informed tweaks to strategy and key changes to program delivery. SOA also introduced a monthly newsletter – Field of Play – which provides key updates and fosters open communication between the organisation and its members.
These initiatives led to a lift in the maturity score for Standard 2.1 from 3 to 4.
A clear vision that informs strategy
Principle 3: The Gameplan
A clear vision that informs strategy
The board is responsible for overseeing the development of the organisation’s vision and strategy as well as determining what success looks like.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | 2023 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1 | The organisation has adopted, in consultation with its members, a strategic plan with clear and measurable targets which link to a detailed operating budget | 2.9 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
- Principle 3 – The Program (formerly referred to as The Gameplan) is measured solely by Standard 3.1, which seeks organisations to adopt, in consultation with its members, a strategic plan with clear and measurable targets which are linked to a detailed operating budget.
- NSO/Ds scored this Standard 3.20, a 5% increase over 2022, and a further improvement over the base score of 2.94 in 2021.
A diverse board to enable considered decision-making
Principle 4: The Players
A diverse board to enable considered decision-making
A board should be a diverse group of people who collectively provide different perspectives and experience to facilitate more considered decision-making.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | 2023 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.1 | The board should have a diverse mix of skills, expertise and experience in order to meet the strategic goals of the organisation | 3.2 | 3.5 | 3.36 |
| 4.2 | The board demonstrates a strong and public commitment to progressing towards achieving its diversity targets within its board composition including: Geographical locality, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, CALD, Age, SES, Disability, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Race, Religion | 2.1 | 2.4 | 2.02 |
| 4.3 | The board, while ensuring the prevailing criterion for election is eligibility, skills, expertise and experience should be composed in a manner such that no gender accounts for more than 60% of the total number of Directors | 3.5 | 3.4 | 3.44 |
| 4.4 | The organisation’s directors should be independent, regardless of whether elected or appointed | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.61 |
| 4.5 | The organisation has a documented and transparent process for the identification and appointment of directors | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| 4.6 | The board has a composition which incorporates both elected and appointed directors | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.9 |
- Overall, Principle 4 remained consistent, however this somewhat masks the significant decrease in the average score for Standard 4.2 Board Diversity, which experienced the single biggest decrease of any Standard in 2023 (down 14% to 2.02). Board Diversity remains an area for further improvement and has been identified as a priority Standard across the sector for the third year running.
- Despite potential constitutional limitations for NSO/Ds, a continued focus on improving the balance of elected versus appointed directors resulted in a 5% increase in Standard 4.6 (2.90).
- In 2023, Principle 4 (and all six Standards) has been identified as a priority for the sector. The ASC has created a suite of resources for organisations to develop this critical element of governance.
Documents that outline duties, powers, roles and responsibilities
Principle 5: The Rulebook
Documents that outline duties, powers, roles and responsibilities
An organisation should clearly define and document its structure and the duties, responsibilities and powers of members, directors, committees and management.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | 2023 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.1 | The organisation should be a legal entity incorporated under the legislation which best fits its size, need and jurisdiction | 2.3 | 3.9 | 3.95 |
| 5.2 | The organisation should have a staggered rotation system for directors, with term limits and a maximum tenure of no longer than 10 years. A director may serve on the Board for a maximum of 12 years if appointed as chair of the organisation or to a senior position with an international federation | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.62 |
| 5.3 | A director who has completed the maximum term on the board is not eligible to stand as a director for that organisation for a period of at least three years | 2.9 | 3.3 | 3.16 |
| 5.4 | The board has a process for inducting new directors | 3.1 | 3.1 | 2.98 |
| 5.5 | The board operates under a documented board charter | N/A | 3.0 | 3.15 |
- Initially one of the lowest scoring Principles in 2021, Principle 5 experienced a significant improvement in 2022, primarily due to NSO/Ds acknowledging they were already incorporated as a Company Limited by Guarantee and conformed to the highest level of governance maturity in this area (in 2023, Standard 5.1 scored the highest average of all Standards with 3.95). Pleasingly, the results for Principle 5 have remained consistently strong overall (3.37 average).
- Resources were developed in 2022-23 to support organisations to document duties, responsibilities and powers.
- Note: due to a systems error, Standard 5.5 Board Charter was not collected in 2021.
Board processes which ensure accountability and transparency
Principle 6: The Playbook
Board processes which ensure accountability and transparency
Through effective processes and continual review of its performance, the board is able to demonstrate accountability and transparency to its members and stakeholders.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | 2023 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.1 | The organisation has a Finance, Audit and Risk committee | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.21 |
| 6.2 | The board shall appoint the chair and evaluate their performance | 2.5 | 3.0 | 2.79 |
| 6.3 | The board shall ensure that the CEO, upon leaving their role, is not appointed or elected to the board within 3 years | 3.1 | 3.3 | 3.46 |
| 6.4 | The board has rigorous processes for identifying and managing director conflicts of interest | 3.4 | 3.3 | 3.44 |
| 6.5 | The organisation reports on governance outcomes at both its Annual General Meeting (AGM) and in its Annual Report | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.74 |
- Principle 6 remained steady in 2023, with the greatest improvement coming from Standard 6.3 CEO Eligibility (3.46), with 46 NSO/Ds reporting that their organisation has a minimum period of 3 or more years before a former CEO is eligible to become a director. Encouragingly, only 7 NSO/Ds reported the lowest maturity score of 1 for this Standard, compared to 14 NSO/Ds in 2022.
- In 2023, resources have been developed and released to support each of the Standards under Principle 6.
A system which protects the organisation
Principle 7: The Defence
A system which protects the organisation
To proactively protect the organisation from harm, the board ensures the organisation has and maintains robust and systematic processes for managing risk.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | 2023 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.1 | The organisation has a documented process to ensure compliance with working with vulnerable persons legislation (that reflects the varying legislative requirements of all States and Territories) including maintenance of relevant checks | 3.2 | 3.4 | 3.67 |
| 7.2 | The board has a documented process for ensuring that the policies and procedures implemented by management are consistent with the organisation’s risk management framework | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.77 |
| 7.3 | Implementation of Risk Management | N/A | N/A | 2.72 |
- The average score for Standard 7.1 Vulnerable Persons & Children increased substantially for the second year in a row, marking the largest improvement in a Standard score with a 7% increase to 3.67.
- In late 2022, the ASC launched The Defence – Risk Management for Directors course, designed to further develop capability in the area of risk management.
- Standard 7.3 Implementation of Risk Management was introduced in 2023, helping NSO/Ds measure the practical application of risk in their organisation.
Embedded systems of internal review to foster improvement
Principle 9: The Scorecard
Embedded systems of internal review to foster improvement
The board must have an appropriate system of internal controls to enable it to monitor performance, track progress against strategy and address issues of concern.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | 2023 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.1 | The board should regularly evaluate its performance and performance of individual directors. The board should agree and implement a plan to take forward any actions resulting from the evaluations | 2.0 | 2.4 | 2.3 |
| 9.2 | The board will operate itself in an efficient manner and directors meet as appropriate to discharge their duties effectively | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.38 |
| 9.3 | The board has documentation and processes to operate its meetings in an efficient and effective manner | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.61 |
| 9.4 | The board maintains accurate records of meetings and board decisions | 3.1 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| 9.5 | The board has documented financial delegations. This includes, but is not limited to: expenditure, funding, grants, other financial transactions as resolved by the board | 3.0 | 3.3 | 3.11 |
| 9.6 | The board has documented non-financial delegations. This includes, but is not limited to: staffing, public relations, strategic actions, business plans, board resolutions, grievances and complaints | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.79 |
| 9.7 | The board has a documented CEO performance evaluation process | 2.7 | 3 | 2.74 |
| 9.8 | The board has a documented succession planning process for key personnel and the retention of corporate knowledge | 1.7 | 1.9 | 1.89 |
- For the third year running, Principle 9 has the greatest variance in scores, with averages varying from 1.89 for Standard 9.8 Succession Planning to 3.61 for Standard 9.3 Board Meeting Agenda.
- A focus on Standard 9.6 Non-Financial Delegations as a priority Standard in 2022 resulted in a 4% increase in average scores to 2.79.
- The ASC provides support to NSO/Ds on 9.1 Board Evaluation (2.30), offering an independent service to administer this vital function.
- Standard 9.8 Succession Planning remains the lowest scoring Standard across all Principles in 2023 (1.89). In 2023, the ASC has developed resources to support NSO/Ds in this critical component of good governance.