It shouldn’t be a question of who is in power, but in the Philippines, it is. The legitimacy of national sports associations in the country often boils down to who says you’re legit and the other party isn’t. It appears to be a reflection of the multi-party system that ensconces a different ruling party almost every national election. And despite anyone’s best efforts, that flawed, disruptive system is unlikely to change. At most, it can be minimized, but we all know that it’s a numbers game, at best. That is the dilemma of being in charge at the Philippine Olympic Committee, and you have to be ready for it.
The problem starts at the top. When a new challenger to the status quo comes along, the members of the existing order weigh their options. What benefit will they derive from joining the newcomers? Will they have protection, security of tenure (rightly or wrongly), assurance of funding, a share of sponsorships, foreign travel, and other perks of being associated with the ruling party? If not, no matter how logical the plan is to improve their sport (and by extension, all others), then nothing will change. They will stay put, with their hands out in mendicancy and supplication, progress and fairness be damned.
On the other hand, if the NSA is affiliated with a big group, and can therefore guarantee a substantial voting bloc from a new challenger, then it is always spring or summer, and the courtship never ends. Everyone wants your swing votes, which will guarantee incumbency, at least for four years. As long as your bloc stays solid, you will always enjoy favor, at least until someone in the group gets greedy and wants your leadership position, or goes it on their own. Then a whole new mess begins when the balance of power shifts.
What do NSA leaders want? The prestige of position, the power to influence the association’s finances, the publicity of being boss, the control over the people in the sport, international recognition, the backing of the POC. You name it. It is unfortunately rare that an NSA leader proclaims the welfare of the athletes and the growth of the sport itself as their primary agenda, and means it. Me first, then the sport. Maybe.
Of course, there is also the issue of overlap, one sport having more than one master. In this case, the question is always who should be in charge, not necessarily who is. This is currently the case in more than half a dozen sports in the country, which may be clarified somewhat by a few questions.
Is it an Olympic sport? If it is, then the International Olympic Committee and the international federation (IF) both have a say. The sport may add events, but not necessarily new sporting disciplines with totally different technical requirements. The IOC can also withhold inclusion or limit participation from the Olympic program, when it deems the sport’s officials have behaved in a manner incompatible with the spirit of Olympism.
What does the international federation (IF) say? Of course, anybody can organize sports competitions in any sport, and claim expertise in it. The crucial words are “governing body”, a title that can be granted by the IF, not even the IOC. The IOC relies on various IFs to ensure that the national federations of those sports run competitions in the Olympic host country well. The IOC does not meddle in the internal affairs of the IFs or their members. Its concerns are limited to membership in the IOC and hosting and conduct of the games. The IOC does not run individual sports.
If the current POC leadership resolves conflicts in factionalized sports, nothing will stop each disenfranchised group from running, anyway. The only difference is that they cannot label themselves as the national governing body for the sport. Of course, this sows confusion and gives the impression that it’s all about who has more resources. More money, more people, more sponsors, more events, more income for officials. Everybody happy.
If a sport is not in the Olympic program or does not intend to be, it also runs the risk of being mired in multiple IFs with their own rules and politics. The skirmish becomes localized to that sport’s authorities. Inevitably, with no higher authority to resolve matters, the politics will perpetuate.
So how does a sport win?