The purpose of this paper is to present a tool with which to understand the power existing in relations between sports organisations. This research proposes a tool will draw from…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to present a tool with which to understand the power existing in relations between sports organisations. This research proposes a tool will draw from the work of Machiavel (1513/2000), Galbraith (1985) and Baechler (1978). This tool is composed by three dimensions which guarantee the possessor an absolute power, so avoiding the threat of overthrow by discontented individuals.
Design/methodology/approach
A case study of the America's Cup 2007, held in Valencia, Spain, will seek to shed light on the theoretical conceptions of various authors. The America's Cup is one of the world's oldest competitive sporting events. A semantic analysis of the resulting data via Alceste and Wordmapper software, will highlight the particular power present in relations.
Findings
The importance of this research, in addition to finding a type of power in a precise case, is essentially to verify the functioning of the model of three dimensions, given its triangular form.
Practical implications
Organisations could acquire a better understanding of power present in their relations that they maintain and hence adapt their behaviour according to the strategy they seek to employ. International sporting events constitute a field where stakes are high, and each entity must work hard to put in place a set of strategies to ensure profit.
Originality/value
Sport as an area of research, sport is justified by recent developments in the world of sporting special events management, where weighty power struggles have considerably increased.
Details
Keywords
Sandrine Gherra and Frédéric Lassalle
International sport competitions continue to attract a high number of spectators and the potential political, community building and financial payoffs are such that the…
Abstract
Purpose
International sport competitions continue to attract a high number of spectators and the potential political, community building and financial payoffs are such that the competition to become a host city is often fierce. France has several attractive cities with all of the resources required to host these events, but they have repeatedly failed (Summer Olympic Games 2008 and 2012, Winter Olympic Games 2018, etc.). Most of the studies that have explored these failures have done so from a resource-based view. But when a city has all the required resources, what other factors may have been decisive? Could a misfit in the conception of power during the negotiation process explain it? The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach
We looked at the specific failure of Marseille to host the 2007 America’s Cup and focused particularly on the conceptions of power held, respectively by Marseille representatives and the committee in charge of choosing the host city. In line with French qualitative methods we performed a single case study based on discourse analysis (23 interviews with the involved parties and 22 outside experts) to analyze the sources of power that Marseille and America’s Cup Management (ACM) had.
Findings
The authors found that Marseille and ACM had different sources of power. According to Weber’s categories, Marseille had an “Organization” source of power: “it’s is a structure and an organization that implies specific rules” and ACM had a “Property” source of power: “it’s a commercial structure that has ownership rights to this very special event.” Analysis of the interviews reveals that points of disagreement reflected differing conceptions of power, which suggests new perspectives for future research in the context of failed negotiations in sports.
Originality/value
Analyzing failure from another angle that the classical resource-based view: having the right resources is no longer enough; cities have to have the winning strategy.
Details
Keywords
Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely…
Abstract
Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the work of Bismarck in relation to social legislation.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the work of Bismarck in relation to social legislation.
Design/methodology/approach
Bismarck's points of views are sketched mainly through quotations from his speeches in Parliament. His position regarding social protection is discussed and a brief evaluation of his policy is presented.
Findings
Germany, through the work of Bismarck, was the first country where the state organised a modern social‐security system. Compulsory sickness, accident and old‐age insurances were passed in 1883, 1884 and 1889, respectively. However, the Chancellor's social policy was not the result of a comprehensive, global, “definitive” programme. It was an opportunist policy influenced more by political than by social motives.
Originality/value
The paper offers insights into Bismarck's social policy in the context of the social question.
Details
Keywords
This chapter attempts to offer a clearer look at the historical roots of the founding of mutualist finance. Without denying that the various forms of financial mutualism may have…
Abstract
This chapter attempts to offer a clearer look at the historical roots of the founding of mutualist finance. Without denying that the various forms of financial mutualism may have legal and organizational roots in ancient times, the author considers what, for contemporary mutualist banks, may constitute the soul.
In its first part, the document presents the individual constructions that existed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in a context in which economic development and the industrial revolution banished the rules and standards of the former society. It refers to Utopian socialisms as opposed to the scientific solutions proposed for a new social organization and to the new solidarism according to Léon Bourgeois. Christian sources are also called to mind with social Christianity (Protestant) and social Catholicism until the birth of the social doctrine of the Church.
This frenzy of ideas as well as the confrontation with reality led to the birth, in Germany, of the first experiments with alternative finance. This is the subject of the second part of this chapter, which then develops the bank mutualism created by the founding fathers, F.W. Raiffeisen and H. Schulze-Delitzsch.
The historical description of the creation of mutualist banks brings up two major problems when talking about the “other finance”: the interest and activity of the bank. Is an ethical finance capable of proposing a credible alternative? This is a question that needs to be answered in the light of history.
This chapter attempts, more than 150 years after the fact, to demonstrate the ponderous presence of the question and the permanence of the founding ideas in order to comprehend the facts and propose ideas for analysis and construction of an “other finance.”
Details
Keywords
Introduction On 15 May 1891 Pope Leo XIII issued what has become known as “the Great Social Encyclical”, Rerum Novarum: De Conditione Opificum; or, “Revolutionary Change: On the…
Abstract
Introduction On 15 May 1891 Pope Leo XIII issued what has become known as “the Great Social Encyclical”, Rerum Novarum: De Conditione Opificum; or, “Revolutionary Change: On the Condition of the Working Classes”. Forty years thereafter, Pope Pius XI issued the second GSE, Quadragesimo Anno: On the Restoration of the Social Order (15 May 1931); and, in a string of papal pronouncements (allocutions, encyclical epistles and letters, etc.) and related Vatican documents ranging from Pius XII's brief Sertum laetitiae (1 Nov. 1939) and Radio Address of Pentacost 1941 celebrating the 50th anniversary of RN, e.g. via John XXIII's Mater et Magistra and Pacem in Terris (1961; 1963), …, John Paul II's Laborem Exercens: On Human Work and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis: On Social Concern (1981; 1987), official “Social Catholicism” has continued to address itself to the so‐called “social question” over this near‐century. It is thus with some anticipation, and the prediction of a prominent US ordinary, that we await a major social encyclical letter on the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum, perhaps with the opening words and title, Centesimo Anno: On the Social Question Today.