VCU Olympic Sport Governance Structures Case Study Analysis

Case STUDIES
Volume 1 Case Study 8
IN SPORT MANAGEMENT
Olympic Sport Governance Structures:
The Case of Two National Governing Bodies in Gymnastics
Andrea N. Eagleman
Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis
Adam Karg
Deakin University
Ryan M. Rodenberg
Florida State University
Keywords: governance and policy; international; gymnastics; North America; Australia/New Zealand; Olympics
This case explores the complex multi-layered governance structure in the international Olympic sport of
gymnastics, describing in detail the governance structures and operations of each layer – the International
Olympic Committee (IOC), Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG), which is the international
federation for gymnastics, and the national governing bodies (NGB) of gymnastics in the United States and
Australia, USA Gymnastics and Gymnastics Australia. While both NGBs highlighted in this case are deemed
to be successful on an international level, the case reveals many subtle differences between the two, which can
be discussed in both governance and organizational behavior contexts. Finally, the timely issue of age fraud
in gymnastics and the response from each level of governance are presented and provide an opportunity for
further in-depth discussion.
Introduction
As the body responsible for the Olympics, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has granted governance power
in gymnastics to the Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG), an organization that is self-described as “the
exclusive, global umbrella organization that governs the discipline” (Federation Internationale de Gymnastique [FIG],
2011a, para. 5). The FIG has, in turn, delegated certain governance authority to national governing bodies (NGB) of
sport, therefore developing a multi-level governance structure with a long history in gymnastics. Every nation that fields
a team for Olympic consideration has an FIG-recognized NGB. Gymnastics Australia (GA) and USA Gymnastics are
two examples of prominent NGBs.
This case study has two purposes. The first is to provide an overview of the multi-layer governance structure of
international gymnastics, including descriptions of the ways in which two NGBs of different stature (USA Gymnastics
and GA) operate within such structure. This section provides a basis for comparison between the two NGBs in order to
better understand how two different structures operate successfully in the international gymnastics landscape. Second,
Andrea N. Eagleman is an assistant professor of sport management at Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN. Adam Harg is a lecturer in the sport management program at Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Ryan
M. Rodenberg is an assistant professor of sports law analytics at Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
This content is copyright © Human Kinetics, Inc. and is not to be distributed, disseminated, or reproduced without permission.
47
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:44 PM UTC
  Eagleman, Karg, and Rodenberg
the case provides a narrowly focused examination of a pertinent issue affecting all layers of international gymnastics
governance, age fraud, a growing scandal that has engulfed dozens of athletes and entire national teams. This section
of the case provides an example of an important issue relatively unique to the sport of gymnastics that can be examined
from the perspective of many levels of gymnastics governance.
International Gymnastics Governance
International gymnastics governance is a multi-layered configuration involving complex relationships between the IOC,
the FIG, and a multitude of NGBs. This section provides detailed descriptions of the IOC, FIG, and NGBs, as well as
the relationships between the three.
The IOC is the authority responsible for the continuation of the Olympic Movement, which is a movement comprised of the IOC, International Federations (IFs), and National Olympic Committees (NOCs) (Olympic.org, n.d.c). It
was formed in 1894 to revive the ancient Olympic Games, and has been responsible for the modern Games ever since
(Olympic.org, n.d.c). The IOC is based in Lausanne, Switzerland, and governed by a President and Executive Board
of 15 members representing various countries throughout the world (Olympic.org, n.d.c).
NOCs are charged by the IOC with the task of developing and promoting the Olympic Movement in their respective countries. An NOC serves as a country’s primary contact with the IOC, and each NOC works with its NGBs to
select athletes to compete in the Olympic Games (Olympic.org, n.d.b). NOCs typically do not have a great deal of
communication with International Federations (IFs), which are appointed by the IOC to preside over specific sports on
an international level. The designated IF for the sport of gymnastics is the FIG (Olympic.org, n.d.a). Additionally, the
IOC credits the FIG with the distinction of being the “world’s oldest international sport organization” (Olympic.org,
n.d.a, para. 1), as the FIG was founded in 1881. The IOC currently recognizes 205 NOCs, of which 130 are affiliated
with the FIG via their NGBs for gymnastics (Olympic.org, n.d.b).
Based in Lausanne, Switzerland, the FIG is governed by a 24-person executive committee, a 21-person council,
six technical committees, a Gymnastics for All committee, two auditors and 13 content-specific commissions (FIG,
n.d.a). Representatives from countries around the globe serve on these councils, committees, and commissions. For
example, the executive committee alone contains representatives from Italy, France, Canada, Japan, Turkey, Germany,
Russia, China, Great Britain, United States, Switzerland, Sweden, Romania, Belarus, Poland, Algeria, Qatar, and
Venezuela (FIG, n.d.a).
A better understanding of the goals of the many committees and councils of the FIG can be found in Article 2 of
the FIG Statutes (2011b), which describes organizational objectives such as governing gymnastics on an international
level, ensuring safe, healthy, and moral development of gymnasts, fighting against doping, violence and injustice,
assisting in the friendships and relationships of gymnasts from different nations, and contributing to the continuation
of the Olympic Movement.
**********************
The FIG governs all multicontinental gymnastics competitions, such as the World Championships, Olympic
Games, Youth Olympic Games, World Games, and World Gymnaestrada (FIG, 2011b). ‘Gymnastics’ is a somewhat
broad term for the FIG’s governance authority, as the organization controls seven specific gymnastic disciplines: Gymnastics for All, Men’s Artistic, Women’s Artistic, Rhythmic, Trampoline, Aerobic and Acrobatic (FIG, 2011b).
The FIG’s membership is comprised of 130 affiliates – 126 national affiliated federations and four associate
federations. Affiliated federations are those which pay an annual fee, and are therefore entitled to privileges such as
voting at FIG Congress meetings, which are meetings involving all affiliated federations, submitting proposals to FIG
Congress, nominating individuals for FIG officers, and participating in official FIG events (FIG, 2011b). By contrast,
the associate federations are defined as “those that wish to establish, or retain, links with the FIG, but do not have any
of the above mentioned rights” (FIG, 2011b, p. 5). Each ‘federation’ is considered an NGB, which is a governing body
that controls the sport of gymnastics in its respective country, while simultaneously adhering to and carrying out the
rules and regulations set forth by the FIG. NGBs receive their designations as the official gymnastics governing body
from their country’s NOC (Olympic.org, n.d.b).
This content is copyright © Human Kinetics, Inc. and is not to be distributed, disseminated, or reproduced without permission.
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:44 PM UTC
Olympic Sport Governance Structures  
49
Part of the FIG’s authority includes suspending and, in extreme cases, expelling member federations that do not
comply with FIG rules and regulations. According to Article 7 of the FIG Statutes (2011b), suspended federations’
privileges are revoked throughout the duration of the suspension. Therefore, while the NGBs seem to be ruled by both
the FIG and their country’s NOC, the FIG has the most authority over the NGBs.
The Case of Two NGBs
USA Gymnastics
USA Gymnastics serves as the NGB for gymnastics in the United States. This designation is granted by both the U.S.
Olympic Committee (USOC), which is the nation’s NOC, and also from the FIG (USA Gymnastics, n.d.a). The USA
Gymnastics website lists the organization’s responsibilities as “selecting and training the U.S. Gymnastics Teams for
Olympic Games and World Championships; promoting and developing gymnastics on a grassroots and national level;
and serving as a resource center for member clubs, fans and gymnasts throughout the United States” (USA Gymnastics,
n.d.a).
According to the USA Gymnastics website, only 7,000 athletes competed in gymnastics in the U.S. during the
1960s, and today that number has reached over 90,000 (USA Gymnastics, n.d.a). Additionally, USA Gymnastics sanctions over 3,500 gymnastics competitions and events each year in the U.S. (USA Gymnastics, n.d.a).
The not-for-profit organization is based in Indianapolis, Indiana, and employs a staff of approximately 58 individuals in the following areas: Executive Office, Events, Marketing, Communications, New Media, Publications, Finance
& Administration, Member Services, Information Technology, Travel Systems, Women’s Program, Men’s Program,
Rhythmic Program, Acrobatic Program, Trampoline & Tumbling Program, and Group Gymnastics Program (USA
Gymnastics, n.d.e). In addition to a President, who works from the national office, the organization is also governed
by a 20-person Board of Directors, who are located throughout the country (USA Gymnastics, n.d.a). The organization
also has an advisory council made up of representatives from 21 organizations with close ties to USA Gymnastics, such
as the College Gymnastics Associations for both men and women, the Special Olympics, and the U.S. Elite Coaches
Associations, among others (USA Gymnastics, n.d.a).
The USA Gymnastics Bylaws lists its governance philosophy as “To encourage participation and the pursuit of
excellence in all aspects of gymnastics” (USA Gymnastics, 2009b, p. 3). The bylaws also assert that the Board of Directors retains all authority and power in the organization, that the organization’s mission and vision will be fulfilled in a
“family-like atmosphere” (p. 3), and that effective governance in the organization will rely on “a willingness to learn,
openness to new possibilities, and an appreciation and respect for the achievements of the past” (p. 3). In addition to its
bylaws document, the organization is also governed by rules and policies for each of its six programs: women’s artistic,
men’s artistic, rhythmic, trampoline and tumbling, acrobatic, and group gymnastics (USA Gymnastics, n.d.d). Each
program’s document contains rules and policies related to membership, competitive programs, sanctioning procedures,
meet officials, and apparatus requirements.
All six disciplines are governed directly from the USA Gymnastics national office, with all rules, regulations, and
certifications being mandated from the national office. Each of the six programs, however, also has their own complex
and unique structure involving many layers. The most publicly visible of the six programs is undoubtedly women’s
gymnastics. Of the 91,742 athlete members of USA Gymnastics, 75,746 of those participate in women’s gymnastics
(USA Gymnastics, 2010a; n.d.c).
Because the women’s program is the largest of the six programs, it will be used as an example of the governance
structure of an individual program area within USA Gymnastics. According to the Operating Code for Women’s Gymnastics, “The Women’s Program is composed of the Women’s Program Committee (WPC) and its sub-committees.
These sub-committees are charged with specific Women’s programs and are as follows – Administrative Committee
(AC), Junior Olympic Committee (JOC), International Elite Committee (IEC), and Technical Committee (TC). They
function as per the Operating Code and the Duties and Responsibilities” (USA Gymnastics, 2009a, p. 1). Beneath the
Women’s Program Committee and the national sub-committees are eight regional administrative committees and 51
state committees, followed by all women’s program professional members, which are typically judges and coaches
(USA Gymnastics, 2011).
This content is copyright © Human Kinetics, Inc. and is not to be distributed, disseminated, or reproduced without permission.
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:44 PM UTC
  Eagleman, Karg, and Rodenberg
In terms of the athletes themselves, the women’s program has a 10-level “Junior Olympic” progression through
which gymnasts compete at the local, state, regional, and national level as they progress further through the levels, with
level one being the most developmental level and level ten being the most difficult (USA Gymnastics, n.d.b). All of the
regulations for competition eligibility and advancement, as well as the rules and policies for routines, are established
by the USA Gymnastics national office (USA Gymnastics, n.d.b). Additionally, judges become certified at state or
regional testing sites, but the judging procedures are universally the same throughout the entire U.S. and are set forth by
the USA Gymnastics Judging Accreditation Program (USA Gymnastics, 2005a). In addition to women’s gymnastics,
the men’s, trampoline and tumbling, rhythmic, and acrobatic disciplines also have ten-level competition structures.
Beyond the Junior Olympic ten-level program is the Elite Program for the women’s, men’s, trampoline and tumbling, rhythmic, and acrobatic disciplines. According to the Women’s Elite/Pre-Elite/TOPs Program Overview, “The
Elite Program is designed to provide competitive experiences for athletes aspiring to the National Team or the Pre-Elite
Training Squad” (USA Gymnastics, n.d.f, para. 1). It is from this pool of gymnasts that the national team of up to 28
junior (under the age of 16) and senior (age 16 and over) athletes is comprised (USA Gymnastics, n.d.a). National team
members represent the U.S. in all international gymnastics competitions, including the World Championships and the
Olympic Games (USA Gymnastics, n.d.a).
In terms of its role in the international gymnastics landscape, USA Gymnastics is currently represented by eight
individuals on FIG committees and/or commissions. Of the 45 countries represented on FIG committees or commissions
in 2011, the U.S. and Germany had the most representatives from single countries with eight each. Other countries with
at least five representatives included Canada, Japan, Russia, and Switzerland with seven representatives each, China
with six, and France and Portugal with five each (FIG, n.d.a). In 2010, one of the U.S. representatives, Ron Froehlich,
who previously served as the Chairman of USA Gymnastics, was awarded the IOC’s Olympic Order award, the highest
honor bestowed by the organization (“Froehlich receives IOC’s Olympic Order”, 2010). It is “awarded to individuals
for distinguished contributions to the Olympic Movement” (“Froehlich receives IOC’s Olympic Order”, n.d., para. 2).
Froehlich’s receipt of this award seems to indicate that at least one of the U.S. representatives in the FIG holds a great
deal of power and respect within the Olympic community.
The last publicly documented misunderstanding between USA Gymnastics and the FIG occurred in September,
2010, as the U.S. received a strong written warning from the FIG for failure to announce the return of women’s artistic
gymnast Alicia Sacramone at least six months prior to international competition, thus violating a rule of the World
Anti-Doping Association (WADA) and FIG (FIG, 2010c). The gymnast had to undergo anti-doping tests, but was
allowed to compete in the World Championships. The FIG referred to this as an “exceptional decision” (FIG, 2010c,
para. 2) made for the gymnast’s sake in light of USA Gymnastics’ negligence. The FIG warned all other NGBs about
the severity of this situation by stating, “All FIG Member Federations have been reminded of the respective rules and
informed, that no more exceptions will be made and to respect the WADA and FIG anti doping rules” (FIG, 2010c,
para. 4). USA Gymnastics received no official punishment other than the written warning (FIG, 2010c). In its official
statement regarding the matter, USA Gymnastics was courteous and apologetic (USA Gymnastics, 2010b). Despite this
situation, the historical relationship between the FIG and USA Gymnastics “has been harmonious, as USA Gymnastics
has never publicly deviated from FIG-imposed policy” (Rodenberg & Eagleman, 2011, p. 591).
The committee minutes for each of USA Gymnastics’ six programs seemed to solidify the notion that USA Gymnastics and the FIG share a positive relationship. All mentions of the FIG in these committee minutes dealt with either
1) an update on new FIG policies/procedures from an FIG committee member, or 2) the need for a USA Gymnastics
representative to serve on an FIG technical committee. For example, the Trampoline and Tumbling Program Committee minutes from April 21, 2005 say, “The USA Gymnastics Board of Directors has asked each program to submit
the name of a representative to serve on a task force that will determine strategies for the successful election of USA
candidates to the FIG Technical Committees” (USA Gymnastics, 2005b, p. 1). Additionally, minutes from the Rhythmic International Elite Committee (USA Gymnastics, 2007), Men’s Program Committee (USA Gymnastics, 2006),
and Women’s International Elite Committee (USA Gymnastics, 2010c) all indicated that these programs sought a U.S.
representative to serve on their respective FIG committees. It is apparent that the USA Gymnastics Board of Directors
attempted to place as many U.S. representatives on the FIG technical committees as possible.
This content is copyright © Human Kinetics, Inc. and is not to be distributed, disseminated, or reproduced without permission.
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:44 PM UTC
Olympic Sport Governance Structures  
51
Gymnastics Australia
GA is the NGB responsible for gymnastics in Australia. The organization lists its purpose as “to represent the interests
of Australian Gymnastics as the Australian affiliate of FIG and, in co-operation with the Association Members, to coordinate and provide for the participation by Australian athletes, coaches and officials in Gymnastics and approved
national and international competitions” (Gymnastics Australia, n.d.a, p. 4).
Since its inception under the name The Australian Gymnastics Union (AGU) in 1949, GA has undergone substantial growth, formalization and professionalization, in line with other national sport organizations in the region. In
total, athlete membership has risen to over 122,000 athletes who compete at over 542 registered clubs, and technical
membership also has a high level of representation, with nearly 3,700 individual members holding coaching, judging
or dual accreditations (Gymnastics Australia, 2009).
GA is a not-for-profit organization based in Oakleigh, a suburb of Melbourne, Victoria, and employs a staff of
approximately 20 individuals based in business management, sport development, events, high performance, program
management and coaching divisions. The NGB is made up of eight association members based in the various states and
territories of Australia. GA’s Board of Directors consists of a president, four elected directors, two appointed directors
and an athlete representative (Gymnastics Australia, n.d.a). The full board of GA meets a minimum of six times a year
and maintains a strategic focus in its governance of the sport. The responsibility for implementing the strategic plan
and managing GA’s operating activities rests with the Chief Executive Officer and staff.
GA aims to promote gymnastics as “a lifestyle, not only a sport”, with the express goals of raising its profile and
becoming a leader in delivering organized sport. The organization has legal capacity and powers of a company as set
out by the Australian Corporations Act with its eight directors having the duties to manage GA’s business and exercise
its powers and develop policies and by-laws (consistent to the GA constitution) to control, administer and manage
Gymnastics Australia’s operations. Its mission is to promote, develop and increase participation in gymnastics from
grass roots to elite through the provision of best quality programs, products and services. It lists as its organization
values strong leadership, innovation, flexibility and continuous improvement, open and effective communication, valuing contributions of staff, members and volunteers; working effectively, and promoting a performance culture with a
focus on results (Gymnastics Australia, n.d.a).
In managing the sport, the GA board created and oversees National Gymsport Technical Commissions (NGTC) that
control and govern all technical matters of the different ‘Gymsports’, or gymnastics disciplines (Gymnastics Australia,
2007). There are six national commissions, per a bylaw enacted in 2007, that represent Men’s Gymnastics, Women’s
Gymnastics, Rhythmic Gymnastics, Trampoline Sports, Sports Aerobics and Acrobatic Gymnastics. In addition to
the six NGTC, a seventh program area – Gymnastics for All – is a participation initiative that is also administered by
GA. Each of the seven commissions are therefore directly aligned with the specific gymnastic disciplines of the FIG.
Each commission is “responsible for the establishment and efficient management of technical regulations and
procedures to enable the achievement of Gymnastics Australia goals and objectives” (Gymnastics Australia, 2008, p.
4). The commissions prepare policies and regulations for approval by the directors, review performance and undertake
planning, co-ordinate and implement day-to-day management of the gymsport and prepare budget estimates relevant
to their specific commission. Their responsibilities therefore span decisions on rules and regulations, technical control
(including administering and enforcing FIG Code of Points), national programs, communication, education, national
and international events and managing the gymsports commission budgets. The day-to-day operational management
is the responsibility of the National Program Manager, who is based at the national head office and works in conjunction with the NGTC.
While in the U.S. system each of the six programs have their own complex and unique structure, each GA technical commission within Australia is inherently similar in structure. This is in part given the By-Law 6, under which
each was established, and homogenous Technical Commission Regulations (Part A), which are established by the GA
board and govern the structure, purpose and responsibilities, meeting procedures and communication of each of the
six commissions. Part B of each Commission’s regulations are gymsport-specific and developed by each commission
themselves. Technical Commission Regulations (Part A and B) are valid for one Olympic cycle.
This content is copyright © Human Kinetics, Inc. and is not to be distributed, disseminated, or reproduced without permission.
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:44 PM UTC
  Eagleman, Karg, and Rodenberg
Each commission reports directly to the GA Board and has a maximum of six members, with terms of office
between two and four years (Gymnastics Australia, 2011a; 2011b). These include national technical directors, judging
coordinators, two commission members, a national coach if applicable and the non-voting national program manager
who is generally an ex-officio GA employee. The job descriptions and desired criteria for each post are outlined in
the Technical Commission Regulations (Part A), which apply to each gymsport in the same manner. Each gymsport
commission structure also comprises a number of standing committees including advisory committees, elite management committees, national selection committees and national levels committees. Again, their functional composition,
appointments and meeting requirements are established in the Technical Commission Regulations (Part A), which apply
to each of the six gymsport NGTC. To serve member associations in line with the federated approach, state and territory
management committees for each association members are allocated a commission member for direct communication.
For athletes, the programs are largely homogenous across the six gymsports and are aligned with levels 1-10 (or
0-10 in some cases), canvassing development as well as state and national standards of competition. As such, the model
is comparable to that used within the U.S. systems. In Australia (using women’s gymnastics as a comparison in line
with the U.S. example) there are national and international development pathways across the ten levels. The national
(women’s) team can consist of up to 30 athletes, spanning International Development Pathway (IDP) levels 6, 8, 10
as well as junior international and senior international level gymnasts. Like the U.S., junior-level gymnasts are those
under the age of 16, and senior gymnasts are those age 16 or older (Gymnastics Australia, 2011b).
GA plays a lesser governance role in the activities of the FIG than its U.S. counterpart, with three members servicing the international body. The GA constitution is clear regarding its compliance and cooperation with FIG rules and
regulations, including those relating to age eligibility and team selections for international competitions (Gymnastics
Australia, n.d.a; n.d.b).
Age Fraud and Gymnastics Governance
The following section on age fraud provides an example of a pressing issue affecting all levels of international gymnastics governance (i.e., NGBs, FIG, and IOC). It is an issue unique to the sport of gymnastics, as few other Olympic
sports have minimum age requirements or have dealt with age fraud. It has the potential to impact the sport’s media
coverage, publicity, equity and credibility, making it a vital concern to all involved in international gymnastics governance. USA Gymnastics has been outspoken about the issue on several occasions, while GA has remained relatively
quiet on the topic.
In 1997, the FIG enacted a new minimum age rule for gymnasts competing at the senior elite level. This rule states
that in order to compete at the senior elite level (in the Olympics, for example), a gymnast must turn 16 in the same
calendar year as the international competition in which they wish to compete (Anderson, 1997). The FIG’s rationale
for the age minimum increase from 15 to 16 years old included concern for “the musculoskeletal development of
young competitors, lengthening gymnastics careers, preventing burnout, and in order to redirect the image of the sport
positively for the public, spectators and media” (Anderson, 1997, p. 1). According to Eagleman (2011), gymnastics
has one of the highest rates of injuries for girls, most of which occur when gymnasts experience a growth spurt or train
at a high level. Additionally, ethical issues involving physical, psychological and social risks often arise in situations
involving young elite-level athletes (Rowland, 2000).
Age fraud, or falsifying gymnasts’ birthdates to make them appear older, has become a significant problem
for the FIG since the implementation of the minimum age rule. Even prior to the current age minimum of 16, when the
age minimum was 15, countries falsified gymnasts’ ages to make them appear 15 or older. North Korea wasn’t allowed
to compete in the 1993 World Championships after falsifying the age of one of its gymnasts (Sullivan, 1996). In 2002,
four World and Olympic medalists from Romania claimed that their ages were falsified by coaches and Romanian
gymnastics authorities when they competed (“Romanian gymnasts”, 2002). Despite these public admissions, Romania
never received any sanctions from the FIG. This issue affects all NGBs, as well as the FIG, in that it provides an unlevel
playing field when some countries adhere to the age minimum rules and others do not.
The highest profile case of age fraud in recent years involved the Chinese women’s gymnastics team from the
2000 Olympics, which won the bronze medal in the team competition. In 2010, the Chinese team was stripped of its
This content is copyright © Human Kinetics, Inc. and is not to be distributed, disseminated, or reproduced without permission.
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:44 PM UTC
Olympic Sport Governance Structures  
53
medal after it was found that one of the gymnasts from that team was underage (Helliker & Fowler, 2010). The U.S.
women’s team, which finished fourth in the competition, was retroactively awarded the bronze medal in 2010 as a result
(Helliker & Fowler, 2010). Australian gymnast and 2000 Olympian Allana Slater suggested that this instance of age
fraud had negative consequences for GA, stating, “It certainly had an impact on the Australian gymnasts … it moves
Australia into sixth place position and with that we might have gone into the team finals and who knows from there …
Anything can happen in team finals situations. Perhaps we might have medaled. You don’t know. It’s all what ifs from
now on” (Laird, 2010, para. 18-20). To give Slater’s quote greater context, Australia finished in seventh place after
the women’s team qualification competition in Sydney, and thus did not qualify to compete in the team finals, which
consists of the top six teams from qualifications. Had officials known at the time that China violated the minimum age
rule, however, Australia would have finished sixth in qualifications and advanced to team finals, where the team would
have been in a position to earn a medal.
Suspicion again surrounded the Chinese women’s team at the 2008 Olympics when cyber-sleuths discovered documents showing that at least two of the team’s gymnasts did not meet the minimum age requirement (Helft, 2008). Under
pressure from the IOC to look into the gymnasts’ ages, the FIG conducted an investigation (Park, 2008). At the time,
USA Gymnastics president Steve Penny said, “USA Gymnastics has always believed this issue needed to be addressed
by the FIG and IOC” (Park, 2008, para. 3). The Chinese team did not receive any sanctions from the FIG, however, as
the documents disappeared from the internet and the FIG investigation produced age verification documents from the
Chinese authorities (Macur, 2008). In response, Bela Karolyi, a coach of multiple Romanian and American Olympic
and World champions, called these Chinese documents “a joke” and claimed, “Countries have been falsifying documents for years” (Roenigk, 2008, para. 11).
Because of the growing concern over age fraud in gymnastics, in 2009 the FIG introduced a license, or gymnastics passport, that all gymnasts must have in order to compete in international competitions (FIG, n.d.b) The license
allows the FIG to better track gymnasts’ ages throughout their entire careers, and therefore better detect and prevent
age falsification. Gymnasts must renew their license every two years (FIG, 2010a). In 2011, the only country being
penalized for age fraud was North Korea, which received a two-year suspension from the FIG in November 2010 for
one of its gymnasts using three different birthdates during international competitions from 2003 to 2010 (FIG, 2010b).
Paul (2010) asserts that even with the new licensing system, it might still be possible for a country to identify its best
gymnasts at an early age and falsify their ages even earlier in their gymnastics careers.
Although the FIG has taken steps in dealing with age fraud, some in the gymnastics community are still critical
of the FIG regarding this issue and the age minimum rule itself. The U.S. has seemingly been the most vocal in the public
sphere about this issue. At the 2010 U.S. National Gymnastics Championships, several leaders aired their concerns with
the FIG’s current system regarding age rules. Martha Karolyi, the U.S. Women’s National Team Coordinator and wife
of Bela Karolyi, said, “I’d like the FIG to look at the preparation of the child and let the country decide who is best to
compete” (Pells, 2010, para. 3). Furthermore, Bela Karolyi said, “The age limit is unfair. It is nonsense. Whoever has
the maturity and talent to compete at this level should be here” (Roenigk, 2008, para. 6). Here, Karolyi suggests that
no minimum age rule should exist and any gymnasts of any age should be allowed to compete. GA’s Chief Executive
Officer, Jane Allen, is in agreement with the FIG that a minimum age rule is necessary (Laird, 2010). Allen said, “How
young do you just keep going? The bottom line is obviously anyone a lot younger and smaller and more agile has the
ability to do faster, higher difficulty routines. But is that what we’re really looking for, or is it that we’re looking for
maturity and the ability to have expression as well as difficulty in the routines?” (Laird, 2010, para. 26-28).
Regarding the issue of age fraud, both Bela and Martha Karolyi agree that cheating takes place, and therefore the
playing field is uneven in international gymnastics. Martha Karolyi stated that “we respect the rules and some countries
don’t” (Pells, 2010, para. 6). Bela Karolyi has even been so outspoken as to publicly criticize the IOC for failing to
investigate the age controversy surrounding the Chinese women’s team at the 2008 Olympic Games, saying, “Shame
on them” (Manahan, 2008, para. 7).
One of the fundamental arguments against the minimum age rule is that gymnasts who turn 16 years old in
the same year as the Olympic Games do not have ample time to compete in international competitions in order to
better prepare themselves for the biggest international competition of their lives. Prior to the 2008 Olympics, a loophole existed allowing gymnasts to compete in non-Olympic international competitions at age 15, thus giving them
This content is copyright © Human Kinetics, Inc. and is not to be distributed, disseminated, or reproduced without permission.
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:44 PM UTC
  Eagleman, Karg, and Rodenberg
more international experience and better preparation for the Olympics (Pells, 2010). After the 2008 Olympic Games,
however, the loophole was closed and the age minimum of 16 was imposed on all international competitions. The FIG
has never publicly stated why the loophole was closed. When questioned by an Associated Press reporter at the 2011
World Gymnastics Championships, FIG President Bruno Grandi said, “I don’t know if this is a moment to explain
why we don’t want to reduce this level. Sixteen here represents enough” (Armour, 2011, para. 6). According to Pells
(2010), Penny said, “It is not in the best interest of the athlete to expect they’re going to the Olympic Games, possibly
for the first time on the international stage, and they have to have their best event there. And if they don’t, they have to
wait another four years. That’s not right” (Pells, 2010, para. 14). Because of the age eligibility rule, the birth date of
an athlete could have a profound impact on whether or not a gymnast is able to compete in the World Championships
or Olympic Games (Rodenberg & Eagleman, 2011).
One of the proposed solutions for the problem of age fraud in gymnastics is FIG-regulated age testing, or bone
testing, for gymnasts from all NGBs competing in World or Olympic competitions. This would utilize a method such
as a bone scan or dental records to determine a gymnast’s true age (Park, 2008). The best of these age testing methods
still have two-year margins of error, though, making age testing an impractical option for the time being.
The controversy over the minimum age rule and subsequent age fraud has led some to believe that the sport of
gymnastics might be better off without the minimum age rule. On this matter, Bela Karolyi said, “The only way to
stop this is to take off the age limit” (Manahan, 2008, para. 8). In direct opposition to GA’s CEO Allen, the Australian
women’s team coach, Peggy Liddick, asserted that there should be no age limit. According to Laird (2010), Liddick
said, “I think each country should be able to put their best athlete on the floor, and the main reason is because every
athlete matures and peaks at a different time” (para. 22). Furthermore, Rodenberg and Eagleman (2011) suggested that
removing the minimum age requirement would provide greater parity between countries in international gymnastics
competitions and would also provide greater opportunities for those gymnasts who barely miss the age cut-off for such
international competitions.
Discussion Questions
In what ways are the two national governing body organizations in this case, USA Gymnastics and Gymnastics Australia,
similar? In what ways are they different?
Describe the levels of complexity of each NGB. How formalized is each? How centralized is each?
Utilizing Mintzberg’s organizational configurations, identify and explain which configurations most closely fit the FIG,
USA Gymnastics, and Gymnastics Australia.
Based on the gymnastics governance system described, what are some characteristics or advantages of the sport system
that can be identified? Are these characteristics likely to be transferable to other sports?
Based on what you know about each NGB, how powerful do you believe each one is in the international gymnastics
landscape? Explain your reasoning.
Identify at least one area of each NGB that you feel could be strengthened or revised, and explain in detail how you
would go about changing that area of the organization.
Based on what you know about the issue of age fraud in international gymnastics, develop an outline of how the issue
is currently handled. Identify the role of organizations at different levels of the governance system.
Thinking critically about the current policies and procedures for age fraud, as outlined in your answer to question
seven, explain in detail your ideas for revising the minimum age rule and its enforcement in women’s gymnastics.
References
Anderson, V. (1997). Female gymnasts: Older and healthier. Technique. Retrieved June 8, 2011, from http://usa-gymnastics.org/
pages/home/publications/technique/1997/8/female.pdf
This content is copyright © Human Kinetics, Inc. and is not to be distributed, disseminated, or reproduced without permission.
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:44 PM UTC
Olympic Sport Governance Structures  
55
Armour, N. (2011, October 11). Age represents more than a number in gymnastics. Retrieved April 9, 2012 from http://news.yahoo.
com/age-represents-more-number-gymnastics-063850361.html
Eagleman, A.N. (2011). Gymnastics. Encyclopedia of Women in Today’s World. Retrieved June 8, 2011, from http://www.sageereference.com/womentoday/Article_n362.html
Federation Internationale de Gymnastique. (2010a). FIG License Rules. Retrieved from http://figdocs.lx2.sportcentric.com/external/
serve.php?document=2114
Federation Internationale de Gymnastique. (2010b). Two years suspension! Retrieved from http://www.fig-gymnastics.com/vsite/
vcontent/content/news/0,10869,5187-188805-206027-44766-311274-news-item,00.html
Federation Internationale de Gymnastique. (2010c). Warning for negligence. Retrieved from http://www.fig-gymnastics.com/vsite/
vcontent/content/transnews/0,10869,5187-187975-19728-44545-310514-17968-5233-layout188-205197-news-item,00.html
Federation Internationale de Gymnastique. (2011a). FIG FAQ. Retrieved from http://www.fig-gymnastics.com/vsite/vnavsite/page/
directory/0,10853,5187-201633-218856-nav-list,00.html
Federation Internationale de Gymnastique. (2011b). FIG Statutes: Edition 2011. Retrieved from http://figdocs.lx2.sportcentric.com/
external/serve.php?document=2549
Federation Internationale de Gymnastique. (n.d.a). FIG Directory. Retrieved from http://www.fig-gymnastics.com/vsite/vnavsite/
page/directory/0,10853,5187-188051-205273-nav-list,00.html
Federation Internationale de Gymnastique. (n.d.b). FIG License Check. Retrieved from http://www.fig-gymnastics.com/vsite/vcontent/page/custom/0,8510,5187-196741-213964-46937-297133-custom-item,00.html
Federations suspended. (2011, May 16). Retrieved May 23, 2011, from http://www.sportcentric.com/vsite/vcontent/content/
news/0,10869,5187-190623-207846-44545-313545-news-item,00.html
Froehlich receives IOC’s Olympic Order. (2010, June 23). Retrieved June 8, 2011, from http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/pages/post.
html?PostID=5655&prog=h
Gymnastics Australia. (2007). By-Law 6 – Gymsport Technical Commissions. Retrieved from http://www.gymnastics.org.au/site/
gymnastics/national/downloads/www2008/pdfiles/Constitution_By-Laws_policies/By-Law%206_%20Gymsport%20Technical%20Commission.pdf
Gymnastics Australia. (2008). Gymsport Technical Commission Technical Regulations – Part A – Commission Governance 2009-2012.
Retrieved from http://www.gymsa.com.au/site/gymnastics/national/downloads/www2008/pdfiles/Constitution_By-Laws_policies/Gymsport_Technical_Commission_Technical_Regulation_Part_A.pdf
Gymnastics Australia. (2009). Annual Report. Retrieved from http://www.gymnastics.org.au/site/gymnastics/national/downloads/
www2008/pdfiles/2009_GA%20ANNUAL_REPORT_WEB.pdf
Gymnastics Australia. (2011a). Men’s Gymnastics Technical Commission Regulations – Part B – Commission Operations. Retrieved
from http://www.gymnastics.org.au/site/gymnastics/national/downloads/www2008/pdfiles/MAG_Technical_Regulations_
Part_B_2011.pdf
Gymnastics Australia. (2011b). Women’s Gymnastics Technical Commission Regulations – Part B – Commission Operations. Retrieved
from http://www.gymnastics.org.au/site/gymnastics/national/downloads/www2008/pdfiles/Constitution_By-Laws_policies/
WG_Technical_Regulations_Part_B.pdf
Gymnastics Australia. (n.d.a). Gymnastics Australia Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.gymnastics.org.au/site/gymnastics/
national/downloads/www2008/pdfiles/Constitution_By-Laws_policies/GA%20Constitution.pdf
Gymnastics Australia. (n.d.b). Selection Policy. Retrieved from http://www.gymsa.com.au/site/gymnastics/national/downloads/
www2008/pdfiles/Constitution_By-Laws_policies/Selection%20Policy%20Part%20A.pdf
Helft, M. (2008, August 29). Internet-age detectives on the trail of gymnasts. The New York Times, pp. D2.
Helliker, K., & Fowler, G.A. (2010, April 29). China stripped of medal from 2000. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A11.
Laird, C. (2010, March 1). Medals furore sparks gymnast age debate. ABC Premium News (Australia). Retrieved April 9, 2012 from
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic
Macur, J. (2008, October 2). Inquiry on age clears some gymnasts, not all. The New York Times, pp. D1.
Manahan, K. (2008, August 7). Bela Karolyi’s solution would end gymnastics age limit. The Star-Ledger. Retrieved June 21, 2011,
from http://www.nj.com/olympics/index.ssf/2008/08/bela_karolyis_solution_would_e.html
Olympic.org. (n.d.a). International Gymnastics Federation. Retrieved from http://www.olympic.org/fig-artistic-gymnastics
Olympic.org. (n.d.b). National Olympic Committees. Retrieved from http://www.olympic.org/national-olympic-committees
Olympic.org. (n.d.c). The organisation. Retrieved from http://www.olympic.org/about-ioc-institution
Park, A. (2008, August 23). Can science tell a gymnast’s age? Time. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from http://www.time.com/time/
world/article/0,8599,1835485,00.html
This content is copyright © Human Kinetics, Inc. and is not to be distributed, disseminated, or reproduced without permission.
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:44 PM UTC
  Eagleman, Karg, and Rodenberg
Paul, J. (2010). Age minimums in the sport of women’s artistic gymnastics. Willamette Sports Law Journal, 7(2), 73-90.
Pells, E. (2010, August 16). US gymnastics still unhappy about age rules. USA Today. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from http://www.
usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2010-08-16-4215111810_x.htm
Rodenberg, R.M., & Eagleman, A.N. (2011). Uneven bars: Age rules, antitrust, and amateurism in women’s gymnastics. University
of Baltimore Law Review, 40(4), 587-606.
Roenigk, A. (2008, August 10). Karolyi says age limit would rob gymnasts of golden opportunity. ESPN The Magazine. Retrieved
June 20, 2011, from http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/gymnastics/columns/story?id=3527997
Romanian gymnasts: ‘lied about age’. (2002, April 18). Retrieved June 10, 2011, from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/
news/2002/04/18/romania_ap/
Rowland, T.W. (2000). On the ethics of elite-level sports participation by children. Pediatric Exercise Science, 12(1), 1-5.
Sullivan, K. (1996, July 8). In Olympic community, N. Korea is the odd neighbor. The Washington Post, pp. C1.
USA Gymnastics. (2005a). Judging Women’s Artistic Gymnastics. Retrieved from http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/pages/women/
pages/judging.html
USA Gymnastics. (2005b, April 21). Trampoline & Tumbling Program Committee minutes. Retrieved from http://www.usa-gymnastics.
org/PDFs/T&T/Committee%20minutes/TPC/ttpc21apr05.pdf
USA Gymnastics. (2006, July 14). Men’s Program Committee minutes. Retrieved from http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/PDFs/Men/
Committee%20Minutes/mpc-14jul06.pdf
USA Gymnastics. (2007, January 18). Rhythmic International Elite Committee minutes. Retrieved from http://www.usa-gymnastics.
org/PDFs/Rhythmic/Committee%20Minutes/RIEC/riec-18jan07.pdf
USA Gymnastics. (2009a). Operating Code for Women’s Gymnastics. Retrieved from http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/PDFs/Women/
Rules/operatingcode.pdf
USA Gymnastics. (2009b). USA Gymnastics Bylaws. Retrieved from http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/PDFs/About%20USA%20
Gymnastics/Governance/usag-bylaws.pdf
USA Gymnastics. (2010a). Membership Categories Breakdown. Retrieved from http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/PDFs/About%20
USA%20Gymnastics/Statistics/stats-memshipcategories.pdf
USA Gymnastics. (2010b, September 17). USA Gymnastics statement regarding FIG’s warning. Retrieved from http://www.usagymnastics.org/pages/post.html?PostID=6219&prog=h
USA Gymnastics. (2010c, November 20). Women’s International Elite Committee minutes. Retrieved from http://www.usa-gymnastics.
org/PDFs/Women/Committee%20Minutes/IEC/iec_112010.pdf
USA Gymnastics. (2011). Women’s Program Contacts. Retrieved from http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/PDFs/Women/Rules/Rules%20
and%20Policies/directory.pdf
USA Gymnastics. (n.d.a). About USA Gymnastics. Retrieved from http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/pages/aboutus/pages/about_usag.
html
USA Gymnastics. (n.d.b). Junior Olympic Program Overview. Retrieved from http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/pages/women/pages/
overview_jo.html
USA Gymnastics. (n.d.c). Membership Information. Retrieved from http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/PDFs/About%20USA%20
Gymnastics/Statistics/MembershipInfo.pdf
USA Gymnastics. (n.d.d). USA Gymnastics Rules and Policies. Retrieved from http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/pages/aboutus/
pages/rules_policies.html
USA Gymnastics. (n.d.e). USA Gymnastics Staff Directory. Retrieved from http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/pages/aboutus/pages/
staffdirectory.html
USA Gymnastics. (n.d.f). Women’s Elite/Pre-Elite/TOPs Program Overview. Retrieved from http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/pages/
women/pages/overview_elite.html
This content is copyright © Human Kinetics, Inc. and is not to be distributed, disseminated, or reproduced without permission.
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:44 PM UTC
Table 1 Comparison of USA Gymnastics and Gymnastics Australia.
USA Gymnastics
Gymnastics Australia
Vision
None listed in official USA Gymnastics
documents.
Gymnastics is a lifestyle, not only a
sport
Mission
The mission of USA Gymnastics is to
encourage participation and the pursuit
of excellence in all aspects of gymnastics
To promote, develop and increase participation in gymnastics from grass roots to
elite through the provision of best quality programs, products and services
Staff
Approximately 56
Approximately 20
Board Members
20
8
Number of FIG representatives
8
3
6
7
Number of athlete members
Number of ‘Gymsport departments’
91,749
121,865
Number of professional members
(coaches and judges)
14,072
3,673
Number of affiliated clubs
1,963
540
World Championship medals (Men’s &
Women’s Artistic)
83
10
World Championship medals (Trampoline & Tumbling)
122
45
World Championship medals (Acrobatic)
3
0
Olympic medals (Men’s & Women’s
Artistic)
87
0
Olympic medals (Trampoline)
0
1
This content is copyright © Human Kinetics, Inc. and is not to be distributed, disseminated, or reproduced without permission.
57
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:44 PM UTC
  Eagleman, Karg, and Rodenberg
Figure 1­ — Relationships between governing bodies of international gymnastics.
This content is copyright © Human Kinetics, Inc. and is not to be distributed, disseminated, or reproduced without permission.
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:44 PM UTC