The review follows a previous assessment in 2018–2019 and used a self-assessment questionnaire covering 25 governance indicators, an increase from 20 in the last study. Of the 32 member federations invited, 30 participated in the review.

A Spectrum of Performance

The moderated scores from the 30 IFs analysed showed a wide variation, ranging from 31 to 91 out of a possible 100, with a group average of 55. The IFs were separated into four performance groups (A1, A2, B, and C), with six federations achieving the top A1 ranking.

Ironically for a report focused on governance, the review itself lacks specific transparency regarding individual federations. By agreement with ARISF, the findings were “anonymised so that individual IFs cannot be identified”. While the report allocates IFs to performance groups, it provides no public detail on which federation achieved which score. The review acknowledges this anonymity “does limit the potential for external scrutiny” but states it was “appropriate” as this is the “first time ARSIF members have been exclusively studied in this way”.

“This governance review reflects the ongoing efforts of our members to uphold the highest standards of transparency and integrity,” said Dr Raffaele Chiulli, ARISF President. The findings also noted that while there is a correlation between better governance and organisational capacity, strong performance is “achievable regardless of size or resources”.

Success Despite Scarcity

The review starkly illustrates the operational reality for most ARISF members, noting that many are “small but passionate organisations”. The study found that half of the participating IFs operate with three or fewer full-time employees.

This resource gap impacts performance: IFs with 0-3 staff had an average governance score of 49, whereas those with 4-9 staff averaged 66. However, the report also praises the dedication of smaller bodies, pointing out that five IFs in the 0-3 staff category still achieved a high-performing A2 group score.

Key Areas of Progress

Transparency emerged as the strongest-performing area overall. All participating IFs publish their statutes and sporting rules online, and 15 federations now publish externally audited accounts, a positive step in financial transparency.

Progress was also evident in gender balance, with 12 IFs now having at least 25% female representation on their Executive Boards. Furthermore, just over half of the IFs (15) have introduced term limits for elected officials, a reform which the report found correlates with significantly higher overall governance scores.

Room for Development

Despite the gains, the review identified key areas requiring development. Safeguarding remains a significant concern; nearly half of the respondents (14 IFs) had limited activity and lacked a formal policy in this area.

Similarly, 17 of 29 IFs lacked a confidential reporting mechanism for whistle-blowers, a feature the report acknowledges is “very challenging for a small IF” to implement effectively. Environmental sustainability was another weak area, with 14 IFs appearing to have no related policy. The report will now serve as an educational tool for members to identify these gaps and continue their development.