Sport is loading professional risk onto volunteer

Professor Sarah Leberman MNZM, CMInstD

“Governance in sport is misaligned with where sport is lived,” says Professor Sarah Leberman MNZM, CMInstD, co-founder of Women in Sport Aotearoa and a leading academic in sport leadership and management.

“Most people experience sport at club and regional level, but most governance attention, funding, policy and scrutiny sit at the high-performance or marquee end of the system,” she says.

At club and regional level, the immediate job is making sure competitions run, teams are fielded, volunteers turn up and “something happens every weekend”.

“When resources are scarce, governance becomes something people know is important but do not have the capacity to prioritise. This is not a failure of goodwill; it is built into how the system operates.”  

Volunteers do everything

Professor Leberman says money is behind almost every governance issue she sees.

“Many clubs are entirely volunteer run. If there is any paid support at all, it is usually limited to a handful of hours each week to manage basic administration.

“Boards are expected to govern while also managing, delivering, fundraising, firefighting and filling gaps left by the absence of paid staff. People are doing everything, and when people are doing everything, governance does not happen in the way it is meant to.”  

Skateboarding New Zealand is one example. Professor Leberman says it was never built as a structured, federated sport. It was community-driven, informal and organised through passion rather than governance systems.

When skateboarding became an Olympic sport, formal governance became a requirement, but there was no corresponding injection of funding to support that shift. Apart from a contracted role supporting a small high-performance programme, everything remained community-based and unfunded.

“In practice, that means a board that is deeply committed but overstretched. Board members write newsletters, manage finances, organise national events, oversee high-performance programmes and attempt to govern at the same time.

“When survival and delivery dominate, governance recedes because there is simply no capacity to hold it properly.” 

Governance becomes delivery

Watene Hema MInstD, a board member of New Zealand Māori Golf and Recreation Aotearoa, sees the same thing at grassroots level.

“At Recreation Aotearoa level, governance is governance. We are not jumping in and doing the chief executive’s job. We are there to provide strategic guidance and deliver the compliance mahi we need to.”

In a local club, the distinction is often harder.

“If you are the chair of a local junior rugby club, you are not focused on the global state of sport. You want to make sure you have a committee that can deliver a junior rugby programme.”

At Māori Golf, Hema says board members have traditionally also run the annual tournament. The board has been trying to separate those functions, with the board governing and a subcommittee handling tournament delivery.

“We are trying to separate those two functions. We need to have the board be the board and then have a subcommittee for the tournament.”

At grassroots level, he says, governance is “almost entirely volunteer-led”.

“Time-poor people with varying skill sets are being asked to do complex governance work.”  

Andrew Corkill CMInstD, former general manager at Sport Waikato, says capability varies sharply through the system.

“At a national level you might have more capability around the board table. Regionally or locally, it’s often much less – smaller teams, heavy reliance on volunteers, and people stepping into governance roles for the first time.”

He has seen people step into governance expecting one thing and leave after a couple of meetings because the role was not what they thought it would be.

“You’re effectively operating as a committee.”

The line between governance and management can be “a bit blurry in sport at times”, Corkill says. Where there is not enough resource or capability underneath, boards end up diving deeper into the business because the organisation needs it.

“That reliance can be necessary, but it can also lead to boards effectively running the business rather than providing strategic guidance.”  

Erica Amon CMInstD, deputy chair of Special Olympics New Zealand and chair of Hamilton Golf Club, sees the same pull at club level.

Members are engaged and vocal, which is a strength. That engagement can also draw boards into operational decisions or individual issues.

“Sometimes that’s quite literal. You find yourself in conversations about things like bunker sand, which is not where a board should be spending its time. It’s a small example, but it reflects how quickly the line between governance and management can blur.

“It’s not just about having good people – it’s about creating conditions for them to operate at the right level.”  

Liz Dawson MNZM, President of the New Zealand Olympic Committee, says New Zealand’s volunteer culture gives sport deep connection to community.

“When you need people, they are there. In some cases, you have effectively got mum and dad running the organisation. That brings passion, but it also brings limitations. In some cases, the board is effectively operating as a management committee.”  

(Left to right) Watene Hema, Andrew Corkill, Erica Amon, Liz Dawson

Passion is not enough

Hannah Doney CMInstD, vice-chair of Harness Racing New Zealand and a director of Swimming New Zealand, says sport governance depends heavily on people giving their time voluntarily.

“From national sport organisations, to regions, to clubs, people forget they are dealing with people that are doing this for love, not money.”

Many are closely connected to the sport as parents, coaches, participants or supporters.

“The emotional proximity makes it very difficult to separate advocacy from fiduciary duty.”  

Phil Holden MInstD, chair of Wellington Rugby and a Hurricanes board member, draws a distinction between caring about a sport and knowing how to govern it.  

“You’ve got people who are there because they care deeply about the sport – and that’s important – but governance is a different skill set. It’s not the same thing.

“Too often, sport gets treated as a place to learn governance – a bit like training wheels – rather than a place where you’re expected to bring that experience with you.”  

Voluntary roles, professional risk

Tim King, Mayor of Tasman District Council and a director of Tasman Rugby Union, says the volunteer model adds to the pressure.

“In many cases, the unpaid governance roles are the ones that take the most time and consume the most brain power.”

Those boards often do not have the same management support, reporting or recommendations expected in other governance settings.  

“You end up doing a bit of everything.”  

At club level, King says, there has been a shift. Twenty years ago, almost everyone around a club was a volunteer. Now, in clubs of any size, bar staff, kitchen staff, club managers and other operational roles may be paid.

“Governance often remains voluntary. That creates a separation between paid management and unpaid governance, even as the expectations on boards continue to rise.  

“Sport is asking volunteer governors to carry more formal risk, more complex decisions and more public scrutiny, often without the support available in other governance settings.”  

Doney says volunteer boards need to understand the personal risk they carry.

“Basic fiduciary duties must be upheld and volunteer boards need to understand the risk they are under personally.

She says volunteer boards face many of the same governance expectations as national organisations, but often without comparable training, resources or support.

At regional and club level, the distinction between governance and management becomes less clear. The skills matrix, appointments panel and recruitment process may be left to the annual general meeting with little formality.

Doney says limited understanding of directors’ duties can leave conflicts of interest poorly managed, particularly where formal recruitment and appointment processes are lacking.  

“The current model often transfers legal and personal risk to volunteers without giving them the support or systems required to manage that risk appropriately.” 

(Left to right) Hannah Doney, Phil Holden, Tim King

Who supports the volunteers?

Doney says support needs to be practical and consistent.

“Basic training should be funded through the national sport organisation for each of the federations, for their regions and then below to their clubs. A basic level of governance 101 is needed.”

Chair capability is part of the same issue, she says. “Where the chair is strong, boundaries are clearer; where they are not, roles collapse very quickly under pressure.”  

Hema agrees training is needed, but says it has to work for volunteers who are already stretched.

“At community level, training is the obvious answer, but people are time poor. While some individuals stay long term, board composition often changes quickly, limiting the impact of training. So how do you keep training a volunteer workforce that keeps changing?”

He says there is “heavy investment and time spent at national level”. That investment does not always reach regional and local clubs.

“Some regions may get great governance support from the national sport organisation or local regional sports trust, and others may get nothing.

“Who is responsible for ensuring governance capability is built consistently across all levels of the sector?”  

Professor Leberman says many volunteers have never had governance training, “and not through lack of interest”.

“Access is limited, costs are high, and training is often designed for corporate or national-level contexts rather than for people running sport on weekends.”

“If governance training is not immediately recognisable as relevant to someone running a club, then it will never reach the part of the system where governance capacity is weakest.”  

National organisations may have formal systems in place, but those systems can become less visible and less accessible as they move down through regions and clubs.

Leberman says club volunteers may have limited access to information and support available at national level, leaving problems unresolved until they become more serious.

Kereyn Smith MNZM, MInstD, former Netball New Zealand chair and former chief executive of the New Zealand Olympic Committee, says most sports organisations are resource constrained.

“They don’t always have the depth of capability or the funding to respond easily, particularly as the environment around them continues to change – whether that’s commercial, social or global pressures.

“There is a significant level of public scrutiny and personal exposure, and in what is still largely a voluntary sector, remuneration does become a factor. If we want to attract and retain high-quality people, that’s something we need to think about more carefully.”  

Smith also sees a role for Sport New Zealand.

“In my view, that role is about enabling rather than controlling – supporting boards with capability, with appointment processes and with systems that are fit for purpose in a contemporary environment. That kind of support can make a real difference, particularly where organisations don’t have the resources to build those things themselves.”  

King says some roles may need to be paid.

“Where boards are making commercial or semi-professional sport decisions, the chair can spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with difficult issues, chief executives, senior management and stakeholders. Remuneration would give at least one person in the governance structure the time and resources to do the role properly.

“I do not think the answer is to strip sport of its volunteer base or local connection. Those are strengths. But we need to be realistic about what we are asking volunteer governors to carry.” 

Who can afford to serve?

Jackie Barron MNZM, MInstD, a New Zealand Football Executive Committee member and former Sport New Zealand board member, says sport is still working within models built for another time.

Volunteers are more time-poor. Communities are more diverse. Rangatahi move between sports, want flexibility and are not always committing to one club or one code.

“But a lot of the system still assumes that it does,” she says.

“These are volunteer roles. They take time, travel and personal cost. That limits who can be involved. There are some really good people out there, but not everyone can afford to do it.

“In the end, the system still runs on people. And if it is going to work, it needs to reflect how people engage with sport now – not how they did decades ago.”  

Kereyn Smith MNZM (L) and Jackie Barron (R)

Questions for national sport organisations, regional bodies and clubs 

• • Do volunteer governors understand the role before they accept it?
  • Is there a plain-English role description, basic induction and realistic meeting calendar?
  • Are conflicts of interest, delegations, minutes and committee terms of reference handled consistently?
  • Do volunteers understand the personal duties and risks they carry?
  • What must be escalated and when?
  • Are complaints, safeguarding concerns and employment issues reaching the right people early?
  • Is governance training practical, affordable and designed for people running sport at club and regional level?
  • Does training explain what must be recorded, what must be escalated and what should not be decided by text message or side conversation?
  • Who supports the chair when roles blur or pressure rises?
  • Is the board governing, managing, delivering or doing all three?
  • What work belongs to the board, management, committees or volunteers?
  • Are complaints and safeguarding processes visible at club level, not just nationally?
  • Can people afford the time, travel and personal cost of serving?
  • Is reliance on unpaid governance limiting who can be involved? 
  • Are legal, reputational and personal risks being loaded onto volunteers without enough support?
  • Does governance support reach clubs and regions consistently, or only some parts of the system?
  • If the structure were designed today, would it still ask volunteers to carry this much risk?