A case study of moral neglect in the Egyptian sports establishment

Review of Business Research, July, 2007 by Samir M. Youssef

ABSTRACT

The system of management of the Egyptian sports establishment is analyzed in terms of ethical concepts and theories. The failure of this establishment to secure the honor of hosting the 2010 World Cup is used as a case study. The analysis of this event shows that an organizational culture dominated by personal interests generates an impotent structure which promotes short term personal gains and an eventual harm to the public interest. The facts of the case show that the behavior of officials involved in the event can be classified as moral neglect. It appears that this moral responsibility is mitigated by cultural, organizational, cognitive and personality constraints.

THE CASE

In 2001 the International Federation for Football (FIFA) has decided to hold the 2010 World Cup in Africa and all African Nations were invited to submit their bids. Eventually, only South Africa, Morocco and Egypt submitted their bids. The evaluation process consisted of two stages. The first stage was a technical evaluation conducted by a FIFA team visit to each one of the three countries where the infrastructure was evaluated. This included stadiums, communications, health facilities and wither the environment is supportive of the game. The second stage consisted of a voting of the 24 Executive Committee (EC) members who represent different Football Federations all over the world. On May 15, 2004 the result of the voting was announced and South Africa was declared the winner with 14 votes. Morocco came second with 10 votes and Egypt came last without a single vote. This humiliating result came as a shock to the Egyptian public who had high expectations and were made to believe by the responsible officials that victory was around the corner. The officials, themselves were equally astonished as if they had done their utmost effort but they were betrayed by the FIFA Executive Committee members. Accusations of all sorts were made against Egyptian sports officials as well as FIFIA's officials, ranging from corruption, to negligence to naivety. Analysis of this case reveals the interplay of organizational culture, structure and personality variables which have yielded this failure. Information of this paper were obtained from published sources and official investigation reports.

THE INTEGRITY MODEL

Organizations have a responsibility toward their stakeholders. These are the entities that have a claim or influence on organizational resources and their welfare should be embedded in the decision making process. Fulfilling these obligations is considered an ethical act and failure to achieve them is considered an unethical act (Clarkson, 1995).This is true wither this exists within an existing legal framework or not since laws usually lag behind morality (Frederick, 1995).This is also true of governmental organizations where serving the public should be their prime concern. Here, the public is considered the most important stakeholder whose interests are expected to be served by the bureaucracy. Rules, regulations and practices established for this purpose should be devoid of personal interest and patronage and should provide for equity and efficient use of resources. This should be done within a system of corporate governance where officials act as Agents representing the interests of the citizenry (The Principle).This includes an internal management and control systems that assure these results (Kaptein @Wempe, 2002).

Evaluation of the ethical implications of the behavior of the sports establishment will be done using an integrity model developed by Kaptien and Wempe (2002) which is shown in Figure 1 and is described briefly here.

In this model organizations are expected to have a balanced approach toward stakeholders. This requires that responsible officials possess proper virtues which are translated into actions that lead to desirable consequences, given the fact that organizations are goal seeking entities. Virtues have to do with the character of the person. They consist of a coherent set of values which have their roots in altruism. Their presence is important to provide a guideline for actions and they generate commitment, perseverance particularly in face of temptations and outside pressures. They are not expected to be rigid but rather they lean toward moderation. While virtues proceed action but they mediate between actions and consequences. Virtues help in the formulation of intentions. The chances of going astray in this model are real in any different stage. For example, the character of the individual may inhibit him from acting morally. He could be an opportunist, a hypocrite or may have a weak will or even an idealist who is not in touch with reality. Also, any intention/action discrepancy may result from either personality or organizational deficiencies. Formulating intentions and translating them into actions are largely influenced by cognitive abilities as well as personality factors. Intentions could be clouded by the person's interpretation of organizational objectives which are usually ambiguous particularly in the areas of services which are the domain of governmental entities. Also, deficiencies in the organizational system can encourage this discrepancy. For example, clarifying goals, individuals' roles and the existence of a system of checks and balances are essential in this regard. Deficiency in any stage of the model creates the potential of unethical behavior through neglecting the needs of any or all of the stakeholders.