Every few years, the Olympics return to grab hold of the national attention of the United States.
But for Professor of Sport Management Spencer Harris, PhD, the Olympics are a year-round passion. Unlike the rest of the country, however, Harris is not preoccupied with opening ceremonies, star athletes or medal counts.
“I’m interested in what you might call the more mundane side of the Olympics,” said Harris. “How the Olympics are run, the organizations behind them, the decisions they make and why, and really, the way that they choose to use their power.”
Harris came to Colorado Springs “really proud and pleased” to get a position at UCCS because of what the university represented to him for so many years as a sport management student.
“I ended up at the most important city, in Olympics terms, at least, for the Olympic games in the U.S.,” he said.
“UCCS has meant an awful lot to me for a long time, because of the work done by previous professors, like Jay Coakley,” he continued. “This university has an incredible reputation in sport terms internationally because of work by Jay and others over the last two, three, four decades, and that’s a point that a lot of professors, alum and current students probably aren’t aware of.”
For those researchers, and for Harris, the politics and governance of the Olympics are as interesting as the games themselves.
“It doesn’t get a lot of attention, particularly in the U.S., but I find it really intriguing because of what the Olympics represents,” Harris explained. “It’s supposed to be about Olympism and the athletes, but all too often the decisions are taken in the interest of the administrators and the bureaucrats that are behind the games and not the athletes themselves.”
Harris pointed out recent scandals such at the Russian doping scandal, U.S. Gymnastics sexual abuse scandal, and the FIFA corruption scandal, and the ways in which decisions are made to protect the resources of Olympic sport organizations, particularly the lack of accountability in terms of issues like abuse, doping and corruption.
“Much of my research has focused on those types of issues, and essentially, what is it about Olympic sport that allows these issues to continue to surface,” Harris explained. “Why isn’t Olympic sport being led and governed in a more ethical and responsible manner?”
Harris’s past research has focused on topics like good governance, the Russian doping scandal, and the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
Harris said his most widely read paper was the one he authored about the doping scandal.
“The paper on the Russian doping scandal was about how, given the weight of the evidence of what occurred, in systemic doping across numerous Russian sports, how did that happen and how did the agencies responsible for regulating sport deal with it?” he said.
His findings showed that the interrelationships that exist between the World Anti-Doping Agency, the International Olympic Committee, and the various entities that make up Russian sport allowed for the scandal to occur.
“At a very basic level, the relationships between individuals in those different organizations resulted in the regulatory agencies not doing their job properly,” he explained.
Harris said that the friendships across the agencies involved in the sport system ended up being “far more powerful” than the individuals in the organizations fulfilling their roles.
“Eventually, those agencies were all too aware of those practices, but decided to, essentially, turn a blind eye,” Harris said. “And it wasn’t until the world media were covering it and it was getting global attention that they then realized that something had to be done.”
Another area in which the Olympics have received criticism is the abuse of its athletes, something Harris researched in a paper on the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
Founded in 2017 following years of headlines about the abuse of athletes, most notably in USA Gymnastics, the SafeSport center is meant to address the abuse of minors and amateur athletes in the U.S. in Olympic sports.
“The research really looks at why the current mechanisms in place in the U.S. are not working, why SafeSport is failing despite Congressional intervention, despite significant financial resources being put into it, despite new laws being passed,” Harris said. “Why is the system still broken?”
Harris explained that the issue at the center of the paper is institutional distrust between different sporting organizations, the governing bodies and the SafeSport center.
“Essentially, it’s one entity not trusting the other entity to do its job effectively, I think that’s what’s really at the heart of that problem,” he said. “I think there’s also an issue in national governing bodies feeling like their legitimate autonomy has been compromised.”
Harris explained that power has been given to SafeSport as an independent center, and some national governing bodies (NGBs) feel that the center is not competent.
“The question there is, is that really the case, or are NGBs creating that fuss because it doesn’t serve the NGBs’ interest for an independent center to be overseeing that area?” Harris said.
Asking these kinds of questions can make Harris a bit of a controversial figure in Colorado Springs, a city that has branded itself as Olympic City USA and is the home of many NGBs, training facilities and athletes.
“As a tenured professor, that’s an interesting dynamic,” he said. “When you’re being asked to justify your work to the people you’re being critical of.”
Another recent paper published by Harris that got some local attention focused on good governance in national bodies of sport. The paper argued that national governing bodies of sport are “all over the map” in terms of governance.
“As you would expect, we have those that have relatively good governance in terms of accountability, transparency, social responsibility and we have those where there’s room for improvement,” Harris explained.
The paper also critiqued the American use of a European measure that was developed to help evaluate good governance.
“Our paper was critical of this measure, saying that it’s not particularly useful in a U.S. context,” Harris said.
Born and raised in the U.K., Harris has been able to experience the Olympics from the point of view of both England and the U.S., and he says the dynamics differ greatly.
“As a European, I think the Olympic system represents something different in Europe than it does in North America, and I think that’s a consequence of the big four sports being so dominant,” he said. “In the U.S., the limelight doesn’t tend to be on the Olympic games in the same way that it is in European nations.”
The big four sports – baseball, football, basketball, and ice hockey (although some are arguing that soccer is starting to challenge ice hockey) – take up a large amount of American attention. In Europe, the Olympics are a much bigger deal.
“You have soccer, and then country to country there are additional sports – in Denmark, handball is huge, France is really big into rugby union, England is really big into cricket and rugby union – so we tend to have two big sports per nation, perhaps three, but they certainly don’t have anything like the big four and that amount of engagement,” Harris explained.
In Europe, the Olympics maintains a higher level of engagement across a higher number of people throughout the year, even when there is no summer or winter Olympics that year. Harris pointed to the fact that in Europe, you’ll get continual coverage on how Olympic athletes are doing, while in the United States, you may get an occasional update about a bigger star. This discrepancy in engagement is also reflected in the job market of both Europe and the United States.
“When you look at the landscape of where there are jobs, and the different organizations that are involved in the Olympics, they are far more visible in continental Europe than in the U.S.,” Harris said.
Harris pointed out that many sports management students at UCCS come in not knowing what a national governing body is.
“Most aren’t aware that there are jobs in Olympic sport, and that you can make a decent career out of it,” he said. “I’m gobsmacked that there isn’t greater awareness of it. These are people who have sought out a degree in Sports Management, and all they’re thinking is marketing for the Denver Broncos, selling tickets for the Rockies, those types of jobs.”
Harris said he is seeing a slight change now, with more students coming in aware of the career options the Olympics offers, but it’s still a minority.
“That isn’t the case in the U.K.,” he said. “They’re thinking about opportunities in Olympic sport rather than big four sport because we don’t have big four sports.”
Harris himself did not imagine that he would pursue higher education in the area of sport, eventually earning a PhD in Sport Policy and Sport Management.
“Like many young boys in England, I was going to be a professional footballer, and it didn’t happen,” he explained. “But I’ve never been a particular professorial type. If somebody has said to me, ‘you’ll get a PhD and work as a professor at a university,’ I would’ve laughed at them.”
After working in sport development for the Olympics in the U.K., Harris became “unsettled” at how things were being done. He then worked with the English sports council and was head of performance in sport England when he found his career at a crossroads.
“On the drive home one evening, I realized that I didn’t want to do it anymore,” he explained. “I knew I was passionate about sport, I knew sport had incredible value for individuals and communities, and we were not doing a particularly good job at developing sport.”
No longer enjoying his work, Harris started to think about what he wanted to do instead.
“It was at that point that I pursued a PhD, and that’s where I really started asking questions about how things were done and why they were done in this way,” he said.
“I think sport has tremendous value,” he said. “It’s all a question of the people that are involved and how they choose to do it. That’s why it’s important to look at sport critically – not just celebrate how wonderful sport it, but question how we do sport and have discussions about how it can be done better.”
Now a decade into his career, Harris has identified some areas for change he thinks could improve how the world does sport.
“One of the main problems that we have in sport, at an international and national level, is that it has always enjoyed far too much autonomy,” he said. “It essentially lives in a bubble where, from the very first writing of the Olympic charter in 1894, it protected itself by saying, we are responsible for self-governance. And what that gives sport is the right to constantly emphasize its autonomy and tell governments and other regulatory agencies to back off. And they still get away with it.”
Harris said this issue is what leads to other major problems, like agencies making decisions that benefit themselves more than the athletes.
“When that exists in the bubble of autonomy, it’s very difficult to change. You have these conflicts of interest between a governing body that is both responsible for regulating itself and promoting itself. And, often, marketing, media and money win out over everything else.”
“I’m the biggest sport fan, I love sport,” Harris said. “Sometimes I get tired of focusing always on the dark side of sport, but to me, it requires focus, because not a lot of people are doing that work, and if we don’t do it, we ignore or perhaps even reinforce the problems. But, in doing this work, I think we can bring progress. I think we can make it better.”