UEFA, Governance, and the Control of Club Competition in ...

As Hindley argues: ‘the interrelated concept of stakeholding is also useful in differentiatingbetween levels, and the nature of the involvement of interest groups in the policy process’ (Hindley,2002). At the same time, stakeholder theory argues that the integration of stakeholders amounts togood governance, ‘ensuring stakeholder groups are capable of providing a counter balance to thefocal organisation … stakeholding raises interesting issues about how the concept may beoperationalised – in particular, identifying those involved and affected by policy – and how toinvolve them in the policy process (Hindley, 2002). Analysis of UEFA in particular lends itselfideally to such a debate. With commercial and sporting values clashing in a high profile politicalworld of distinct and contrasting demands, the level of stakeholder integration has become one ofthe dominant themes in the life of the organisation.In order to link the analytical approach to governance through investigation of thegovernance ‘network’ that characterises it, and the normative concepts of governance, particularattention will be paid to Rowley’s development of a network theory of stakeholder influences(Rowley, 1997). Using Oliver’s framework for examination of organisational responses to externalinfluences (1991), Rowley constructs a theory of which ‘accommodates multiple stakeholderdemands and predicts how organisations respond to the simultaneous influence of multiplestakeholders’ (Rowley, 1997: 887). He contends that any comprehensive theory requires analysis ofnot just the level of stakeholder influence but also the nature of response. In order to achieve thisconsideration must be given to the multiple and interdependent interactions that simultaneouslyexist in the stakeholder environment. By using social network analysis to examine this one can mapentire stakeholder structures, rather than individual stakeholder influences. Rowley bases his theoryon two specific variables. He argues that ‘the density of the stakeholder network surrounding anorganisation and the organisation’s centrality in the network influence its degree of resistance tostakeholder demands’ (1997: 888). Moreover, ‘since stakeholder relationships do not occur in avacuum of dyadic ties, but rather in a network of influences, a firm’s stakeholders are likely to havedirect relationships with one another’ (1997: 890). Social network analysis shows how theinteraction between stakeholders constitutes a framework that can be studied and analysed in itsown right’ (Galaskiewicz and Wasserman, 1994: xii).Density is the relative number of ties in the network that link actors together. Rowley arguesthat ‘as density increases (and the number of ties between the network grows) communicationacross the network becomes more efficient. By virtue of having many ties, the network structurefacilitates information exchange amongst all its regions’. The second consequence of density is the‘diffusion of norms across the network as organisations imitate one another’s behaviours in anattempt to be perceived as legitimate players’ (1997: 897). This in turn leads to informationexchange, shared expectations and the potential for coalition formation. According to the theory, afocal organisation (such as UEFA) attempting to resist pressure finds it difficult to play onestakeholder off against another as stakeholders produce strong and unified pressures. In less denseenvironments, information exchange is impeded by a sparse network structure and leverage istherefore weaker and expectation less.Centrality refers to the degree of control the organisation has, and what Rowley refers to as‘betweenness’. This means the frequency with which an actor falls on the geodesic paths betweenpairs of other actors (1997: 899). The extent to which it acts as an intermediary between itsstakeholders is a significant factor influencing how much the organisation will resist stakeholderpressure. The consequence of this is that as the focal organisation’s centrality increases, its ability toresist stakeholder pressures increases (1997: 900). From these propositions of density and centrality,Rowley develops a framework in which the behaviour of organisations in relation to their networkof stakeholders can be anticipated. In a high density, high centrality network, both the stakeholdersand the focal firm are able to impact each other. They are highly susceptible to each other’s actionsand have the capacity to influence. Additionally, a focal organisation faces an uncertainenvironment since its stakeholders are capable of forming a strong unified voice against it. Theresult is that organisations negotiate in order to reduce that uncertainty, and therefore become a‘compromiser’ (1997: 901-902). In contrast, ‘under conditions of low density and high centrality,9