Against the backdrop of an increasing use of the term ‘doping’ in circumstances other than the classical understanding, this theoretic article provides a new and comprehensive inter-disciplinary reflection of the doping concept. The aim is to elaborate a broader understanding of doping in relation to socio-economic contexts. Besides addressing the question which structural similarities in general justify the label ‘doping’, a comparison between ‘classical’ doping and the so-called financial doping in European club football is developed. These insights serve as a basis for a consideration, to what extent insights of social-scientific research on drugs in sport may be consulted to analyse socio-economic practices of performance enhancement in sport. Following the considerations of Schetsche, a model is drafted according to which different forms of performance-enhancing behaviour are categorized subject to the dimensions legality and legitimacy. The results may provide a contribution for further research on doping as well as for policymakers in the fight against doping in sport (both medical and financial). Due to numerous structural similarities between the policy of anti-doping and UEFA’s intended policy to fight financial doping, in particular the latter may learn from former experiences.

The Olympic Movement’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine underlines an existing dilemma on political neutrality and how the governance of sport has struggled to come to terms with the principle of political neutrality. The status of Russian and Belarussian athletes and teams in international sports is an ongoing disputative matter for the governance of sport. This paper aims to contribute to conceptional clarity concerning the principle of political neutrality and to spell out a specific application of political neutrality to the Olympic Movement in recognition of its commitment to human rights and promotion of peace. Accordingly, it observes neutrality in the practice of the Olympic Movement and challenges the applicability of the principle of neutrality in the social realm around politics and capitalism. The findings highlight the discrepancy between the Olympic Movement’s policies on political neutrality and its governance that eventually erode the autonomy of sport. The paper concludes by arguing for the need of reconceptualisation of the neutrality principle in (Olympic) sport. To address future global challenges that violate fundamental principles of international law, the paper proposes the incorporation of transparent procedures and limitations.

In recent years, sport governing bodies (SGB) have been the subject of serious questions regarding their governance structures and decision-making processes. SGB that fail to implement regulatory mechanisms and to improve their governance structures and processes risk being confronted with severe ethically sensitive issues outside and inside the fields, which may eventually result in negative publicity and reduced demand (e.g., fans, sponsors) or financial support (e.g., from governments). This study examines selected regulations and practices of North American professional sports leagues in light of good governance principles. By adopting a qualitative research design, we investigate if there is a need for reforms to be employed by the leagues to comply with core dimensions of governance and thus reduce the risk of not being prepared to deal with ethically sensitive issues that may come up. Our critical analysis suggests that essential reforms need to be employed by the leagues to comply with core principles of good governance. In terms of democracy, professional leagues need to recognise stakeholder interests, implement innovative participation mechanisms, and apply diversity and inclusion policies for board composition. On transparency, it is required to publish internal regulations and financial information despite lax regulations on disclosure policies in the United States. Concerning accountability, professional leagues should separate their disciplinary and executive branches to avoid the concentration of power and potential conflict of interest in the relationship between the commissioner and team owners.

UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations represent the most restrictive regulatory intervention European club football has ever seen. Put simply, it demands from clubs to operate on the basis of their own football-related incomes. While the policy has attracted considerable attention from the economic and social sciences, very few contributions systematically investigate it from a philosophical-ethical perspective. The present paper fills this research gap by posing questions on FFP in relation to fair play as a normative concept. We draw on sport economic assessments concerning potential outcomes of FFP and argue that the policy should go beyond the mere pragmatic goal of promoting financial sustainability and truly aim for creating a level playing field, otherwise it should not be labeled ‘fair play’.