Modern sportsmen are setting the pace for feudal governing bodies

I'm missing Justine Henin already. Sure, her tennis was never considered the most riveting, but let's face it, she was no more boring a player than Maria Sharapova - she just happened to be Belgian, and less attractive. I used to love the sight of her coming on court and clinically despatching whichever eastern European nymphette, with perfect hair and Cartier smile, was on the other side of the net. Henin looked so much more mature, experienced, judicious - and less affected. It's hard to be a world number one at anything - particularly at the super-glamorous sport of women's tennis - and still seem like someone who'd give you a smile in the supermarket queue. Henin managed it.

In hindsight, her shock retirement was no surprise at all, just an extension of her sensible nature: she was tired, she'd had enough, it was time to stop. It certainly showed a lot more discernment and all-round common sense than the WTA - the international body that governs women's tennis - continues to exhibit in squeezing so many tournaments into its schedule that its biggest stars burn out and leave the game. The WTA has ignored players' warnings for years, and Henin's departure couldn't say "I told you so" more clearly if it were spelt out in Swarovski crystals on Sharapova's miniskirt.

Let's face it, sports authorities don't tend to be quick on the uptake: look at the Football Association and Steve McClaren. McClaren's appointment perfectly encapsulated the time delay that exists in any new sporting diktat, which must always be at least one step behind what everyone else has already discovered.

In this world, managing to knock your best player out of your sport is only a minor achievement. Take the Union Cycliste Internationale, cycling's ruling body, which has done it more than once with despotic rules that can instantly ban any innovation it doesn't like the look of. And it can't compare with the extraordinary feats of leadership in world cricket, where the International Cricket Council still can't quite bring itself to take a moral stance on Zimbabwe, but has found a way to stop people drinking Coca-Cola at its tournaments (the sponsor, Pepsi, didn't like it).

Why are the sports authorities so often out of touch? Is it because their very structures are anachronistic? They are often run like mini-oligarchies where a few vested interests monopolise positions of power. Look at the FA, an organisation so closed that its recent "root-and-branch" review was run by its own chief executive. While the rest of the world preaches democracy, sports governance is positively feudal.

But the modern world is catching up with these anomalies. The self-appointed rule-makers are discovering that they have far less influence over their sports, thanks to a globalisation that is redistributing power to the very clubs and individuals that they have historically overseen, whether it's the UK's Premier League (football) demanding a 39th game, or the Indian Premier League (cricket) poaching Test players. It's like waking up to discover your children have gone feral. Only the lawyers are staving off Lord of the Flies-style anarchy.

And the good news is that it is forcing some of them into active leadership for the first time in decades, if only to justify their existence. How else to explain the Fifa president Sepp Blatter's sudden - and controversial- quota system for foreign players, the so-called 6+5 scheme?

Emma John is the deputy editor of Observer Sport Monthly

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website