It is interesting to note that the approach by “stakeholders” provides a behavioural guide in accordance with some ethical requirements which do not exist in theories such as that of the Agency (Corlett 1998). The Agency theory states that the interests of shareholders are of prime importance for decisions concerning the activities of the organisation. The agents appointed to manage an organisation must be audited frequently in order to reduce the risk of mismanagement or professional misconduct which might endanger the interests of shareholders. This theory applies to the business world but is far from the world of nonprofit sporting organisations. Therefore, we did not develop the application of this theory to the world of sport.
The Marxist analysis depicts power struggles between classes with the representation of an individual connected with the fate of their community, and looking for individual and collective happiness. In this analysis, the notions of redistributive justice and equity take a prominent place and naturally results in the condemnation of private property and investors which reflect the capitalist system. Therefore, companies tend to be more oriented towards profit maximisation. Moreover, they are endowed with moral responsibilities for their employees, particularly in terms of respect for the dignity of individuals and avoiding both alienation and exploitation. Therefore, the Stakeholders’ Theory seems to take over much of this programme (Blair 1995). However, Marxists projects and partnerships cannot be fully assimilated at least for two basic reasons. First, the partnership theory does not endorse any collectivisation programme. Secondly, as noted by Corlett (1998), the Marxist theory does not consider environmental issues.
In the corporate world, in countries like Japan for example, customers and suppliers (“stakeholders”) are also partners for structuring businesses especially in terms of governance (it is the case for the IOC and the IFs between sponsors and the media, especially television).
It is interesting to note that with the different models of governance provided by the IOC and the IFs, we have a testing ground for the future. “If we take the major socio-cultural movements, we can see that customs and laws were established in all classes of creative periods that have followed. We can see that mankind has always found ways to bend legal loopholes by new technologies. Today, the world of the Internet bypasses certain laws and taxes in Nation-States. The future of the economic world will probably not be a choice between a market economy and something fundamentally different (Attali 2006). Attali has also announced the arrival of a “hyper-democracy” or a relational economy which is simply an economy of altruism that will not obey the laws of scarcity, where companies will cease to consider profit as a goal, and which will allow people to produce and exchange entertainment, health, education, relationship, etc services free of charge. We can already imagine the running of these relational companies which will announce the future in the economic world. They will probably be like NGOs, Doctors without Borders, Greenpeace, Red Cross, the IOC or even the IFs that are certainly the first example of this. And, strangely enough, the mode of regulation of this “new” governance will probably be based on the model that Karl Marx (Bidet, E. J.et Kouvelakis, 2001) designed in the late nineteenth century.