PRACTICE QUESTION

Q. A National sports federation, despite receiving public funds, has been accused of gross mismanagement and corruption. Athletes report inadequate resources and biased selection processes. Coaches and officials are alleged to have siphoned funds meant for athlete development. The federation's leadership refuses external audits and investigations. What is the most ethical course of action to address this issue?

A) Ignore the allegations as they might harm the reputation of the federation.

B) Conduct an internal investigation by the federation's appointed committee.

C) Seek an independent audit and investigation involving relevant authorities.

D) Cut funding entirely until the federation voluntarily improves its governance.

Answer: C

Explanation:

The most ethical option in this scenario is C) Seek an independent audit and investigation involving relevant authorities.

Option A is unethical as it disregards the serious allegations that impact athlete development and public trust in sports governance. Option B, an internal investigation, might lack objectivity and could potentially cover up the issues.

Option D, cutting funding entirely, can harm athletes who rely on these resources for training and development. It could also punish innocent athletes and coaches who are not involved in corruption.

Option C promotes transparency and accountability. Involving independent auditors and relevant authorities ensures an impartial investigation into the allegations. It upholds ethical principles, addresses the issues, and holds accountable those responsible for mismanagement or corruption while safeguarding the interests of athletes and the public's trust in sports governance.