Verification and Consideration of Conflicts Inherent in High School Athletic Federation Organizations－Focus on the Characteristics of Athletics Organizations

• Published in: Journal of Japan Society of Sports Industry Vol. 32; no. 2; pp. 2_229 - 2_239
• Main Authors: KUBO, Kenji, TSUYOSHI, Satoshi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English; Japanese
• Published: Tokyo Japan Society of Sports Industry 01.04.2022; Japan Science and Technology Agency
• Subjects: Athletics; Conflict; High School Athletic Federation; Organization; Secondary schools; Tournaments & championships; Japan
• ISSN: 1343-0688; 1884-2534
• DOI: 10.5997/sposun.32.2_229

This study focuses on high school athletics. The Japan High School Athletic Federation, which is the central sports organization of the high school athletics competition, and the National High School Athletic Federation, which is the governing body of the high school sports organization, manage the high school athletics category under the umbrella of the National High School Athletic Federation. This paper aimed to analyze the kind of relationship being built with the National Athletics Department, which is responsible for the actual management of the tournament, and to verify whether there is a conflict between the National Athletics Department and the National Athletics Department. Specifically, we analyzed the actual functions of the National High School Championships, the Japan Association of Athletics Federations, and the National High School Championships, and the level of support each organization had at the Inter-High School Championships held during the coronavirus pandemic. Then, based on the articles of incorporation and regulations of each organization, we organized the objectives, business contents, and decision-making of the three organizational operations, and observed conflicts. We found that the National High School Federation and the National High School Federation Land Specialization Department have four local conditions of conflict : “ambiguity of work in charge,” “reciprocity of tasks,” “common resources,” and “mismatch of social evaluation.”