體育運動組織在國家體育運動政策中一直擔當重要的角色，肩負著推動國家運動發展的使命。目前臺灣與香港的大專體育運動組織為非營利組織，在變化萬千的環境中面臨不少挑戰。組織必須建立一套良好的運動治理準則，得以獲取更多資源以利發展。本研究目的為分析及探討臺港兩地大專體育組織運動治理之現況，進一步比較二組織運動治理內涵之異同，做為非營利體育組織採用運動治理模式時之參酌。本研究以立意取樣方式選擇九位中華民國大專體育總會及香港大專體育協會之理事會成員為本研究之受訪者，研究發現如下:
一、 二組織在環境動態層面上情況略有不同：大專體總 (臺灣) 組織規模龐大，會員與職員人數眾多，與利益關係人互動頻繁，面對法規、政策或環境的限制時，組織傾向積極向外尋求更多資源；大專體協 (香港) 組織規模小，會員及職員人數少，以自負盈虧模式運作，相較之下組織受環境、法規政策及利益關係人之間的相互影響較低。
二、二組織在理事會角色層面上情況相異：大專體總 (臺灣) 理事會角色以監督、建議為主，實際決策與領導為幹事部高階主管；大專體協 (香港) 董事會為最高權力機關，擁有最高決策權，主要負責審查通過及制定組織政策，再下達予執委會執行。
三、二組織在治理能力層面上情況相似： 二組織在會議頻率、財務及政策均具透明度，並且達到組織績效及目標。
依據研究結果，本研究建議未來可針對不同層級之體育組織 (如：高中體總) 作延伸之研究，並針對理事會角色的部份，選擇不同層級的訪談對象作進一步研究。

Sport organization, which has a mission to foster national sports development, has long been playing an important role in national sports policies. Nowadays, sport organizations in Taiwan and Hong Kong universities are facing various challenges in this ever-changing environment. To acquire more resources for the future advancement, it is important for sport organizations to implement sport governance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the current situation of sport governance developmentation in sport organizations in Taiwan and Hong Kong universities, and then made comparison between two organizations. Purposive sampling was employed and 9 council members from CTUSF and USFHK were interviewed. The findings are as following:
Difference in environmental dynamics: The scale of the CTUSF is larger, many more members and staffs are involved and there are more interactions with the stakeholders. Dealing with the legal requirement, influence of different policies or limitation on environment, sport organization tends to seek more resources and solutions externally. While the USFHK is a more compact one, with fewer members and staff. It is solely responsible for its profits and loss. Comparatively, it is less bounded by environment, legal requirement and stakeholders.
Contrast in board roles: The board of CTUSF is mainly responsible for monitoring and offering suggestions. The secretary general is the decision maker and for the policy implementation with the board members. As for the USFHK, the power is more centralized. It monitors and sets out organizational policy, which is later operated by the executive council.
Similarity in governance capabilities: It is found that both organizations are transparent in meeting frequency, financial situation and policy. And they both achieve the expected performance and goals.
From the findings, it is suggested the future research can expand to different level of organizations or broaden the interviewees.

黃劭彥、林琦珍、洪嘉聲、李佩芷 (2011) 。公私立大學外部資源依賴對內部財務運作相關性探討。非營利組織管理學刊，11，1-21。
鄭志富 (2010)。體育行政與管理 (二版)。臺北市：師大書苑。
王振軒 (2006)。非政府組織治理能力的建構。非政府組織學刊，創刊號，23-44。
李志宏 (2006)。從組織治理談非政府組織的責信度。非政府組織學刊，創刊號，103-126。
陳雪如、黃劭彥、林琦珍、蘇愛軫 (2008)。非營行組織治理機制之研究-以社會福利慈善基金會為例。臺灣企業績效學刊，2 (1) ，31-53。
官有垣 (2002 )。非營利組織的內部治理-NPO董事會的治理行為。2002非政府組織夏季論壇研討會 (頁1-10)。臺北市：台灣新世紀文教基金會。
李炳昭 (2011)。探討運動治理觀點在運動行政管理的研究應用。中華體育季刊，25 (4) ，730-739。

楊孟麗、謝水南 (譯) (2003) 。教育研究法：研究設計與實務。臺北市：心理。(Fraenkel , J. R., &, Wallen, N. E., 2000)

范麗娟 (1994) 。深度訪談簡介。戶外遊憩研究，7(2)，25-35。

文崇一、楊國樞 (2000) 。訪問調查法：社會及行為科學研究法下冊。臺北市：東華。

Australian Sports Commission (2012). Sports Governance Principles. Retrieved from http://www.ausport.gov.au/data/assets/file/0010/485857/ASC_Governance_Principles.pdf
Doherty, A., Hoye, R. (2011). Role ambiguity and volunteer board member performance in nonprofit sport organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22 (1), 107-128.
Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16 (1) ,49-65.
Ferkins, L., Shilbury, D., & McDonald, G. (2005). The role of the board in building strategic capability: Towards an integrated model of sport governance research. Sport Management Review, 8, 195-225.
Ferkins, L., Shilbury, D., & McDonald, G. (2009). Board involvement in strategy: Advancing the governance of sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 245-277.
Financial Reporting Council (2011). Guidance on board effectiveness. Retrieved from https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/c9ce2814-2806-4bca-a179-e390ecbed841/Guidance-on-Board-Effectiveness.aspx
Fishel, D. (2003). The book of the board: Effective governance for non-profit organizations. Sydney: Federation Press.
Forster, J. (2006). Global sports organisations and their governance. Corporate Governance, 6 (1),72-83.
Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. (2003). Governance principles for protected areas in the 21st century, A Discussion Paper. Institute on Governance in collaboration with Parks Canada and the Canadian International Development Agency. Ottawa.
Herring, R. (2006). Governance, sport and the city: Realising mega sporting events in London (Doctoral thesis, Middlesex University, London, England) . Retrived from http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/6749/1/Herring.phd.pdf
Hindley, D (2002). An examination of the utility of the concept of governance in relation to the sports of swimming, football and cricket. (unpublished thesis), Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, Loughborough University.
Hoye, R., & Cuskelly, G. (2007). Sport governance. Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Kikulis, M. L. (2000). Continuity and change in governance and decision making in national sport organizations: Institutional explanations. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 293-320.
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50 (155), 17-28.
Walters, G., Trenberth, L., & Tacon, R. (2010). Good governance in sport: A survey of UK national governing bodies of sport. Birkbeck Sport Business Centre Research Paper Series.
Yeh, C. M., & Taylor, T. (2008). Issues of governance in sport organizations: A question of board size, structure and role. World Leisure Journal, 50 (1), 33-45.