Introduction: Good governance in higher education has evolved from a normative concept into a practical framework for enhancing decision-making quality, accountability, and the realization of public value. In sport science faculties, the expansion of educational, research, and societal missions, the diversity of stakeholders, resource constraints, and technological developments have made it necessary to reconsider existing approaches to faculty governance. However, the persistence of centralized and hierarchical structures may constrain participation, academic autonomy, equity, and innovation. Accordingly, good governance should not be viewed merely as a set of administrative indicators, but rather as a multidimensional and dynamic process in which decision-making structures, managerial processes, and developmental capacities operate in an integrated manner. Moreover, a substantial body of governance literature has focused on the university or higher education system level, while the distinctive characteristics of sport science faculties have received comparatively limited context-specific attention. The existing gap lies in the absence of a contextually grounded model that explains the interrelationships among the structural, processual, and developmental dimensions of governance at the faculty level. This study seeks to address this gap by employing a grounded-theory approach to develop a model derived from the experiences and perceptions of academic managers and faculty members. Such an approach can illuminate the underlying logic of governance and provide a basis for evidence-informed decision-making and the design of contextually appropriate governance mechanisms.

Methods: This applied study employed a qualitative grounded-theory strategy based on the Glaserian emergent approach. Participants comprised university professors and senior academic managers who were selected through purposive sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 participants until theoretical saturation was achieved. Data analysis was conducted concurrently with data collection through open, selective, and theoretical coding, resulting in the identification of 70 initial codes, 10 core categories, three main dimensions, and the core phenomenon of “balanced and sustainable faculty governance.” The validity of the findings was assessed using the criteria of fit, workability, relevance, and modifiability, while trustworthiness was evaluated based on credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.

Results: Good governance in sport science faculties was identified across three main dimensions: the structural and managerial dimension, comprising autonomy and decentralization, strategic management, stakeholder participation, and meritocracy and justice; the processual and operational dimension, comprising monitoring and evaluation, transparency and accountability, rule of law and regulations, and productivity and efficiency; and the developmental and sustainability dimension, comprising development and innovation and sustainable resources and revenue generation. Based on theoretical coding, these dimensions interact bidirectionally and reinforce governance sustainability through a feedback loop.

Discussion and Conclusion: The findings indicate that good governance in sport science faculties is an integrated and interactive phenomenon, and that no single dimension is sufficient to achieve effective governance. The structural and managerial dimension demonstrates that autonomy, decentralization, and stakeholder participation create the capacity for effective decision-making, while this capacity is strengthened through strategic management, meritocracy, and justice. Within the processual and operational dimension, transparency, accountability, rule of law, monitoring and evaluation, and efficiency facilitate the translation of appropriate structures into effective performance. The developmental and sustainability dimension further extends governance beyond the management of existing conditions by emphasizing organizational learning, innovation, value creation, and sustainable resource mobilization. Given the links between sport science faculties and the sport industry, society, and professional institutions, this dimension can contribute to resource diversification and the expansion of academic missions. Moreover, the identified feedback loop indicates that structural reform, process improvement, and the strengthening of developmental capacities mutually reinforce one another. Overall, the proposed model is grounded in balance, interaction, and continuous learning and can provide a basis for policymaking, reforming centralized structures, strengthening transparency and innovation, and enhancing the quality of higher education in sport sciences.