Local Policymaking in Sport: Sport Managers’ Perspectives on Work Processes and Impact

Abstract

In this study we sought a better understanding of the development and functioning of local sport policy, from the perspective of local sport managers (LSMs). Local sport budgets in the Netherlands continue to be allocated mainly to sport facilities (85% of sport budgets), despite increasing interest in the instrumental value of sport, particularly to achieve health and welfare objectives. This seems to produce somewhat of a mismatch between wider policy discourse and local sport policy. We studied LSMs’ perspectives on recent changes in sport policy, and how these relate to changes in the environment (from a socio-ecological perspective), alongside LSMs’ actual practices, policy values and personal beliefs regarding effective sport policy and social impact. For this purpose we conducted nine semi-structured interviews with LSMs from different municipalities in the Netherlands. This was to illuminate ‘the walk’ in local sport policy, rather than only ‘the talk’ (i.e., the line set out in policy documents). We conclude that the day-to-day work of LSMs was indeed influenced by developments in the broader environment (particularly, austerity measures, organizational restructuring and changed national policies and related discourses). However, the focus of LSMs’ activities remained on ensuring a good sport facility infrastructure, as a necessary precondition to utilize the instrumental value of sport. The LSMs expressed a belief in the goodness of sport and tried to ‘sell’ this to other departments. Yet, they exhibited little critical reflection on (preconditions for) effective sport policy and the need for policy monitoring and evaluation.

体育领域的地方决策: 体育管理者对工作过程和影响的看法

在这项研究中, 我们从地方体育管理者(LSMs)的角度, 寻求对地方体育政策的发展和运作的更好理解。荷兰的地方体育预算继续主要分配给体育设施(运动预算的85%), 尽管人们对体育的工具价值越来越感兴趣, 特别是为了实现保健和福利目标。这似乎在更广泛的政策话语和地方体育政策之间产生了某种不匹配。我们研究了LSMs对最近体育政策变化的观点, 以及这些变化与环境变化(从社会生态角度)的关系, 以及LSMs在有效体育政策和社会影响方面的实际做法、政策价值观和个人信念。为此, 我们对来自荷兰不同城市的LSMs进行了9次半结构化的访问。这是为了阐明地方体育政策中的“散步”, 而不仅仅是“谈话”(即“谈话”)。, 政策文件中列出的界线)。我们的结论是, 最低生活津贴的日常工作的确受到更广泛环境的发展(特别是紧缩措施、组织结构改革和国家政策和有关论述的改变)的影响。然而, LSMs活动的重点仍然是确保良好的体育设施基础设施, 作为利用体育工具价值的必要先决条件。LSMs表达了对体育的信任, 并试图将其“推销”给其他部门。然而, 他们对有效的体育政策的先决条件以及政策监测和评价的必要性几乎没有进行批判性反思。

Keywords:

• Sport policy
• sport manager
• the Netherlands
• discourses
• impact

关键词：:

• 体育政策
• 体育经理
• 荷兰
• 话语
• 影响

1. Introduction

Legitimation of sport policy in the Netherlands has always relied on broader rationales. In the early days, sport was seen as a worthwhile past-time for individuals. The local government supplied sport facilities, often with shower amenities, to promote improved hygiene, especially among the working class (Pouw, 1999). In the sixties and seventies in the context of the welfare state, sport participation was positioned as a social right. In the 1980s under neoliberalism the role of the government with regard to sport was reconsidered as part of broader discussions on the core responsibilities of the government. In this period sport participation for all was no longer considered a key policy objective for the Dutch government (Breedveld, van der Poel, De Jong, & Collard, 2011). From the 1990s, the emphasis of national policy documents shifted to a more functional approach to legitimate continuous involvement in sport. Sport thus came to be viewed as a vehicle for solving problems in other policy domains, such as health, social integration, welfare and liveability that were partly the result of the period of neoliberalism and related decline of the welfare state (Elling, De Knop, & Knoppers, 2001; Ministerie van VWS [Dutch Ministry of Sport], Ministerie van 1996; Stuij & Stokvis, 2015). Similar developments were visible in other countries, especially in Northern Europe (Bergsgard, Houlihan, Mangset, Nodland, & Rommetvedt, 2007; Seippel 2006). Nowadays, sport is considered widely beneficial for society at large as well as for personal development. Sport is positioned more and more as an instrument with health and social effectivity to help to achieve non-sport policy goals (Breedveld, Elling, Hoekman, & Schaars, 2016; Verweel & Wolterbeek, 2011), as also witnessed in other European countries (Coalter, 2007; Hartman-Tews, 2006).

Various scholars have traced and criticized this changing emphasis of sport policy, from sport as a general positive practice and a ‘right to participate’ for all towards sport as an instrument for solving larger socio-economic problems and a ‘moral obligation to participate’ for all. The main critique is that this latter perspective bypasses the exclusionary nature of many sport practices and oversimplifies the positive social value of sport (e.g., Coakley, 2015; Coalter, 1998, 2007; Elling, 2018). Indeed, within sport policy there seems to be a ‘pervasive and nearly unshakable belief in the inherent purity and goodness of sport’ (Coakley, 2015: 403), which Coakley refers to as ‘the Great Sport Myth’.

Unlike most other policy areas, sport policy, and especially local sport policy, has rarely been subject to extensive critical analysis. Much is therefore unknown about the actual functioning and development of local sport policy (Houlihan, 2005; Mansfield, 2016). It remains unclear how the described national development of sport as a social right to sport as a means works out at the local level. One could, for instance, presume that shifts in sport policy objectives have had repercussions for the work of local sport managers (LSMs). However, Hoekman and Van der Maat (2017) found that most of the sport budget of local authorities in the Netherlands has remained dedicated to the operation and maintenance of sport facilities, while the main sport policy objectives have consistently been defined as to improve public health and contribute to social inclusion. The current article examines whether LSMs see this growing belief in the instrumental value of sport as congruent with the continued emphasis of local policy on financing sport facilities. We particularly focus on the case of the Netherlands as, with its social configuration of the sport system, the Netherlands has been at the forefront of this development to sport as a means (Camy et al., 2004; Hallmann & Petry, 2013). Consequently, this study provides interesting information for LSMs in other countries who might face similar developments in the near future. We define LSMs as the heads of municipal sport policy departments and those otherwise responsible for sport policy (development) within a municipality.

While the quantitative study of Hoekman and Van der Maat (2017) on local sport policy in the Netherlands provides an overview of different processes in sport policy development, it falls short of grasping the perspective of LSMs on the changing discourse regarding local sport policy, the consequences of changes in sport policy for LSMs’ day-to-day activities and LSMs’ reflections on effective sport policy and social impact. Consequently, this study serves as an in-depth follow-up.

In this study, our central goal was to gain a better understanding of the development and functioning of local sport policy. We therefore chose to start from the perspective of LSMs. Our aim was to discern how LSMs have locally understood and legitimated new discourses in national sport policy. This article begins by addressing the developments and changing discourses in local sport policy itself, starting from a socio-ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) with attention for national developments and policy discourses. These national developments and sport policy discourses have been studied extensively in the Netherlands (Breedveld et al., 2011; Hoekman & Breedveld, 2013; Tiessen-Raaphorst, 2015) and in other countries, for instance, in the UK (e.g., Green, 2006; Green & Houlihan, 2004; Grix & Carmichael, 2012; Houlihan, 2005; Phillpots, Grix, & Quarmby, 2010), but have seldom been related to the local sport policy context. In the Netherlands the local sport policy context is particularly relevant, as municipalities take up about 90% of the governmental sport expenditures (Hoekman & Breedveld, 2013). Secondly, it examines actual practices of LSMs and the ways LSMs relate their work to the central discourses in local sport policy. Thirdly, it investigates the reflexivity of LSMs and their personal beliefs on the effectiveness of local sport policy and its social impact. These three aspects together open a window on local sport policy, that currently lacks in the literature. The significance of this study lies in its acknowledgement of the perspectives and views of LSMs as indispensable to fully understand local sport policy. It therefore illuminates ‘the walk’, rather than only ‘the talk’ (i.e., the line set out in policy documents). In this regard it is good to note that in the Netherlands municipalities have autonomy with regard to local sport policy and consequently local sport policy is not necessarily linked to national policy developments or discourses.

Our study addressed three research questions: (1) How and why has local sport policy changed in the new millennium? (2) How are central discourses in local sport policy reflected in LSMs’ daily practices, for example, their sport policymaking activities? (3) To what extent do LSMs critically reflect on their established methods of working?

2. Context: The Dutch Sport System

To be able to interpret the findings of this study in a proper way, it is necessary to appreciate the environment in which it is situated.

Sport in the Netherlands has roots both in England and in the German/Scandinavian gymnastic tradition. With England it shares the focus on ‘sport’, with its clubs and federations. However whereas in England the development of sport was mainly centred around and in the school context, in the Netherlands sport was developed outside the school context, in sport clubs. Within schools the physical education was based on ‘gymnastic’ that was adopted from Germany and the Scandinavian countries. As a result of this development of sport in the early years, voluntary sport clubs (VSC) always have been the most important framework for organized sports. Organization of sport is mainly left to ‘private’ and ‘local’ initiatives, although over the last decades (larger) municipalities have also provided sport activities themselves, especially directed at specific target groups that were not reached well enough by VSCs. VSCs are still the main sport providers, supplemented by commercial parties and to a small extent employers and businesses, welfare workers and after-school programmes. Since VSCs still form the core of the Dutch sport system, they hold an important position within local sport policy, as is also the case in other North-Western European countries (Hoekman, van der Werff, Nagel, & Breuer, 2015).

The government invests some €1.4 billion per year in sport, not including the €700 million it invests in physical education. Contrary to other countries, no specific law restricts or guides the Dutch government’s involvement in sport (Ibsen & Seippel, 2010; Hallmann & Petry, 2013). Sport policy is paid for from municipal budgets at the municipalities’ discretion, under no legal obligation whatsoever (Breedveld et al., 2011). Almost 90% of government spending on sport is accounted for by municipalities (€1.2 billion, see Van den Dool & Hoekman, 2017), with some 10% accounted for by the national government and 1% by the provincial authorities. National investments in sport consist mainly of subsidized programmes launched for the sport sector (e.g. related to ‘Sport and Physical Activity in the Neighbourhood’, integrity and safety; Ministerie van VWS, 1996), subsidies dedicated to elite sport (e.g. sport events, support for elite athletes, talent development) and to fund knowledge and innovation. Some 85–90% of municipal investments in sport relate to sport facilities, totalling about €1 billion. A large share of the investment in sport facilities relates to the reduced fees paid by voluntary sport clubs for the use of municipal facilities, which is common in European countries (Hoekman et al., 2015). For some types of facilities, fees paid cover just 10% of the actual costs of provision and operation.

Other contributors to the financing of sports are the sport participants (consumers), particularly those active in a VSC, and the lotteries. Over €100 million from lotteries revenues is distributed to the National Sport Federation (‘NOC*NSF’), and further to sport federations to uphold the organizational infrastructure. In addition the involvement of volunteers in the sport sector is worth mentioning, representing roughly 120.000 FTE and an economic value of €2.3 billion (Hoekman & Breedveld, 2013).

3. Theoretical Perspective

The sport policy process itself functions within a broader social environment. According to Houlihan (2005), to understand the development of sport policy it is important to appreciate the environment from which it emerged and in which it operates. This refers to, among other things, the departmental configuration within which sport policy is situated and the influence of other organizations and developments on sport policy.

This suggests that a layered or hierarchical perspective would be needed to grasp the sport policy process at the local level (Vos, Vandermeerschen, & Scheerder, 2016), in line with Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) socio-ecological perspective. The socio-ecological perspective holds that individual behaviour is constituted within an environment and thus is partly the outcome of different interacting and overarching contextual systems. Applied to LSMs, this means that the content of local sport policy would be influenced by LSMs’ own policymaking activities, the environment in which they work and the local network in which they are positioned. This affirms the value of a hierarchical perspective and suggests the need to incorporate the influence of other domains linked to sport policy.

Vos et al. (2016) concluded that different policy domains work together at the local level. Hoekman and Van der Maat (2017) found this to be true in relation to local sport policy in the Netherlands. Connections with other policy domains could create opportunities to promote the instrumental value of sport and thus access additional public resources for sport (Houlihan, 2005). However, these could also lead to a marginalization of the role of sport, due to the influences of other, higher priority policy areas. As sport policy in the Netherlands is not legally enshrined as a core responsibility of local government, it is sensitive to policy spillover and manipulation by other, stronger policy domains (Houlihan, 2005). Policy spillovers are exogenous factors that further or obstruct the own policy objectives. In sport, most policy spillovers come from powerful adjacent areas and departments, such as health, welfare and education.

Furthermore, with the increasing ‘sportification of society’, public, private and civil society entities are increasingly involved in the sport landscape, in which there is a wide variety of ‘modes of operation’ (Crum, 1991; Fine & Leopold, 1993). Lavigne (2014) referred to new relationships between the state, private actors and civil society. This is visible throughout Europe, and in the Netherlands particularly exemplified by the role of ‘voluntary sport clubs’ (VSCs) in defining and implementing public policies (Hoekman et al., 2015). This notion of new local relationships was underlined in a recent study on sport and austerity measures in the Netherlands. Herein municipalities were found to use budget cuts to legitimate a bigger role for the market and civil society, including VSCs and other social initiatives, within sport policymaking itself and in contributing to sport policy objectives (Hoekman, Van der Roest, & Van der Poel, 2018). It is thus apparent that local sport policy is the outcome of the efforts of actors within and outside municipal offices and the means these parties can muster.

In this study we investigated LSMs' perspectives on the environment in which they operate and the extent that this environment has influenced and continues to influence local sport policy. Our expectation is that local sport policy has indeed changed over time. Throughout North-western Europe there are indications that the remit of local authorities has expanded dramatically in recent decades, including in sport policy. Hartman-Tews (2006) noted in this regard that in European countries more emphasis is being put on comprehensive local sport policies aimed at extending sport’s beneficial health, social, educational and cultural effects to all segments of the population. With this, an apparent shift is noticeable from access to sport as a social right, in line with the ‘sport for all’ philosophy (Council of Europe, 2001), to ‘sport as a means’, that is, sport as an instrument for addressing a wider range of social issues (e.g., Coakley, 2015; Coalter, 2007).

Several central discourses can be identified in discussions on sport policy. These discourses reflect rather static ways of thinking and a degree of ideological embeddedness (Houlihan, 2012). They can be considered policy predispositions or ‘storylines’. In some cases, these have taken on ‘mythological’ status, though they may lack substantiation and theoretical underpinnings (Fischer, 2003; Houlihan, 2012). A first example in this regard is the omnipresent focus within Europe on ‘sport for all’ and ending inequality in sport participation (Houlihan, 2005). This relates to the view of sport as a social right. A second example is the discourse on sport’s instrumental value, reflected in its curative and preventive health value and sport being posited as a panacea to solve social problems. This is illustrated, for example, by the ‘healthification’ of Dutch sport policy. Stuij and Stokvis (2015) found an increasing emphasis on health and physical activity in national sport policy documents in the Netherlands.

Policy and politics often convey an “overly simplistic connotation of the ‘goodness’ of sport and its transforming potentials for changing the world” (Elling, 2018: 57). One could say that nowadays there is particularly in North-Western Europe a seemingly naturalized, normative and instrumental view of sport participation and sport policy, with a presumption of links between sport and various democratic, economic, educational and health values (Breedveld et al., 2016; Coalter, 2007; Österlind, 2016). Central to this discourse is the belief that sport, and by extension sport policy, produces multiple social benefits (Nicholson, Hoye, & Houlihan, 2011). In the current study, we set out to explore the extent that LSMs have adopted and critically reflect on such dominant discourses in sport and sport policy.

The issue is to how locally the financial inputs and resources have been affected by contextual discourses (Houlihan, 2012; Stenling & Fahlen, 2009). Since most of the local sport budget is allocated to sport facilities (Van den Dool & Hoekman, 2017), it is questionable whether policy is and can be attuned to these dominant storylines within national sport policy. As society and the role of the government changes, it is plausible to assume that LSMs may experience tensions or restrictions in local policymaking activities and difficulty in implementing new approaches. Indeed, how the shift in discourse has impacted the day-to-day activities and priorities of LSMs remains unknown.

Furthermore, most sport policy reports provide little evidence for the assumed beneficial effects of sport. As scholars like Mansfield (2016) note, sport policy generally has limited critical reflexivity. However, in the development of sport policy, critical reflexivity is deemed necessary in order to rethink current normative methods and policy actions. Existing sport policy studies provide some insight into the policy process (e.g., Hallmann & Petry, 2013; Nicholson et al., 2011). Though their focus is mainly at the national level, they do pay some limited attention to LSMs’ perspective on the reflexivity of local sport policy and how sport policy contributes to its objectives. Since Hoekman and Van der Maat (2017) found that municipalities undertake limited monitoring and evaluation of sport policy, we explored LSMs’ views on (studying) the effects of sport policy and whether sport policy lives up to the objectives set for it.

4. Methods

To access LSMs’ subjective views, experiences and perspectives on local sport policy we used in-depth semi-structured interviews. In-depth interviewing is an excellent way to address how and why questions, in order to understand the interviewees’ perceptions of processes, norms, decision-making, belief systems, interpretations, motivations and expectations (Guest, Namey, & Mitchell, 2013). Quantitative studies of policy research can reveal interesting patterns of behaviour and policy changes, but yet offer little information on practical outcomes and why changes occurred. This is also the case for the quantitative study by Hoekman and Van der Maat (2017) on local sport policy in the Netherlands. Therefore, to comprehensively grasp the research topic of local sport policy additionally in-depth interviews are essential (Weiss, 1994).

For the current study we selected nine municipalities in which we conducted semi-structured interviews with LSMs, to gain more in-depth information and a better understanding of local sport policy and the daily practices of LSMs. Sampling was purposeful in that we sought to capture a wide diversity of municipalities, following a most different design. We included both municipalities known for outstanding sport policy and municipalities that gave less priority to sport policy, being identified as ‘standard’ municipalities. The municipalities known for their outstanding sport policy, are a selection of the municipalities that won the title ‘Sport municipality of the year’ over the last ten years.¹ A great variety of municipalities has won this award, from small to large municipalities and from prosperous to less prosperous municipalities with different political constellations. We interviewed LSMs from five municipalities that had won this title ‘Sport Municipality of the Year’ in the past ten years, with attention to differences in population size to get a good variety. In addition we selected four municipalities that had not participated in this contest and had similar population sizes and population density to the five selected Sport Municipalities of the Year. Consequently, the chosen municipalities were diverse in population size, geographical location, financial situation and policy attention for sport. For more information on the characteristics of the municipalities we refer to Table 1. In each municipality we requested an interview with the responsible LSM (head of the sport policy department). Although these officials were not responsible for all sport decision-making in the local context, they were all heavily involved in local sport policy development and serve as a good example of sport policy development practitioners in Dutch municipalities. Although the sample is relative small, additional information was reduced in progressing towards the ninth interview, which led us to conclude that saturation had been reached.

Table 1. Some socio-demographic characteristics of included municipalities.

LSM	Type	Population size	Socio-cultural capital score	Average value of real estate	% households with income first 10%-group	Unemployement rate
A	Sport municipality	100.000–250.000	37	158	13,60%	7,10%
B	Sport municipality	100.000–250.000	41	185	12,20%	5,20%
C	Sport municipality	25.000–50.0000	55	344	7,60%	4,10%
D	Sport municipality	50.000–100.000	43	163	9,00%	4,50%
E	Sport municipality	25.000–50.0000	53	224	6,30%	3,90%
F	Standard municipality	50.000–100.000	44	178	11,40%	5,20%
G	Standard municipality	25.000–50.0000	58	244	7,30%	3,80%
H	Standard municipality	100.000–250.000	47	207	9,90%	4,90%
I	Standard municipality	100.000–250.000	45	157	18,70%	7,70%
National average			48	216	10%	4,90%

The interviews were held between July 2017 and September 2017 using a semi-structured topic list. Questions were built around why and how sport policy had changed in the past years, how this affected or related to actual practices, and LSMs’ reflexivity and beliefs regarding effective sport policy and social impact. The open-ended questions in the interview guide facilitated informal conversations and elicitation of information on the LSMs’ knowledge, attitudes, experiences and behaviours on the topics at hand. In addition, this semi-structured design enabled the interviewer to follow leads and uncover other important issues as they arose.

The interviews were conducted by the first author in the interviewees’ personal offices. The first author is a white male, active in sport. Also, all interviewees were white males. We acknowledge the homogeneous and gendered nature of our sample, but unfortunately positions in sport leadership are predominantly filled by white males (Claringbould, 2008). The interviewed LSMs clearly had affinity with sport. Some had a history as a physical education teacher, one had been a professional athlete. Others had been involved in sport clubs as a coach, volunteer or board member. All had been or were currently frequent sport participants.

The interviews lasted an average of one hour and fifteen minutes and were digitally recorded. To encourage openness and free conversation and to avoid social desirability bias, interviewees and their municipalities were assured anonymity. The interviews were transcribed verbatim. Using the threefold purpose of this study as a broad framework, we first analysed the data deductively, categorizing relevant comments under the three main issues: ‘how and why sport policy has changed in the past years’, ‘how this affects or relates to actual practices of LSMs’, and ‘how LSMs view sport policy and (study of) its social impact’. Within these three central topics, we used a more inductive approach, labelling relevant fragments that seemed to be of potential theoretical significance or that appeared particularly salient (Bryman, 2012). We used a word processor for data analysis. This involved the repeated reading of transcripts with the aforementioned literature and issues in mind to identify patterns, similarities and differences within and between the LSMs working in municipalities in which sport policy was regarded as a high and low priority. Furthermore, where relevant, response patterns were contextualised in relation to other municipality characteristics, such as population size or urbanity.

5. Findings

This section starts by presenting and discussing the results related to how and why local sport policy has changed in the past two decades. It subsequently addresses the implications of policy changes for the daily practice of LSMs and the possible consequential tensions. Finally, it discusses LSMs’ reflexivity and perspectives on the effectiveness of sport policy and its social impact. One of the main overall findings was, that very little variation was found in response patterns between ‘sport’ and ‘standard’ municipalities, or other socio-demographic municipality characteristics.

5.1. Policy Changes: Sport Policy as a Growing Social Force without any Legal Foundation

Common topics emerged from the interview data regarding the tenor and background of changes in local sport policy. In general LSMs referred to three external factors that they considered to have affected local sport policy: (1) changed financial realities, (2) changed organizational structures within the municipality and (3) changed national policy and related discourses.

5.1.1. Changed Financial Realities

The majority of LSMs indicated that the financial recession had forced their municipality to more critically assess activities and core responsibilities. This was the case both in municipalities where sport policy was a high priority (‘sport award municipalities’) and in those where sport policy received lesser emphasis. LSMs noted an awareness of the lack of a legal basis for sport policy. Although, local sport authorities do play a prominent role in sport policy in the Netherlands, municipalities are under no legal obligation with regard to sport (Hoekman & Breedveld, 2013). As such, municipalities have substantial autonomy in determining their sport-related activities. A drawback of the absence of a legal requirement is that sport is not one of the core responsibilities of municipalities, and therefore sport policy must function within an inherently broader environment. As a result, sport is particularly susceptible to budget cuts in times of austerity when discussions on core responsibilities are most likely to arise. This was the case in the Netherlands during the economic crisis of the 1980s (Pouw, 1999), but surprisingly did not affect government’s total sport expenditure in the Netherlands during the recent times of austerity (Hoekman, Van der Roest, & Van der Poel, 2018). However, comments made during the interviews indicate that such discussions still take place at the local level when resources are short, and that indeed budget cuts took place:

As part of broader austerity measures we have increased the fees for sport facilities with 20% and still have to downsize our budget with 300.000 euro. We are now discussing with VSCs which tasks they can take over, to avoid another 40% increase of the fees of sport facilities. (LSM H, standard municipality).

That is always a bit difficult with sport. Everybody knows that it is important, but you do not always have the hard numbers to show for it. It is no legal obligation, and as such there is always discussion when, in current times of austerity, budget cuts are needed. (LSM A, sport award municipality)

The recent period of austerity further appears to have produced an increased emphasis on effective and efficient sport policy. In this regard, the exogenous development of the economic recession did once again resulted in policy change (Sabatier, 1998) in the sense that it led to re-examination of the role of sport policy within municipalities and reorganizations within municipalities, especially in relation to the operation of sport facilities. Outsourcing the operation of sport facilities was considered to be in line with the drive to focus only on core responsibilities. This was mostly seen in the smaller municipalities and particularly in those where sport was less of a priority. In more urban areas, municipalities like to keep in control of sport facilities to utilize the sport facilities for broader societal purposes, linked to other sectors. In general, there is no broad agreement among LSMs on whether such outsourcing is more cost effective:

I'm glad we did not privatize all sports facilities, because I'm convinced that you put VSCs in their strength by letting them do what they do best, and that is offering sports activities. […] they do not succeed to reserve for big expenditures required in ten or fifteen years' time. And then in the end the town council yields and pays the 200.000 euro needed for renovation. (LSM F, standard municipality)

Operating sport facilities is not a core business of a municipality and as such we critically looked at the necessary number of sport facilities and suggested to close the other facilities and transferred the operation of sport facilities to public and private initiatives. We were very glad to see that sport clubs and civil initiatives were successful and taking over the operation of sport facilities and kept sport facilities open that otherwise would have been closed. (LSM G, standard municipality)

The increased emphasis on core responsibilities, alongside pressure on local budgets, led LSMs to take a more strategic approach in sport policy. They emphasized the instrumental value of sport in policy areas that are within the municipality’s core responsibilities. Focusing on sport’s instrumental value enabled sport to profit from budgets available for other domains, such as social welfare, public health and poverty alleviation. ‘Everybody knows that sport is important’, an LSM emphasized, referring to the broad acceptance of the universal goodness of sport (Coalter, 2007; Elling, 2018). Sport also comes with a large voluntary – and therefore relatively cheap – base of local support organizations. This general acceptance and naturalized view of the instrumental value of sport has helped to legitimate continued investment in sport in times of recession (Hoekman et al., 2018; cf. Nicholson et al., 2011; Österlind, 2016).

5.1.2. Changed Organizational Structure

Most municipal organizations have been reorganized once or multiple time over the years to increase their efficiency and streamline their functioning within the broader environment. LSMs noted that their municipal structure had been reorganized in the past decade mainly to achieve policy integration (e.g., related to youth services) and efficient alignment with the needs of the population. In most cases this led to a separation of policy and implementation and to altered departmental positions within the municipality. Nowadays, sport policy is usually positioned as part of the social services department and linked to the department of health:

Sport policy is part of the social services department and we also have the ‘sport concern’ [sportbedrijf], which is only the executive authority. Within the social services department we had the assignment to include the sport domain in integrated social policies on youth, health, the elderly, the welfare act, you name it. Sport and physical activity should become one of the key things in these integrated social policies. (LSM B, sport award municipality)

As a result of these administrative arrangements, cooperation with colleagues from health and welfare has become common in the sport policy development process. Consequently, the content of sport policy has shifted more towards sport and physical activity policy aimed to improve health among the population. This is an example of the idea of ‘policy spillover’ referred to by Houlihan (2005). Spillovers between sport policy and health and welfare policies were especially common, as new challenging tasks in these areas have been decentralized to municipalities as a result of austerity (Leisink, et al., 2013). Paradoxically, sport seems to have profited from these austerity measures. Several LSMs indeed referred to these developments as providing opportunity to uphold budgets. They stressed that inclusion of sport initiatives in other policy domains underlined sport’s importance and enhanced sport’s position.

5.1.3. Changed National Policy and Related Discourses

All LSMs said that national sport policy had broadened over time and that sport was now being attributed greater social value (cf. Elling et al., 2001; Pouw, 1999). Moreover, they noted that the increased emphasis on sport and health had broadened the sport market, extending it beyond the traditional sport clubs. This led municipalities to recognize more health-oriented, less organized sports like running, walking and cycling (see Van den Dool, 2017) and to pay attention to sport opportunities outside of the official sport facilities. This was equally the case for municipalities where sport policy was a high priority and in those where sport policy received lesser emphasis.

We have recently put a lot of effort in facilitating a sportive public space for those practicing sport unorganized in public space. We have always paid a lot of attention to VSCs, but less to this group of unorganized sport participants, while it is getting bigger and bigger. It has now become very important to learn how the organization of public space stimulates people to become more active. (LSM F, standard municipality)

With regard to the impact of national policy, the LSMs referred to a subsidized national programme to launch local-level initiatives. Participation in this programme enabled them to employ ‘neighbourhood sport workers’ to organize sport activities. This national programme had thus increased the resources available to sport policymakers, as the number of full-time-equivalents (FTEs) to implement sport policy had increased substantially (by some 2.900 FTE, employed at 371 of the 388 municipalities in the Netherlands, according to Van Lindert, Brandsema, Scholten, & Poel, 2017). These neighbourhood sport workers can be regarded as ‘street-level bureaucrats’, producing a situation in which policymaking occurs in everyday contexts at the very local level within communities (Lipsky, 1980).

Furthermore, mainly the LSMs of sport award municipalities noted that the move towards a ‘participation society’ and the generally changing role of government had impacted sport policy and sport policy development in recent years. However, this was also mentioned by one of the other municipalities. As an example, one LSM mentioned the involvement of the population in the policy development process as a way of ensuring that policy is attuned to needs:

In line with participation society, we explore together with society what possibilities are to improve sport policy and which division of tasks is most suitable for all parties involved. You need to scan that together. (LSM C, sport award municipality)

Similarly, LSMs noted that it had become increasingly important for policy to support public initiatives and to draw civil society into the process of sport policy development and implementation. This is in line with findings of Lavigne (2014) on the new relationships between the state, private actors and civil society.

Regarding the shift from the welfare state to a participation society and the changing role of government (Raad voor Openbaar, 2012), LSMs observed that policy development is now more open to initiatives from society and that civil society is included in the policy development process. Furthermore, they pointed to the availability of national programmes in which municipalities could enrol based on the needs of their populations; these were also said to influence the content and functioning of local sport policy. LSMs furthermore initiated activities and supported VSCs to activate citizens to participate in sport. VSCs, in particular, have been given a larger role in sport policy implementation in the Netherlands, as austerity measures have pushed local governments to transfer tasks and responsibilities to VSCs where feasible (see also Hoekman et al., 2018). Findings from the online questionnaire affirmed that VSCs were particularly active as initiators of sport-related topics on the policy agenda. As one interview respondent noted:

When it comes to the participation society, then sport is an example of this, where it has existed for over 100 years already. If there is anywhere that citizens [organized in VSCs] take care of things, then it is within the sport sector. (LSM B, sport award municipality)

All LSMs said that subsidies were increasingly used to launch or support initiatives that benefit society and to persuade VSCs to take over responsibilities from the local government, herewith contributing to greater efficiency and effectiveness of sport policy and its widened goals. Furthermore, all LSMs specifically noted that sport had become embedded within the larger dominant health discourse (Stuij & Stokvis, 2015). This development was said to have impacted local sport policy and broadened the network in which sport policy is developed. This was also noted in the study of Hoekman and Van der Maat (2017), with 76% of the municipalities indicating that sport policy was developed in cooperation with the health department, and 90% of the municipalities mentioning that increasing the health of the population is a key objective of sport policy.

Consequently, we found that, in line with the socio-ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) the development of sport policy can indeed be better understood by appreciating the hierarchical structured environment from which it emerged and in which it operates (Houlihan, 2005).

5.2. Policy Activities: Day-to-Day Practice of LSMs Relatively Unchanged

This section elaborates on the LSMs’ views on the consequences of developments in sports policy for their day-to-day practice. Nearly all LSMs noted that despite the changed position of sport within the municipal policy landscape, funding mechanisms for sport had so far remained relatively unaltered. Even though sport participation is now generally acknowledged as contributing to solve larger social problems, sport policy still received very little financial support from other policy domains.

[Financial support from other departments] is the next step in the process. It’s getting into gear. You see increased cooperation and that other departments notice the value of utilizing sport. However, when it comes to financing there are still disagreements. (LSM A, sport award municipality)

Similar conclusions were drawn on a national level, where an increased focus on the societal value of sport was not backed up by more financial support from other departments (Breedveld et al., 2016).

Moreover, all LSMs indicated that despite the greater emphasis on the social value of sport, most of the local sport budget is still dedicated to sport facilities:

‘Ninety per cent of the sport budget is dedicated to mowing pitches and maintaining and operating the sport facilities […] we don’t have much free money to spend.’ (LSM I, standard municipality).

Construction and operation of sport facilities is costly, since municipalities provide sport facilities to local sport clubs at a relatively low user fee, below cost price. Indeed, some 85–90% of the municipal sport budget is dedicated to maintaining and operating sport facilities (Hoekman & Breedveld, 2013). The remaining resources are used to stimulate specific target groups to participate in sport, for cooperation with other sectors such as education, for participation in national programmes and for subsidization of local initiatives from civil society. The interviewed LSMs acknowledged that the national programmes provided opportunities to undertake activities to encourage sport participation. Most of them also indicated that alongside providing sport facilities and supporting VSCs and community and school sport initiatives, policy was still foremost focused on the ‘sport for all’ objective. Providing inclusive access to sport thus remained an important aspect of the LSMs’ day-to-day work:

‘We aim for healthy and vital citizens. To achieve this we aim to encourage all groups in society to practice sports in the way they want to, being in- or outside a sport club, in public space or using a sport facility… (LSM H, standard municipality)

In light of the Netherlands’ concerted shift towards a participation society (Raad voor Openbaar, 2012), similar to the Big Society ideology in the UK (Bach, 2012), some LSMs had high expectations of civil society. The changing times, they said, had made civil society more keen to take on greater responsibilities, in addition to the vibrant commercial sector that sought business opportunities in operating sport facilities for local governments. These developments widen prospects for municipalities to outsource certain activities in order to increase sport policy efficiency. This trend, already evident in numerous governing coalition agreements across municipalities (Hoekman & Van der Bol, 2014), was partly confirmed by the LSMs. However, here we found a clear division between the ‘Sport Municipalities of the Year’ and the other municipalities. The former were more proactive and set on staying in control and utilizing sport to its full potential, while the latter seemed more passive to let other organizations, insofar as possible, take up leadership and responsibilities.

The vast majority of LSMs noted that they provided subsidies to support civil society initiatives, mainly via VSCs. In this regard it is worth remarking that in the past sport clubs, especially VSCs, received government contributions automatically for their social function, while nowadays there is a move towards contractual performance-based relations between municipalities and VSCs. VSCs, like national sport organizations, must now more and more demonstrate that they deliver (public) value for (public) money (Waardenburg & Van Bottenburg, 2013). In line with the focus on accountability, VSCs are deemed responsible for more than just providing sport activities; to be eligible for funding they must be open to the wider community and contribute to society at large (Van der Werff, Hoekman, & Van Kalmthout, 2015):

The municipality is more keen on utilizing the own strength of VSCs or other organizations and how you can help them become stronger; that there is a good foundation to utilize these organizations for broader social purposes. These organizations can apply for subsidies for sport activities, but we have now combined it with the obligation to organize social activities. We have higher expectations of VSCs, that they also have meaning for the city. This [obligation to organize social activities] was not the case in the past. (LSM A, sport award municipality)

Other organizations in the local sport landscape must also confirm that their activities contribute to the widened focus of sport policy. Paradoxically, however, municipal sport policy itself is not necessarily linked to any ancillary benefits of sport, like public health and social welfare, as most of the budget is dedicated to sport facilities. LSMs seemed to regard sport mainly as a context in which interventions related to health and social welfare could be placed. Sport appeals to a lot of people and is therefore a valuable tool or context to use. Nevertheless, some LSMs appeared reluctant to change their policymaking activities to accommodate the goals of other policy domains, particularly if that meant drifting away from facilitating sport and supporting VSCs:

We believe that although sport is more intertwined with other policy domains, sport still has its idiosyncrasy that needs to be preserved. You need to find a certain balance in this, because we notice that sport is otherwise somewhat overloaded. […], then we notice a kind of frustration or pushback from the sport sector to cooperate. (LSM D, sport award municipality)

The comment of this municipality reflects research findings that show that apart from a growing number of VSCs that want to contribute to wider social objectives, a considerable group of VSCs is only interested in ‘sport for sport’s sake’ (Van der Werff et al., 2015).

Thus, while all LSMs underlined that the policy rhetoric was indeed changing, and that more emphasis on the instrumental value of sport was required, their core activities remained related to sport participation as a goal in itself. In other words, the policy discourse strongly reflected the ‘sport as a panacea’ storyline, but the main policy activity of most of the LSMs was still to enhance sport participation: ‘We actually only have one core objective and that is to increase sport participation rates.’ (LSM F, standard municipality).

This reveals a dilemma: the dominant sport policy discourse espousing the social benefits of sport does not match the day-to-day practice of the LSMs. LSMs were mainly occupied with supporting VSCs and providing a good sport facility infrastructure to help raise sport participation levels. Additional subsidies and stimulation activities were offered for groups that lagged behind in sport participation, such as the disabled, children in poverty and the elderly. By increasing sport participation levels, especially for lagging groups, LSMs generally assumed that they were contributing to the broader external objectives of sport policy, particularly in the social welfare domain. In this sense they do not see this as a dilemma.

The LSMs additionally referred to the political relevance of sport at the local level, as a large share of the population is involved in sport in some way. Several LSMs considered VSCs and other civil society initiatives as capable of applying political pressure and influencing the development of local policy. This pressure had been used to oppose fundamental changes in local sport policy, for instance, to avoid a reform of the rate system (e.g. rental fees) of sport facilities or to obstruct the outsourcing of the operation of sport facilities to VSCs. It had also been used to obtain additional funding for sport and to reduce intended budget cuts. Furthermore, there seemed to be a mutual dependency between the VSCs and municipalities: the VSCs were financially dependent on the municipalities, while at the same time, the municipalities were dependent on the VSCs to realize their policy objectives.

5.3. Reflexivity: Very Limited Role of Critical Reflexivity in Sport Policy Development

Reflecting on the logic currently dominant in sport policy, that is, sport as a panacea for all of society’s problems, most LSMs agreed that sport has this power. This also legitimated why their activities were still concentrated on enhancing sport participation. Most LSMs, and especially those from sport award municipalities, said that sport, more than any other sector, could be a successful instrument in addressing social problems:

Very broadly speaking, I think that sport and physical activity is a fantastic instrument. Name any policy domain and you can say that sport and physical activity is a suitable instrument. Always! I cannot say that for other activities. (LSM E, sport award municipality).

The majority of LSMs underwrote the universal goodness of sport, with very little critical reflection on how this effect might work. Most sport policy, as noted, related to provision of a good and accessible sport facility infrastructure and special programmes for some lagging target groups. These LSMs generally assumed that the rest, the social benefits, would then naturally follow.

While some LSMs expressed a desire to contribute to social welfare targets, they said that a large part of their budget was fixed. They therefore had limited scope to attune their activities to the changing sport policy discourse, though the general belief that sport has great social value had proven helpful in obtaining additional funding for promising initiatives. The key to better aligning activities to policy objectives, LSMs said, was for other policy departments start to think in terms of including sport. This would, they said, further increase the contribution of sport-related programmes to goals external to sport.

How successful sport policy has been in achieving its objectives is largely unknown. Most LSMs reported very limited monitoring and evaluation of sport policy. As a result all of them admitted to having no idea of the extent that policy initiatives had been effective. At best there were indications that policy initiatives had contributed to achieving policy goals. This confirms the idea of limited reflexivity of sport policy found in previous studies (Mansfield, 2016; Houlihan, 2005). Hoekman and Van der Maat (2017) reported that only 10% of the municipalities can prove that their sport policy activities are effective and contribute to (the majority of) the objectives of sport policy. Similarly, many assumed instrumental effects of national elite sport policies, such as boosting national pride and international prestige and increasing general sport participation, often lack clear empirical evidence (De Bosscher, Shibli, Westerbeek, & Van Bottenburg, 2015; Elling, Van Hilvoorde, & Van den Dool, 2014)

Regarding monitoring and evaluation, LSMs generally did indicate keeping track of statistics on sport participation and sport club membership. In addition, the stronger sport municipalities had moved to a more dynamic policy process. They no longer had four-year sport policy programmes but instead used annual plans, assessing whether specific activities were successful and refining programmes and goals for the year after accordingly. However, this only concerned the roughly 10% of the budget that was not fixed in sport facilities. Smaller standard municipalities in particular indicated that sport policy was more or less integrated in policies on social welfare and health.

Furthermore, LSMs were asked to report on what they did rather than what they accomplished. The LSMs perceptions of what works and what does not work are derived mainly from their beliefs and personal experience rather than research. Consequently, most LSMs interviewed rarely used monitoring and evaluation to learn what worked and what did not; rather they tended to rely on uncontested assumptions regarding the wider instrumental values of sport (cf. Coalter, 2007). One reason for the limited attention to monitoring and evaluation lies with the cost involved. Indeed, a substantial financial investment would be needed to develop a proper monitoring and evaluation system for determining the wider impact of sport policy. Some LSMs, and according to them, politicians even more, in the end preferred to dedicate the moneys available to actual activities or to new initiatives rather than to research. Sport is in this regard a rather hands-on domain, more interested in doing things than investigating whether they are doing the right things.

Interestingly, most LSMs did consider research was needed on the effect of sport policy, particularly the sport award municipalities. However, this was not seen necessarily to improve sport policy itself. Instead, these LSMs referred to the need for research so as to demonstrate to other departments how effective sport is and thus get more funding from them for sport policy. Once again, this illustrates the omnipresent belief in the universal goodness of sport. Greater accountability was considered key, not to get a deeper understanding of the factors and mechanisms underlying successful local sport policy, but to obtain more money to expand it.

The LSMs from the ‘Sport Municipalities of the Year’ did appear to have greater appreciation of the potential of sport policy and progress made towards targets. However, even these LSMs expressed difficulty in identifying the true significance and effect of sport policy. LSMs in general acknowledged that sport policy initiatives were difficult to isolate from other activities within a municipality, especially when focusing on contributions of sport to other policy areas (cf. Breedveld et al., 2016):

Well, it is difficult to identify whether it works or not. We can measure all kinds of things, but then is this the result of our policy activity, or a result of other circumstances? (LSM I, standard municipality)

Furthermore, most LSMs noted that effects of sport policy may only become visible in the long term. Someone who takes up a sport does not become healthier immediately, but could in time become more healthy, reducing the costs of health care in the future. Children who start practising sport at a young age may profit from this early exposure later in life, with benefits to society as a whole.

All in all, we found a very limited role of critical reflexivity in sport policy development and among LSMs. Generally, LSMs attributed this in part to the way sport policy is organized, with most of the budget consumed by sport facilities management, subsidies to launch new initiatives and municipalities’ participation in national programmes that ran for a certain number of years and were followed up by slightly different ones, normally before critical assessments of the previous programme took place. As a result, LSMs experienced very limited freedom to change their day-to-day activities, and consequently gave less priority to monitoring and evaluation.

Despite the given boundaries, LSMs said that their sport policymaking activities did make a difference. They saw this confirmed in their contacts within the municipality and in changes they observed taking place. While it was hard to pinpoint this added value of sport in local evaluations, especially the sport award municipalities were confident that no other policy area could have the same impact that sport has.

6. Conclusion

With this study we attempted to fill a gap in the literature by engaging in semi-structured interviews with LSMs. The article provides interesting insights into the role of LSMs in and LSMs’ perspectives on the institutionalization of sport into the wider welfare state perspective at the local level. We focussed on the how and why of changes in local sport policy, the reflection of this in the daily practice of LSMs, and to what extent LSMs critically reflect on the established methods of working and the (social) impact of local sport policy. Particular attention was paid to differences between LSMs of sport award municipalities and of standard municipalities that gave less priority to sport policy.

Regarding the first research question, in line with Sabatier (1998) and the socio-ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), all LSMs indicated that changes in sport policy were mainly triggered by exogenous developments. The three most prominent environmental influences were changed financial realities, changed organizational structures within the municipality and changed national policy and related discourses. LSMs exhibited an awareness of changes in policy and policy discourse over time and acknowledged that today more than in the past local sport policy is linked to other policy domains based on the social benefits of sport. The LSMs referred to discourses in national policy documents and a general awareness or belief in the instrumental value and goodness of sport, as can be witnessed in a ‘healthification’ of sport policy (Stuij & Stokvis, 2015).

In most municipalities, and particularly the sport award municipalities, the changed sport policy discourse had provided openings for escaping the severest budget cuts in recent period of recession-driven budgetary reductions at the local level. As sport is not legally enshrined as a municipal obligation, legitimation of continued investment of sport was provided by sport’s instrumental value and contribution to other policy domains. Consequently, policy spillovers (Houlihan, 2005) were also identified, particularly in efforts to utilize sport policy to achieve objectives related to public health and welfare (Stuij & Stokvis, 2015). In general, sport was considered a relatively cost effective policy instrument as it builds on a voluntary organizational base. In this respect, VSCs and neighbourhood sport workers were by all LSMs considered important partners in initiating activities for the benefit of society at large.

Answering the second research question, contrary to our expectations, we identified that the policymaking activities of LSMs remained largely the same. All LSMs considered the creation of an adequate sport facility infrastructure as key to achieving the more socially-oriented goals of sport policy. Consequently, most money (up to 90% of sport budgets) was still dedicated to sport facilities (Hoekman & Breedveld, 2013). This limits the potential for additional activities to promote the contribution of sport to external collective values. Consequently, LSMs still strongly focused on providing and managing sport facility infrastructure and supporting VSCs.

The interviewed LSMs, all white males active in sport, embody a privileged social status position, and they held a naturalized belief in the goodness of sport and its potential to bring social objectives closer, resembling the ‘Great Sport Myth’ notion of Coakley (2015). LSMs, especially in sport award municipalities, tried to ‘sell’ this dominant view to other departments in order to strengthen the legitimation of sport policy and enlarge the sport budget. The increased demand for accountability was applied mainly to VSCs, which must now demonstrate their contribution to social goals in order to be eligible for funding. Accountability demands were also made of those to whom the operation of sport facilities was outsourced. Herein, a certain economic rationale is discernible. Municipalities are exploring new modes of operation to reduce the cost of sport facilities, without compromising the sport infrastructure available in their municipality. Particularly, the LSMs of sport award municipalities are keen on upholding control over the sport infrastructure and supporting VSCs to be of utmost relevance to society.

Reflecting on the third research question, LSMs in general exhibited little critical reflection on (preconditions for) effective sport policy and the need for policy monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation were generally restricted to registration data, to obtain a notion of the reach of sport policy initiatives. Several LSMs described the sport sector as ‘hands on’, interested more in initiating new programmes than in evaluating existing efforts. Most of them did not consider evidence of the value of sport to be necessary, as sport’s social value and its political relevance were generally accepted as self-evident. Equally in sport award municipalities and the other municipalities, the LSMs noted that on several occasions ‘emotions’ had trumped ‘reason’ in decision-making on sport issues, resulting in a greater influence of politics in this policy domain. A relatively large segment of society is somehow involved in sport, meaning that sport policy has a relatively high political clout. This appears to undermine the need for evidence to what extent sport policy activities matter, as the general rhetoric on the goodness of sport and the high community involvement in sport, do help to get things done even though there is no evidence to back up the claim.

Apart from these conclusions, this current study points to several avenues for further research. First, future research is needed on to what extent local sport policy activities indeed contribute to higher sport participation rates and the health and social inclusion objectives that are currently central in local sport policy (Hoekman & Van der Maat, 2017). Consequently, an overarching question that emerged from this study is, ‘Does sport policy matter?’ LSMs were naturally convinced of the significance of their work, despite very limited reflexivity, not only in relation to the broader social goals, but also with respect to ‘sport for all’. It remains unknown what the effect is of municipal sport expenditures in stimulating sport participation and including lower socio-economic status groups. Moreover, Ter Rele (2007) has shown that higher income groups profit most from governmental expenditures on sport. Furthermore, how effective are the existing sport stimulation programs and does a good sport facility infrastructure indeed make a difference, as the LSMs assumed? These are questions for future studies to more thoroughly address, at the same time increasing reflexivity in local sport policy domain.

Second, for this study we interviewed the LSMs on their perspective on local sport policy and its merit, while a broader consultation is likely to bring forward additional perspectives. LSMs expressed little reflexivity on the goodness of sport and tried to ‘sell’ this to other departments. Consequently, it would be valuable to conduct similar in-depth interviews with representatives of other policy departments, of different local political parties and of national sport federations to get an outsider perspective on the local value of sport and sport policy. As a follow-up it then would be valuable to triangulate these in-depth studies and analyse the different perspectives on the local value of sport and sport policy.

Third, this study focussed on the Dutch context and although we expect these findings being at least partly reflective and predictive for other European countries, given large similarities in the sport systems and broader socio-political developments (cf. European Commission, 2011), more comparative, cross-national research is needed to show to what extent findings hold true for other (European) countries as well. Conducting similar studies in other countries, representing different continents, for comparisons and contrasts could contribute to a more robust knowledge base on the functioning and meaning of local sport policy.

Finally, the dilemma that unravelled between policy discourses and policy activities is intriguing, even though the LSMs did not see this as a dilemma. LSMs mainly seem to hold VSCs accountable for these wider objectives of sport policy. These VSCs now must demonstrate their contribution to social goals in order to be eligible for funding. Furthermore, it are the neighbourhood sport workers that function as the street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980) and as such probably experience this dilemma more than LSMs do. Consequently, it is worth looking further into the perspective of VSCs and the neighbourhood sport workers on sport’s contribution to broader societal objectives in relation to the local sport policy activities.

In sum, we conclude that there are too high expectations in sport policy, nationally and locally, that are not followed up by concrete policy activities. Local sport policy activities mainly remained unchanged despite exogenous developments positioning sport policy as a growing social force. In line with the latter, LSMs expressed a general belief in the goodness of sport and tried to position the instrumental value of sport within other departments. LSMs simultaneously expressed little critical reflection on (preconditions) for effective sport policy and the need for policy monitoring and evaluation, leaving much unknown on the true meaning of local sport policy.

Notes on Contributors

Remco Hoekman is a senior researcher at the Mulier Institute and affiliated to the Department of Sociology at Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands. His research interests include sport participation, sport facilities and sport policy and he has published various book chapters, articles and reports on these topics. He is President of the European Association for Sociology of Sport (EASS).

Agnes Elling is a senior researcher at the Mulier Institute. Her research interests include social in-/exclusionary practices in sport (gender/ethnicity/sexuality) and physical activity/sports biographies. She is currently involved in two large research projects: on the (changed) meanings of physical activity and sports in the lives of people with a chronic illness and on the development of (social) media representation of women’s football.

Hugo van der Poel is a director of the Mulier Institute. His interests and expertise lie in social theory, sport policy and sport facilities. He co-ordinates a research programme on Sport facilities and sport participation, funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, and holds various board memberships of sport organisations.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the participating local sport managers for the time made available for the interviews and for their willingness to share their stories for research purposes. Furthermore, the authors thank Koen Breedveld and Gerbert Kraaykamp for their contribution to the discussions on the research approach for this article and in addition the authors thank the members of the colloquium of the Radboud University, department of Sociology, for their valuable input on the first full version of the article.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) under Grant number [328-98-008].

Notes

1 Municipalities need to enrol themselves and provide information on sport policy characteristics and outcome measures such as sport participation, sport club members, number of sport facilities and municipal sport expenditures per inhabitant. In addition they need to submit a description of a new and successful sport policy initiative. The applications are judged by an independent jury.