Professionals and volunteers: on the future of a Scandinavian sport model

Abstract

Even though most people seem to be correct in assuming that modern sport is somehow about to professionalize, approaches to this process are often rather superficial and one-sided in their focus on professionalization as implying more athletes with higher wages. A proper understanding of how a process of professionalization might affect the Scandinavian way to organize sport in voluntary organizations requires answers to three questions: (1) What is in fact happening to Scandinavian sport when it comes to professionalization? (2) What characteristics of voluntary organizations matter when holding forth voluntary organizations as something defensible? (3) What does a sociological concept of professionalization actually imply within this context of sport and the voluntary sector? Bringing the answers to these three questions together helps understanding of how a process of professionalization might influence voluntary organizations, their way of functioning and thereby their ability to fulfil the visions associated with them.

Notes

¹ Bergsgard and Nordberg, ‘Nordic Sports Politics’; Ibsen and Seippel, ‘Voluntary Sport’; Klausen and Selle, Frivillig organisering i Norden.

² Cohen and Arato, Civil Society; Ehrenberg, Civil Society; Giugni, McAdam and Tilly, From Contention to Democracy; Hall, Civil Society; Hansmann, ‘Economic Theories’; Salamon and Sokolowski, Global Civil Society; Taylor, ‘Interpretation and the Sciences’; Warren, Democracy and Association; Wollebæk, Selle and Lorentzen, Frivillig innsats.

³ Dekker and Uslaner, ‘Introduction’; Hardin. Trust; Nicholson and Hoye, Sport and Social Capital; Putnam, Making Democracy Work; Seippel, ‘Sport and Social Capital’; Seippel, ‘Public Policies’; Seippel, ‘Sport in Civil Society’.

⁴ Putnam. Making Democracy Work; Rotolo, ‘Trends in Voluntary Association’; Rotolo, ‘A Time to Join’; Rotolo and Wilson, ‘What Happened?’; Skocpol, Ganz and Munson, ‘A Nation of Organizers’.

⁵ Wollebæk, Selle and Lorentzen. Frivillig innsats. In this essay I will present data on the Norwegian case as a hopefully representative example for all three Scandinavian nations. The main reason for this choice is that this is the case I know the best. Ibsen and Seippel, ‘Voluntary Sport’, shows that there are many similarities between the Danish and Norwegian cases when it comes to the question discussed in this essay, and Bergsgard and Nordberg, ‘Nordic Sports Politics’, studying Swedish and Norwegian sport policies also point out the many similarities between the nations. Together then, there are good reasons to think that the situation and trends here described for the Norwegian case also are valid for the other Scandinavian cases.

⁶ Lorentzen. Moraldannende kretsløp.

⁷ Curtis, Baer and Grabb, ‘Nations of Joiners’.

⁸ Wollebæk, Selle and Lorentzen, Frivillig innsats. Saying that voluntary work is the most important resource for sport organizations one should also add that public resources are of uttermost importance, at least in two respects. First, a large proportion of sport facilities are provided or financed by public authorities. Second, because public funding is indeed important for the infrastructure of the national sport confederations.

⁹ Seippel, Norske idrettslag: 1999–2007.

¹⁰ Selle, ‘Forfall eller forandring?’; Selle and Øymyr. Frivillig organisering og demokrati.

¹¹ Wollebæk, Selle and Lorentzen, Frivillig innsats.

¹² Seippel, ‘The World According to Voluntary Organizations’.

¹³ Cohen and Arato, Civil Society; Ehrenberg, Civil Society; Taylor, ‘Invoking Civil Society’; Walzer, ‘The Civil Society Argument’; Warren, Democracy and Association.

¹⁴ Coalter, ‘Sports Club’; Harris, ‘Civil Society’; Heinemann, ‘Sport Clubs’; Horch, ‘Sociological Research’; Horch, ‘On the Socio-Economics’; Ibsen, Frivilligt arbejde i idrætsforeninger; Jarvie, ‘Communitarism’; Nicholson and Hoye. Sport and Social Capital; Seippel, ‘Sport and Social Capital’; Seippel, ‘Sport in Civil Society’.

¹⁵ Walzer, ‘On Involuntary Action’.

¹⁶ Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty; Warren, Democracy and Association.

¹⁷ Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory.

¹⁸ Pfeffer and Salancik, The External Control.

¹⁹ Held, Models of Democracy.

²⁰ Lin, Social Capital.

²¹ Enjolras and Waldahl, Hvem styrer idretten?

²² Hartmann-Tews, ‘Von der Passion zur Profession?’; Horch and Heydel, Professionalisierung im Sportmanagment; Horch and Schutt, ‘Professionalisierungsdruck und – hindernisse im Management des selbstverwalteten Sports’; Hoye and Inglis, ‘Governance of Nonprofit Leisure Organizations’; Seippel, ‘The World According to Voluntary Organizations’.

²³ Seippel, Norske idrettslag.

²⁴ I am aware of the fact that I am here using data on professionalization based on the concept of professionalization I ascribe to an everyday understanding in this essay. These data are, however, as far as I know, the best available, and even though ‘payment’ is their approach to the topic, I think they give a relatively good indication of what professional work also in the meaning of the term as used in this essay implies.

²⁵ Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society; Kumar. From Post-Industrial.

²⁶ Maguire, Fit For Consumption.

²⁷ Augestad and Bergsgard, Toppidrettens formel.

²⁸ Abbott, The System of Professions, 40.

²⁹ Abbott, The System of Professions, 56–7.

³⁰ Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty.