Sport policy practice and outcome: theoretical and empirical approaches

From practice to science to policy

Active participation in sport is a leisure-time physical activity. People are free to decide for themselves whether to practice sport and what type of sport to get involved in. Sport participation has been relatively stable over the past decades, despite ambitions of governments on a European, national and local level to raise sport participation levels (European Commission, 2018; Rowe, 2015; Scheerder et al., 2011). Although people manage their own leisure time, we must recognise that governments do seek to influence individuals’ leisure activities (Bramham et al., 1993). For instance, states across Europe stimulate sport as a worthwhile active pastime, as reflected in the Sport for All Charter of the Council of Europe (2001). Herein, EU member states present a common policy agenda on sport, in particular the active involvement in sport. Raising levels of sport participation, especially among disadvantaged groups that are less likely to take part in sport, is a specific sport policy objective (Hoekman et al., 2011). Furthermore, governments have long taken an active role in providing sport facilities, where these are not offered by commercial parties. As such, ensuring access to sport facilities is considered a central element of effective sport participation policy (Nicholson et al., 2011).

Government policy to stimulate sport and ensuring access to sport facilities relies on a socio-ecological rationale (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) in which the broader environment influences individual behaviour. The socioecological rationale to understand individual behaviour could also be utilised to understand sport policy-making (Hoekman et al., 2019). Regarding the policy-making process, Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) identified the field of sport as a configuration of positions comprising agents. Different stakeholders and environments play a role in the constitution of sport policy and sport practices. Policy is so to say a process with different actors and not a single decision isolated in time and context (Ham & Hill, 1993). To fully understand sport policy and its outcomes sport policy needs to be analysed within its broader, socio-cultural and socio-economic environment, similar to individual behaviour, and with an eye for the policy process. This special issue contains several articles that apply this socioecological or systems approach, and contemplate on the broader environment and ‘field’ in which sport policy exists (e.g. Bourdieu et al., 1998; Houlihan, 2005).

Since the inauguration of the International Journal of Sport Policy (later changed into the International Journal of Sport Policy & Politics) sport policy related research has grown substantially. In their special issue, Grix et al. (2018) noted a growing interest in evidenced-based empirical research on the impact of sport policy. Interestingly they noted that ‘the majority of work published in the International Journal of Sport Policy & Politics is undertaken by sociologists, historians, management and tourism experts and those broadly termed sport studies scholars’ (Grix et al., 2018, 615). This underlines the interest of sociologists in sport policy related matters. It is for this reason that it is deemed necessary to have a more sociological sport policy debate within the European Journal for Sport & Society, bringing together sport policy articles from different sociological angles. In addition, this fits well with the call for public sociology that engages directly with public issues and aims at structural social change (Agger, 2000).

However, to pursue structural social change, more will be needed than merely publishing a special issue and launching a debate concerning sport policy topics from an academic perspective. Important to note here is that scientific papers hardly reach the stakeholders outside of academia (Evans, 2020). This limitation in outreach limits the impact of sport sociological research on sport policies and sport programs. The article by Pielke and Harris in this special issue illustrates this by paying attention to the difference in research to advance theory on the one hand, and research to advance practice on the other. To stimulate the advancement of policy practice, participatory research within the sport sector engaging sport stakeholder is important, as well as opening a dialogue and collaboration between academics and professionals in the field of sport in order to help maximise the rigour and utility of policies and sport programs which could then be produced (Evans, 2020). As such we see this special issue as a starting point for further debate engaging sport stakeholders on different levels. Within the expert group of Policy & Politics in Sport (POLIS), which functions under the umbrella of the European Association for Sociology of Sport (EASS), the discussion will be continued and broadened towards relevant stakeholders at a European, national and regional level. As such, this editorial is also intended as a stepping stone for further debate.

Sociological discourses on sport policy

Recent sport sociological debates on sport policy primarily focus on the so-called ‘Great Sport Myth’, a notion described by Coakley (2015), and on the critique by Bourdieu et al. (1998) on commodification and instrumental rationality. Social scientists should actively expose and challenge systems of domination, also within the field of sport, and stimulate critical reflexivity. Bourdieu et al. (1998) particularly underline the sociological relevance of public service and proposes a scientific-based, coherent and universalist model which should advocate amongst others the educational value of sport, the promotion of social integration through sport, realistic role models, support for volunteers and stronger measures against corruption. In his model, Bourdieu et al. (1998) also refer to the instrumental value of sport (e.g. integration through sport) that is highly present in sport policy documents, but which is contested by Coakley (2015) and others (e.g. Elling, 2018; Miracle & Rees, 1994). As Coakley (2015, 403) notes, there seems to be a ‘pervasive and nearly unshakable belief in the inherent purity and goodness of sport’.

However, sport policy issues are rather uncertain, complex and intractable. Sport policy may therefore be defined as a wicked problem. Sam (2009) signalled three broad characteristics of wicked problems which can be applied to sport policy, namely: (1) difficulties in problem definition, (2) uncertainties regarding causal chains and working mechanisms, and (3) a propensity for remedies to result in new or unintended problems, or to exacerbate existing challenges. The first refers to the fundamental difficulty of articulating an adequate problem definition for sport policy. To illustrate, in the Netherlands from the 1980s onwards, sport participation was no longer considered to be a key policy concern (Breedveld et al., 2011). Consequently, sport has increasingly been positioned as a solution to wicked problems in other domains, such as health, welfare, social integration and liveability (Bergsgard et al., 2007; Hoekman & Breedveld, 2013; Vandermeerschen et al., 2016). The second is reflected in the many uncontested assumptions within sport policy and the lack of any clear understanding of how sport policy impacts individuals and their behaviour, or society at large (Houlihan, 2005; Mansfield, 2016). Houlihan (2005) noted that government’s increasing involvement in sport has not been accompanied by a similar growth of scientific study investigating that involvement. As mentioned before, the relatively new Journal of Sport Policy, launched in 2009, did increase the number of scientific studies on government’s involvement in sport. However, still, with the exception of research on sport policy factors leading to international sporting success (SPLISS) (De Bosscher et al., 2015), the body of research on the impact of sport policy is rather scarce. The third characteristic can be found in the unintended negative outcomes of sport policy, sport participation or the negative side effects of sport in general. An example of the latter concerns hooliganism. Other negative outcomes relate for instance to health costs of sport injuries (Cumps et al., 2008; Polinder et al., 2016). Another example relates to government’s aim to diminish social inequalities in sport participation, as public expenditure on sport has been documented to mainly reach higher socioeconomic status groups, as these groups tend to participate more in subsidised leisure activities and to make more use of public facilities (Ter Rele, 2007).

The sport policy area is characterised by recency, increasing government intervention, embedded beliefs, a dispersed administrative context and experiences of significant exogenous influences (Houlihan, 2000). Notably, the complexity of sport policy issues is accompanied by a limited reflexivity and many uncontested assumptions in sport policy (e.g. Mansfield, 2016). Policy and politics often convey an overly simplistic connotation of the goodness of sport and its potential to bring social objectives closer (Elling, 2018). ‘Sport matters’, it is said, and there is an ever-growing interest in involving as many citizens as possible in sport (Coalter, 2007; Dunning, 1999). One could say that nowadays there is a seemingly naturalised, normative and instrumental view of sport participation and sport policy, with a presumption of links between sport and various democratic, economic, educational, societal and health values (Coalter, 2007; Österlind, 2016). Fischer (2003) speaks in this regard of ‘storylines’ in policy that take on an ideological or mythical status, even though they may be without substance and without theoretical underpinnings. Coalter (2007), also, underlines that these claims in sport policy are rarely backed up by empirical evidence. An example of this is the ubiquitous drive for ‘Sport for All’ and to resolve social inequality in sport participation (Houlihan & White, 2002), though studies show that sport participation remained stubbornly socially stratified (Scheerder & Vandermeerschen, 2016; Scheerder & Vos, 2011). The ‘Sport for All’ concept itself is very broad and serves as a rather ‘convenient umbrella term for a diverse and constantly shifting set of objectives’ (Houlihan & White, 2002, 25). Little empirical research has been dedicated to how sport policy contributes to increase sport participation rates, despite the potential benefits of insights into the working mechanisms of sport policy (Sanderson, 2002). The same argument could be made for other features of sport policy. An example of this are the policy actions related to UK’s ‘Equality Standard for Sport’. The equality standard is outcome based and linked to actions. It does not encourage a more critical reflexive approach on what works to achieve change. Research shows that there is a need to change as little progress is made in wider representation of underrepresented groups in membership, staff and board positions in the UK sport sector (Dwight & Biscomb, 2018). Given the complexity of sport policy, particular, critical reflexivity is deemed necessary in order to rethink current normative methods and policy actions and to enhance the understanding of the sport policy process and its impact on society.

Based on the methods of topic modelling, Seippel (2018) provided a fuller picture of the field of sociology of sports. In his overview of thirty years of sport sociology Seippel, amongst others, illustrates the rise of research on politics, policies and organisations. He refers to an earlier study of Dart (2014) who noted the increased attention for politics in sport sociology after Lüschen (1980) mentioned this as one of the lacking topics within research in the sociology of sports. The increased attention for politics, policies and organisations from a sport sociological perspective is also visible within the European Association for Sociology of Sport (EASS). Under the umbrella of EASS the Sport Organisation Research Network (SORN) brings together the experts in this field in order to exchange knowledge and expertise, and to study in particular (but not exclusively) the voluntary sport clubs and their position within European, national and local policies and societies. The policy-oriented research from a sociological perspective that is published by members of SORN builds on broader theoretical models. In a cross-national comparative perspective on sport clubs in Europe (Breuer et al., 2015) a multilevel model was applied linking to system theory, underlying structures and environmental levels and influences. The book on functions of sport clubs in European societies (Nagel et al., 2020) is another example of sociological analyses of elements of the sport policy system. These initiatives originate from discussions at EASS conferences on these topics. The same goes for work carried out by the expert group on Policy & Politics in Sport (POLIS) which also took the initiative for the present special issue. Within the annual conferences of the EASS several debates have been arranged on sport policy and politics to provide critical reflexivity. An example is the discussion on the organisation and structure of sport policy systems in different countries in and beyond Europe (Scheerder, Willem & Claes, 2017). In this work, the relationship between public sport policy structures and sport (con)federations is investigated from a cross-national perspective. Within the European Journal for Sociology of Sport debates are present on the inclusion of Sport for All in national, regional and local sport systems (e.g. Moscoso-Sánchez et al., 2015; Puig, 2018). Experts of the MEASURE group, which also functions under the umbrella of EASS, have published a book on comparative sport development with a focus on sport systems, participation and public policy (Hallmann & Petry, 2013). More precisely, the authors focussed on the different sport systems and their relation to sport policy and sport participation. Based on all these initiatives as well as the outcomes of this special issue, the editors hope to open the floor for wider debates to start with and within the sector of sport.

Introduction to the special issue

The following briefly introduces the papers included in this special issue. First, we highlight the socioecological or systems approach that contemplate on the broader environment in which sport policy exists or is generated. All contributions illustrate that a layered or network perspective is needed to grasp the unicity and complexity of sport policy processes and working mechanisms. Thus, throughout all papers the different levels and layering of sport policy are discussed. When it comes to policy actions and their implications, systems analysis suggests that the nature of the problem cannot be understood separately from its solution. As such, using systems concepts provides opportunities to rationalise aspects of existing practices and consequently offers insights in directions for improvement. This approach has proven its applicability within the field of sport (e.g. Breuer et al., 2015; Hallmann & Petry, 2013; Heinemann, 2005), and seems also to be evident in the papers in this special issue.

Generally, the landscape of sport policy starts at the local level, with local authorities in most cases being the most important but also most tangible governmental structure to promote sport participation at a community level (Vos et al., 2016). Based on the principle of subsidiarity, this is legally enshrined in some countries (e.g. Denmark and France). In others, however, this is a non-statutory public service by local authorities (e.g. the Netherlands and the UK), meaning that they are not obligated to pay attention to sport and thus have full autonomy. In Flanders (Belgium), the former decree on local sport policy was recently suspended. This implies that, nowadays, local authorities independently decide whether and to what extent they want to invest in local sport issues or not. In order to analyse local sport policy issues, several scholars have taken approaches that centres on a meso-level analysis of sport policy processes. More precisely, they focus on policy networks while underpinning this with a macro-level of analysis in respect of understanding the configurations of power (King, 2009). The network approach is evident in most of the policy and governance studies related to sport. This has led to different models for the analysis of sport policies identified by several scholars (e.g. Houlihan, 2005; King, 2009). The multiple streams framework (MSF) and the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) are the most applicable models here. In line with the core assumptions of neo-pluralism, these frameworks are concerned with the relationship between government and the wider environment, in particular civil society. This also refers to the so-called ‘governance narrative’, implying a major shift from government to governance through policy networks and partnerships (Goodwin & Grix, 2011).

This special issue also features a transnational government organisation (United Nations) and its role in the sport policy process. Schreiner, Mayer and Kastrup analyse the role of sports in Germany’s development policy in light of the United Nations’ recommendations. Schreiner et al. identified the United Nations as an influential stakeholder. The policy rhetoric or storylines (Fischer, 2003) of national sport for development and peace programs comply with the UN proposal and ideas. However, more on an operative level, there is a discrepancy with these storylines and national sport organisations that appears to have a greater influence on the planned measures and projects. To some extent this contradicts with the policy rhetoric. Similar findings were earlier noted in a study on local sport policy in the Netherlands where policy storylines embrace the entire sporting landscape and focus on the instrumental value of sport, while the actual policy program and activities mainly concentrate on providing facilities and other support to voluntary sport clubs (Hoekman et al., 2019). As such, it was no surprise that in a study on explaining differences in sport participation, municipal sport expenditures were only positive associated with youth sport club participation (Hoekman et al., 2017). The study of Schreiner, Mayer and Kastrup highlights the relevance of the network perspective, by underlining the complex setting of multiple stakeholders in which national governmental organisations need to operate. Their study is theoretically based on systems theory. Systems theory helps to understand and contextualise the policy actions of governments or organisations as well as the cooperation and coordination between governmental levels and stakeholders or organisations within and outside the field of sport. Systems theory resemblance the socioecological approach in the sense that it takes into account the underlying structures and environmental influences.

The contribution of Pielke and Harris also refers to meso level theories, such as advocacy coalition framework, policy network theory and the institutional analyses framework. They show how sport policy and governance research is embedded within the sport movement. However, a relevant point these authors raise is that one important role of academic inquiry is to increase the possibilities for decision-makers in sport policy to make well-informed and better decisions. Pielke and Harris recognise that what constitutes ‘better’ is often contested and political, but that the contribution of academia with a problem-oriented, contextual and multimethod perspective is to inform decision-making and allow them to make better informed decisions. The work of Pielke and Harris underlines the importance of research that advance practice, rather than advance theory, for the policy movement. They call upon researchers to focus on what works and what does not. This relates back to the points made in this introduction on ‘wicked problems’ and the lack of insights in working mechanisms of sport policy. The call to adhere a focus on practice-oriented research resembles current discussions within academia. Within the European Journal for Sport & Society there is an ongoing debate on the impact of scientific research outside of academia (Evans, 2020), and, more generally, in academia we witness an increased importance given to valorisation and social responsibility in evaluations of scientific research. The contribution of Pielke and Harris in this special issue fuels this debate and provides insights in how to produce research that is useful to decision-makers in sport policy and governance.

The two other articles in this special issue particularly focus on the community level and provide a more theoretical approach. Hoogendam focuses on the local governance setting in which front-line professionals work. He presents a neighbourhood governance model and the changing role of frontline professionals from mere implementers to citizen and state agents working not just for and with people, but using normative frameworks with an inherently political nature prescribing people what to do and what not. These normative frameworks link to storylines in sport policy with uncontested assumption. The increasing use of sport as an instrument and embeddedness of this in normative frameworks underlines the earlier noted call for critical reflexivity in sport policy and focus on working mechanisms. The tensions that sport club consultants experience between centrally distilled policy and the clubs’ perspectives presented in the contribution of Stenling and Fahlen, is similar to the position of frontline professionals as citizen agents and state agents articulated by Hoogendam. Furthermore, Stenling and Fahlen focus on unintended effects of policy and microlevel practice, and add to what we discussed above as part of the wicked problems of sport policy (Sam, 2009).

Concluding comments

Over the last two decades the academic interest for the analysis of and for sport policy has grown rapidly (Henry & Ko, 2014). Contributions to this field of research have been made mostly from a political science perspective (e.g. Grix, 2010; Houlihan, 1997, 2005; Houlihan & White, 2002). In the meantime, insights from disciplines such as sociology (Bloyce & Smith, 2010; Smith et al., 2018) and social anthropology (Palmer, 2013) have significantly strengthened this body of knowledge. According to Grix et al. (2018), however, most sport policy research is either quantitative or qualitative of origin. For this, rather traditional research strategies and paradigms are used. The growing importance of qualitative research can be partly attributed to the trend that is noted from quantitative to qualitative research within the sociology of sport (Seippel, 2018). Important to note here is that the use of mixed methods in sport policy research is scarce, as indicated by Grix et al. (2018). This special issue is no exception in this regard since none of the papers adopts a mixed-methods approach.

The articles in this special issue underline the notion of sport policy as a wicked problem and identify wicked problems within sport policy. Simultaneously, the layered perspective of sport policy, being situated in and impacted by a broader context, adds to the complexity of sport policy, policy practice and related research. Due to this complexity and consequently high variation in policy issues and research questions, a variety of different approaches is needed to study sport policy practice and outcome. This would require theoretical advancements and empirical research utilising quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research as well as participatory research within the sector that engages the stakeholders (Evans, 2020).

As mentioned earlier, one of the aims of this special issue is to stimulate the debate on sport policy based on theoretical and empirical insights. It is remarkable, however, to see how research into managerial aspects of sport, and sport organisations in particular, has found its way to practical implementations. Despite the fact that governments over the last century have shown clear interest in being actively involved in sport policy-making, this interest is not reflected when it comes to translating findings from scientific research on sport policy towards the field of practice. Thus, a discrepancy between academia and the sport sector seems to appear. Both in terms of the type of research that is conducted as in the way knowledge from academia is provided to be applied by policy-makers and practitioners (Evans, 2020). To overcome this gap, Hylton and Totten (2013) have advocated the importance of ‘active sociology’ to practical sport development. Sport sociological research has the potential to offer different ways of seeing sport development and inclusive sport. Sport development workers, or ‘active sociologists’ as Hylton and Totten (2013) call them, should be able to find and make use of the outcomes and analytical tools provided by sport sociologists. Consequently, this requires more dialogue and collaboration between academics and professionals within the field of sport.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict ofinterest was reported by the author(s).