Sport policy in Sweden

Abstract

Contemporary sport policy in Sweden is the result of a century-long relationship between national and local governments and voluntary, non-profit and membership-based club sport which has resulted in extensive financial support to organised sport. The relationship is defined by an ‘implicit contract’ in which the government decides on the extent and the purpose of the funding, and the recipient, the Swedish Sports Confederation, determines the details of the distribution and administration. These funds are distributed to 20,164 sport clubs and their 3,147,000 members in exchange for the realisation of social policies on public health and the fostering of democratic citizens. While an important cornerstone of the relationship has been the autonomy and self-determination of the recipient of the funds in their capacities as civil society organisations, recent decades have witnessed an increase in demands on performance outputs. These demands have explicated a wider social responsibility for organised sport and entailed a system for follow-up and control of the results of the government support via key performance indicators. In these ways, the corporatist agreement and consensus traditionally characterising the public–civil society interaction has been accompanied by governing mechanisms associated with neo-liberal ideologies which in turn are putting the sustainability of the implicit contract to the test.

Keywords:

• sport policy development
• government involvement
• civil society
• sport organisation
• sport governance
• Sweden
• country-profile

Introduction

By sketching the contours of sport policy development in Sweden, this article seeks to provide a description and understanding of the current political landscape of Swedish sport. The aim is to elucidate how government involvement in sport has developed on both national and local levels, and with what consequences. Starting with the main outlines of the development of Swedish sport and sport policy, the article continues with a description of current administrative structure and funding, and ends with an analysis of current sport policy priorities, challenges, trends and power struggles.

The development of Swedish sport policy

In this first main section we describe key developments in Swedish society, in sport, and in national and local government involvement in sport in terms of legislation, government inquiries and administrative and political reforms. The starting point for the description is the inception of the Swedish Sports Confederation in 1903, considered the official starting point for voluntary and membership-based sport. The description is divided into three phases, each characterised by the current status of sport and its relationship to public policy.

Sport in the emerging industrial society 1900–1945

Key societal developments 1900–1945

During the first decades of the twentieth century, Sweden transformed from an archaic and poor country to a modern industrial country (Lewin 2002). The financial situation radically improved for most social groups, and leisure time expanded due to changes in the labour market legislation. Despite an improved financial situation, however, unemployment rates were as high as 25% during the 1920s and 1930s (Schön 2012), and discontent was rising, especially in the working class. By taking advantage of this discontent as well as discrediting the conservatives in political power, the industry and capitalist market economy principles, the Social Democratic Labour Party managed to appropriate space for new ideas in political economy. At the core of these ideas, launched under the label ‘the people’s home’ [folkhemmet], was an interaction between financial and social policy with general social security systems counteracting rapid market fluctuations. In the proposed system, the state would be the redistributor of wealth by increasing demand and employment, giving all citizens reasonable standards of living. After coming into power in 1932, the Social Democrats initiated the establishment of the people’s home (Siminson 1985). By increasing income, heritage and property taxes, large-scale infrastructural projects in housing, electrification and roads as well as socio-political reforms were implemented. Examples of such reforms included the introduction of unemployment benefits in 1934, increased national retirement pensions in 1935, government housing loans and maternity benefits in 1937 and a number of health-related reforms in nursing, dental and healthcare during the period (Norborg 1993). These reforms, together with the economic growth which legitimised and allowed their implementation, came to characterise the emerging welfare state. In this wide-range societal development project, voluntary and membership-based club sport was given a leading role in the fostering and promotion of health and democracy, especially through the extensive expansion of sport facilities (Sjöblom 2006).

Key developments in organised sport 1900–1945

The official starting point for voluntary and membership-based club sport in Sweden, in its present form and organisation, was the establishment of the umbrella organisation, the Swedish Sports Confederation (SSC) in 1903. While the dominant form of voluntary organised physical activity today, sport was initially and until the mid-1900s in the shadow of Swedish gymnastics. As was the case with its Danish, German and Swiss predecessors and counterparts, Swedish gymnastics had gained interpretative prerogative on organised physical activity, specifically in regard to school-based physical education (Lindroth 2004).

However, in tandem with a growth of voluntarism and nationalism, competitive sports, imported from England, increased in popularity (Norberg 2002). Due to the propagation of sport geographically (from urban to rural), as well as socially (from bourgeois to working class), voluntary and membership-based club sport grew exponentially and consistently during the period. The SSC expanded from 25 national sport federations (NSFs), 730 sport clubs and 93,000 members in 1920 to 45 NSFs, 9500 sport clubs and 790,000 members in 1950 (Norberg 2002). The expansion was in large part possible due to sport’s ability to attract government interest, and later on involvement through financial support to the building of sport facilities (Sjöblom 2007). Alongside the expansion, there was an accentuation of the competitive element in voluntary and membership-based club sport by the detachment of exercise, keep-fit and outdoor activities to non-sport organisations such as the Swedish Federation for Company Sports and the Swedish Outdoor Association (Lindroth 1988).

Key developments in national government involvement in sport 1900–1945

Armed with the success of the 1912 Stockholm Olympics and with arguments that sport is beneficial for health, physical and moral character, sobriety, national defence capabilities and national unity, supporters of sport pushed through a parliamentary decision on an annual government grant to voluntary and membership-based club sport in 1913 (Lindroth 1974). The instructions accompanying the grant stipulated that it should be a means-tested support distributed to sports that promoted sound physical development and attracted disadvantaged groups and the rural population. It was furthermore specified that the grant, which was to be subject to annual audits, constituted an incentive, and not a full cost recovery. One feature of the inception of the government grant, which would prove to be important, was that the SSC and the Central Association for the Promotion of Sport, the two dominant umbrella organisations of sport at the time, were trusted to dispose of the funds to the best of their abilities. Only some conditions and control were assigned to secure good cooperation between the two organisations (Norberg 2004).

Despite the expansion of the SSC, sport was subject to increasing critique during the subsequent years (Norberg 2002). The critique centred on the development of sport towards increased commercialism, violence, spectacle, idolisation and focus on competitive results and finally led to a first public inquiry, State Support for the Promotion of Sport, in 1922. The inquiry was instructed to investigate sports’ unhealthy excesses and gratuitously high administrative costs, as well as the SSC’s distribution of funds to the supplanted Gymnastics Federation. Notwithstanding these instructions, the report following the inquiry (SOU 1922:08) ascertained that sport had developed into a popular movement and was a means for improving public health and upbringing. Thus, the commission not only recommended a substantial increase of the government grant but also the provision of resources for the training of leaders and an extension of sport facilities. In addition, it recommended a centralisation of the administration of sport to one organisation – the SSC – in order to minimise the bureaucracy created by having two central organisations as recipients of the grant.

During the 1930s and the subsequent decades, the ‘Swedish model’ in Swedish politics was formed (Benner 1997). This model, which prescribed cooperation between the state and third sector organisations, was important for the growth of organised sport since it brought about an increase in government grants as well as an initiation of expansive programmes for the building of sport facilities (Stark 2010). Key to this development was the establishment of Svenska Spel, a state-controlled gambling institution in 1934. Due to the decision to allocate the revenues of Svenska Spel to sport, government financial support to sport multiplied many times during the subsequent decades (Norberg 2010). Further strengthening the SSC’s position vis-à-vis both the Gymnastics Federation and other movements with ambitions to benefit from the gambling revenues, the state also decided that the SSC should be solely responsible for the distribution of the grant (Norberg 2002).

Key developments in local government involvement in sport 1900–1945

At the beginning of the twentieth century, local sport policy was a phenomenon restricted to a few municipalities in densely populated areas. The little support given to organised sport that existed was demand-based, restrictive and focused on help to self-help and took the form of free access to the use of public land assets to be used for sport activities and minor financial contributions to larger sport clubs for the construction of sport facilities. In exchange, sport clubs were made responsible for the operation and maintenance of the facilities. Hence, during the first decades of this period, local sport policy was embryonic/underdeveloped; the support was sporadic and lacked overall planning, control or monitoring (Sjöblom 2006).

However, as sport as a policy concern grew when the Social Democratic Labour Party took national government office in 1932, so did local government involvement in sport. Through so-called public relief work (Wadensjö 2007), there was a big increase in the number as well as diversification of sport facilities. Through a collaboration between the state and the SSC, the SSC’s facilities committee effectively steered what initially was a general labour market programme used to combat escalating unemployment into a programme for establishing sport facilities. The programme, while launched by the national government, was financed and controlled mainly by local governments. As a consequence, local authorities were more or less forced to establish designated offices (specific leisure and/or sport departments) in order to administer and coordinate their increasing responsibility. Thus, the extension of sport facilities, key to the growth and propagation of organised sport during this period, was realised through a combination of national and local policy, as well as through the willingness of sport clubs to contribute funds and volunteer efforts (Sjöblom 2006).

Sport in the welfare society 1946–1970

Key societal developments 1946–1970

With the end of World War II, a long period of strong economic growth followed, facilitating the continued establishment of the new political and financial model – the Swedish welfare state (Hort 2014a). This model was characterised by corporatist governing principles and consensus between the ruling social democrats and industry; the former acquired votes, the latter increased workforce and the citizens gained employment. The means-tested social policy of the first decades of the century was replaced by a productivity-promoting policy, aimed to create strong, confident, politically aware and responsible citizens (Hadenius 1996). An important part of the welfare project was to create and thereafter satisfy the need for ‘meaningful leisure’, which was one of the more prominent political buzzwords of the time. Meaningful leisure referred to activities that were both mentally and physically recreational for the individual and of benefit to society through the creation of socially integrated, productive and democratic citizens (Eskilsson 2000). Consequently, together with progressive policies for education, healthcare, housing and the labour market, policy for leisure and sport was given a prominent position in the public domain of the welfare society in the making (Ekström von Essen 2003).

Key developments in organised sport 1946–1970

The expansion of voluntary and membership-based club sport continued during the post-World War II decades. The 6252 clubs and 415,000 members in 1940 increased to 13,467 clubs and 2,200,000 members in 1970 (Norberg 2002). Following the extensive financial support to the building of sport facilities during the previous period, many sports experienced a significant inflow of members. The improved conditions favoured some sports at the expense of others, even though the increase was significant at aggregate level (Lindroth 1988). The winners were sports that were dependent on specific weather conditions such as ice hockey and swimming which could move their activities indoors, thanks to the building of indoor ice rinks and indoor swimming pools. Similarly, the extension of sport facilities also promoted extended seasons for sports such as athletics and tennis. The influx and distribution of members were affected also by more general social developments, such as the drive towards social (Pålbrant 1977) and gender-based equality (Olofsson 1989), resulting in an increase in female members from 15% in 1952 to 35% in 1977 and an increase in members from the working class.

Key developments in national government involvement in sport 1946–1970

Parallel to the expansion of organised sport, the sport-specific government grant increased 18-fold between 1945 and 1970. In addition, the newly established policy area for youth issues proved to be very rewarding for organised sport. Thus, counting grants instituted to tackle various youth problems perceived to be caused by the increase in leisure time, the grant was increased 50-fold. For example, in 1968, support to instructors in youth work amounted to a third of the regular grant to organised sport (Lindroth and Norberg 2002).

Three public inquiries on sport were appointed during this period, all with the task of accounting for the state’s financial support to sport (Österlind and Wright 2014). The third, Sport for All (SOU 1969:29), and its subsequent government bill (Prop. 1979:79 ) is often referred to as formative in Swedish sport politics. A product of the ongoing implementation of the welfare project, Sport for All made visible the government’s far-reaching ambition to enable citizen’s access to recreation and meaningful leisure, and the intention of doing so using organised sport (Bergsgard and Norberg 2010). In the sense that arguments of sport’s ability to cost-effectively increase productivity and decrease healthcare costs, rural emigration, youth delinquency and drinking, were used to legitimise increased state support, Sport for All also marked the beginning of a more instrumental and explicitly formulated government sport policy (Österlind and Wright 2014). However, while instrumental in terms of the wider aims of the support, the governance mode following Sport for All was characterised by few explicit goals and little control, thus reflecting the state’s intention to support organised sport in its capacity as a voluntary, autonomous popular movement (Norberg 2011). Another important indication of this intention was the government bill’s formal ratification of the SSC’s right to exercise government authority. This marked the end of a drawn-out discussion on whether to rely on a corporatist arrangement between the state and the SSC, or to install a government agency discharging the confederation of its mandate. Although this arrangement was long-standing in practice, dating back to the 1922 inquiry, the formal ratification gave the SSC a mandate to influence a policy area which had more than one organisation aspiring to represent the citizens’ interests in sport, exercise, keep-fit and outdoor activities (Norberg 2004). Arguably, by granting the SSC this mandate, the government gave prerogative to competitive sport at the expense of outdoor and exercise activities.

Key developments in local government involvement in sport 1946–1970

Following the increasingly positive sport rhetoric, local sport policy gradually shifted from demand-based, restrictive, and focused on help to self-help to supply-driven and expansive during the late 1930s and early 1940s (Sjöblom 2007). This development, which comprised both an increased involvement in organised sport by local authorities and an increased institutionalisation of this involvement, was accentuated after World War II. As an indication of the former, the number of sports facilities increased from 2400 in 1946 to 8200 in 1968 (Norberg 2002). In addition to constructing new facilities, local authorities also took responsibility for existing ones. As an effect, at this later date, more than 95% of the sports facilities in larger municipalities were publicly owned. Apart from taking the main responsibility for the construction and maintenance of sports facilities, a number of financial support systems were put in place in municipalities during this period. Echoing the national political reforms, these support systems were general – as opposed to means-tested – in character. Thus, starting from a very small base at the beginning of the century, local authorities’ net costs for sport and outdoor life increased from some € 6 million in 1952 to some € 45 million in 1968 (Sjöblom 2006). Taking inflation into account, this amounted to a 550% increase. Worth noting is that local authority support to organised sport grew significantly faster than support to other, comparable, non-mandatory publicly supported activities. Hence, the question was not whether public support to sport should increase but rather by how much. Parallel to local governments’ increased involvement in organised sport, local sport politics became fully institutionalised. As an illustration, in 1967, 95% of municipalities with more than 25,000 inhabitants had designated leisure departments in their municipal administration (SOU 1969:29).

The explosive increase in local authorities’ engagement in organised sport can be explained by the fact that local authorities were the administrative units set to realise many of the aims of the welfare society formed in national politics during this period (Ekström Von Essen 2003). There was, however, also pressure on local authorities to create conditions for the realisation of sport-for-all, emanating from ‘below’. The rising private welfare was reflected in the public’s demand for a high local standard regarding, for example an increase and diversification of sport facilities. At the same time, organised sport’s representatives did their utmost to fuel the development (Sjöblom 2006).

Sport in the market liberal society 1971–2000

Key societal developments 1971–2000

During this period, especially the last two decades, Swedish society was, once again, rapidly transformed (Hort 2014b). Recurrent financial crises with weak GDP development and high unemployment rates caused several changes of government. At the same time, the emerging service society, the dramatic increase of women leaving home for work, and the emerging issue of integration of immigrants placed new demands on the public sector (Norborg 1993). The period was also marked by increased internationalisation, with the entry into the European Union in 1995 as one formative event. The welfare model’s capacity to address these challenges was increasingly called into question, paving the way for New Public Managementinspired restructurings of the public sector. Thus, the long-standing faith in and ethos of the welfare state was replaced by catchwords such as market adjustment, outsourcing and privatisation (Blomqvist 2004).

Key developments in sports 1971–2000

Notwithstanding the retrenchment of the welfare state in its previous form, sport continued to expand. Between 1968 and 1998, the SSC grew from 53 NSFs, 12,606 clubs and some 2,200,000 members to 67 sport federations, 21,859 clubs and some 3 million members (Norberg 2002). The pace of the expansion was, however, slowing down. One explanation provided for this is the increasing popularity of self-organised activities, such as walking and running, exercising in privately owned gyms and the pursuit of various so-called adventure or alternative sports, for example hiking, climbing, skateboarding and snowboarding (Lindroth 2011).

Parallel to organised sport being challenged by these new forms of activities, the 1967 abolition of the long-standing amateur rule propelled the professionalisation of sport (Wikberg 2005). This process, aided by government decisions, made following the public inquiry Sport for All, paved the way for and was fuelled by the establishment of academic training of professional coaches and managers in 1973, training of future professional athletes at upper secondary elite sport schools in 1979, limited sport companies in 1999 and foreign investors in 2000 (Fahlén 2007).

Key developments in national government involvement in sport 1971–2000

In the wake of the 1969 inquiry Sport for All, government funding to sport almost quadrupled during the 1970s (Norberg 2002). The contemporary change of mind-set was, however, reflected in the next public inquiry Sport and Exercise for Life (SOU 1998:76), and the subsequent government bill A Sports Policy for the 21st Century – Public Health, Popular Movement and Entertainment (Prop. 1998/99:107) which called for savings in governmental expenditure, more efficient administrative routines and above all – monitoring and evaluation (Österlind and Wright 2014). This government bill was longer, more detailed and contained specific goals (Norberg 2002). Sport, it was argued, needed to deal with ‘new’ problems such as doping, violence, racism, gender discrimination and segregation in order to fulfil its responsibility as educators of democratic citizens. In addition, sport was also expected to be more competitive on the international arena. However, despite a changed mode of governing, the government continued to emphasise the ambition to support sport in its capacity as a membership-based, voluntary and democratically governed popular movement. Thus, one of the arguments for state support was that it safeguarded organised sport from processes of professionalisation and commercialisation during its pursuit of international sporting success (Österlind and Wright 2014).

Key developments in local government involvement in sport 1971–2000

During the final decades of the twentieth century, local authorities were restructured in the same NPM-inspired spirit as their national counterparts, and with the same goal – to reduce public spending by increasing efficiency (Montin and Granberg 2013). These structural changes affected local authorities’ engagement with organised sport as well. In streamlining the local administration, leisure departments were integrated with departments for culture, sport facilities were contracted out, grants and subsidies were cut and the remaining financial support was converted into remuneration for services provided. In an attempt to reduce costs associated with maintenance and administration of sport facilities, specifically, sport clubs were offered the opportunity to take over the responsibility for sport facilities in exchange for grants covering parts of the operating costs (Sjöblom 2006). Consequently, in that they performed a service in exchange for financial compensation, sport clubs became subcontractors to local authorities. One of the main tasks for the leisure department administrators of the time became gathering information on the public’s leisure habits and preferences. In doing so, local authorities hoped to rationalise their services while simultaneously activating citizens in order to create a supply of sport facilities which met the ‘real’ demands of the population. Thus, during this period a demand-driven and administrative local sport policy replaced the supply-driven and expansive policy of the previous period (Sjöblom 2006).

In addition to a shift in the ‘real needs’ of the public towards outdoor life and recreational sport (Sandell and Sörlin 2008), during this period organised sport was also criticised for its lack of focus on health, democracy and social-integrative aspects, a socio-economic and gender-based bias in recruitment, early specialisation and drop-outs that followed from processes of commercialisation and intensification (SOU 1998:76). However, despite this critique, organised sport still ranked high among local decision-makers, who continued to emphasise the societal benefits of organised sport and argued that all downsides could be remedied in the same way – with increased public spending on organised sport. Thus, in practice, organised sport was one of the winners of the financial crisis of the late twentieth century, at least compared with other non-mandatory publicly supported activities (Sjöblom 2006).

Current administrative structure and funding of sport

As noted in previous sections, the administrative structure of Swedish voluntary and membership-based sport has remained stable since the inception of the SSC in 1903. The defining character and organising principle of Swedish sport is that of individuals: a total of 3,147,000 out of a population of 9.5 million, forming 20,164 voluntary and membership-based sport clubs (Riksidrottsförbundet 2012). These clubs are affiliated to some 1000 district sport federations (DSFs), with regional authority over one specific sport; also to one of the 21 regional sports federations (RSFs) providing administrative support to and representing all sports; and finally to their NSF (70 in total), with national authority over one specific sport. This organisational design, based on vertical (by sport) and horizontal (by geography) specialisation, has availed for local, regional, national and international competition between individuals and teams in competitions, cups, leagues and tournaments in which sporting merit has formed the basis for representation, promotion and demotion (Riksidrottsförbundet 2010).

Often referred to as the cornerstone of Swedish voluntary sports as well as its main contribution to the civic education of Swedish citizens, the sports movement is – on all levels – governed by representative democracy (SOU 2008;59). The biennial national meeting for elected representatives constitutes the SSC general assembly, and the SSC Board constitutes the government. The meeting has the mandate to appoint the board, auditors, doping commission, doping authority, arbitral commission and the caucus. It also admits new sports into the confederation, provided that four criteria are met by the sport: (1) that it is voluntary and membership-based, (2) in accord with the popular movement ideology, (3) has at least 1500 members and 25 affiliated clubs and (4) does not compete with any of the sports already part of the confederation. The meeting also accepts or rejects motions and makes decisions on the confederation’s direction for the following two years (Riksidrottsförbundet 2010).

The SSC’s principal tasks are to represent voluntary and membership-based club sport in communication with authorities, officials and the surrounding society, to support and service affiliated organisations, administer and distribute the government funds to affiliated organisations, stimulate sport development and research, coordinate social and ethical issues, lead and coordinate the anti-doping work, coordinate international cooperation, protect sport’s historical legacy and to act as government authority for 51 upper secondary elite sports schools with some 1200 students in 30 sports. Responsibility for Olympic preparation and participation is delegated to the Swedish Olympic Committee (SOC), which gathers 36 of the 70 NSFs. Responsibility for educational issues is delegated to SISU Sport Education, a non-profit support organisation aiding clubs and federations in training of coaches, leaders and instructors, organisational development, conferences and project management (Riksidrottsförbundet 2010).

Regarding the current funding of sport, one-third of sport clubs’ revenues is generated from membership and training fees, one-third from commercial activities, such as lotteries, sponsorship and various sales activities, with the remaining third being public funding (Riksidrottsförbundet 2012). Voluntary and membership-based club sport today enjoys a total of € 210 million in national government grants (Centrum för idrottsforskning 2013). In addition, local authorities contribute € 360 million to sport facilities and € 130 million to sport club activities and leaders (Bergsgard and Norberg 2010), and county councils € 11 million to the operation of RSFs (SOU 2008:59).

The national government funding to sport is, and has always been, based on tax revenues (Norberg 2010). Apart from brief periods (1935–1939, 1998–2009), when the funding has been tied to revenues from the state-controlled gambling market, government support to sport is part of the national budget and monitored annually by the parliament. The parliament and the government decide on the extent and the purpose of the funding, and the recipient, the SSC, determines the details of the distribution and administration. The responsibility for the government’s sport policy is located within the Department of Culture and in the parliament, sport policy issues are handled by the Committee on Cultural Affairs (Centrum för idrottsforskning 2013). Government sport policy is also part of the government’s broader civil society policy, for which the Department of Culture also has the main responsibility (Dir. 2014:40).

Current sport policy priorities and debates

Current sport policy priorities and debates are affected by public policy priorities and funding trends in general. In Sweden, as in many other welfare states, these trends are, in turn, part of processes of liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation that were intensified during the final decades of the twentieth century. These processes have transformed Sweden from a typical social democratic regime in Esping-Andersen’s typology (1990), to a country internationally renowned for its deregulated school, railway, and pension system, television and radio broadcasting, domestic aviation, postal service, telecom market, employment agencies, motor vehicle inspections and pharmacy market (Bergh and Erlingsson 2009). As part of this development, sport has occupied a more salient position on the government agenda, where more instrumental goals have been accompanied by increased resources to aid their attainment.

Two large government programmes were launched during the 2000s: ‘The Handshake’, in 2002–2006 (€100 million) (Riksidrottsförbundet n.d. a), and ‘The Lift for Sport’ in 2007–2011 (€200 million) (Riksidrottsförbundet n.d. b), giving testimony to this development. The purpose of The Handshake was to encourage sport organisations to intensify cooperation with schools, invest more in girls’ participation, prevent drug use and to reduce fees for participation, with the overarching aim of opening doors to sport for more children and youth. The programme funds were distributed by letting sport clubs apply for funding for activities corresponding to the programme objectives. Similarly, in The Lift for Sport the SSC was commissioned to develop activities in order to widen recruitment and decrease drop-out rates. The basic idea of the programme was, again, to stimulate development in NSFs and to let sports clubs apply for funding for projects aimed towards the programme’s ambitions.

While the lion’s share of the government funds is still distributed through block-funding, the main funding trend has become one of contracting-out of sports-external goals in temporary and time-limited projects (Fahlén and Karp 2010). In the latest programme, in particular, it is evident that funding – to a much greater extent than previously – is considered to be a financial compensation for services provided. As such, the support is subject to accountability, and evidence – in terms of numbers – is the way of keeping score. In that way, the recipient is made responsible for the appropriate use of resources; monitoring, in terms of key performance indicators, is the means for making sure that responsibility is shouldered (Fahlén, Wickman and Eliasson 2014). Thus, evidence on the efficient use of taxpayers’ money is a key feature in the current governing mode.

It is also clear that the main policy priority is mass participation through widened recruitment and decrease of drop-out rates (Fahlén and Karp 2010). This priority is connected to the legitimacy of government funding, which rests, on the one hand, on the assumption of sport’s societal effect in terms of public health and civic engagement, and, on the other hand, on organised sport’s ability to make its activities available to large parts of the population (Fahlén et al. 2014). In other words, the government needs to make mass participation a priority in order to defend the allocation of tax funds to a non-governmental body.

This increased and explicit focus on mass-participation sparked a debate following the latest government inquiry, Democratic Fostering and Competition Fostering (SOU 2008:59). One of the tasks of the inquiry was to evaluate the effect of the state’s support to elite sport development. The inquiry concluded, however, that the lack of elite sport goals in government sport policy made this task impossible. Consequently, one of the suggestions of the inquiry was that state sport policy should be supplemented by an explicit elite sport purpose, accompanied by earmarked resources. The main argument for these proposals was the recent decade’s extensive increase of support for mass participation, which has left elite sport in a marginal position (Centrum för idrottsforskning 2012). The proposal eventually resulted in a €25 million quadrennial, means-tested support for Swedish elite sport (Prop. 2008/2009:126), providing some counterweight to the sport-for-all focus prevailing during most of the history of government support to sport. However, this decision fuelled the debate on whether taxpayers’ money should be used to fulfil the ambitions of a very small and already privileged fraction of Swedish athletes, instead of creating favourable conditions to engage more children and youth in grass-roots activities.

Emerging issues and trends in sport

As evident from previous sections, many issues and debates surrounding public policy for sport originate in discussions on the role and position of voluntary organised and membership-based club sport in Swedish society. This also applies to the contemporary and emerging issues and debates. In pace with a steady increase in memberships and tax-funded financial support, sport as a social phenomenon has been subject to public debate and brought into many political discussions (Centrum för idrottsforskning 2014). As a result, the possibility for sport to ‘mind its own business’ has gradually been hollowed out to the benefit of external institutions such as national and local authorities, investigative media and the research community (Lindroth 1998). The once secluded world of sport is now intertwined with broader political debates in economics (Behrenz 2012), business (Carlsson and Backman 2014), law (Lindholm 2013), taxation (Carlsson 2009), education (Ferry et al. 2013), public health (Özdemir and Stattin 2012) and crime prevention (Radmann 2013).

This integration is a consequence of the assumed benefits of sport for society at all levels and in many social and political spheres. Since voluntary organised and membership-based club sport is benevolent, it is argued, for economic growth, tourism, upbringing, physical and mental health, etc., and receives public funding, it has to be included in broader political discussions on public spending and return on investment (Hvenmark 2012). Many of the public and political debates surrounding sport, however, also stem from the critique of sport in relation to broader societal norms, ethics and established practices (Sjöblom 2011). Again, the argument put forth is that sport, as a recipient of public funds, has to comply with the same standards regarding accountability, ethics and transparency that are applied to other public domains, even though voluntary organised and membership-based club sport is not a public domain per se.

One recent source of such critique is the previously mentioned government inquiry Democratic Fostering and Competition Fostering (SOU 2008:59) which, based on a compilation of research on sport, highlighted the recent decade’s scholarly findings on the shortcomings of sport in terms of recruitment bias, early drop-out, harassment and discrimination. The use of these findings in a public inquiry evaluating government support had significant impact on the governance of sport (Prop. 2008/09: 126). Specifically, following the government inquiry, a children’s rights perspective and key performance indicators were introduced. The former stipulates that the government grant should be directed towards activities that increase children’s and young people’s influence, co-decision-making and responsibility in matters concerning their own sport activities. The latter entailed a new system for follow-up and control of the results of the government support to sport. The introduction of these two governance mechanisms were criticised by the recipients, who argued that they implied that sport is not capable of offering activities in the best interest of the child or of handling its own audits. Nevertheless, the changed mode of governing has tied voluntary organised and membership-based club sport closer to government authority, and thus feeds into the trend of increased government involvement in sport described earlier (Norberg 2011).

While the sheer size of the sports movement arguably makes it an actor with significant political capacity, this increased government involvement has also increased the SSC’s ‘recipient responsiveness’ (Norberg 2005), that is the awareness that government support rests on sport’s assumed contribution to society and that sports need to demonstrate this contribution in order to legitimise public funding (Stenling 2014). As an example, in 2011 the SSC initiated the development project ‘The Future Sport Club’ (Riksidrottsförbundet 2013) and following the presentation of the project report during the 2013 general assembly, a strategic planning process was initiated. Sensitive to the government’s sport-for-all policy, one of the basic assumptions of this process is that club sport needs to change in order to be attractive and competitive in the future. According to the report, this process of change needs to pay attention to societal trends such as increased commercialisation and individualisation, increased need for exposure, a changed population structure and the needs, views and wishes of stakeholders. Indeed, the launch of this strategic work can be interpreted as an attempt by the SSC to safeguard its monopoly on organised sports and its privileged position as sole recipient of government funding in the area of sport.

A very recent example of a threat to this position is the introduction of a government-funded leisure voucher for children in financially vulnerable families. The leisure voucher system was proposed by the former right-wing coalition government, and the parliament passed the bill in May 2014 (Socialutskottets betänkande 2013/14:SOU26). The voucher can be used to cover expenses connected to leisure activities arranged by sports clubs, or – notably – other types of organised, leader-led leisure activities. While the voucher system, for the time being, has not affected the existing government funding structure to club sports, it can be interpreted as an additional step away from the generalised support system that up until recently dominated government support to sport. The novel system is also in line with the contemporary political priority to grant citizens the possibility and responsibility to choose among a variety of providers of welfare services, such as education and healthcare (Blomqvist 2004).

At the local level, there is a lack of knowledge concerning local government sport policy development after the turn of the millennium. Case studies of single municipalities (Fahlén and Sjöblom 2008, Sjöblom 2013) indicate that organised sport still enjoys a privileged position among local decision-makers as legitimate recipients of public funds. However, the case studies also show that similar to their national counterparts, local governments are putting increasing pressure on the sports movement to increase recruitment from hard-to-reach and at-risk target groups as well as to intensify its contribution to the delivery of societal goals such as public health, social integration and civic education. This is in line with research covering local authorities’ relation to voluntary associations in the so-called social area (e.g. the Red Cross, Amnesty) that has shown that during the past two decades local governments to a much greater extent than previously have attempted to steer such associations through conditioned grants (Trägårdh et al. 2013). Specifically, a larger proportion of grants are being earmarked for designated target groups, activities or activity forms, and there has been an increase in local authorities’ follow-up on the usage of grants (Johansson 2005). As indicated by the mentioned case studies, it is fair to assume that these changes in local governments’ attitude towards the civil society affect local sport policy as well. However, further research is needed in order to reveal the specifics of this process and the manner in which it affects the sports movement’s role at the local level.

While representing key debates and trends in public sport policy, the issues presented above are limited to sport policy on national and local government levels. However, since Sweden’s admission to the European Union in 1995, voluntary and membership-based club sport is also subject to pan-European level public policy (Norberg 2011). One emerging issue in this area concerns the cornerstone of Swedish and European club sport – the principle of one federation per sport. With reference to common European competition legislation, a former member of the Swedish Automobile Sports Federation (SBF) took SBF to the Swedish Market Court, contesting its ‘Solidarity Clauses’ which prohibit members from participating in competitions not sanctioned by the SBF. The plaintiff, who had created a competing organisation, filed a complaint against the SBF monopoly on competitive motorsport and received approbation from the court which effectively questioned the exclusive rights of NSFs to impose sanctions on their members such as revoking their licences if participating in competitive circuits (Lindholm 2013). This ruling will have further consequences for NSFs in European Union member states aspiring to exclude competitors. In extension, the decision challenges the very basis of ‘pyramid-like’ organisation typical for European sport, and this could have implications for national public sport policy in terms of eligibility for public funding, access to facilities, etc., in the future.

Another emerging public sport policy issue stemming from the Swedish membership in the European Union concerns the taxation of voluntary and membership-based sport clubs (European Commission 2011a). Today, sport clubs are treated as private individuals when it comes to value added tax (VAT) in that they are not allowed to deduct VAT on their purchases. When making sales, they are not obligated to add VAT to the price of, for instance, entrance fees (Lindblad and Lundén 2008). However, in streamlining the fiscal legislation in all member states, the European Union Commission has proposed that sport clubs, among others, should be liable to VAT (Ds 2009:58). This proposal has stirred up much concern with the SSC (European Commission 2011b) which claims that, if realised, the proposal would alienate voluntary commitment from administrative duties and further contribute to the burdens laid upon sport clubs.

Concluding remarks

As shown throughout this text, sport policy in Sweden has been and still is characterised by the close ties between national and local governments on the one hand and the voluntary, non-profit and membership-based club sport on the other. This relationship, established already in 1913 with the first government grant to organised sport, has been defined by consensus and corporatist agreements (Norberg 2002) and has been compared to both a family relationship (Selle 1995) and a relationship characterised by an implicit contract (Norberg 2004), enabling the government to control its expenditure and the SSC to preserve its self-determination. The relationship has preserved a coherent sport movement with a (more or less) monopoly on competitive sport, providing a stronghold against fragmentation and commercial actors. It has also resulted in national and local sport policies harmonised with organised sport’s own goals, at the expense of the unorganised public and leisure organisations outside ‘the family’. Finally it has made possible an extensive and century-long pattern of financial support despite the fact that sport has never been a statutory commitment for national and local governments. In addition, the support, which amounted to some €750 million in 2012 (Centrum för idrottsforskning 2013), has not until recently been made a target for explicit demands on performance outputs.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.