Sport Policy Systems and Sport Federations: A Cross-National Perspective

Sport Policy Systems and
Sport Federations
A Cross-National Perspective
Edited by
Jeroen Scheerder
Annick Willem
Elien Claes
Sport Policy Systems and Sport Federations
Jeroen Scheerder • Annick Willem • Elien Claes
Editors
Sport Policy Systems

and Sport
Federations
A Cross-National Perspective
Editors
Jeroen Scheerder Annick Willem
Policy in Sports & Physical Activity Department of Movement & Sport Sciences
Research Group Ghent University
KU Leuven Belgium
Belgium
Elien Claes
Policy in Sports & Physical Activity
Research Group
KU Leuven
Belgium
ISBN 978-1-137-60221-3 ISBN 978-1-137-60222-0 (eBook)

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016958881
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work in accordance
with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made.
Cover image © RTimages / Alamy Stock Photo
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
The registered company address is: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW, United Kingdom
Contents
Does It Take Two to Tango? The Position and Power of National

Sport bodies Compared to Their Public Authorities 1
Jeroen Scheerder, Elien Claes, and Annick Willem
Australia: Evolution and Motivators of National Sport Policy 19

Camilla Brockett
Belgium: Flanders — Sport Federations

and Governmental Sport Bodies41
Elien Claes, Jeroen Scheerder, Annick Willem,
and Sandrine Billiet
Canada: An Evolving Sport System 65

Lucie Thibault
Denmark: The Dissenting Sport System in Europe 89

Bjarne Ibsen
Finland: From Steering to the Evaluation of Effectiveness 113

Hanna Vehmas and Kalervo Ilmanen
v
vi Contents
France: Organisation of Sport and Policy Towards Sport

Federations 135
Nicolas Scelles
Germany: Autonomy, Partnership and Subsidiarity 157

Christoph Breuer and Tobias Nowy
Lithuania: The Organisation and Governance of Sport 179

Vilma Čingienė
The Netherlands: How the Interplay Between Federations

and Government Helps to Build a Sporting Nation 201
Koen Breedveld and Remco Hoekman
Slovenia: Towards a Social Configuration

of the Sport System 221
Gregor Jurak
Spain: Putting the Pieces of the Sport System in

Place — The Role of the Sport Federations 243
Ramón Llopis-Goig
Switzerland: The Organisation of Sport and Policy Towards Sport

Federations 263
Emmanuel Bayle
UK: England — National Governing Bodies of Sport

and Government Agencies 283
Vassil Girginov
Conclusion: The Role of Sport Policies and Governmental

Support in the Capacity Building of Sport Federations 303
Annick Willem and Jeroen Scheerder
Index321
About the Editors
Jeroen Scheerder (PhD) is Associate Professor of Sport Policy and Sport

Sociology in the Department of Kinesiology at the KU Leuven (Belgium). He is
the head of the Policy in Sports & Physical Activity Research Group and the aca-
demic coordinator of the KU Leuven Sport Management Program. His research
focuses on policy-related and sociological aspects of sport and leisure-time physi-
cal activity. He has (co-)authored more than 70 articles in numerous peer-reviewed
international journals, such as European Journal for Sport & Society, European Sport
Management Quarterly, International Journal of Sport Management & Marketing,
International Journal of Sport Policy & Politics, International Review for the Sociology
of Sport, Managing Leisure, Sport, Education & Society and Voluntas, and is (co-)
author of more than 20 chapters in internationally recognised academic books on
sport governance and sport participation. Scheerder lectures in the fields of sport
management, sport policy and sport sociology, and is (co-)supervisor of ten PhD
projects. He was president of the European Association for Sociology of Sport (EASS),
was Visiting Professor in Sport Sociology at the Faculty of Political & Social
Sciences, Ghent University (Belgium), and co-initiated together with colleagues
from the Dutch Mulier Institute the MEASURE project which is a European
research network on sport policy and levels of sport participation. In 2015 he was
appointed by the Belgian Olympic Committee as expert in sport governance. He
was guest professor at the universities of Bern, Brussels, Cassino, Cologne,
Jyväskylä, Kaunas, Nijmegen and Porto.
Annick Willem holds a PhD in Applied Economics (Ghent University). She is
Associate Professor in Sport Management at the Department of Movement &
Sport Sciences (Ghent University) and holder of the Olympic Chair Henri de
vii
viii About the Editors
Baillet Latour-Jacques Rogge. She is head of the Sport Management Research

Group at Ghent University. Her research is on management and policy in the
sport sector, with a particular focus on organisational issues, such as knowledge
management, collaboration and networking; and also on ethical management
issues. Her work has appeared in several academic journals, including, among
others, European Sport Management Quarterly, Journal of Business Ethics and
Public Management Review. She teaches several sport management courses and
is academic coordinator of the Belgian Olympic Academy.
Elien Claes is a Master in Kinesiology (Sport Management) and works in the
Policy in Sports & Physical Activity Research Group at the University of Leuven
(Belgium), Department of Kinesiology. Her research focuses on sport policy and
sport management. She is responsible for the execution of multiple research
projects, commissioned by the European Commission, the Flemish government
and Flemish sport federations, in which both qualitative and quantitative
research methods are applied. The main focus is on the organisation of sport, at
(inter)national as well as at local level. The organisation and management of
sport federations and sports clubs and the social function of sport are the core
elements of her research.
Notes on Contributors
Emmanuel Bayle is currently Professor in Sport Management at the Institute

of Sport Sciences of the University of Lausanne (ISSUL). Previously, he was
Professor in Strategic Management and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
at the Business School of the University of Lyon. He has published several books
and articles in sport management (on, among other subjects, great leaders in
sport, governance in sport organisations, CSR and sport, and so on) but also in
CSR and in non-profit management. He is a specialist of governance, manage-
ment and performance for sport Olympic organisations and has considerable
experience in executive education in this area. He currently manages a research
project on professionalisation of international sport federations.
Sandrine Billiet received her Bachelor of Science degree in Business Economics
and her Master of Science degree in Business Economics/Marketing, both from
Ghent University. In her Master's dissertation, she studied the parameters influ-
encing the sponsorship of team sports. She graduated magna cum laude from
the Belgian Olympic Academy, after which she became a researcher at the
Department of Movement and Sport Sciences at Ghent University. She has
been involved in large-scale projects dealing primarily with the organisational
properties of international sporting bodies. She is also a world-ranked interna-
tional athlete.
Koen Breedveld is director of the Mulier Institute and Professor in Sport
Sociology and Sport Policy in the Department of Sociology, Radboud University,
Nijmegen, the Netherlands. His research interests include sport participation
and sport policies, and trends and developments in sports. He has published
numerous reports and articles on sport, oriented at either a scientific audience,
a professional audience or both.
ix
x Notes on Contributors
Christoph Breuer is vice-president for resources and planning of the German

Sport University Cologne and director of the Institute of Sport Economics and
Sport Management. From 2006 to 2011 he was simultaneously research profes-
sor at the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin). Professor
Breuer publishes regularly in economic A-journals and in leading sport manage-
ment journals. His main research fields are in organisational economics, sport
systems and the value of sport.
Camilla Brockett is a Senior Research Fellow and Senior Sport Consultant at
the Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), Victoria University
(VU) where she manages policy- and performance-related projects with key uni-
versity partners. She has a background in sport science and elite coaching and
has also worked at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) for nine years, bench-
marking elite sport systems and programs. More recently, Camilla Brockett led
a VU-AIS collaboration to identify sport policy factors that impact Australia’s
sporting success as part of an international comparative study known as
SPLISS. She is currently engaged with the SPLISS consortium to examine
national Paralympic sport systems. She has acted as a consultant for various
national and international sporting organisations and is currently delivering
sport development initiatives and high-performance sport consultancy to the
national and state governments of India.
Vilma Čingienė is a Professor at the Mykolas Romeris University. She has
worked in the sport industry since graduating from Moscow State Lomonosov
University in 1993. She has close cooperations with governmental and
non-governmental sport organisations across the country. During the last decade
she either led or contributed to various national and European research projects.
She is a member of the European Commission experts group Economic
Dimension, an executive board member of the European Observatoire of Sport &
Employment (EOSE), and a member of the European Association of Sport
Management (EASM). Her main areas of interest are on the economic impact
of sport and human resource development in sport.
Vassil Girginov is Reader in Sport Management/Development at Brunel
University London and Visiting Professor at the Russian International Olympic
University. His work is concerned with understanding the relationship between
the Olympic Games and social change in various cultural and economic milieus.
His research interests, publications and industry experience are in the field of the
Olympic Movement, sport development, comparative management and policy
analysis. Dr Girginov’s most recent books include Olympic Studies—a four-
volume collection (2015), the Handbook of the London 2012 Olympic &
Notes on Contributors xi
Paralympic Games (vols. 1 & 2), (2012–2013), Sport Management Cultures

(2011) and Management of Sports Development (2008).
Remco Hoekman is a Senior Researcher at the Mulier Institute and a PhD
candidate at the Department of Sociology, 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 a member of the extended board of the European Association
for Sociology of Sport (EASS).
Bjarne Ibsen is Professor and Head of Research at the Centre for Sports, Health
and Civil Society, University of Southern Denmark. The governing idea in his
research is the sociological analysis of civil society and voluntary associations, pri-
marily in the field of sport but also in other areas of society. The particular focus
of this research is voluntary work in civil society, the characteristics of voluntary
associations, the relations between the voluntary and the public sector, changes in
the pattern of associations and voluntary organisations and sport politics.
Kalervo Ilmanen has worked, since 1997, as a Senior Lecturer and Researcher
at the Department of Sport Sciences of the University of Jyväskylä. His teaching
and research areas relate to sport history and the ethics of sport. Dr Ilmanen has
written several books about the history of municipal sport sectors and sport
organisations. His latest research interests have focused on Finnish civic activi-
ties of sport, the media image of sport and moral issues in sport.
Gregor Jurak is Full Professor at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. He
received a Bachelor’s degree in Physical Education, a Master’s degree and a PhD
in Kinesiology, and a Master’s degree in Economics from the University of
Ljubljana. In his youth he was a top athlete and a member of the national swim-
ming team. After graduating, he worked as a PE teacher, coach, university assis-
tant and professor, and was project manager of several national sport projects,
director of the Sport Foundation and vice-dean. He is the first author of the
current Slovenian national programme of sport. He is interested in the physical
fitness of children, the didactics of PE and the management of sport.
Ramón Llopis-Goig is an Associate Professor in Sociology at the University of
Valencia, where he teaches Sociology of Sport and Sociology of Organizations.
He is President of AEISAD (Spanish Association of Social Research Applied to
Sport) and he has published a collection of papers entitled Sport Mega-events
(UOC, Barcelona, 2012) as well as numerous articles about the sociology of
sport in both mainstream and specialist journals. His most recent publication is
the book Spanish Football and Social Change: Sociological Investigations (2015).
xii Notes on Contributors
Tobias Nowy is a Researcher, Lecturer and PhD candidate at the Institute of

Sport Economics & Sport Management at the German Sport University
Cologne. His main research fields are organisational economics, capacities and
problems of (non-profit) sport clubs in Europe. He has been involved in several
large-scale research projects, including the UEFA Research Programme
2014/2015 and the Erasmus+ project Social Inclusion and Volunteering in Sports
Clubs in Europe, and has published in a leading sport management journal.
Nicolas Scelles is Lecturer in Sport Economics at the University of Stirling in
Scotland. His PhD dealt with outcome uncertainty in professional sport leagues.
It was awarded by the Grand Prix UCPF (Union of the French Professional
Football Clubs) 2009. Nicolas has published scientific articles in several interna-
tional journals, among others Applied Economics, Economics Bulletin, International
Journal of Sport Finance, International Journal of Sport Management & Marketing
and Journal of Sports Economics. He is tutor in the IOC Executive Master in
Sport Organisations Management (MEMOS) and member of the I3SAW
(International Society for Sports Sciences in the Arab World).
Lucie Thibault is Professor at the Department of Sport Management of Brock
University in Canada. She teaches policy, governance and globalisation of sport.
She serves on the editorial board of International Journal of Sport Policy & Politics
and European Sport Management Quarterly, and was editor of Journal of Sport
Management. In 2008, she received the North American Society for Sport
Management’s Earle F. Zeigler Award for scholarly and leadership contributions
to the field. Her research interests include governments’ role in sport and inter-
organisational relationships in non-profit sport. She has co-edited Contemporary
Sport Management (2014) and Sport Policy in Canada (2013) and her research
has appeared in numerous scholarly journals.
Hanna Vehmas has worked since 1999 as a Teacher and a Researcher in
Sport Sociology and Sport Management in the Department of Sport
Sciences. Since 2009, she has worked as Senior Lecturer of the
International Master’s Degree Programme in Sport Management and
Health Promotion at the Faculty of Sport & Health Sciences. In addition
to her teaching responsibilities at the University of Jyväskylä, Dr Vehmas
has visited a number of foreign universities as a visiting lecturer. Her
research interests focus on sport-related tourism, the sociology of leisure,
sport participation and the societal role of sport and physical activity.
List of Figures
Fig. 1 Comparative framework for each country chapter

throughout the book 3
Fig. 2 Types of national sport systems 6
Fig. 3 Possible relationships between sport federations,
confederations and governing bodies 10
Fig. 1 Sport framework Australia 25
Fig. 1 Sport framework of Flanders/Belgium 46
Fig. 1 Overview of Canada’s sport system 69
Fig. 1 Sport framework Denmark 94
Fig. 1 Sport framework in Finland 117
Fig. 2 Organisation of the public sport sector in Finland 119
Fig. 1 The organisation of sport in France in 2015 140
Fig. 1 The organisation of sport in Germany 163
Fig. 1 Sport framework Lithuania 185
Fig. 1 Sport framework of the Netherlands 217
Fig. 1 Participants in the NPS’s management 226
Fig. 2 Sport framework of Slovenia 229
Fig. 1 Sport framework in Spain 248
Fig. 1 Organisation of sport in Switzerland 268
Fig. 1 Framework of sport in England 289
Fig. 1 Levels of support in the organisational
capacity of sport federations 312
Fig. 2 Organisational capacity of federations vs
dependence on governmental support 313
xiii
List of Tables
Table 1 Crossing of the typologies by Henry

(2009) and Houlihan (1997) 9
Table 1 Facts and descriptives of Australia 20
Table 2 Sport profile of Australia 22
Table 3 Total expenses of the ASC for Outcome 1 and 2 34
Table 4 National Sporting Organisation (NSO) and
National Sporting Organisations for people with Disabilities
(NSOD) 2013–2014 funding from ASC 35
Table 1 Facts and descriptives of Belgium 43
Table 2 Sport profile of Flanders (Belgium) 45
Table 1 Facts and descriptives of Canada 66
Table 2 Sport profile of Canada 68
Table 3 Sport Canada policies and year(s) of adoption/revision 76
Table 4 Sport Canada contributions to sport since 2005 (in CAD) 79
Table 1 Facts and descriptives of Denmark 90
Table 2 Sports profile of Denmark 92
Table 3 Overview of the division of the sport budget
among the sport organisations (in million €) 101
Table 4 Types of grants for public funding of voluntary associations
and organisations 103
Table 1 Facts and figures of Finland 115
Table 2 Sport profile of Finland 118
xv
xvi List of Tables
Table 3 Total budget of the Ministry of Education and

Culture for sport in 2015 128
Table 1 Facts and descriptive statistics of France 137
Table 2 Sport profile of France 139
Table 1 Facts and descriptives of Germany 159
Table 2 Key findings on sport participation in Germany 160
Table 3 Sport profile of Germany 161
Table 1 Facts and descriptive statistics of Lithuania 181
Table 2 Participation rate in sport in Lithuania (%) 183
Table 3 Sports profile of Lithuania 183
Table 4 Overview of the financing of sport In Lithuania, in 2013 192
Table 5 The budget of Physical Education and Sport
Promotion Fund in 2010–2015 193
Table 6 Income of national sport federations in 2013 194
Table 1 Facts and descriptives of the Netherlands 205
Table 2 Sports profile of the Netherlands 207
Table 1 Facts about Slovenia 222
Table 3 The expenditure for sport in Slovenia 224
Table 2 Sport profile of Slovenia 234
Table 1 Facts and descriptive data for Spain 245
Table 2 Sports profile of Spain 246
Table 3 Expenditure on sport of the three levels of the
administration in 2013 256
Table 4 Budget of the sport federations in 2014 257
Table 1 Facts and descriptives of Switzerland 264
Table 2 Sport profile of Switzerland 267
Table 3 Distribution of lottery funding for sport 275
Table 4 Criteria governing the distribution of
subsidies to national federations via service contracts
with Swiss Olympic (in 2014) 277
Table 1 Facts and descriptives of UK 285
Table 2 Sport profile of England 286
Does It Take Two to Tango? The Position
and Power of National Sport bodies
Compared to Their Public Authorities
Jeroen Scheerder, Elien Claes, and Annick Willem
Since the origin of modern sport in the eighteenth to nineteenth century

in Western countries, sport bodies such as federations and clubs have
been acting almost entirely independent of governmental intrusion
(Chappelet, 2010). In fact, the roots of modern sport refer to one of the
basic ideas behind classic liberalism, i.e. the freedom of association, which
infers the right to self-regulate. As Szymanski (2006) states, humans have
a strong tendency to create social networks and organisations outside of
their families. Such voluntary associations are fond of their autonomy.
To date, sport federations and sport clubs continue to feel very strongly
about their autonomy and their ability to self-regulate. Moreover, for
J. Scheerder (*) • E. Claes

Policy in Sports & Physical Activity Research Group,
KU Leuven, Belgium
A. Willem
Department of Movement & Sport Sciences, Ghent University,
Belgium
© The Author(s) 2017 1

J. Scheerder et al. (eds.), Sport Policy Systems and Sport Federations,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0_1
2 J. Scheerder et al.
most of the twentieth century non-profit sport associations have almost

been the sole providers of sport activities by offering competitions and
facilities in which sport participation could take place.
During the post-Second World War period the welfare state came
into being in Western societies. At the same time more and more gov-
ernments became actively involved in sport-related policy-making issues.
Public authorities started to provide subsidies for voluntary sport bodies.
National and local governments also became active sport providers them-
selves through staging sport programmes and hosting prestigious sport
events. This process has been referred to elsewhere as the so-called ‘gov-
ernmentalisation’ of sport (Bergsgard, Houlihan, Mangset, Nødland, &
Rommetvedt, 2007), indicating the active role (national) governments play
in sport in general, and in relation to voluntary sport associations in par-
ticular. As a consequence, the voluntary sport bodies’ associativity became
constrained by the state. Moreover, over recent decades not only govern-
ments but also commercial providers have entered the sport scene. As more
and more suppliers became active within the sector of sport and physical
activity, voluntary sport bodies have lost their monopolistic position and
their autonomy has crumbled still further. The question is whether the
increasing significance of governmental and commercial actors during this
period has implied a declining role for traditional sport bodies.
According to the principle of horizontal subsidiarity, governmental bod-
ies should not make decisions if non-governmental sport organisations can
efficiently and fairly undertake such responsibilities. Furthermore, the alleged
autonomy of sports seems to demand reduced interference by public authori-
ties. Indeed, as mentioned by Chappelet (2010), during most of the twen-
tieth century in most European countries sport organisations were allowed
to develop as bodies that are independent of governmental intervention.
Nowadays, however, in line with the governmentalisation process of sports,
public authorities seem to have increased their impact on the sport sector in
terms of regulation, financial investments, sport promotion strategies, etc.,
and as a consequence they decreased the self-regulating power of voluntary
sport associations. Apparently, governments and private sport organisations
saw gaps in the traditional supply of sport. The organisation of sporting
events, health and fitness programs, sport tourist centers, etc. have been gaps
completed by commercial sport providers. Governments have increased their
Does It Take Two to Tango? The Position and Power of National Sport... 3
involvement to achieve ‘Sport for All’ or to increase national identity through

elite sport (Green, 2006; Grix & Carmichael, 2012), using quasi-public
goods and externalities arguments (Kesenne, 2006).
1 Comparative Framework
In this book the main topic for the analysis refers to the relationship
between sport (con)federations and governmental bodies. More precisely,
we will focus on the position and the power of national sport (con)fed-
erations in 13 different countries. The country chapters represent the
current state of knowledge and are structured following a standardised
framework to enable cross-national comparisons (see Fig. 1). In order to
provide clear insights in the relationship between national sport (con)fed-
erations and governmental bodies in the respective countries, the chapter
contributors were asked to address five key questions.
First, a short (sport) country profile is included in each chapter, out-
lining the geographical, demographical, political, economic and socio-
cultural situation, as well as the levels of sport participation and other
Relationship between national sport (con)federations and
Structure
• Governmental actors
• Non-governmental actors
• Intermediate actors
governmental bodies
Profile of the country Steering Chapter conclusion
• General • Legislative framework • Cross-national comparison

• Sport-related • Policy framework • Evolutions
Support
• Financial framework
• Governance and management support
Fig. 1 Comparative framework for each country chapter throughout the

book
sport-related characteristics of the respective country. This first section

is significant as it provides a clear insight on the context in which the
national sport policy structure and programme is generated.
Secondly, authors were asked to analyse the structure of organised sport
based on the framework used by Hallmann and Petry (2013), including
governmental, intermediary and non-governmental structures at national,
regional and local levels. This framework is a simplified reproduction of
reality, but is nonetheless relevant to provide readers with some insight
in the sport system and the possibility to contextualise the relationship
between national sport (con)federations and governmental bodies.
Thirdly, questions are addressed on how sport (con)federations are
steered by sport governing bodies. Steering mechanisms can be related
to both the legislation as well as the current policy framework in the
respective countries. Therefore, the authors were asked to describe the
legislative framework, paying particular attention to the role of national
sport federations, including sport-related as well as non-sport-related
legislation. The sport policy framework in each country is also analysed.
Fourthly, the contributors of each chapter were asked to scrutinise
the ways in which sport federations are supported in their operations. A
description is given of the financial framework in each country, includ-
ing, inter alia, the public funding system and the performance measure-
ment employed in sport federations. Next to financial aid, federations
can also be supported in terms of both their governance and their man-
agement. Both sport governing bodies and sport confederations can play
a role in this regard.
Finally, each chapter ends with a concluding part where the authors
were requested to point out similarities and differences with other coun-
tries, e.g. neighbouring countries or countries that are similar and allow
a cross-national comparison. The conclusions also include current evolu-
tions in sport policy and possible implications for its future development.
In summary, the data in each country chapter give some insight into
the organisation of sports in the respective countries and their policy
towards sport (con)federations. Analyses are carried out with regard to
a number of policy aspects: steering, supporting and implementing.
The standardised structure of the country chapters facilitates the com-
parative approach of this book. The closing chapter compares the sport
systems in the 13 countries through an organisational capacity lens and

gives an overview as to how the organisational capacity of sport federa-
tions is influenced by the sport systems and governments in particular.
Reflections are made on the relationship between the sport (con)federa-
tions and the governing bodies and a number of cross-national differ-
ences are identified.
2 Exploring Cross-National Differences

Although there are some parallels in the development of sport
policy-making across national borders, there are also significant differ-
ences. In what follows, three possible explanations are offered for cross-
national variations. A first explanation can be found in the social and
cultural climate in each individual case. The importance attached to
grassroots sports varies greatly from country to country. In some coun-
tries, as in the Scandinavian countries, grassroots sport is at the top of the
policy agenda; by contrast, in Anglo-Saxon countries such as Australia or
the United Kingdom more importance is attached to elite sport (Collins,
2011; Green & Collins, 2008). The differences in the attitude towards
grassroots sports can partly be reduced to differences in cultural values that
shape the political system and society in general (Bergsgard et al., 2007).
Thus, the Nordic countries attach a high priority to equality and they
are generally characterised by a large degree of solidarity. This is dem-
onstrated by the organisation of their welfare states, which are based on
principles of equality and the idea of universal rights. It is somewhat to be
expected that in these countries the idea of equal opportunities relating to
sports has more potential. Anglo-Saxon countries are more individualistic
and competitive in nature, as evidenced by the organisation of their wel-
fare states, where meritocratic principles prevail. It should also be taken
into account that the current situation with regard to (club) sport partici-
pation, sport preference and alternatively organised sport participation
that countries face can also vary greatly (see, inter alia, Gratton, Rowe, &
Veal, 2011; Hartmann-Tews, 2006; Hover, Romijn, & Breedveld, 2010;
Scheerder et al., 2011; Van Tuyckom, Scheerder, & Bracke, 2010). Such
differences may call for the adoption of different approaches.
A second explanation for the presence of cross-national differences can

be found in the way sport is organised and also the division of responsi-
bilities within each country. Several authors have identified and compared
different sport systems in Europe and the world (see, e.g., Bergsgard et al.,
2007; Camy, Clijsen, Madella, & Pilkington, 2004; Colin & Jappert,
2013; Hallmann & Petry, 2013; Henry, 2009; Houlihan, 1997; Petry,
Steinbach, & Tokarski, 2004; Sobry, 2011). The typology developed by
Camy et al. (2004), which has been further elaborated by Henry (2009),
provides insight into the organisational structure of sports in European
countries. The model includes, among others, the relative importance of
the different actors (i.e., civil society, government and market), and four
configurations of national sport systems are presented (see Fig. 2). The
typology is based on four parameters: (1) the role of public authorities,
specifically the state as represented by the ministry responsible for sports;
(2) the level of coordination of, or engagement by, the various actors
Social Decentralisation, public sector as Missionary

configuration partner in achieving change configuration
Social actors Voluntary sector

The Netherlands Austria, Denmark, Germany,Italy,
Luxembourg, Sweden
Continuity, Innovation,
sustainability competitiveness
State sector Private sector
Belgium (Flanders), Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ireland, UK (England)
Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain
Bureaucratic Centralisation, public sector as Entrepreneurial

configuration driver for delivering government configuration
specific requirements
Fig. 2 Types of national sport systems

Note: for the countries in italic a chapter is included in this book.
Source: Henry (2009: 44), inspired by Camy et al. (2004).
involved in the sport system; (3) the respective roles of the voluntary,
public and private sectors in the delivery of sporting provision; and
(4) the adaptability of the system to changes in demand (Camy et al.,
2004; Henry, 2009). The bureaucratic configuration is characterised by a
high degree of government intervention. The public authorities play an
active and decisive role. According to Camy et al. (2004), this configu-
ration can be found in Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Finland, France, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal,
Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. In the configuration that is classified as
entrepreneurial, market players are strongly involved. Supply and demand
play a dominant role here. This configuration occurs in Ireland and the
United Kingdom. The missionary configuration, which can be observed
in Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Sweden, is char-
acterised by a very independent voluntary sector. Finally, in the social
configuration, there is no single dominant factor, but this type of con-
figuration is characterised by the extensive cooperation between different
actors, namely civil society, government and market.
Depending on the policy system different objectives, may be advanced.
While in the bureaucratic configuration, the emphasis is on accountability,
in the entrepreneurial configuration the keywords are efficiency and out-
put. In the missionary configuration, adaptability is the main objective,
while in the social configuration effectiveness is the core (Henry, 2009). In
short, the model of Camy et al. (2004) and Henry (2009) shows that there
are significant differences between countries in the way the public sector
conceives its role in relation to sports. In addition, there is a large variation
in the different (national) institutional organisations involved in sports
(see Petry et al., 2004). The variety of political structures in European
countries (for example, unitary states versus federal states) adds even more
diversity in the public sector relating to sports (Petry et al., 2004).
Another typology is developed by Houlihan (1997), based on the pat-
terns of government responsibility for sports. In this model, a first type
includes countries where a ministry at the national level plays a central
role in the definition and implementation of sport policy. This is the case
for countries like France, Greece and Ireland. A fragmented public policy
with a major role for the subnational level of states, communities, regions,
provinces, municipalities and/or districts forms the second category. This
configuration is common in federated states, like Australia, Belgium and

Canada. In countries like New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom
the responsibility for sport is delegated to a quasi-autonomous non-
governmental organisation, a so-called ‘quango’. Although quangos, to
some extent, operate independently, they are accountable to a responsible
politician (minister of state) as they receive their funding directly from the
central government. In some countries, the policy responsibility for sports
is shared between a public authority (ministry) and a non-governmental
(sport) organisation (NG(S)O). NGSOs receive income not only through
the government (subsidies), but also generate their own income, for
example through sponsorship. Examples in this category are Germany
and The Netherlands, where, in addition to the central government a
NGSO shapes national sport policy. A similar organisation of national
sport r esponsibility is found in Norway and Sweden. Here the competent
NGSO receives a limited subsidy from the government and the sport pol-
icy is almost entirely autonomously conducted by the NGSOs themselves.
The final form in the typology of Houlihan (1997) consists of countries
in which hardly any (direct) governmental responsibility towards sport
policy-making can be detected. Italy and the USA are examples of this
type. In both countries, the national sport policy is developed by the
national Olympic committee (NOC). To summarise, in Table 1 a crossing
is drawn of the typology by Camy et al. (2004) and Henry (2009) at the
one hand, and the typology by Houlihan (1997) at the other.
Finally, path dependency can also offer an explanation for the inter-
national differences in sport policy. Path dependency refers to the fact
that previous policy decisions shape, influence and restrict future choices
(Pierson, 2000). This also applies in the area of sport policy. Once a certain
path has been embarked upon, it is difficult to change course completely
(Green & Collins, 2008). For instance, if it is decided to focus on a lim-
ited number of sport disciplines, as regards policy-making in elite sports, it
will be difficult subsequently to implement a broader policy and focus on
other sport disciplines as well, because they have been supported less in the
meantime and the institutional settings are not prepared. Path dependency
also implicates that sport policy cannot integrally be copied from one
country to another. Although countries draw inspiration from the policy
elsewhere and that a transfer of policy is feasible in this regard, it is rarely
Table 1 Crossing of the typologies by Henry (2009) and Houlihan (1997)

Henry (2009)
Bureaucratic Entrepreneurial Missionary Social
Houlihan Major role of France Ireland
(1997) central Lithuania
government
Fragmented Belgium Australia Switzerland
administration Slovenia Canada
of public policy
Quango Spain UK (England)
Shared Finland Denmark The
responsibility Germany Netherlands
Sweden
Minimal/no Italy
government
involvement
Note: For the countries in italic a chapter is included in this book.
Source: Own processing based on Henry (2009) and Houlihan (1997).
possible to completely adopt a specific policy program from another coun-

try. This is because one must take into account the specific context, which
will have been shaped by the policy decisions of the past.
3 Theoretical Approach
As Groeneveld (2009: 423–424) points out, it is somewhat surprising that
a review of public management and administration scholarship reveals
that the relationship between sport federations and the government has
been ignored almost entirely. Although there is a broad body of research
on the outward application of state-generated sport policy (see Bergsgard
et al., 2007; Chalip, Johnson, & Stachura, 1996; Coalter, 2007; Green,
2007; Henry, 2005; Houlihan, 2001; Sam, 2005; Sam & Jackson, 2004;
Szymanski, 2006), the internal actualities of how the state administers,
manages and governs sports are under-researched. However the relation-
ship between the state and the third sector has been studied (Brandsen, van
de Donk, & Putters, 2005), indicating a varied and complex relationship
between the government and non-profit organisations, sport federations are
sport
1 government
federations
sport sport
2 government
confederations federations
low continuum high
influence, steering, involvement, …
Fig. 3 Possible relationships between sport federations, confederations and

governing bodies
rarely considered within this area of research. This indicates that a deeper
and broader awareness of the nature of the relationships between sport gov-
erning bodies and sport (con)federations is needed.
Different theoretical models can be applied to scrutinise the relation-
ship between sport (con)federations and sport governing bodies. Before
we delve into the theoretical approaches, however, we must first study
how this relationship can be established. We distinguish two main forms
of relationships (see Fig. 3): (1) a direct relationship between the govern-
ment and the sport federations; and (2) a relationship wherein the sport
confederation acts as an intermediate partner between the government
and the sport federations. In the direct form of relationship the main
sport governing body interacts directly with the sport federations. In this
regard it is possible that there is no sport confederation or that the sport
confederation does not act as the linking partner between the govern-
ment and the federations. In the latter the sport confederation fulfils a
more supporting and mediating role from the sideline. The second form
of relationship is characterised by the attendance of a sport confederation
as a steering and linking partner. Consequently, there is no direct rela-
tionship between the government and the sport federations. The role the
sport confederations fulfil in this regard should be placed on a continuum
related to the influence, the involvement and the steering power that the
sport confederation disposes. Groeneveld’s (2009: 243) statement on the

relationship between football federations and the state can be generalised
to sport at large, implying that at each level of the sport system, regardless
of nation or federation, despite different orientations of agenda-setting,
maturity and different styles of federation relationships, the governance
of sports requires co-involvement and a shared commitment to the legacy
and the future of sports.
A first theory relating to the relationship between sport (con)federa-
tions and sport governing bodies is the principal–agent approach. A
principal–agent relationship is conceptualised by Ross (1973: 134) as a
relationship between ‘two (or more) parties when one, designated the
agent, acts for, on behalf of, or as a representative for the other, des-
ignated the principal, in a particular domain of decision problems’.
The principal–agent model draws strongly on the rational choice the-
ory which assumes that ‘individual actions and collective outcomes are
understood in terms of actors’ strategic pursuit of self-interests’ (Snidal,
1985: 40). Inspired by the rational choice theory, the core assumption
of the principal–agent model is that the relationship is inherently prob-
lematic because of conflicting interests and an information asymmetry in
favour of the agent. This enables the agent to serve its own interests at the
expense of the principal which could result in imperfect agent behaviour
because the agent can exploit its autonomy and minimise its efforts on
behalf of the principal (Eisenhardt, 1989; Nguyen, 2011). This problem
can be prevented and/or reduced by the principal through the installa-
tion of control mechanisms when delegating tasks to agents (McCubbins
& Schwartz, 1984). The principal–agent model allows for an analysis
of the relation between governmental actors as principals and civil soci-
ety actors (e.g., sport federations) as agents. In some countries, national
governments and national sports (con)federations might be situated in
an agency relationship and might perceive imperfect agent behaviour.
Governments will then seek to prevent such behaviour. This agency the-
ory approach emphasises the arm’s length and asymmetrical relationship
between government and sport organisations (Goodwin & Grix, 2011).
It is essentially based on the hierarchical position of governments.
A second theory implies the co-governance perspective fitting with
the network governance mode of policy making and implementing
(Skelcher, 2000). Here, the question relates to what extent and in which
form sport (con)federations are involved in the country’s processes of sport
policy-making and service delivery (Groeneveld, 2009). Co-governance
implies direct interaction between the government and sport federations
in the development of public policy, both within policy-making and in
the implementation processes. Because of a lack of research on the types of
close interactions between the government and n on-governmental organ-
isations, or, more specifically, sport federations, this theory remains at
present somewhat conceptual rather than practical. While co-governance
considers permanent relationships, Sam and Jackson (2004: 206–207)
have investigated the use of consultative processes in an attempt to
build a stronger interorganisational sport governance network, which
can be considered as a way to begin the process of bringing different
actors together to enable the governance of sports, from grassroots to
the top levels of international competition. The sharing of responsibil-
ity between federations and the government within the co-governance
approach should be placed on a continuum, with the interaction between
the actors as a requirement to determine the future governance priorities
(or aspects thereof ) of sport as social service delivery. Groeneveld (2009:
432) points to a few challenges when analysing co-governance between a
third-sector organisation and the state. The first challenge relates to the
search for the locus of the interaction. Another relates to the facilitation
of policy-level interorganisational communication in order to establish
a clear view of the development of the relationship between the federa-
tions and the state at all levels. A third challenge points to the question of
how close the government and the federations should be. Agenda-setting
on both sides is also a key feature of this relationship. Goodwin and
Grix (2011: 551) mention that in Sport for All settings, the collabora-
tive governance model, in which government acts as a facilitator, is more
frequent than, for instance, in the elite sport area. However, as the result
of inequalities in power and resources, agency models and collaborative
models both result in the same outcome, namely that the federations
produce the outcomes the government want.
The authors of the country profiles were asked to reflect theoretically
on the sport system in general and, more specifically, on the relationship
between sport (con)federations and sport governing bodies. Principal–agent
relations and co-involvement mechanisms are related to the particular sport

system in a country. Both forms of relationships have their share of advan-
tages and disadvantages. It is hypothesised that in countries with an inter-
ventionist sport legislation, such as Belgium, France, Slovenia and Spain,
national sport (con)federations are in a principal-agent relationship with
the government, whereas in countries with a non-interventionist sport leg-
islation, such as Denmark, Finland, Germany, Lithuania, The Netherlands,
Switzerland and the UK, sport (con)federations are more in a co-gover-
nance relationship with their government.
4 Selection of Countries
The data included in this book stem from an international comparative
research project among 13 countries (see Scheerder, Willem, Claes, &
Billiet, 2015a, 2015b). Comparative studies require a necessary selec-
tion and the selection process of countries is based mainly on conceptual
grounds. At first, the scope of the book focused on European countries.
Although the so-called ‘European sport model’ is characterised by strong
government involvement in sport, there are striking differences c oncerning
the organisation and structure of sport within Europe. To legitimise the
selection of the European countries, we relied on the division in welfare
states outlined by Esping-Andersen (1990). This model was refined and
supplemented in the literature by several authors (Albert, 1991; Andersen
et al., 2007; Brouwer & Moerman, 2010; Fenger, 2007; Ferrera, 1996;
Leibfried, 1992). Because it is formulated that the welfare regime guides
and shapes concurrent social policy decisions, trends in expenditure,
problem definitions and even the respond-and-demand structure of citi-
zens and welfare consumers (Esping-Andersen, 1990), we aimed to select
a range of countries that represent the diversity of welfare systems. The
social democratic type of welfare regime, also referred to as the Nordic
or Scandinavian model, is covered by the presence of Denmark and
Finland, while Belgium (Flanders), Germany, France, The Netherlands
and Switzerland represent the conservative-corporatist welfare regime, also
known as the continental model. England is the archetype of the lib-
eral type, or the Anglo-Saxon model, whereas Spain can be considered
as being representative of the rudimentary welfare type or Mediterranean

model (Ferrera, 1996; Leibfried, 1992). The post-communist welfare type
(Fenger, 2007), or the Eastern European model, is represented in this
book by Lithuania and Slovenia.
In addition to the selection of European countries, it was decided to
look beyond the continent’s borders. Understanding how sport federa-
tions from ‘non-European sport models’ are controlled and supported
is considered to be of added value for the present comparative study.
Therefore, it was decided to select two so-called ‘industrial countries’,
namely Australia and Canada, both of which correspond to the Anglo-
Saxon or Anglo-American welfare model. The following country chapters
are written by academic experts within the field of the organisation of
sport in the respective countries.
References
Albert, M. (1991). Capitalisme contre capitalism [Capitalism versus capitalism].
Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Andersen, T. M., Holmström, B., Honkapohja, S., Korkman, S., Söderström,
H. T., & Vartiainen, J. (2007). The Nordic model. Embracing globalization and
sharing risks. Helsinki: Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
Bergsgard, N. A., Houlihan, B., Mangset, P., Nødland, S. I., & Rommetvedt, H.
(2007). Sport policy: A comparative analysis of stability and change. Oxford: Elsevier.
Brandsen, T., van de Donk, W., & Putters, K. (2005). Griffins or chameleons?
Hybridity as a permanent and inevitable characteristic of the Third Sector.
International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 749–765.
Brouwer, J. J., & Moerman, P. (2010). Angelsaksen versus Rijnlanders. Zoektocht
naar overeenkomsten en verschillen in Europees en Amerikaans denken [Anglo-
Saxons versus Rhine Landers: Search for similarities and differences in European
and American thinking]. Antwerp: Garant.
Camy, J., Clijsen, L., Madella, A., & Pilkington, A. (2004). Vocasport. Improving
employment in the field of sport in Europe through vocational training: Vocational
education and training in the field of sport in the European Union. Situation,
trends and outlook. Lyon: Université Claude Bernard Lyon.
Chalip, L., Johnson, A., & Stachura, L. (1996). National sports policies: An inter-
national handbook. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Chappelet, J.-L. (2010). Autonomy of sport in Europe (Sports Policy & Practice
Series). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Coalter, F. (2007). A wider social role for sport: Who’s keeping the score? London:
Routledge.
Colin, M., & Jappert, J. (2013). L’organisation du sport dans les Etats membres de
l’Union européenne [The organisation of sport in the EU member states]. Neuilly-
sur-Seine: Think Tank Européen Sport & Citoyenneté.
Collins, S. (2011). Finland. In M. Nicholson, R. Hoye, & B. Houlihan (Eds.),
Participation in sport: International policy perspectives (pp. 109–125). London:
Routledge.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency theory. An assessment and review. The Academy
of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge:
Polity.
Fenger, H. J. M. (2007). Welfare regimes in Central and Eastern Europe.
Incorporating post-communist countries in a welfare regime typology.
Contemporary Issues and Ideas in Social Sciences, 3(2), 1–30.
Ferrera, M. (1996). The ‘southern model’ of welfare in social Europe. Journal of
European Social Policy, 6, 17–37.
Goodwin, M., & Grix, J. (2011). Bringing structures back in. The ‘governance
narrative’, the ‘decentred approach’ and ‘asymmetrical network governance’
in the education and sport policy communities. Public Administration, 89(2),
537–556.
Gratton, C., Rowe, N., & Veal, A. (2011). International comparisons of sports
participation in European countries. An update of the COMPASS project.
European Journal for Sport & Society, 8(1–2), 99–116.
Green, M. (2006). From ‘sport for all’ to not about ‘sport’ at all? Interrogating
sport policy interventions in the United Kingdom. European Sport
Management Quarterly, 6(3), 217–238.
Green, M. (2007). Olympic glory or grassroots development? Sport policy pri-
orities in Australia, Canada and the United States, 1960–2006. International
Journal of the History of Sport, 24(7), 921–953.
Green, M., & Collins, S. (2008). Policy, politics and path dependency. Sport
development in Australia and Finland. Sport Management Review, 11, 225–251.
Grix, J., & Carmichael, F. (2012). Why do governments invest in elite sport? A
polemic. International Journal of Sport Policy & Politics, 4(1), 73–90.
Groeneveld, M. (2009). European sport governance, citizens and the state.

Finding a (co-)productive balance for the twenty-first century. Public
Management Review, 11(4), 421–440.
Hallmann, K., & Petry, K. (Eds.) (2013). Comparative sport development: Systems,
participation and public policy (Sports Economics, Management & Policy 8).
New York, NY: Springer Science.
Hartmann-Tews, I. (2006). Social stratification in sport and sport policy in the
European Union. European Journal for Sport & Society, 3(2), 109–124.
Henry, I. (2005). The governance of sport in Europe. European Journal of Sport
Science, 5(4), 165.
Henry, I. (2009). European models of sport: Governance, organisational change
and sport policy in the EU. Hitotsubashi Journal of Arts & Sciences, 50, 41–52.
Houlihan, B. (1997). Sport, policy and politics: A comparative analysis. London:
Routledge.
Houlihan, B. (2001). Citizenship, civil society and the sport and recreation pro-
fessions. Managing Leisure, 6, 1–14.
Hover, P., Romijn, D., & Breedveld, K. (2010). Sportdeelname in cross nationaal
perspectief: Benchmark sportdeelname op basis van de Eurobarometer 2010 en
het Internationaal Social Survey Programme 2007 [Involvement in cross-national
perspective: Benchmark sports participation based on the 2010 Eurobarometer
and the International Social Survey Programme 2007]. ’s-Hertogenbosch:
W.J.H. Mulier Instituut.
Kesenne, S. (2006). Public policy and participation sport. In P. Rodríguez,
S. Kesenne, & J. García (Eds.), Sports economics after fifty years: Essays in hon-
our of Simon Rottenberg (pp. 69–81). Oviedo: University of Oviedo.
Leibfried, S. (1992). Towards a European welfare state. In Z. Ferge & J. E.
Kolberg (Eds.), Social policy in a changing Europe (pp. 245–279). Boulder,
CO: Westview.
McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight over-
looked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science,
28(1), 165–179.
Nguyen, H. (2011). The principal–agent problems in health care: Evidence
from prescribing patterns of private providers in Vietnam. Health Policy Plan,
26(1), 53–62.
Petry, K., Steinbach, D., & Tokarski, W. (2004). Sport systems in the countries
of the European Union: Similarities and differences. European Journal of
Sport & Society, 1(1), 15–21.
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence and the study of poli-
tics. American Political Science Review, 9(4), 251–267.
Ross, S. (1973). The economic theory of agency: The principal’s problem.
American Economic Review, 63, 134–139.
Sam, M. P. (2005). The makers of sport policy: A (task)force to be reckoned
with. Sociology of Sport Journal, 21, 78–99.
Sam, M. P., & Jackson, S. J. (2004). Sport policy development in New Zealand.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 39(2), 205–222.
Scheerder, J., Vandermeerschen, H., Van Tuyckom, C., Hoekman, R., Breedveld,
K., & Vos, S. (2011). Understanding the game: Sport participation in Europe.
Facts, reflections and recommendations (Sport Policy & Management 10).
Leuven: KU Leuven/Research Unit of Social Kinesiology & Sport Management.
Scheerder, J., Willem, A., Claes, E., & Billiet S. (2015a). Internationale studie naar
de organisatie en aansturing van sportfederaties: Van analyse tot good practices
(Volume 1) [International study on the organisation and steering of sport federa-
tions: From analysis towards good practices] [Volume 1]. Leuven/Ghent: University
of Leuven—Policy in Sports & Physical Activity Research Group/Ghent
University—Team Sports Management.
Scheerder, J., Willem, A., Claes, E., & Billiet S. (2015b). International study on
the organisation of sport in twelve countries and their policy towards sport
federations: Country profiles (Volume 2). Leuven/Ghent: University of

Leuven—Policy in Sports & Physical Activity Research Group/Ghent
University—Team Sports Management.
Skelcher, C. (2000). Changing images of the state: Overloaded, hollowed-out,
congested. Public Policy & Administration, 15(3), 3–19.
Snidal, D. (1985). The game theory of international politics. World Politics,
38(1), 25–57.
Sobry, C. (2011). Sports governance in the world: A socio-historic approach (Sport
Social Studies) (Volume I, II & III). Paris: Le Manuscrit.
Szymanski, S. (2006). A theory of the evolution of modern sport (IASE Working
Paper Series 06/30). Limoges: International Association of Sports Economists.
Van Tuyckom, C., Scheerder, J., & Bracke, P. (2010). Gender and age inequali-
ties in regular sports participation: A cross-national study of 25 European
countries. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(10), 1077–1084.
Australia: Evolution and Motivators
of National Sport Policy
Camilla Brockett
1 Introduction
This chapter examines the structure and organisation of sport in Australia,
placing a particular focus on the contemporary roles and responsibilities
of the national sporting organisations and their relationship with govern-
ment sport agencies. In this context, the key milestones and motivators
behind the evolution of Australian sports policy will be discussed with
particular reference to the impact of social, political and economic fac-
tors. Specific focus is devoted to the underlying catalyst that preceded
the recent establishment of a united, whole-of-sport national vision and
the basis for developing Australia’s current national policy for enhancing
sport participation and international sporting success.
C. Brockett (*)
Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University,
Melbourne, VIC, Australia

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0_2
20 C. Brockett
Importantly, the national policies for sporting excellence (Australia’s

Winning Edge) and community sport participation (Play.Sport.Australia)
reflect the new modus operandi between government and national sport-
ing organisations. A partnership that has the collective objective to create
organisationally and financially robust sports, that in turn achieve national
system efficiencies and deliver effective, sustainable sport across the nation.
2 Country Profile
Australia may be the smallest of the seven continents of the world with
respect to land mass, but it is the world’s largest island and the only
continent that is governed by a single country. With both a represen-
tative democracy and a constitutional monarchy, the Commonwealth
of Australia is comprised of six states—New South Wales (NSW),
Queensland (QLD), South Australia (SA), Tasmania (TAS), Victoria
(VIC) and Western Australia (WA) —and two territories—the Australian
Capital Territory (ACT) and the Northern Territory (NT) (Table 1).
Table 1 Facts and descriptives of Australia

Population (number of inhabitants)* 22,700,000
Area (km²)** 7,682,300
Density (inhabitants/km²) 3.0
Urbanisation rate (%)* 89
Political organisation Parliamentary
constitutional
monarchy
Structure of the state Federal
Number of states/territories 6 states / 2 territories
Number of municiplities 560 local councils
GDP per capita (US dollars)*** 44,407
Welfare model Anglo-American
Sources: *The World Bank (2013); **The World Bank (2014); ***OECD (2014).
Based on the liberal democratic tradition, there are three levels of

government in Australia—the federal Australian Government, the
governments of the six states and two territories, and around 560
local government authorities. As a ‘federal’ system of government,
power is divided between the Commonwealth federal government
(Australian Government) and the six state governments. The Australian
Constitution sets out the functions of the Australian Government,
such as foreign relations and trade, defense and immigration. States
and territories are responsible for matters not assigned to the fed-
eral government (Australia, 2015a). State governments can make their
own laws over matters not controlled by the Commonwealth; they
have their own constitutions, as well as a structure of legislature, exec-
utive and judiciary. Territories are areas within Australia’s borders that
are not claimed by one of the six states; however, they convene their
own parliament and make their own laws in a similar manner to the
states. The local governments are responsible for services to people (i.e.
health services, community safety and accessible transport), as well as
community and recreation facilities, town planning, maintenance of
local roads, urban renewal, tourism, etc. Constitutional responsibility
for local government lies with the state and territory governments.
Consequently, the roles and responsibilities of local government differ
from state to state. Local governments are also known as local councils
(Australia, 2015b).
Australia is a developed country and one of the wealthiest in the
world, with a per capita GDP of US$44,407 (OECD, 2014). The
population of 22.7 million is highly urbanised (89 per cent) (The
World Bank, 2013) and heavily concentrated in the eastern states and
on the coast. Australia spreads over 7,682,300 km² (The World Bank,
2014), resulting in a density of just 3 inhabitants per km². Australia
ranks highly in many international rankings of national performance,
such as quality of life, health, education, economic freedom, and the
protection of civil liberties and political rights. Although Australia
has no official language, English has always been entrenched as the de
facto national language.
22 C. Brockett
3 Sport in Australia
Australia is a proud sporting nation. Historically, its culture, identity
and national pride have been greatly influenced by its sporting success
and achievements. Underpinning this success is a mature national sports
system with a whole-of-sport approach to the development and deliv-
ery of sport. In this capacity the Australian government is committed
to enhancing community sport participation and excellence in high-
performance sports, staging world-class major sporting events and pro-
tecting the integrity of sport (Department of Health, 2015) (Table 2).
The Australian national sport sector is a partnership between the
Australian government (represented by the Australian Sports Commission
(ASC) and the Office for Sport in the Department of Health), national
sporting organisations and their affiliated bodies, state and territory gov-
ernment sports agencies, and other interest groups.
The foundation of the Australian sport system is the 70,000 non-
profit sport clubs and associations (Clearinghouse for Sport, 2015). As
described by Hoye and Nicholson (2011: 223), these clubs are: ‘governed
by volunteers that facilitate sporting competitions and events, manage
development programs for coaches and officials, assist in the identifica-
tion and development of talented athletes, undertake volunteer training,
engage in marketing and promoting their sports, and liaise with gov-
ernments at local, state and national levels. Sport clubs and associations
usually coordinate their efforts through a complex federated model,
with national sport organisations (NSOs) funded by the Australian gov-
ernment to deliver its public policy objectives, which are focused on
Table 2 Sport profile of Australia

Australian Sports
Government authority responsible for sport Commission
Sport participation, at least once a week (%)* 69.4 %
Number of national sports federations 90+
Number of sport clubs** 70,000
National budget for sport*** (AUD$307.1m) €192.8m
National budget for sport federations*** (AUD$122.7m) €70.75m
Sources: *ASC (2010a: 11); **Clearinghouse for Sport (2015); ***ASC (2014: 128);
conversion rate 1 AUD = €0.627830.
enhancing elite performances and increasing participation in sport’. To

deliver sport development programmes in each of the six states and two
territories of Australia, the NSOs work with affiliated state sport organ-
isations (SSOs). Within each state or territory, the clubs and associations
generally work with local governments, as they are the major providers of
sport facilities (Hoye & Nicholson, 2011).
Individual sporting organisations collect participation data; nationally,
however, there is no systematic integration of these data (Eime et al., 2015).
Key findings from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2015) on participa-
tion in sport and physical recreation for the Australian population report:
• An estimated 60 per cent of the population aged 15 years and over

(11.1 million people) participated at least once annually in sport and
physical recreation; down from 65 per cent in the previous survey.
• Participation generally decreased with age. The highest participation
rate was recorded in the 15–17 age group at 74 per cent, declining to
47 per cent in the 65 years and older group.
• Male and female participation rates were similar, except in the 25–34
age group, where participation rates were higher for males (67 per
cent) than females (61 per cent).
• An estimated 28 per cent of the population aged 15 years and over (5.2
million) reported they were involved in organised sport and physical
activity; including 26 per cent indicating they were involved in playing-
roles and 7.7 per cent in non-playing roles.
• Involvement in organised sport and physical activity generally
decreased with age. The highest rate of involvement was for people
aged 15–24 years (43 per cent involvement in a playing role and 44
per cent of involvement overall). In comparison, people aged 55–64
and 65 years and over had the lowest rate of involvement in a playing
role (18 per cent and 17 per cent respectively) and the lowest involve-
ment overall (19 per cent and 18 per cent respectively).
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012) provides national data on

the levels of children’s participation in organised sport. In the 12 months
prior to the survey, across the 2.8 million children aged 5 to 14 years, it
was estimated that:
24 C. Brockett
• Over 60 per cent of children aged 5 to 14 (1.7 million) participated in

at least one organised sport activity outside school hours.
• The highest participation rate (66 per cent) was for children aged
between 9 and 11 years, the lowest (56 per cent) for children aged 5–8
years.
• On average, children participating in sport spent five hours per fort-
night playing and/or training in organised sport outside of school
hours.
• On average, more boys participated in organised sport (66 per cent),
than girls (54 per cent).
• Participation was higher for children born in Australia (61 per cent)
compared with those born overseas (52 per cent) and higher for chil-
dren in couple families (64 per cent) compared with those living in
one-parent families (48 per cent).
4 Organisation of Sport
4.1 Structure
Australia has a particularly complex, but collaborative and consultative

approach to developing and delivering a continuum of sporting oppor-
tunities to its citizens.
Figure 1 displays the organisation of sport in Australia today at the
national, regional and local levels, including the key governmental and
non-governmental actors at each level.
Governmental Sport Actors
In line with Australia’s federated system of government, all levels of gov-

ernment (national, state and local government) play a major role in deliv-
ering sport and sport related policies and programmes.
At the national level, the Office of Sport, which currently resides in the
Department of Health and headed by the Commonwealth Minister for
Sport, ensures effective collaboration across a number of Commonwealth
AUSTRALIA Governmental Non-governmental

National level
Commonwealth
Minister for Sport National sport Peak advocacy and
organisations representative bodies for
sport (CAS)
ASC
(includes AIS)
Industry
CASRO specialist
organisations/
committees
NESC (e.g. AOC,
ACGA)
STMSR
State and territory advocacy

SDSR State sport and representative bodies
Regional level organisations (e.g. VicSport, Qsport)
State Venue
Institutes/ management
Academies of trusts
Sport (SIS/SAS)
Local Sport clubs Community groups

Local level governments
and commercial
Schools and
higher education providers
Financing
Membership/partnership
Hierarchical relationship
Fig. 1 Sport framework Australia. Notes: ASC Australian Sports Commission,

AIS Australian Institute of Sport, CASRO Committee of Australian Sport
Officials, NESC National Elite Sports Council, STMSR State and Territory
Ministers for Sport and Recreation, SDSR State and Territory Departments/
Offices, AOC Australian Olympic Committee, ACGA Australian Commonwealth
Games Association, CAS Confederation of Australian Sport.
Source: adapted from Commonwealth of Australia (2011) and Cuskelly,
Wicker, and O’Brien (2013).
portfolios that are impacted upon by sports, sport participation, and the
bidding and hosting of major sporting events. The Office of Sport works
closely with the Australian Sports Commission, the Australian Sports
Foundation and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority on the
development of Australian sport through:
26 C. Brockett
Improved opportunities for community participation in sport and recre-

ation, and excellence in high-performance athletes, through initiatives to
help protect the integrity of sport, investment in sport infrastructure, coor-
dination of Commonwealth involvement in major sporting events, and
research and international cooperation on sport issues. (Department of
Health, 2014a: 167)
The Committee of Australian Sport and Recreation Officials (CASRO)

comprises two representatives from the Commonwealth Government
and one representative from each state, territory government and the
New Zealand government. The primary role of CASRO is to provide
a forum for governments of the Commonwealth, states, territories and
New Zealand to collaborate on and advance issues of national signifi-
cance relating to sport and active recreation. As such, a core function of
CASRO is to progress the agreed key priorities set out in the National
Sport and Active Recreation Policy Framework (NSARPF, see below),
and promote national collaboration for the development and alignment
of sport policies (Clearinghouse for Sport, 2015).
The Australian Sports Commission (ASC) is a statutory authority of the
Australian government. The Australian Sports Commission Act 1989 sets
out the roles and responsibilities of the ASC. The ASC is governed by a
board of commissioners appointed by the Australian government. This
board determines the ASC’s overall direction, decides on the allocation of
resources and policy for delegated decisions, and is accountable to both
the Minister for Sport and the Parliament. The ASC is Australia’s primary
national sports administration and advisory agency, and the cornerstone
of a wide-ranging sports system.
Leading the sector with a workforce of 645 full-time equivalent posi-
tions, the ASC works closely with national sport organisations (NSOs),
peak sporting bodies, state and territory governments, state and territory
institutes and academies of sport, and schools and community organisa-
tions to support the development of the Australian sport sector from the
grassroots community level all the way up to high-performance sport
(ASC, 2014).
The core divisions of the ASC include: (1) the Australian Institute of Sport
(AIS) which has primary responsibility for leading the strategic direction of
high-performance sport in Australia, delivering world-class athlete prepara-

tion (including coaching, sports science and sports medicine, programme
management, vocational/pastoral care and competition opportunities) and
fostering a national approach to applied performance research; and (2) the
Participation and Sustainable Sports division, which provides specialist sup-
port to sports and the sector to build the capability and capacity of NSOs.
The division also focuses on collaboration with NSOs and other partners to
develop and implement comprehensive participation plans, as well as coor-
dinate funding arrangements and compliance with sport sector partners,
school and community sport (ASC, 2015b).
Other national-level actors (not illustrated in Fig. 1) include the
Australian Sports Foundation (ASF) which provides discretionary grants
to sporting clubs, sporting associations, schools, councils, commu-
nity groups, etc. for sport-related projects; and the Australian Sports
Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), which is responsible for delivering the
World Anti-Doping Agency Code in Australia.
At the regional level, each of the six states and two territories has its
own Department of Sport and Recreation (SDSR), led by a State or Territory
Minister for Sport and Recreation (STMSR). The departments provide
leadership to the sport and active recreation sector throughout their
jurisdictions and develop programmes in line with the NSARPF that
focus on whole-of-sport pathways, high-performance sport outcomes
as well as improved participation outcomes for targeted populations
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2011). The SDSRs also work in partner-
ship with the Australian government on national policy approaches and
to coordinate a national approach to the staging of international events.
Also residing within the State/Territory sport departments are Venue
Management Trusts, which are responsible for managing and promoting
the use of the state (or territory’s) international sporting centres; and
the State and Territory Institutes and Academies of Sport (SIS/SAS), who,
together with the AIS, form Australia’s National Institute Network
(NIN). These institutes, in partnership with NSOs, provide the sup-
port services and daily training environment for athletes and teams
with podium potential. Coordination of the NIN is provided by the
National Elite Sports Council (NESC), which operates at both national
and regional levels.
28 C. Brockett
At the local level, the 560 councils (local government) across Australia
are involved in sport delivery by providing community and recreation
services and facilities, including the provision of sports grounds, club-
rooms, (multi-purpose) sports centres and courts, swimming pools and
parks. In this capacity, councils have three functions: (1) to administer
the leasing of crown land (i.e. to local clubs for sport and recreation); (2)
to construct and manage, or lease, other community facilities; and (3)
to provide local sports clubs with direct access to recreation officers or
community service officers for advice and support (Cuskelly et al., 2013).
Schools and higher education are also major actors with regard to
sport and physical activity. In May 2014, the Australian government
announced AUD$100 million investment in the ASC’s new ‘Sporting
Schools Program’, which is an important part of the ASC’s new sports
participation strategy—‘Play.Sport.Australia’. The programme is
available to all primary schools and offers children sport-based activities
before, during or after school (Department of Health, 2014b). Similarly,
tertiary education providers play an important role in delivering sport
across the Australian sports sector. Australian University Sport (AUS) is
the peak governing body of university sport in Australia and currently
has forty members, which represents more than one million students
(Clearinghouse for Sport, 2015). Schools and higher education are situ-
ated in the Australia sport framework (Fig. 1) between governmental and
non-governmental structures.
Non-Governmental Sport Actors
Australian sports organisations and sports clubs, many being not-for-

profit entities, play a pivotal role in the delivery of sport across the sector.
At the national level, National Sports Organisations (NSOs) and
National Sports Organisations for people with disability (NSODs) are
at the coalface of sport development and delivery to the Australian com-
munity. In its role as a statutory authority, the ASC is responsible for
the Australian government’s funding of national sporting organisations
to develop sporting excellence and increase participation in sport. As
such, an NSO must be recognised by the ASC before it can be funded
(although recognition is not a guarantee of any funding allocation). The

key criterion for ASC recognition requires organisations to demonstrate
they have a national perspective and that they are the pre-eminent organ-
isation taking responsibility for the development of the sport in Australia.
Currently the ASC recognises over 90 organisations, including NSODs,
as NSOs (ASC, 2015c).
There are also other national-level non-governmental actors, including
Industry Specialist Organisations or Committees that have major respon-
sibilities in Australian high-performance sport. The Australian Olympic
Committee (AOC) and the Australian Paralympic Committee (APC) are
the national peak bodies with primary responsibility for promoting and
preparing summer and winter teams for the Olympic and Paralympic
Games, respectively. Both the AOC and APC work closely with the ASC
and NSOs on national issues relating to high-performance sport and
policy development. The Australian Commonwealth Games Association
(ACGA) is the peak body responsible for the Commonwealth Games
operations, publicity and development in Australia.
At the regional level, NSOs generally work closely with their respective
State Sports Organisations (SSOs) across all Australian state and territory
jurisdictions. SSOs are expected to partner and align with their national
sport organisation to develop and deliver state-based mechanisms for
national programmes and initiatives. SSOs are also required to provide
state leadership of sport and active recreation through collaboration with
state and territory governments. They are responsible for partnering with
key state/regional stakeholders to coordinate game/activity development,
state-level high-performance programmes, assist regions and clubs to
enhance membership services, and improve participation outcomes for
targeted populations (e.g. disabled, Indigenous, rural/remote, culturally
and linguistically diverse) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011).
At the local level, sports clubs are the primary provider of sport to the
Australian community. They are aligned with whole-of-sport policy plan-
ning developed by their NSO and SSO. Through the programmes, activ-
ities and competitions they deliver, sports clubs contribute to health and
well-being, inclusion, participation, volunteering, community building
and development outcomes. It is estimated that there are over 70,000
registered not-for-profit sports clubs currently operating in Australia
30 C. Brockett
(Clearinghouse for Sport, 2015). Other local providers of sport and active
recreation often also include community groups (YMCA, PCYC) and com-
mercial providers (gyms, fitness or recreational centres) (Commonwealth
Government, 2011).
In addition to sporting associations and clubs delivering sport, the
Confederations of Australian Sport (CAS) is the peak advocacy and repre-
sentative body for sport. With its membership of most Australian NSOs
and other industry associations and affiliates, CAS promotes the contri-
bution of sport in community and provides united representation of the
interests of those organisations and peak bodies involved in community
based sport and active recreation (CAS, 2015). At the regional level, there
are state and territory equivalents of CAS (i.e., Qsport, ACTSport, NSW
Sports Federation, Sport SA, Vic Sport and WA Sports Federation).
In considering the roles and interrelationships of the key govern-
ment and non-government actors from a theoretical perspective, there is
a clear ‘principal–agent (PA) relationship’ at the national level between
the Australian government, represented by the ASC, and the NSOs
(Gowthrop, 2014; Kivistö, 2008). This is illustrated in the context of the
ASC (as principal organisation) engaging NSOs (as agents) to deliver ser-
vices and programmes on the principal’s behalf to meet statutory obli-
gations to government (i.e., increase sport participation and sporting
excellence). On this basis, it is arguable that the PA relationship also exists
at the regional (state) level with SSOs acting as agents for SDSRs and
NSOs; similarly at local levels, with clubs being agents primarily for SSOs.
4.2 Steering
In the early 1970s Australia looked to Europe for inspiration in structuring

its own national sport system, with the idea for an ‘Australian Institute of
Sport’ coming from Professor John Bloomfield’s investigation into sports
institutes in Europe and their success in developing elite athletes. Now forty
years on, Australia joins leading sports nations such as the Netherlands,
Japan, Canada and Switzerland in achieving key sport performance out-
comes through national systems efficiency and innovation (De Bosscher,
Shibli, Westerbeek, & van Bottenburg, 2015). According to the typology
developed by Henry (2009), Australia could be categorised as having a

predominantly ‘entrepreneurial configuration’—a national system that
is predominantly government-funded and -led, but with the integrated
engagement of key actors in policy development and implementation.
The core role of state-level actors and non-government actors in policy
making would also categorise Australia as having ‘fragmented administra-
tion of public policy’ (Houlihan, 1997). Put simply, Australia describes its
national sport system as being ‘sport run, government supported’.
Legislative Framework
Australia has little legislation concerning sports. The majority of responsi-

bilities, tasks and expectations, are described in policy documents, which
will be further explained in the following section Policy framework.
Regarding specific sport legislation, the following laws do apply to
sports:
• Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006.

• Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Regulations 2006.
• Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987.
• Australian Sports Commission Act 1989.
The ASC’s enabling legislation is the Australian Sports Commission Act

1989, which defines the Commission’s role, along with its corporate gov-
ernance and financial management framework. As a statutory authority
of the Australian government, the ASC is accountable to the Minister for
Sport (ASC, 2014:56).
Policy Framework
Historically, national collaboration on sports policy development has been

complex and challenging in Australia given its federated system of gov-
ernment. It was not until an Expert Independent Sports Panel reviewed
the Australian sports system in 2008 that significant momentum and evi-
dence was produced to align Australia’s sports system. The panel’s report,
32 C. Brockett
The Future of Sport in Australia (Crawford, 2009), was direct and blunt
about the necessity of establishing a clear and transparent national sports
vision and policy framework.
The Australian government responded with a new policy—Australian
Sport: Pathway to Success—adopted in 2010. Acknowledging the need
for change, the policy provided a holistic approach to strengthening the
sports sector as a whole, through enhanced partnerships and collabora-
tion across and between governments and sporting organisations.
A significant achievement illustrating the new era in collaboration and
cooperation in Australian sport was the establishment of the National
Sport and Active Recreation Policy Framework (NSARPF), developed in
consultation with the sport and active recreation sectors and endorsed
by the Commonwealth and State and Territory Ministers for Sport and
Recreation in February 2011.
The NSARPF is a guide for the development and alignment of poli-
cies, strategies and programs for governments, and defines priority areas
for cooperation with underpinning objectives and measures. Such pri-
orities include: (1) increased participation in sport and active recreation,
particularly in targeted subpopulations; (2) success in international com-
petition; (3) strong national competitions; (4) system sustainability (from
club level to national level); (5) system alignment and collaboration; (6)
helping to meet broader objectives (wider public policy and social inclu-
sion outcomes); and (7) research and data review on sport and active
recreation activities (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011).
The National Institute System Intergovernmental Agreement (NISIA)
complements the framework by providing an agreed policy and commit-
ment by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments (except
New South Wales) to actively contribute to the national planning process
for the development and delivery of high-performance sport. NISIA is
the roadmap to enhance the way institutes and academies of sport col-
laborate together with (national) sporting organisations to identify and
develop sporting talent, and ultimately deliver and support world-class
Australian athletes (Department of Health, 2011).
Working Together for Australian Sport is the Australian Sports
Commission’s Strategic Plan for 2011–2012 to 2014–2015 (see ASC,
2011a). The plan aligns and describes the ASC’s central role in contributing
to the achievement of the objectives detailed in the NSARPF. The ASC has
identified three externally focused goals and one management goal:
• Goal 1: Increased participation in sport.

• Goal 2: Increased international success.
• Goal 3: Sustainable sport.
• Goal 4: Enhanced ASC capability to lead, partner and support.
Within each goal, results, measures and key strategies are specifically
defined, and each year the Commission prepares an annual report which
details its performance against the agreed outcomes and reports on other
matters as required by the government.
Australia’s Winning Edge 2012–2022 was launched by the AIS in 2012
(see ASC, 2012). Developed in collaboration with state and territory gov-
ernments and key sports stakeholders (i.e. NSOs, AOC, APC, ACGA),
the national ‘rolling strategic plan’ identifies the key principles, actions
and outcomes required to advance elite sport in Australia. During this
period, Australia has set out a number ambitious international perfor-
mance targets, including being a top 5 medalling nation at the Summer
Olympics and Paralympics.
Complementing Australia’s high-performance sport policy (Winning
Edge), the ASC launched a new national grassroots policy in March 2015.
Play.Sport.Australia. is a national platform focused on boosting sport par-
ticipation with targeted initiatives, delivered by strategic, well-governed,
community-engaged, sustainable sporting organisations (ASC, 2015a).
4.3 Support
Financial Framework
National Support
The ASC is the Australian government body responsible for the delivery
of funding and development of Australian sport. In this capacity, the
ASC is positioned at the top of the Australian sport hierarchy (Sotiriadou,
34 C. Brockett
2009) and, as such, is considered the ‘principal’ according to Principal-

Agent theory (Gowthrop, 2014).
A significant proportion of ASC budget is provided to NSOs and
NSODs in the form of direct funding (see Table 4). In addition, the
ASC also provides grants to sporting organisations and individual
sportspeople through programmes such as the Elite Indigenous Travel
and Accommodation Assistance programme, Local Sporting Champions,
Women Leaders in Sport, National Officiating Scholarship, Pacific Sport
Partnerships, and dAIS Athlete grants (ASC, 2015d).
Table 3 shows the ASC expenditure for its main performance out-
comes: (1) improved participation in structured physical activity, par-
ticularly organised sport, at the community level; (2) excellence in sports
performance and continued international sporting success.
Table 4 gives an overview of the ASC funding to NSOs and NSODs
in the period 2013–2014.
To optimise the return on the Australian government’s investment in
sport, the ASC introduced the Annual Sport Performance Review (ASPR)
in 2011, whereby annual assessments are made of each NSO based on
their historical performance and future potential. Funding allocations are
influenced by factors such as the NSO’s governance, m anagement, finan-
cial management, self-sufficiency, stakeholder management, cultural sig-
nificance and integrity issues.
The ASC Board has the final responsibility for deciding how the ASC
should invest funds appropriated to the Commonwealth, and it works
closely with sport stakeholders to regularly review and evaluate the per-
formance funding processes to ensure equity and transparency. The ASPR
method describes the assessment process, as well as the key principles,
roles and responsibilities of NSOs. The following principles underpin
arrangements for all NSOs funded by the ASC (ASC, 2011b):
Table 3 Total expenses of the ASC for Outcome 1 and 2

Outcome 1 €67,530,650 AUD$107,562,000
Outcome 2 €125,275,943 AUD$199,538,000
Source: ASC (2014: 128); conversion rate 1 AUD = €0.627830.
Table 4 National Sporting Organisation (NSO) and National Sporting

Organisations for people with Disabilities (NSOD) 2013–2014 funding from ASC
AIS allocations €5,870,234 AUD$9,350,038
High performance €53,981,539 AUD$85,981,139
Participation €10,595,636 AUD$16,876,600
Whole of Sport €1,975,530 AUD$3,146,600
Sport grant €712,587 AUD$1,135,000
Other €3,902,723 AUD$6,216,210
Total €77,038,249 AUD$122,705,587
Source: ASC (2014: 177); conversion rate 1 AUD = €0.627830.
• NSOs are responsible for the development of their sport in Australia.

Funding is only provided to recognised NSOs with current strategic
plans supported, where required, with business plans.
• Funding is not an automatic entitlement, but is based on how an NSO
can contribute to achieving government outcomes in alignment with
the National Sport and Active Recreation Policy Framework.
• NSOs are accountable for performance. Accountability is defined by
agreed key performance targets.
• Funding is primarily focused on delivering future outcomes, but it is
informed by past performance.
• Funding is provided on an ongoing basis subject to outcomes of the
Annual Sport Performance Review.
• The ASC invests in sports that are culturally important to Australians
and which meet performance targets.
Regional and Municipal (Local) Support
Each state and territory department of sport has their own budget that
provides grants and subsidies for state sporting associations and clubs
(Cuskelly et al., 2013). Funding commonly supports facility develop-
ment, sporting events, athlete travel assistance, sporting equipment,
inclusive sport programs and regional sport and recreation program
development. The state/territory governments also provide funding to
their respective State Institutes and Academies of Sport (SIS/SAS) which
host the daily training environment of many national-level elite athletes.
36 C. Brockett
Local governments/councils typically do not contribute funding to

national or even state sporting organisations. However, many offer sport
grants to local clubs and local sportspeople for initiatives focused on
sport development, education, club diversity, facility development/main-
tenance, and sporting equipment.
Other Resources
Sponsor and media funding (such as television rights) can be other rev-
enue streams for national sporting organisations; however, the reality is
that most sports in Australia, with the exception of non-Olympic profes-
sional sports and some high-profile Olympic sports, rely predominantly
on government funding for their primary revenue stream. In 2009, the
highest sponsored sports were: Australian Rules Football ($332m), Tennis
Australia ($131m), Cricket Australia ($116m), Football Federation
Australia ($97m), the Australian Rugby Union ($72m), and the total
revenue generated for these five sports in 2009/2010 from media/televi-
sion rights was collectively $469m (ASC, 2010b).
Governance and Management Support
The ASC is the prime funder of NSOs, but it also has the responsibility of
working with NSOs to ensure effective sport development practices are
implemented from community participation to high-performance level.
The ASC provides NSOs with guidelines and services designed to assist
policy development in areas such as: governance, sport integrity, partici-
pation and membership development, coaching and officiating, high-
performance planning, sport sciences, commercialisation/sport business,
and facility management. An ‘ASC NSO partnership manager’ further
supports the NSO in customising and prioritising their development
needs. Importantly, however, while the ASC assists NSOs in building
organisational capability and capacity, it is ultimately the NSOs’ respon-
sibility to develop (in consultation with delivery stakeholders) relevant
and effective policy plans and budgets. Undoubtedly, many NSOs receive
significant value from this service support, but it has also been suggested
that some larger, more mature NSOs, are hindered by the ASC’s involve-
ment in their planning and operations (Gowthrop, 2014).
The Confederation of Australian Sport (CAS) also provides services
and industry networking benefits to its member NSOs to enhance their
professional and organisational capacity. Core services include strategic,
governance, regulatory, advocacy and marketing advisory services (CAS,
2015).
5 Conclusion
The Australian sports system has embarked on significant reform in recent
years following growing concerns of a disjointed, inefficient national sport
system, decreasing community participation in sport, and the rising costs
of international sporting success coupled with Australia’s declining medal
success at benchmark world events (such as the Olympics, Paralympics or
individual World Championships).
The Future of Sport in Australia (Crawford, 2009) provided a compre-
hensive examination of the state of Australian sport, and confirmed that
if Australian sport was to have a successful future, it required the right
structure and governance. Fundamentally, that meant a stronger national
network with a united vision for sport, and a government delivering
effective leadership to the whole sport sector.
The Commonwealth, state and territory sport ministers agreed on a
holistic and strategic approach to the organisation and development of
sport and recreation policy at community and elite levels. This landmark
agreement in 2011 resulted in the adoption of Australia’s first National
Sport & Active Recreation Policy Framework (NSARPF).
In accordance with the NSARPF, and reflective of the principal–agent
relationship between Australia’s sport government agency and national
sport organisations, the ASC executed leadership and commitment to
engage and unite sporting stakeholders, particularly NSOs, through its
elite sport policy Australia’s Winning Edge and, more recently, its sport
participation policy Play.Sport.Australia. Both of these policies highlight
38 C. Brockett
the role and intentions of the ASC/AIS to deliver national sporting out-
comes via the strategic and accountable support of NSOs.
To use a sporting analogy, after more than five years of consultative
reform (training), Australia is at the starting line, ready to test its per-
formance in the international ‘contemporary sports policy’ race. The
race has just begun. Time will tell if this nationally agreed ‘sport-run,
government-supported’ model is enough to realign and streamline the
delivery of sustainable sporting outcomes to all Australians.
References
ASC Australian Sports Commission. (2010a). Participation in exercise recreation
and sport. Annual report 2010. Canberra: Australian Government.
ASC Australian Sports Commission. (2010b). Australian Sport Money League.
Canberra: Australian Government.
ASC Australian Sports Commission. (2011a). Working together for Australian
sport. Strategic plan 2011–2012 to 2014–2015. Canberra: Australian
Government.
ASC Australian Sports Commission. (2011b). Overview for national sporting
organisation funding and performance review. Canberra: Australian
Government.
ASC Australian Sports Commission. (2012). Australia’s Winning Edge
2012–2022. Canberra: Australian Government.
ASC Australian Sports Commission. (2014). Annual report 2013–2014.
Canberra: Australian Government.
ASC Australian Sports Commission. (2015a). Play.Sport.Australia. Canberra:
Australian Government.
ASC Australian Sports Commission. (2015b). About. Corporate structure.
http://www.ausport.gov.au/about/structure (retrieved 8 December 2015).
ASC Australian Sports Commission. (2015c). Supporting sport. Funding and
grant. FAQs. http://ausport.gov.au/supporting/funding/about/faq (retrieved
8 December 2015).
ASC Australian Sports Commission. (2015d). Supporting. Funding and grants.
Grants and scholarships. http://ausport.gov.au/supporting/funding/grants_
and_scholarships (retrieved 8 December 2015).
Australia. (2015a). About. Key facts. Cities, states, territories. http://www.aus-

tralia.com/about/key-facts/cities-states-territories.aspx (retrieved 8 December
2015).
Australia. (2015b). About Australia. Our government. http://www.australia.gov.
au/about-australia/our-government (retrieved 8 December 2015).
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Children’s participation in cultural and
leisure activities, Australia, 2012. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsfPr
oducts/4901.0~Apr+2012~Main+Features~Sports+participation?OpenDoc
ument (retrieved 8 December 2015).
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2015). Participation in sport and physical recre-
ation, Australia. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4177.0
(retrieved 8 December 2015).
CAS Confederation of Australian Sport. (2015). About. Mission, heritage &
commitment. http://www.sportforall.com.au/?page_id=57 (retrieved 8
December 2015).
Clearinghouse for Sport. (2015). Structure of Australian sport. https://secure.
ausport.gov.au/clearinghouse/knowledge_base/organised_sport/sport_sys-
tems_structures_and_pathways/structure_of_australian_sport (retrieved 8
December 2015).
Commonwealth of Australia. (2011). National sport and active recreation frame-
work. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Crawford, D. (2009). The future of sport in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth
of Australia.
Cuskelly, G., Wicker, P., & O’Brien, W. (2013). Australia. In K. Petry &
K. Hallmann (Eds.), Comparative sport development. Systems, participation
and public policy. (pp. 225–236). New York: Springer.
De Bosscher, V., Shibli, S., Westerbeek, H., & van Bottenburg, M. (2015).
Successful Elite Sport Policies. An international comparison of the Sport Policy
factors Leading to International Sporting Success (SPLISS 2.0) in 15 nations.
Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.
Department of Health. (2011). National institute system intergovernmental agree-
ment. Canberra: Australian Government.
Department of Health. (2014a). Agency resources and planned performance.
Budget statements. Canberra: Australian Government.
Department of Health. (2014b). Health budget 2014–15: Encouraging good
health through sport. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/budget/publishing.
nsf/content/budget2014-hmedia11.htm (retrieved 8 December 2015).
40 C. Brockett
Department of Health. (2015). About sport. http://www.health.gov.au/inter-

net/main/publishing.nsf/Content/about-sport (retrieved 8 December 2015).
Eime, R. M., Sawyer, N., Harvey, J. T., Casey, M. M., Westerbeek, H., & Payne,
W. R. (2015). Integrating public health and sport management: Sport par-
ticipation trends 2001–2010. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 207–217.
Gowthrop, L. (2014). Perceptions of Australian Sports Commission (ASC) and
National Sporting Organisation (NSO) high performance staff on their organisa-
tional relationship and its effect on managing Olympic performance. (Doctor of
Philosophy), Griffith University.
Henry, I. (2009). European models of sport. Governance, organisational change
Routledge.
Hoye, R., & Nicholson, M. (2011). Australia. In M. Nicholson, R. Hoye, &
B. Houlihan (Eds.), Participation in sport—International policy perspectives.
(pp. 223–237). London: Routledge.
Kivistö, J. (2008). An assessment of agency theory as a framework for the gov-
ernment–university relationship. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 30(4), 339–350.
OECD. (2014). OECD Factbook 2014: Economic, Environmental and Social
Statistics, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Sotiriadou, P. (2009). The Australian sport system and its stakeholders:
Development of cooperative relationships. Sport in Society, 12(7), 842–860.
The World Bank. (2013). Urban population. http://data.worldbank.org/indica-
tor/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS (retrieved 8 December 2015).
The World Bank. (2014). Land area. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.
LND.TOTL.K2 (retrieved 8 December 2015).
Belgium: Flanders — Sport Federations
and Governmental Sport Bodies
Elien Claes, Jeroen Scheerder, Annick Willem,
and Sandrine Billiet
1 Introduction
The organisation of sports in Belgium is strongly influenced by the
specific political structure of the Belgian state. The constitutional revision
in 1970 has led to cultural autonomy at the level of the communities.
As part of the cultural sphere, governmental competences with regard
to sports became the sole responsibility of the communities (Scheerder
& Vos, 2013; Scheerder, Zintz, & Delheye, 2011). Because the Belgian
state has no direct competence regarding sport policy, this chapter will
focus on the case of Flanders. There are clear differences in terms of
sport policy and sport federations between Flanders and the southern
E. Claes (*) • J. Scheerder

Policy in Sports & Physical Activity Research Group, KU Leuven, Belgium
A. Willem • S. Billiet
Department of Movement & Sport Sciences, Ghent University, Belgium

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0_3
42 E. Claes et al.
part of Belgium, Wallonia. This chapter will focus solely on the relation-
ship between sport federations and governmental bodies in Flanders.
According to the principle of horizontal subsidiarity, governmental bodies
should not make decisions if they can be made both efficiently and fairly
by non-governmental sport organisations. The principal–agent model will
be applied to study the relationship between the main governmental body
for sport in Flanders as the principal, and the Flemish sport federations
as the agents. This principal–agent relationship is based heavily on the
way sport is structured and the sport federations are steered (legislative and
policy framework) and supported (financial, governance, managerial) by
the government. Consequently, these will be the three main themes we
will analyse in the chapter, after giving a short country (sport) profile of
Belgium/Flanders.
2 Country Profile
Belgium’s surface amounts to approximately 30,000 square kilometres.
It has a population of two time about 11 million inhabitants, resulting
in a population density of 364 inhabitants per square kilometre and an
urbanisation rate of 98 per cent. With a per capita GDP of US$40,838
(OECD, 2014), the standard of living is fairly high compared with the
European Union average.
Belgium is a federal state made up of three communities and three regions.
The three communities—the Flemish community, the French community,
and the German-speaking community—are responsible for personal mat-
ters such as culture, education, welfare, health, sports and language. Of
the regions, Flanders is the most populous (59 per cent of the population),
followed by Wallonia (31 per cent). The third region, the Brussels-Capital
Region, contains the other 10 per cent of the Belgian population. A small
group of German-speakers live in the East Cantons bordering Germany.
The country is divided into 10 provinces and 589 municipalities (Table 1).
Belgium is organised as a parliamentary democracy under a constitu-
tional monarchy, strongly corresponding to the Rhineland model, which
is based on political consensus, a long-term policy vision, and the active
involvement of the government (Albert, 1991, 1992). Belgium is one of
Belgium: Flanders — Sport Federations and Governmental Sport Bodies 43
Table 1 Facts and descriptives of Belgium

Population (number of inhabitants) 11,239,755
Area (km²) 30,528
Political organisation Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Number of provinces 10
Number of municipalities 589
GDP per capita (US dollars)** 40,838
Number of official languages 3
EU membership Since 1952
Welfare model Rhineland
Sources: *The World Bank (2013); **OECD (2014).
the founding members of the European Union and its capital, Brussels,
hosts several official European seats and the headquarters of a number of
international organisations. Since the 1970s a political process of feder-
alisation has taken place, resulting in the transformation of Belgium from
a unitary state towards a balanced federal state whose political power and
institutions are segregated into three levels: (1) a federal government; (2)
three community governments; and (3) three regional governments. As
a consequence, sports is the responsibility of the communities and the
national approach to overall sport policy is limited.
3 Sport in Belgium
The structuration of the Belgian state influences the organisation of sports
in Belgium (Scheerder & Vos, 2013). Since the constitutional revision of
1970, there is no longer any national governmental body on sports in
Belgium. Hence, according to the principle of subsidiarity, i.e., that pol-
icy matters are handled by the least centralised competent authority, the
Flemish community, the French community and the German-speaking
community each have their own policy structures and legal instruments
(e.g., decrees) to rule sport matters (Scheerder & Vos, 2013).
The latest sport participation study from 2014 among Flemings
between 15 and 86 years of age indicates a stagnation in the number of
44 E. Claes et al.
people who have engaged in sports over the past five years (2009–2014)
(Scheerder, Borgers, & Willem, 2015a). This finding is consistent with
international trends. In the year 2014, some 60 per cent participated in
sporting activities. There appears to be a policy challenge to stimulate the
remaining 40 per cent of the Flemish population to adopt a physically
active lifestyle through sports. Sport participation also tends to decrease as
one gets older. Thus, in the youngest age group (15 to 17 years) more than
80 per cent engage in sports, whereas among the over-65s the figure is only
40 per cent. Men (66.9 per cent) participate more in sports than women
(58.7 per cent). One in four Flemings practice sports in a club, equating
to 40 per cent of the active population. Approximately 85 per cent prac-
tice sports on a solely recreational level. Recreational cycling, walking and
running make up the top three of the most popular sport activities among
adults. Fitness and soccer complete the top five for men and fitness and
swimming for women. These sports can be practiced individually, without
any need for a strong club structure or membership and are often health
related (Scheerder, Borgers, & Willem, 2015a, 2015b). Sport clubs play an
important role in the organisation of sport activities in Flanders, but this
position is increasingly challenged by the growing impact of both public
authorities and commercial organisations, and by individual and infor-
mal sport settings (Scheerder, Vandermeerschen, Borgers, Thibaut, & Vos,
2016; Scheerder, Vandermeerschen, Meganck, Seghers, & Vos, 2015).
Like in most Western European countries, in Belgium leisure-time sport
has traditionally been dominated by voluntary sport clubs (Scheerder,
Vandermeerschen, Meganck, Seghers, & Vos, 2015). In Flanders, there are
approximately 22,650 sport clubs, of which 76 per cent belong to a sport
federation that is recognised and or/subsidised by the Flemish government
(Flemish Government, 2014). In 2015, Flanders had 92 recognised sport
federations, of which 38 represent and administer one particular sport,
27 recreational sport federations represent one or more sports and four
organisations for sporty leisure (including traditional and international
folk games, air sports and animal sports) (Table 2). These federations are
financed by the Flemish government. Besides 23 sport federations are
recognised but not financially supported (Sport Flanders, 2015).
Table 2 Sport profile of Flanders (Belgium)

Sport
Government authority responsible for sport Flanders
Membership sport club (%)* 16
Membership fitness or health centre (%)* 11
Membership socio-cultural club that includes sport in its activities (e.g. 7
employees’ club, youth club, school- and university-related club) (%)*
Sports participation, at least once a week (%)* 48
Number of Flemish sport federationsa 92
Number of sport clubs 22,650
Number of sport club membersb 1,539,038
Average number of members per clubc 89.4
Flemish budget for sport (€) (× 1000)*** 129,699
Flemish budget for sport federations (€ ) (× 1000)*** 34,533
Local budget for sport (× 1000) (€ )*** 330,753
Share of economic value of volunteers in sport in the GDP (%)** 0.19
Sources: *European Commission (2014); **GHK (2010: 217); ***Késenne,
Vanreusel, and Van Langendonck (2007), www.Bloso.be.
a
92 sport federations that are recognised and or/subsidised by the Flemish
government. Approximately 90 other sport federations are not recognised but
are part of the Flemish sport federation landscape (Scheerder & Vos, 2013;
Scheerder et al., 2011).
b
Number of members of a recognised and/or subsidised sport federation in 2014.
c
Calculation for the average number of members of sport clubs that belong to a
sport federation that is recognised and or/subsidised by the Flemish
government (1,539,038/17,214).
The following sections of this chapter will examine the organisation of
sports in Belgium, and, more specifically, in Flanders. At first, we give
an overview of the main actors in the Flemish sport system, in order to
provide a clear insight in the context in which the relationship between
sport federations and the government is established.
4.1 Structure
The sport framework in Figure 1 provides an overview of the main govern-

mental, intermediate and non-governmental sport actors at the national,
regional and local levels. Although this framework is a simplified repre-
46 E. Claes et al.
BELGIUM/
governmental intermediate non-governmental
FLANDERS
BOIC
national
level ABCD Commission
national sport federations
Flemish Sport Council Flemish Sport

Confederation (VSF)
Taskforce Elite Sport
SVS
Flemish Ministry of Culture,
Youth, Sport and Media
Flemish
regional
level Sport Flanders
Sport
Employment
sport
(Flemish sport administration)
Flanders
federations
VTS ICES
ISB
local level municipalities sport clubs
Financing
Fig. 1 Sport framework of Flanders/Belgium

Note: ABCD Commission, consultation Adeps, Sport Flanders, BOIC and
German-speaking Community; Adeps, Administration of Physical Education,
Sport and Life Open Air; BOIC, Belgian Olympic Interfederal Committee; ICES,
International Center for Ethics in Sports; ISB, Flemish Institute for Sport
Administration and Recreation Management; Sport Flanders (= Sport
Vlaanderen), Flemish sport administration; SVS, Flemish Foundation for
Extracurricular School Sport; VSF, Flemish Sport Confederation; VTS, Flemish
Trainers School.
Source: Own processing based on Scheerder and Vos (2013: 11)
sentation of the reality, it gives a first image of the organisation of sports

in Flanders/Belgium and of the main relations between the different
actors, as well as the kind of relation which is represented by different
types of arrows.
The organisation of sports in Belgium is characterised by what Houlihan
(1997) describes as a fragmented administration of public policy, with a
major role being played by sport policy agents at the subnational level.
The following sections will discuss the most relevant sport actors in
Belgium on the governmental, intermediate and non-governmental side.
As regards the regional and the local level, the focus is on Flanders.
Governmental Actors
Although sport policy is essentially a community competence, there

are also aspects of sport policy that belong to the federal or state level
(Scheerder & Vos, 2014). Examples include the security in football stadi-
ums, the status of athletes and professional sport trainers, criminal cases
involving transfers, recognising healthy exercise as a preventive form of
public health, the recognition of an own nomenclature for sport medi-
cine, exemption or reduction on VAT for fitness and the construction of
sport infrastructure (federal matters), the construction and equipping of
regional sport infrastructure (regional matter), etc.
Nevertheless, the main responsibility for sports is the competence of
the communities. The communities regulate, among others, the recogni-
tion and subsidising of community sport federations, the qualification of
professionals managing sport and the coordination of elite sport through
the community ministry in charge of sport.
Sport Flanders, which operates from within the Flemish Ministry
of Culture, Youth, Sport and Media, is responsible for sport policy in
Flanders. In 2016, the Flemish Department of Culture, Youth Sports &
Media (which used to be in charge of the preparation and the evaluation
of the sport policy) and Bloso (the former Flemish sport administration,
which used to be in charge of the implementation of the sport policy)
were merged into Sport Flanders. This main governmental sport body
supports the Flemish government in the preparation and evaluation of
48 E. Claes et al.
the Flemish sport policy from grassroots sport to elite sport, and imple-
ments this policy. The mission and tasks of Sport Flanders are laid down
by decree (Flemish Government, 2004) and include, among others, the
support of sport stakeholders through funding or guidance, the conduc-
tion and coordination of sport promotion at the Flemish level and the
development of an elite sport policy.
At the local level, a major role with regard to sports is set out for the
municipalities. The municipalities have the main competence to support
and to subsidise voluntary sport clubs. Based on the subsidiarity prin-
ciple, the specific interpretation and implementation of Sport for All ini-
tiatives are handled by the local authorities. This was emphasised in 2012
through the issuing of a new decree concerning Sport for All policy at
the local level. The decentralisation of sport policy actions, as well as the
strengthened role of local sport departments as regulators of grassroots
sport policies, were the core principles of the legislation (Scheerder & Vos,
2013; Vos, Wicker, Breuer, & Scheerder, 2013). However, in 2016 the
legislation for local sport policy changed once again in order to increase
the autonomy of the municipalities and to decrease the administrative
burden. As a result, the Flemish subsidies for several policy domains
such as culture, sport, youth, development aid, etc., were integrated in
the overall dotation that Flemish municipalities already receive from the
Flemish government. Hence, municipalities no longer receive targeted
subsidies from the Flemish government to reach specific Sport for All
goals (Flemish Government, 2014). Questions arise whether the local
sport administrations will be able to acquire at least the same resources
as was previously the case or whether they will receive less of the total
municipalities’ budgets.
Non-Governmental Actors
National (Belgian) sport federations function merely as a national

umbrella to represent the country in international sport organisations
and competitions (Scheerder et al., 2011). In this regard, national sport
federations are supported by the Belgian Olympic and Interfederal
Committee (BOIC), which is responsible for the athletes’ selection for
and participation in the Olympic Games.
The regional-level structure of sport federations is the most significant.

The umbrella organisation for sport federation in Flanders is the Vlaamse
Sportfederatie (VSF—Flemish Sport Confederation). The Flemish Sport
Confederation represents the member sport federations (up to 90)
towards the government and supports them on legal, administrative,
organisational and policy levels.
Sport clubs are linked directly to their sport federation. Sport federa-
tions can also have provincial departments that link the sport clubs with
the sport federation. Flanders counts over 20,000 relatively small clubs.
Most of these (around 85 per cent) can be categorised as single-sport
clubs, offering one sport, whereas about 15 per cent can be categorised
as multi-sport clubs, offering more than one sport (Scheerder, Seghers,
Meganck, Vandermeerschen, & Vos, 2015).
In addition to the umbrella organisation for sport federations, there are
also umbrella organisations for sport administration and recreation man-
agement at the municipal level (ISB1), extra-curricular sport in schools
(SVS2), the employment of sport coaches and monitors (Sport Employment
Flanders3), and the International Center for Ethics in Sports (ICES). All
of these organisations receive funding from the Flemish government in
return for reaching specific targets that are related to their support for other
organisations, namely sport federations, sport clubs, local sport administra-
tions, and schools, in specific areas, such as ethics or hiring trainers.
Intermediate Actors
The remaining sport actors can be considered as intermediate actors, bal-

ancing between the governmental and non-governmental side.
The ABCD Commission, a meeting between the sport administrations
of the three communities and the BOIC, needs to ensure the execution of
the principle of subsidiarity with regard to elite sports.
The Flemish Sport Council is an advisory body with independent
experts as well as representatives of civil society. The council has the
1
ISB stands for Vlaams Instituut voor Sportbeheer en Recreatiebeleid vzw.
2
SVS stands for Stichting Vlaamse Schoolsport.
3
Sport Employment Flanders stands for Sportwerk Vlaanderen vzw.
50 E. Claes et al.
autonomous authority to formulate directly, on demand or on its own

initiative, advice on sport policy.
The Flemish Trainers School (VTS4) is a structural partnership
between Sport Flanders, the Flemish universities and graduate schools
with physical education curricula and the Flemish Sport Confederation
(VSF) as the representative of its member sport federations recognised
by the Flemish government. Through this partnership, the sport sector
managed to assemble all the providers of qualitative training and coach-
ing (volunteers and professionals), for recreational and professional sport.
4.2 Steering
The overview of the most relevant actors and the organisation of sport in
Flanders gives us the opportunity to examine the relationship between
sport federations and the government. The arrows in the sport framework
in Figure 1 indicate that there is a direct link between the Flemish sport
federations and the main sport governing body, Sport Flanders, as is also
the case in France and Slovenia. The Flemish Sport Confederation (VSF)
has no steering role with regard to the sport federations, but operates
as a mediating and supporting organisation for its member federations.
The Flemish Sport Confederation does not operate as a linking partner
between the sport governing body and the sport federations, as is the case
in the Netherlands. The Flemish sport federations (as agents) are steered
by the government (as principal) based on a legislative framework. As
described in the introductory chapter, the principal-agent relationship
is conceptualised as a relationship between ‘two (or more) parties when
one, designated the agent, acts for, on behalf of, or as a representative for
the other, designated the principal, in a particular domain of decision
problems’ (Ross, 1973: 134). The principal–agent relationship between
sport federations and the government in Flanders is based on the decree
on sport federations, where the government involves the sport federations
in achieving certain sport policy goals in return for financial support.
4
VTS stands for Vlaamse Trainersschool.
In the following sections the legislative and policy framework will be

scrutinised as well as the impact of the latter on the relationship between
sport federations and the government.
The government policy towards sport federations in Flanders has been

expressed in several versions of the decree on sport federations (1977, 1999,
2001 and 2017), each of which encompass a revised sport policy vision.
The main goal of the decree of 1977 was to split the former national
sport federations into a Flemish and a Walloon wing. Quality assurance
was the main focus of the new decree of 1999. The criteria for recogni-
tion and funding were updated in order to meet the new policy objec-
tives. The decree on sport federations of 1999 was replaced, barely two
years later, by the decree of 2001. The reason for this rapid change was
the need to correct a number of imbalances that had been created by the
previous decree. The decree of 2001 makes a distinction between single
sport federations (which deal with one sport), recreational sport federa-
tions (dealing with one or more sports) and organisations for sporty lei-
sure and is based on a list of recognised sport branches. Sport federations
who offer one or more of these sport branches can qualify for funding.
To be included in the list, a sport either needs to have Olympic status
or there must be physical effort involved in practicing the sport. The
disadvantage of this system is that ‘new’ sports that are not on the list
cannot qualify for funding.
In the most recent sport policy plan (2014–2019), the Flemish Minister
of Sports ascertains a strong heterogeneity between the sport federations
regarding size, professionalism, media attention, financial capacity, etc.
Financially, the Flemish sport federations appear to be heavily dependent
on government subsidies. The rationalisation objectives of the decree of
2001 were not achieved and the mechanisms to encourage cooperation
and mergers between federations failed to achieve the desired effect. In
addition to the efficient use of available resources based on a rationalisa-
tion, the minister also aims to improve the quality of sports. Furthermore
the purely quantitative criteria (the number of members and staff) for
52 E. Claes et al.
the allocation of subsidies appear to be outdated. The evaluation rounds

during the previous legislative period 2009–2014 proved that a modifi-
cation of the decree of 2001 was required. The current decree of 2017
must ensure that federations are more efficient, more vigorous and can
work more efficiently by 2020, so that within the resources more bud-
get is available to invest in the quality of the provision of sport activi-
ties of the federations and their clubs. A justified rationalisation of the
Flemish sport federation landscape and awarding operating grants based
on qualitative criteria (e.g., good governance), rather than on the number
of members, therefore, plays a central role in the decree of 2017, as well
as quality improvement, accountability and result orientation (Flemish
Government, 2014; Scheerder, Claes, & Thibaut, 2016).
The decree of 2017 prescribes a list of criteria for sport federations to
be recognised by the Flemish government: these include, among other
things, providing an insurance policy for staff and members, submitting
an annual financial report and drawing up a policy plan every four years.
Since 1999, recognition does not automatically correspond to subsidisa-
tion. Sport federations who want to qualify for funding must offer one or
more sport branches on the list of recognised sports and must also meet
nine conditions: (1) being recognised as a sport federation by the Flemish
government; (2) having a minimum number of members; (3) offering
sporting activities to all members of sport clubs in a responsible manner;
(4) registering all members; (5) keeping accounts in accordance with pre-
determined rules; (6) submitting annual accounts and balance sheets that
are approved by the General Assembly; (7) collecting membership fees
from the members of their sport clubs; (8) submitting a policy plan with
the operation, quality assurance and impact measurement for each basic
task; and (9) the employment of at least one staff member with profes-
sional sport qualifications.
In addition to the recognition and funding criteria, a distinction is
made in terms of funding for basic tasks and for policy focus points. The
basic tasks relate to the organisation of competitive and/or recreational
sport, the organisation of training courses, offering guidance to sport
clubs, communicating with members, clubs, the government and other
stakeholders and the promotion of the sport branch(es). In addition, the
sport federations can sign up for policy focus points to receive additional
subsidies. These tasks are related to different policy objectives. Through

the mandatory inclusion of quality management and performance mea-
surement in the policy of sport federations, more attention is paid to
quality insurance within the federations.
The decree of 2017 also includes recognition and funding criteria for
the Flemish Sport Confederation, the organisations for sporty leisure, a
platform for sport for the disabled and an organisation for risky martial
arts. Within the organisations for the sporty leisure, four clusters are dis-
tinguished: the traditional folk games, international folk games, animal
sports and air sports.
Policy Framework
Each community in Belgium has its own sport policy. A notable differ-
ence is found between the sport policy of the Flemish community and the
French community. The sport policy in Wallonia, the French-speaking
southern part of Belgium, is characterised by regulation and monitor-
ing, whereas by contrast civic involvement in sports and a strong com-
mitment to the Sport for All ideology are the main features of the sport
policy in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking northern part of Belgium (Vos
et al., 2013). In common with the Nordic countries, Flanders was one of
the pioneering regions in Europe to launch large-scale Sport for All cam-
paigns at the end of the 1960s (Scheerder, Vandermeerschen, Borgers,
Thibaut, & Vos, 2013; Vanreusel, Taks, & Renson, 2002). The subsidiar-
ity principle has been emphasised in Sport for All policies, which empha-
sise that matters should be dealt with by the least centralised competent
authority. As mentioned before, the Flemish government is responsible
for the recognition and subsidising of sport federations. In contrast, the
support and subsidising of voluntary sport clubs is the main competence
of local governments (i.e., municipalities) (Scheerder & Vos, 2013).
Based on the decree on sport federations, the government, as prin-
cipal, enlists the help of the sport federations, as agents, to support the
achievement of the policy goals. Every four years the sport federations are
required to submit their policy plans, including the operation, quality
assurance and impact measurement for each of the organisation’s basic
54 E. Claes et al.
tasks. The five main basic tasks set out the lines of the playing field for
the sport federations, but they have the autonomy to fulfil them accord-
ing to their own objectives, vision and mission. In addition, the sport
federations can sign up for policy focus points to receive extra subsidies.
The federations who sign up are expected to develop a programme of
action to promote one of the five policy objectives: (1) youth sport; (2)
accessible sports; (3) innovation; (4) sport camps; and (5) elite sport.
Similar to the policy objective of ‘accessible sports’, within the previous
decree of 2001 there was an optional task to engage with ‘priority target
groups’. The Flemish government aimed to promote sport participation
of a specific target group. The priority group has changed during the
course of each policy period. From 2003 to 2004, for example, the policy
focused on people with an immigrant background, from 2006 to 2008
on people with disabilities, from 2009 to 2012 on people above 55 years
of age, and from 2013 until 2016 on healthy sport participation of the
youth in sport clubs. A relatively low number of federations have agreed
to take part in these programmes, which could be an indication that there
is a gap between the intentions and objectives of the government and the
situation in practice.
Under the development of the recent decree on sport federations of
2017, the Flemish government strives to empower the sport federa-
tions by giving them more autonomy and by basing the output fund-
ing on quality indicators. The decree includes a simplification of the
administrative tasks for federations. As stated by the Flemish government
itself, the implementation of the new decree of 2017 will result in their
role shifting from controlling and patronising to guiding, directing and
coaching, or, in other words, from a situation of paternalism to one of
empowerment (Flemish Government, 2014).
The combination of horizontal subsidiarity principle (Henry, 2009)
and the legislative framework results in the establishment of a principal–
agent relationship between the government and the sport federations.
The relationship is characterised by a direct form of delegation. The gov-
ernment sets the goals that sport federations are expected to achieve and
then allows the federations to pursue those goals with little interference
(Nielson & Tierney, 2003). The government, as principal, delegated the
basic tasks and policy focus points to the sport federations, as agents, to
support the achievement of the policy goals.
The core assumption of the principal–agent model is that the relation-

ship is inherently problematic, because it means that the principal has
less access to information because it does not carry out the task itself.
In such a situation there is a conflict of interest and information asym-
metry in the benefit of the agent, which enables the agent to serve its
own interests at the expense of the principal. The agent is obedient to
the principal, but the principal cannot conduct adequate monitoring,
which could result in imperfect agent behaviour because the agent can
exploit its autonomy and minimise its efforts on behalf of the principal
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Geeraert & Drieskens, 2015a; Nguyen, 2011). The
evaluation of the decree on sport federations of 2001 revealed ‘imperfect
agent behaviour’ problems in the principal–agent relationship between
the government and the sport federations. For instance, mechanisms to
encourage cooperation and mergers between federations have failed, and
a gap has emerged between the intentions and objectives of the govern-
ment and the realisation in practice with regard to the optional tasks.
Through a range of different mechanisms, principals can align their
interests with the interests of the agents. Control mechanisms can be
installed by the principal either before or after delegating tasks to agents
in order to prevent, or at least reduce, the problem of imperfect agent
behaviour. In the principal–agent relationship between the government
and the sport federations, financial mechanisms are implemented in
order to adjust and unify the interests of both parties. In the following
section, we will discuss these financial mechanisms, and consider how the
sport federations are financially supported by the government.
4.3 Support
Sport federations in Flanders play an important role in the provision of

sport activities. Almost one and a half million Flemings come in touch
with sports in an active way through club-organised sport. In this sense,
sport federations perform a significant social function. Moreover, the fed-
erations carry out many objectives of Flemish sport policy. In the realisa-
tion of these tasks sport federations are, to a large extent, supported by
the Flemish government. In the following section we will examine the
conditional subsidy policy which is applied by the government and the
56 E. Claes et al.
influence it has on the principal–agent relationship with the sport federa-

tions. With regard to governance and management support, the Flemish
Sport Confederation plays a major role, as laid down in the decree on
sport federations.
Financial Framework
In line with the community competences with regard to sports, the pub-
lic financing of sports is the responsibility of the communities and the
municipalities. As the focus of this contribution is on the relationship
between the government and the federations, we will conduct a further
examination of the subsidising mechanism for sport federations.
As already mentioned above, there are two main sources of subsidies
for sport federations in Belgium. On the one hand, federations receive
general subsidies to support the staff and operating costs in exchange for
fulfilling the basic tasks laid down in the decree. If sport federations fulfil
these basic tasks, subsidies are awarded based on the number of members
(quantitative) and also on a basket of quality principles (qualitative). The
input-based funding mechanisms detailed in the decree of 2001 were
reformed into an output-related funding system based on both quantita-
tive and qualitative criteria. These qualitative criteria are based on three
quality principles: (1) the scope of the federation; (2) the quality of sup-
ply; and (3) good governance. On the other hand, sport federations can
sign up for the policy focus points in return for extra funding.
The total amount of subsidies for sport federations evolved from just
under 20 million in 2004 to over 32 million in 2013. This development
is both due to an increase in subsidies for basic tasks, as an increase in
subsidies for optional tasks. More than 65 per cent of the subsidies is
granted for the basic tasks (€21.7 million in 2013), with the remain-
ing 35 per cent being advanced for the optional tasks (€10.7 million in
2013). In 2013, more than three-quarters of the budget for optional tasks
went to elite sport. The optional task related to youth sport follows some
way behind, with less than 20 per cent of the budget. Finally, relatively
few resources were allocated to ‘sport camps’ and to addressing the ‘prior-
ity target groups’. This situation also reflects the interest and willingness
of the sport federations to subscribe. A large part of the resources of sport

federations is spent on the salary of the staff employed by the sport feder-
ation. According to the most recent figures (2014), the Flemish sport fed-
erations employ a total of 346 full-time equivalents (FTEs) (Scheerder,
Claes, & Thibaut, 2015; Thibaut, Scheerder, & Claes, 2015).
Recent research indicates that in 2014 the average Flemish sport fed-
eration depended on public funding for 44.7 per cent of their income,
meaning that they received 55.3 per cent from other sources. An extrapo-
lation analysis shows that the Flemish sport federations, in addition to
their public funding, generate €40 million of their own income (from
sponsorships, contributions by clubs or other organisations, and so on).
In sum, the total financial volume of the sport federations sector amounts
to approximately €72.4 million (Scheerder, Claes, & Thibaut, 2015;
Thibaut et al., 2015).
Another important renewal, the introduction of management agree-
ments between the government and the sport federations, will influence
the future nature of the principal–agent relationship. Each Olympic cycle
an agreement will be drawn up in order to optimise the implementa-
tion of the basic tasks of the federations. Based on these agreements,
each sport federation will be monitored, supervised and coached by the
appointed file manager within the government.
These management agreements can be regarded to be a mechanism
introduced by the government, the principal, in order to unify the inter-
ests of both parties and to avoid imperfect agent behaviour on the part
of the sport federations. Following an annual evaluation of the engage-
ments made in the management agreement, it will be possible to make
a proportional adjustment of the basic subsidies until the agreements
are fulfilled. By including this possibility, the government, the princi-
pal, implements a form of sanctioning towards the sport federations, the
agents. This monitoring system relates to the police patrol technique of
oversight where, analogous to the use of real police patrols, the principal
engages in a centralised, active, and direct surveillance over the agent,
and in this way discourages agency laxity (Geeraert & Drieskens, 2015b;
McCubbins & Schwartz, 1984).
Whereas the decree of 2001 focused principally on product monitor-
ing, the decree of 2017 also provides the possibility for government mon-
58 E. Claes et al.
itoring of the process. At the same time, more autonomy is given to the
federations to shape their policy plan and to determine their own priority
areas for the future.
One of the objectives in the decree on sport federations is to ensure inte-

gral quality assurance in the preparation and implementation of the policy
plans of the sport federations. To achieve this, Sport Flanders, in coop-
eration with the Flemish Trainers School, annually organises in-service
training for staff and coaches and provides practical tools and guidelines
in the formulation and implementation of the basic tasks. Overall, how-
ever, the governance and management support from the government to
the sport federations is limited. Changes might occur in the future based
on the recent decree of 2017 with the introduction of the management
agreements and a file manager for each sport federations.
The Flemish Sport Confederation has a major role to play with regard
to the governance and management support for sport federations. The
umbrella organisation is in charge of representing the member sport fed-
erations towards the government and of supporting their members at
the legal, administrative, organisational and policy levels (both Sport for
All and elite sport). The organisation supports the member federations
through targeted, practical support in various subthemes, like policy
planning, good governance and financial, human relation, strategic and
communication management.
The Flemish Sport Confederation played its role during the devel-
opment process of the new decree on sport federations of 2017. It was
involved in each of the different phases of the process. In this regard the
confederation surpassed its previous mediating and supporting role and
assumed a steering role in favour of its member federations.
Although the major task of the Flemish Sport Confederation is to repre-
sent and support the sport federations, it also provides direct management
support to sport clubs. Through a rather unique government-subsidised
project, the Dynamo Project, the Flemish Sport Confederation obtains
means, on a yearly basis, to develop and provide management support
for sport clubs, ranging from more strategic support to legal support and
tools to aid clubs in their financial management. The support is provided
through a helpdesk, training sessions and workshops, the availability of
tools (software, practical manuals and documentation), and access to free
consulting. As a result of these structures, the government indirectly sup-
ports the management and professionalisation of sport clubs and assists
the sport federation by reducing the task of helping sport clubs in their
professional management. It is also a form of rationalisation of the sup-
port towards federations because rather than every federation developing
its own management support for its clubs, the Dynamo Project is central-
ising this and thereby generating economies of scale.
5 Conclusion
This chapter has analysed the relationship between the main sport govern-
ing body and the sport federations in Flanders. The associations between
the actors in the Flemish sport landscape indicate that the principal–
agent model can be applied to the direct relationship between the sport
governing body and the sport federations. The government fulfils the
principal role, the sport federations the agent role and the Flemish Sport
Confederation operates as a mediating and supporting organisation for
its member federations, as is also the case in other countries such as, for
example, France and Slovenia. The Flemish Sport Confederation does
not operate as a linking partner between the sport governing body and
the sport federations, as is observed in the Netherlands. In this regard,
the sport policy system in the Netherlands is rather characterised by a
co-governance relationship (Groeneveld, 2009). In the Netherlands sport
policy is developed by a national sport policy network including the main
governmental and non-governmental bodies, which relates to the social
configuration of Henry (2009) and the shared responsibility organisation
of sport of Houlihan (1997).
The principal-agent relationship between the main sport governing
body and the sport federations in Flanders is the consequence of three
main characteristics: (1) the way sport is organised; (2) the steering by
the government, based on a legislative and policy framework; and (3)
60 E. Claes et al.
the (financial) support sport federations receive from the government.

A new decree was developed and implemented in 2017 striving for a
justified rationalisation of the Flemish sport federation landscape, with
quality improvement, accountability and result orientation as guiding
principles. The new decree must ensure that federations are more effi-
cient, more vigorous and can work more efficiently by 2020. The Flemish
government strives to empower the sport federations by giving increased
autonomy to the federations and by the introduction of output funding
based on quality indicators. With the implementation of the new decree,
the role of the government might shift from controlling and patronising
to more guiding, directing and coaching. Consequently, it can be expected
that the current principal–agent relationship will change towards a more
shared responsibility relationship (Houlihan, 1997), based on management
agreements between the sport governing body and the sport federations.
It is not expected, however, to go as far as the sport policy network in the
Netherlands. The management agreements can be considered as control
mechanisms introduced by the government—the principal—to unify the
interests with the sport federations—the agents—and to avoid imperfect
agent behaviour. Whereas the decree of 2001 focused principally on prod-
uct monitoring, the decree of 2017 provides the possibility for the govern-
ment to monitor the process. At the same time more autonomy was given
to the federations to shape their policy plan and to determine their own pri-
ority areas for the future. However, it remains to be seen whether the decree
of 2017 will induce substantive changes or only surface-level changes.
Sport federations, as intermediary agents between the state and its citi-
zens, are in a good position to understand the needs of their members on
the one hand and to meet the expectations of the government on the other.
Sport federations act as guardians and deliverers of sport who contribute to
the achievement of the government’s wider social and economic agenda.
References
Albert, M. (1991). Capitalisme contre capitalisme [Capitalism versus capitalism].
Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Albert, M. (1992). The Rhine model of capitalism. An investigation. European
Business Journal, 4(3), 8–22.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency theory. An assessment and review. The Academy

of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.
European Commission. (2014). Sport and physical activity. (Special Eurobarometer
412). Brussels: European Commission.
Flemish Government. (2004). Decreet van 7 mei 2004 betreffende het intern ver-
zelfstandigd agentschap met rechtspersoonlijkheid ‘Sport Vlaanderen’ [Decree of
May 7, 2004 relating to the internally autonomous agency with legal personality
‘Sport Flanders’]. Brussels: Flemish Government.
Flemish Government. (2014). Beleidsnota sport 2014–2019 ‘Door samenspel
winnen’ [Policy paper sport 2014–2019 ‘winning through teamwork’]. Brussels:
Flemish Government.
Geeraert, A., & Drieskens, E. (2015a). Theorising the EU and international
sport: The principal–agent model and beyond. Sport & EU Review, 7(1), 6–22.
Geeraert, A., & Drieskens, E. (2015b). The EU controls FIFA and UEFA: A prin-
cipal–agent perspective. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(10), 1448–1466.
GHK. (2010). Volunteering in the European Union. Educational, Audiovisual &
Culture Executive Agency (EAC-EA) and Directorate General Education
and Culture (DG EAC). Brussels: GHK.
Groeneveld, M. (2009). European sport governance, citizens and the state.
Finding a (co-)productive balance for the twenty-first century. Public
Houlihan, B. (1997). Sport, policy and politics. A comparative analysis. London:
Routledge.
Késenne, S., Vanreusel, B., & Van Langendonck, N. (2007). Publieke geldstro-
men voor de sport in Vlaanderen (Onderzoek in opdracht van de Vlaamse minis-
ter voor Cultuur, Jeugd, Sport & Brussel) [Public financing for sport in Flanders
(Research commissioned by the Flemish Minister for Culture, Youth, Sport and
Brussels)]. Brussels: Steunpunt Sport, Beweging & Gezondheid.
McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight over-
looked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science,
28(1), 165–179.
Nguyen, H. (2011). The principal-agent problems in health care: Evidence from
prescribing patterns of private providers in Vietnam. Health Policy Plan,
26(1), 53–62.
Nielson, D. L., & Tierney, M. J. (2003). Delegation to international organiza-
tions: Agency theory and World Bank environmental reform. International
Organization, 57(2), 241–276.
62 E. Claes et al.
OECD. (2014). OECD Factbook 2014. Economic, environmental and social sta-
tistics. OECD Publishing.
Ross, S. (1973). The economic theory of agency: The principal’s problem.
American Economic Review, 63, 134–139.
Scheerder, J., & Vos, S. (2013). Belgium: Flanders. In K. Hallmann & K. Petry
(Eds.), Systems, participation and public policy, Bookseries: Sports Economics,
Management & Policy, vol: 8, Comparative sport development (pp. 7–21).
New York: Springer Science.
Scheerder, J., & Vos, S. 2014. De krijtlijnen van het speelveld. Organisatie en
planning van sport en sportbeleid in Vlaanderen [The outlines of the playing field.
Organisation and planning of sports and sports policy in Flanders] (Management
& Bestuur in Sport 7) (2de uitgave). Gent: Academia Press.
Scheerder, J., Borgers, J., & Willem, A. (2015a). Sportdeelname in Vlaanderen.
Trends en profielen [Sport participation in Flanders. Trends and Profiles]. In
J. Lievens, J. Siongers, & H. Waege (Eds.), Participatie in Vlaanderen 2. Eerste
analyses van de Participatiesurvey 2014 [Participation in Flanders 2. First analy-
sis of the Participation Survey 2014] (pp. 209–249). Leuven/Den Haag: Acco.
Scheerder, J., Borgers, J., & Willem, A. (2015b). Sportdeelname in Vlaanderen.
De organisatorische context van sportbeoefening [Sport participation in
Flanders. The organizational context of sport participation]. In J. Lievens,
J. Siongers, & H. Waege (Eds.), Participatie in Vlaanderen 2. Eerste analyses
van de Participatiesurvey 2014 [Participation in Flanders 2. First analysis of the
Participation Survey 2014] (pp. 251–281). Leuven/Den Haag: Acco.
Scheerder, J., Claes, E., & Thibaut, E. (2015). Organisatie en management van
sportfederaties in Vlaanderen. Resultaten van het Vlaamse Sportfederatie Panel
2.0 (VSFP2.0) [Organisation and management of sports federations in Flanders.
Results of the Flemish Sports Federations Panel 2.0 (VSFP2.0)] (Management &
Bestuur in Sport 9). Gent: Academia Press.
Scheerder, J., Claes, E., & Thibaut, E. (2016). Barometer van sportfederaties in
Vlaanderen: de uitgebreide resultaten. Onderzoek naar bestuurlijke, innovatieve
en dienstverlenende aspecten op basis van de Leuvense GGISS-index [Barometer
of sport federations in Flanders: The comprehensive results. Study on governance,
innovative and service-based aspects based on the Leuven GGISS index] (Beleid
& Management in Sport 27). Leuven: KU Leuven/Onderzoeksgroep Sport- &
Bewegingsbeleid.
Scheerder, J., Seghers, J., Meganck, J., Vandermeerschen, H., & Vos, S. (2015).
Sportclubs in beeld. Resultaten van het Vlaamse Sportclub Panel 2.0 (VSP2.0)
[Sports clubs in the picture. Results of the Flemish Sport Club Panel 2.0 (VSP2.0)]
(Beleid & Management in Sport 23). Leuven: KU Leuven/Onderzoeksgroep

Sport- & Bewegingsbeleid.
Scheerder, J., Vandermeerschen, H., Borgers, J., Thibaut, E., & Vos, S. (2013).
Vlaanderen sport! Vier decennia sportbeleid en sportparticipatie [Flanders sport!
Four decades sport policy and sport participation] (Sociaalwetenschappelijk
onderzoek naar Bewegen & Sport 5). Gent: Academia Press.
Scheerder, J., Vandermeerschen, H., Borgers, J., Thibaut, E., & Vos, S. (2016).
El deporte en Bélgica/Flandes. De las políticas deportivas a la participación y
viceversa [Sport in Belgium/Flanders. From policy towards participation and
vice versa]. In R. Llopis-Goig (Ed.), Participación deportiva en Europa.
Políticas, culturas y prácticas, Bookseries: Sociología, vol. 316 (pp. 107–133).
Barcelona: Editorial UOC.
Scheerder, J., Vandermeerschen, H., Meganck, J., Seghers, J., & Vos, S. (2015).
Sport clubs in Belgium. In C. Breuer, R. Hoekman, S. Nagel, & H. van der Werff
(Eds.), Sport clubs in Europe. A cross-national comparative perspective, Bookseries:
Sports Economics, Management & Policy, vol. 12 (pp. 47–67). Cham: Springer.
Scheerder, J., Zintz, T., & Delheye, P. (2011). The organisation of sports in
Belgium. Between public, economic and social profit. In C. Sobry (Ed.),
Sports governance in the world: A socio-historic approach. The organization of
sport in Europe: A patch-work of institutions, with few shared points, Bookseries:
Sport Social Studies. Paris: Le Manuscrit.
Sport Flanders. (2015). Flemish sport federations. https://www.bloso.be/
Subsidiering/sportfeds_VSF_OSV/Pages/default.aspx (retrieved 2 June 2016).
The World Bank. (2013). Urban population. http://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS (retrieved 14 November 2014).
Thibaut, E., Scheerder, J., & Claes, E. (2015). Inkomsten van de georganiseerde
sportsector vanuit een bestuursperspectief [Revenues of the organised sport sector
from a governance perspective]. Praktijkgids Sportmanagement, II.3 Gemeentelijk
en provinciaal sportbeleid—Afl. 51/December 2015, Thi.1–Thi.26.
Vanreusel, B., Taks, M., & Renson, R. (2002). Belgium—Flanders. Origins,
development and trends of Sport for All. In L. P. DaCosta & A. Miragaya
(Eds.), Worldwide experiences and trends in Sport for All (pp. 379–400).
Oxford: Meyer & Meyer Sport.
Vos, S., Wicker, P., Breuer, C., & Scheerder, J. (2013). Sports policy systems in
regulated Rhineland welfare states. Similarities and differences in financial
structures of sports clubs. International Journal of Sport Policy, 5(1), 55–71.
Canada: An Evolving Sport System
Lucie Thibault
1 Introduction
In a number of recent publications Canada’s sport system has been the
object of research in recent publications. These have included many com-
parative works analysing Canadian high-performance sport system in rela-
tion to other countries’ sport systems (cf. Bergsgard, Houlihan, Mangset,
Nødland, & Rommetvedt, 2007; De Bosscher, Shibli, Westerbeek, & van
Bottenburg, 2015; Green, 2007; Green & Houlihan, 2005; Houlihan &
Green, 2008). Other works have specifically examined Canada’s sport sys-
tem from a variety of different perspectives (cf. Comeau, 2013; Donnelly,
2010a, 2010b; Donnelly & Harvey, 2011; Harvey, 2008; Havaris &
Danylchuk, 2007; Thibault, 2011; Thibault & Harvey, 2013; Thibault
& Kikulis, 2011). The renewed interest in Canada’s sport system and its
L. Thibault (*)
Department of Sport Management, Brock University,
St. Catharines, ON, Canada

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0_4
66 L. Thibault
policies may be the result of recent changes to sport in this country and
the concerted efforts of numerous stakeholders to work collaboratively
in order to reach high-performance sport goals as well as sport participa-
tion goals. In the following pages, government policies and programmes
are examined along with stakeholders (i.e., single-sport and multi-sport
organisations) operating in the non-profit sector at the national, provin-
cial/territorial, and local levels.
2 Country Profile
Before delving into the characteristics and structure of Canada’s sport sys-
tem, general data on the country and its people are provided in Table 1.
Canada is the world’s second-largest country in terms of land
(9,976,140 km2), surpassed only by the Russian Federation. The country
is encased by the world’s longest coastline. Distances in Canada can be
vast. Consider the Trans-Canada Highway, which at 7821 km in length is
longer than the distance from London to Bombay. More than 50 per cent
of Canada’s land is blanketed with rich forest ranges, which account for
10 per cent of the world’s remaining forests and 20 per cent of the world’s
Table 1 Facts and descriptives of Canada

Area (km2) 9,976,140
Density (inhabitants/km2) 3.6
Political organisation Parliamentary constitutional
monarchy
Number of provinces/territories 10 provinces / 3 territories
Number of municipalities** >2,000
Number of official languages English (59 % of the population)
French (23 % of the population)
Welfare model Anglo-American
Sources: *The World Bank (2013); **Federation of Canadian Municipalities
(2015) www.fcm.ca; ***OECD (2015).
remaining wilderness areas. Canada’s terrain incorporates a number of

mountain ranges and approximately two million lakes.
Canada is made up of ten provinces and three territories; the prov-
inces from west to east are: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island,
Nova Scotia and, furthest east, Newfoundland and Labrador. The terri-
tories are located to the north of the provinces and consist of: Yukon, the
Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. The two most populous provinces,
Ontario and Québec, account for 61.5 per cent of the Canadian popula-
tion. The majority of Canada’s population lives within 200 kilometres of
the border Canada shares with the United States of America. Canada has
a well-developed economy (high income country) and is among the rich-
est nations in the world (OECD, 2015).
3 Sport in Canada
Sport is an important part of Canada’s social, cultural, political, and
economic fabric. As an example of sport’s importance to Canada and
Canadians, the Governor General of Canada declared 2015 to be the Year
of Sport. The year 2015 to celebrate sport was based in large part on the
fact that Canada was hosting a number of national and international sport
events during this year (e.g., the Fédération Internationale de Football
Association (FIFA) Women’s World Cup; Pan American and Parapan
American Games). The Year of Sport celebrated high- performance
sport, sport participation, as well as the contribution made by volun-
teers, coaches, officials, and administrators all involved in leading sport
programmes, and events throughout Canadian communities (Governor
General of Canada, 2014). Before providing details of Canada’s sport
system, Table 2 presents an overview of Canada’s sport features.
Canada’s sport system has been moulded by both the United Kingdom
and the United States (Bergsgard et al., 2007; Green & Houlihan,
2005; Kidd, 1996). Through colonialism, Canada’s connection to the
Commonwealth resulted in the development of sport aligned with
British sport. In addition to Canada’s British Commonwealth heri-
tage, Canadian sport has been influenced by American sport, given
the country’s proximity to the United States. Americanisation has been
68 L. Thibault
Table 2 Sport profile of Canada

Canadian Heritage,
Government authority responsible for sport Sport Canada
Membership sport club 5,300,000
Sports participation, at least once a week (% of 25.8
population) 9,200,000
Number of national sport federations 61
Number of sport club members 5,300,000
National budget for sport (CAD$) ~225 million
National budget for sport federations (CAD$) ~200 million (including
hosting)
identified as an issue because Canada’s sport system includes numer-

ous elements common to United States’ sport. ‘Canadian sport has
been shaped by globalisation, as post-colonialism and, more recently, as
Americanisation’ (Bergsgard et al., 2007, p. 50). Americanisation and
the increasing commercial interests and commodification of Canadian
sport in general, and professional sport in particular, have been dis-
cussed. Concerns over ice hockey and the professional National Hockey
League becoming Americanised have surfaced (cf. Andrews & Jackson,
2001; Maguire, 2013).
In professional sports, Canadian athletes, and/or teams (i.e., mostly
male sports) actively participate in a number of prominent professional
leagues that are, for the most part, based in the United States. For the pur-
poses of this chapter, the focus will be on Canada’s amateur sport system,
including high-performance sport and sport participation. Amateur sport
in Canada is characterised by three levels of involvement—that is national,
provincial/territorial, and local. Furthermore two major types of organisa-
tions shape this sport system—that is public organisations (i.e., govern-
ment) and non-profit organisations. Even though it is beyond the scope
of this chapter, it is important to note that for-profit organisations are
involved in helping fund amateur sport through broadcasting rights (from
media conglomerates) and through sponsorships and endorsements (from
corporations). Canada’s amateur sport system is represented in Fig. 1.
Canada’s sport system include two major areas of foci: sport participa-
tion and high-performance sport. These areas as supported by policies,
programmes, and resources to enhance sport capacity and interaction
Public/Governmental Intermediate
Canada Non-profit organisations
organisations organisations
Single-sport
Department of Federal-
organisations
National level Canadian Heritage Prov’l/Territorial
Sport Committee
Multi-sport
Sport Canada
organisations
Single-sport and
Ministry responsible for recreation
Provincial/ sport and recreation organisations
Territorial level
Multi-sport and
Ministry of education recreation
organisations
Community sport
Local government and recreation
department responsible Sport councils or clubs, teams,
for parks, recreation, commissions leagues
and sport
Local level
Schools
(primary, secondary
School boards
and post secondary)
Fig. 1 Overview of Canada’s sport system
within Canadian sport. These two elements are addressed in the follow-
ing pages in the section on structure and organisation of Canadian sport.
Some Canadians participate in international sport events as high-
performance athletes, and most participate in sport as members of a sport
club, league, or sport organisation. More recently, data on sport partici-
pation indicated approximately 11.95 million Canadians participate in
sport at least once a month (KPMG International, 2014). Participation
is mostly concentrated in a few sports, specifically golf, ice hockey, soccer,
baseball, volleyball, basketball, skiing, cycling, and swimming. For chil-
dren, soccer has surpassed ice hockey as the most popular sport (Canadian
70 L. Thibault
Heritage, 2012). Canadians are also involved as coaches, referees, volun-

teer administrators, and spectators. Concerns have been expressed about
the decreasing levels of active participation in sport while the indirect
involvement in sport continues to grow (i.e., coaches, referees, volunteers,
spectators) (Canadian Heritage, 2012; Thibault, 2011). Most alarmingly,
spectatorship of sport among Canadians was assessed at 40 per cent of
the population (aged 15 years and older) in 2010 while active participa-
tion in sport was 26 per cent. It is important to note that males out-
number females in all direct and indirect involvement in sport (Canadian
Heritage, 2012). Although Canada has achieved great results in interna-
tional sports in recent years, the weak sport participation statistics are of
great concern for policy makers.
Central to Canada’s sport system is the Government of Canada. The
Government of Canada is largely responsible for shaping the country’s sport
system. The federal government has been directly involved in Canadian
sport since 1961 when the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act was adopted.
Politicians at the time believed sport could be a great source of pride for
Canadians, that sport could serve to unite all Canadians from coast to
coast, and that sport could contribute to our nation’s identity (Thibault
& Harvey, 2013). With the adoption of the Fitness and Amateur Sport
Act, the government started a long-term relationship with sport stakehold-
ers, often in the form of policies, programmes, and financial resources.
Canada’s federal government is an important stakeholder in sport. As noted
by Bergsgard et al. (2007),
the increased salience of sport to governments reflects: first, its strong cul-
tural significance; second, its malleability as a resource to help deliver non-
sport government objectives; and third, its multi-dimensional character.
The increasing cultural significance of sport is indicated not only by the
growth in evidence that the public see sports opportunities and facilities to
be significant aspects of their quality of life, but also by the intense atten-
tion given to sport success or failure by national team and athletes, and by
clubs in international competitions. (p. 3)
Along similar lines, Houlihan (2005) explained that ‘the increasingly

prominent role of the state as variously promoter, regulator, resource
provider, manipulator and exploiter of sport is beyond challenge’

(p. 182). The Canadian federal government has held a prominent role
in the development of its sport system. The funding provided by Sport
Canada, a federal government unit of the Department of Canadian
Heritage is, for the most part, invested in single-sport and multi-sport
organisations operating at the national level. The federal government
along with national sport organisations (NSOs) are generally respon-
sible for high-performance sport. With the introduction of the first
Canadian Sport Policy (Sport Canada, 2002), more attention has been
devoted to sport participation by the federal and provincial/territorial
governments. In Canada, health and education are provincial/territo-
rial jurisdiction so it is not surprising to know that sport participa-
tion is aligned with provincial/territorial, and local governments as well
as provincial/territorial, and local sport organisations. In the case of
provincial and territorial sport organisations, funding is provided by
provincial and territorial governments. The level of funding depends
greatly on the size (i.e., population) and resources of the province/ter-
ritory. As for local sport organisations, community clubs, leagues, and
teams, their revenues originate from their organisation’s membership
with some subsidies provided by local governments. The subsidies may
be in the form of access to public sport and recreational spaces and
facilities at reduced rates.
Canada’s sport system has experienced greater levels of collabo-
ration among sport stakeholders as a result of the Canadian Sport
Policy (Sport Canada, 2002, 2012), the introduction of the Long-
Term Athlete Development Model/Canadian Sport for Life strategy,
the development of the bid for the 2010 Vancouver Olympic and
Paralympic Winter Games, the creation of the initiative Own the
Podium, and the reconfiguration of some of the high-performance
Canadian Sport Centres into Institutes. Hosting the Vancouver 2010
Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games has led to new sport facilities
for the Greater Vancouver Area as well as increased resources for the
sport system. These resources have, for the most part, been invested in
high-performance sport.
72 L. Thibault
4 Organisation of Sport in Canada

4.1 Structure
Canada’s sport includes a complex network of public and non-profit

organisations operating at local community, provincial/territorial, and
national levels (see Fig. 1). The sport system has traditionally been led by
Sport Canada, which is the greatest single funder of sport in Canada. Its
focus includes high-performance sport as well as sport participation. Sport
Canada ‘provides leadership and funding to help ensure a strong Canadian
sport system which enables Canadians to progress from early sport expe-
riences to high-performance excellence. In order to achieve its mandate,
Sport Canada has a number of policies and funding programmes’ (Sport
Canada, 2015b, para. 2). Sport Canada invests in sport because sport
plays an important role in national pride, unity, and identity (Thibault &
Harvey, 2013). Sport’s contribution to pride, unity, and identity has been
highlighted by numerous researchers. Macintosh, Bedecki, and Franks
(1987) noted ‘the federal government’s efforts to promote high-perfor-
mance sport have also served to maintain and develop a Canadian sport
identity’ (p. 174). Bergsgard et al. (2007) explained that ‘over the last 100
years or so, the dominant theme in Canadian sport has been national iden-
tity’ (p. 48). In his overview of the motives behind government involve-
ment in sport, Harvey (2008) discussed sport ‘as an instrument of social
cohesion’ where international success of Canadian athletes ‘contribute to
fostering national pride as well as Canadian identity’ (p. 227).
In achieving national pride, unity, and identity through sport, the
Government of Canada, through Sport Canada, provides leadership,
support, and funding to the country’s sport system. Leadership, support,
and funding throughout the provinces and territories are also granted
by provincial/territorial, and local governments. As such, governments
at all levels play an important role in supporting numerous sport stake-
holders and organisations operating at the national, provincial/territorial,
and local levels. Limited coordination and cooperation amongst sport
stakeholders, sport organisations, and government units responsible for
sport have not always been conducive to the effective delivery of sport,
programmes and services in Canada. On this topic, Barnes, Cousens, and

MacLean (2007) noted that
while Sport Canada provided policies, funding and linkages between the
various NSOs [national sport organisations], the singular focus of each
NSO resulted in a highly fragmented sport system constituted by various
silos that were insulated from other sports and other providers of physical
activity. (p. 556)
The authors called for greater interaction amongst organisations operat-

ing in Canadian sport. The need for greater interaction amongst sport
organisations was addressed in the 2002 Canadian Sport Policy. As stated
in the policy, interaction ‘seeks to increase collaboration, communication,
and cooperation amongst the partners in the sport community, govern-
ment and the private sector’ (Sport Canada, 2002, p. 19). In comparing
sport systems, Bergsgard et al. (2007) explained that
the organizational systems of sport in Canada and England are much more
fragmented than in Germany and Norway. On the one hand German and
Norwegian con-federations of sport play central roles in the coordination
of sport and sport policies. The absence of strong coordinating bodies
within Canadian and English sport movements on the other hand, seems
to give government a more significant role to play in this respect. (p. 245)
Capacity was also raised in the 2002 Canadian Sport Policy as an important
element of the sport system and was defined as the ‘essential components
of the system required to achieve the sport participation and excellence
goals of this policy—such as coach/instructor education, facilities, sport
medicine, sport science, research and the use of technology—[to] meet
the needs of athletes/participants’ (Sport Canada, 2002, p. 18).
As is the case in many countries, in Canada, each sport has its own
NSO, provincial/territorial sport organisations, and local community
clubs, leagues, and/or teams. Given the size of the country and the number
of local communities and provinces and territories, a single sport (e.g.,
ice hockey, soccer, swimming) will have several organisations, volunteers,
coaches, officials, and administrators involved in its management to ensure
74 L. Thibault
it has the capacity to appropriately deliver sport throughout the country.

As a result, sport organisations rely on thousands of volunteer hours to
deliver their programmes, and services. Doherty (2005) reported that
‘1.17 million Canadians volunteer in organized sport, representing 5 %
of the Canadian population and 18 % of all Canadian volunteers’ (p. 4).
She explained that these volunteers ‘contribute an average of 143 hours/
year’ to sport programmes, and services for a ‘total of 167 million hours’ a
year, representing 87,140 full-time equivalents (based on 40 hours/week).
Volunteers with the assistance of paid staff are part of national, provincial/
territorial, and local sport organisations. These organisations are, for the
most part, responsible for the development and promotion of a single sport.
Numerous multi-sport organisations support these single-sport organisa-
tions. Examples of multi-sport organisations include Athletes CAN, the
Canadian Olympic Committee, the Canadian Paralympic Committee,
Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes, the Coaching Association of
Canada, KidSport Canada, Own the Podium, ParticipACTION, the Sport
Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, and WinSport Canada. Multi-sport
organisations are important stakeholders in supporting approximately 60
national single-sport organisations, their athletes, coaches, officials, vol-
unteers, and administrators (Sport Canada, 2015a). Some of these multi-
sport organisations also operate at the provincial/territorial level.
4.2 Steering
Based on Houlihan’s (1997) typology, Canada’s sport system could be

considered a fragmented administration of public policy where the
Government of Canada has, in the past, assumed a leadership role in sport’s
initial development while provincial and territorial governments are now
actively engaged in the development of sport policies and implementing
initiatives. In the following paragraphs, the leadership role initially played
by Sport Canada is outlined while the development of the Canadian Sport
Policy (Sport Canada, 2002, 2012) and other policies are addressed.
The Government of Canada, through Sport Canada, has played a
central role in developing Canada’s sport system through its policies,
support, and funding. Legislations have been developed since the fed-
eral g overnment’s involvement in sport (i.e., the 1943 National Physical

Fitness Act; the 1961 Fitness and Amateur Sport Act; and the 2003 Act
to Promote Physical Activity and Sport) (cf. Harvey, 2013; Kidd, 1996;
Macintosh et al., 1987). The recent Act to Promote Physical Activity
and Sport (Government of Canada, 2003) governs the involvement of
the federal government in sport and calls for the greater involvement
of provincial and territorial governments. The Act to Promote Physical
Activity and Sport ‘recognizes that physical activity and sport are inte-
gral parts of Canadian culture and society and produce benefits in terms
of health, social cohesion, linguistic duality, economic activity, cultural
diversity and quality of life’ (Government of Canada, 2003, p. 1). The
Act focuses on increasing sport participation, supporting excellence in
sport, and building the capacity of Canada’s sport system. As noted by
Harvey (2013), this legislation ‘stipulates that the minister may enter into
agreements with the provinces and territories for the payment of contri-
butions to Programmes to develop physical activity and sport’ (p. 45). It
is important to note that sport and physical activity ‘fall under two dif-
ferent administrative structures at the federal government level’ (Harvey,
2013, p. 46). Sport is located in the Department of Canadian Heritage
while responsibility for physical activity lies with the Ministry of Health
Canada.
In order to operationalise the Act to Promote Physical Activity and
Sport, Sport Canada leaders, their provincial and territorial government
counterparts, and various sport stakeholders collaboratively developed
the Canadian Sport Policy. The first Canadian Sport Policy covered
the period from 2002 to 2012 and addressed four specific priorities:
enhanced excellence; enhanced participation; enhanced capacity; and
enhanced interaction (Sport Canada, 2002). The subsequent version of
this policy covers the period from 2012 to 2022. The 2012 Canadian
Sport Policy Centres on five policy goals. These goals are ‘introduc-
tion to sport’, ‘recreational sport’, ‘competitive sport’, ‘high-perfor-
mance sport’, and ‘sport for development’ (Sport Canada, 2012, p. 3).
Sport excellence and sport participation remain priorities in the 2012
Canadian Sport Policy; however, more attention is now being devoted
to sport participation. This attention is based on the evaluation of the
2002 Canadian Sport Policy where the priority of enhancing sport par-
76 L. Thibault
ticipation was not fully achieved. As a result, the 2012 Canadian Sport
Policy includes the goals of introduction to sport, recreational sport,
and competitive sport where sport participation is emphasised. The
2012 Canadian Sport Policy is implicitly tied to a relatively new strategy
called Canadian Sport for Life (also known as the Long-Term Athlete
Development Model). The Canadian Sport for Life includes seven stages
that are connected to four of the five goals of the 2012 Canadian Sport
Policy (i.e., introduction to sport, recreational sport, competitive sport,
and high-performance sport). The seven stages of Canadian Sport for
Life are: Active Start, FUNdamentals, Learn to Train, Train to Train,
Train to Compete, Train to Win, and Active for Life (Canadian Sport
Centres, 2005; Canadian Sport for Life, 2011). By combining Canadian
Sport for Life/Long-Term Athlete Development Model with the 2012
Canadian Sport Policy, the efforts of multiple stakeholders (i.e., govern-
ments, non-profit sport organisations) are being streamlined.
In addition to the Act to Promote Physical Activity and Sport and
the Canadian Sport Policy documents (2002, 2012), Sport Canada has
developed various policies to guide government relationships with non-
profit sport organisations, to shape actions and spending, to protect ath-
letes, and the integrity of the sport system, and to actively work towards
inclusion, equity, and the access of all Canadians in sport (Sport Canada,
2015b; Thibault & Harvey, 2013). These policies and the year they came
into effect are provided in Table 3.
Table 3 Sport Canada policies and year(s) of adoption/revision

Policies Year adopted/revised
Federal Government Policy on Tobacco 1985
Sponsorship of National Sport Organizations
Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport 1967, 1978, 1983, 1996, 2000,
Events 2008
Canadian Policy Against Doping in Sport 1983, 1985, 1991, 2000, 2004,
2008, 2011
Actively Engaged: A Policy on Sport for Women 1986, 2009
and Girls
Sport Canada’s Policy on Aboriginal Peoples’ 2005
Participation in Sport
Policy on Sport for Persons with a Disability 2006
The first of these policies, Federal Government Policy on Tobacco

Sponsorship of National Sport Organizations, prevents NSOs funded by
the federal government from receiving any sponsorship from the tobacco
industry. The Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events gov-
erns how many sport events hosted in Canada (single-sport and multi-
sport events) receive financial support from the federal government. The
policy is deemed necessary to address increasing costs of hosting and to
provide Sport Canada with the ability to plan the funding of sport events.
The Canadian Policy Against Doping in Sport allows the Government of
Canada to comply with the World Anti-Doping Agency in order to pro-
tect athletes, and the integrity of high-performance sport. The remaining
three policies, Actively Engaged: A Policy on Sport for Women and Girls,
Sport Canada’s Policy on Aboriginal Peoples’ Participation in Sport, and
Policy on Sport for Persons with a Disability, target three groups of indi-
viduals who have been underserved in Canada’s sport system. Even though
these policies were developed at the federal government level, their prin-
ciples have been adopted throughout Canada’s sport system and provide
guidance for the operations of national sport organisations.
4.3 Support
Public funds are very important to Canada’s sport system. The extent
to which Sport Canada has been central to the country’s sport system is
largely based on the funding it invests in the operations of sport organisa-
tions, in support to athletes, and to hosting sport events. To achieve its
mandate, its policies, and the priorities and goals of the Canadian Sport
Policy and to fulfill the principles set out in the Act to Promote Physical
Activity and Sport, Sport Canada provides funding to many stakehold-
ers. Sport Canada has three major funding programmes: Sport Support,
Hosting, and Athlete Assistance. As part of its Sport Support Programme,
Sport Canada provides funding to non-profit national multi-sport and
single-sport organisations. Sport Canada’s funding often represents the
majority of NSOs’ yearly budget. The funding allows NSOs to support
programmes and services for participants, athletes, coaches, officials, and
administrators.
78 L. Thibault
The Hosting Programme operates in concert with the Federal Policy

for Hosting International Sport Events. Through this programme, Sport
Canada provides financial support to sport organisations that are host-
ing international single-sport and/or multi-sport events in Canada. Sport
Canada also provides funding for the hosting of national sport events
(e.g., Canada Games). Through the hosting programme and its policy,
Sport Canada is able to manage the sport, economic, social, and cultural
legacies of sport events.
With the Athlete Assistance Programme, Sport Canada provides monthly
stipends to approximately 1800 high-performance athletes to assist them
with their living and training expenses. Based on an athlete’s interna-
tional performance, he/she may receive a monthly stipend of $1500CAD
or $900CAD1 (Thibault & Babiak, 2013). In recent years, athletes have
been able to access additional funds from charitable organisations such as
Canadians Athletes NOW and B2ten. The Canadian Olympic Committee
(COC) also provides funds to athletes through its Athlete Excellence Fund.
Initiated for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, the COC introduced a
‘cash for medal’ programme. As a result, athletes receive money for win-
ning a medal at the Olympic Games.2 The COC extended this ‘cash for
medal’ programme to the coaches of medallists prior to the 2012 London
Olympic Games.3 The ‘cash for medal’ programme, however, does not
extend to Paralympians and their coaches.
In the 2013–2014 fiscal year, Sport Canada contributed a total
of $324 million (CAD) to Canada’s sport system, including nearly
$150.5 million through the Sport Support Programme, $147.2 mil-
lion through the Hosting Programme, and $26.3 million for the Athlete
Assistance Programme (Sport Canada, 2014). In the 2014–2015 bud-
get estimates, the Government of Canada (Treasury Board of Canada
Secretariat, 2014) has allocated $384.5 million (CAD) to Canada’s sport
system, including $142.8 million through the Sport Support Programme,
1
In euros, these monthly stipend represent nearly €1000 ($1500 CAD) or nearly €600 ($900
CAD) (based on currency conversion data from January 2016).
2
Canadian athletes receive $20,000CAD for a gold medal, $15,000CAD for a silver medal, and
$10,000CAD for a bronze medal (Thibault & Babiak, 2013).
3
Canadian coaches receive $10,000 (CAD) if their athlete wins a gold medal, $7500 (CAD) for a
silver medal, and $5000 (CAD) for a bronze medal (Thibault & Babiak, 2013).
$213.7 million through the Hosting Programme, and $28 million for
the Athlete Assistance Programme. The increase in funding between
2013–2014 and 2014–2015 is largely due to the hosting of the Toronto
2015 Pan American and Parapan American Games. Sport Canada’s fund-
ing to NSOs has increased in the past 10 years. Table 4 showcases Sport
Canada’s contributions to sport (Thibault & Harvey, 2013, p. 28).
Each year a proportion of Sport Canada’s funds are transferred to pro-
vincial and territorial governments in order to assist in the implementa-
tion of the Canadian Sport Policy, particularly with regard to increasing
the levels of sport participation among Canadians. These funds are evi-
dence of intergovernmental cooperation which is central to the Canadian
Sport Policy. As a requirement of these funds, provincial/territorial
governments are expected to match the federal government level of fund-
ing, thus doubling the funds earmarked for sport participation (Harvey,
2013).
At the national level, and specifically for high-performance sport, the
Canadian Olympic Committee (COC) and Own the Podium (OTP)
also distribute funds to NSOs. The COC provides funds to national
Summer and Winter Olympic sport organisations while OTP provides
funds to national Summer and Winter Olympic and Paralympic sport
organisations. In its 2014 Annual Report, the COC reports contribut-
ing $2.4 million (CAD) to 18 NSOs (Canadian Olympic Committee,
Table 4 Sport Canada contributions to sport since 2005 (in CAD)

Sport Canada
Year contributions ($)
2004–2005 121,735,422
2005–2006 133,241,616
2006–2007 138,302,344
2007–2008 136,558,878
2008–2009 151,350,728
2009–2010 160,113,348
2010–2011 197,105,538
2011–2012 198,908,005
2012–2013 210,793,641
2013–2014 324,063,659
2014–2015 384,567,829
(estimates)
80 L. Thibault
2014). OTP reported investing more than $34.3 million in Summer

Olympic and Paralympic sport organisations, and more than $21.5 mil-
lion in Winter Olympic and Paralympic sport organisations (OTP, 2015a,
2015b).
Fewer funds are invested in provincial/territorial sport organisations by
provincial/territorial governments. Local governments also support sport
and recreation by providing subsidies to local clubs, leagues, and teams
and/or by providing access to sport and recreation facilities for their com-
munity sport and recreation organisations. The public funds and subsi-
dies by various levels of government are extremely valuable to support the
network of non-profit organisations responsible for sport participation
and sport excellence. Proceeds from government-run lotteries are also
used to support societal needs including sport (high-performance sport
and sport participation) and recreation, arts, culture, education, social
services and health, and the environment.
From a theoretical perspective, the relationship between govern-
ment and sport organisations can be explained as resource dependency.
Resource dependence theory focuses on ‘the need for resources, including
financial and physical resources as well as information, obtained from
the environment [making] organizations potentially dependent on the
external sources of these resources’ (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003, p. xii). As
noted by Hoye, Smith, Nicholson, and Stewart (2015), ‘organizations
paradoxically seek stability and certainty in their resource exchanges by
entering into interorganizational arrangements which require some loss
of flexibility and autonomy’ (p. 306). In the context of sport, govern-
ments hold power over non-profit sport organisations in exchange of
financial resources to the sport organisations. These organisations’ reli-
ance on public funds leads to some loss of autonomy. With funding
from public sources, sport organisations must comply with measures of
accountability that have been put in place by government to ensure pub-
lic funds are spent appropriately. At the federal government level, a sport
organisation must apply and be assessed through Sport Canada’s Sport
Funding and Accountability Framework (SFAF) (Havaris & Danylchuk,
2007; Kikulis, 2013). If successful, the sport organisation receives Sport
Canada funding. A successful sport organisation will be well organised,
have a flourishing high-performance sport system in place (with athletes
achieving podium results), and will also have a strong base of members/
participants.
Provincial and territorial governments have their own systems in place
to ensure that public dollars are not wasted. Leaders of non-profit sport
organisations have to report yearly spending of public dollars and the out-
comes of this spending to government. In addition, all non-profit sport
organisations, regardless of the level at which they operate, must report
their activities to their membership at the Annual General Meeting and
they must report their fiscal activities yearly to government and their
members (i.e., audit reports). There are several mechanisms in place
to ensure that organisations are accountable and forthright about their
actions and where the organisational funds are invested.
For non-profit sport organisations, ensuring athletes achieve podium
results in international competitions and increasing the number of mem-
bers joining the sport and the number of Canadians who participate in
their sport are the best strategies to ensure ongoing financial support from
government, increased sources from membership fees, increased media
visibility, and the ability to secure corporate support. Non-profit sport
organisations, from clubs, leagues, teams to provincial/territorial sport
organisations, to NSOs operating in the same sport are connected and
must follow similar programmes, services, and procedures. In addition,
the programmes of some of the multi-sport organisations supporting sin-
gle-sport organisations lead to standardisation in how sport organisations
operate. For example, single-sport organisations are expected to develop
their Long-Term Athlete Development Model (Canadian Sport for
Life) and this model provides consistency in how the sport is d eveloped
from children’s and youth’s initiation to lifelong participation from the
local level to the national level. As another example, OTP, one of the
organisation responsible for Canada’s high-performance strategy, leads to
uniformity in how sport organisations develop strategies to access high-
performance sport funding and support.
Canada’s sport system differs little from the systems found in other
countries. As is evident from the work of Bergsgard et al. (2007); De
Bosscher et al. (2008); Houlihan (1997), and Green and Houlihan
(2005), Canada’s concerns for high-performance sport results in inter-
national competitions are common to many countries as are the issues
82 L. Thibault
of low levels of sport participation by its citizens. In their comparison of

three countries’ high-performance sport systems, Green and Houlihan
(2005) wrote ‘although the particular circumstances under which each
country gave greater priority to elite achievement vary, the general con-
text is remarkably similar’ (p. 168). They also noted that countries ‘had
used their considerable Olympic achievements to promote their politi-
cal objectives’ (p. 169). In their comparisons of four countries, Canada,
England, Germany, and Norway, Bergsgard et al. (2007) uncovered
tendencies toward convergence in high-performance sport. This con-
vergence was attributed to the fact that international competitions are
governed by international sport federations. As a result, NSOs must
comply with international sport federations’ regulations in order to par-
ticipate in international events (Bergsgard et al., 2007). The authors
reported on ‘a sharp focus on international competitiveness and system-
atic and professional coaching, the establishment of elite sport Centres
and the use of scientific methods to improve performance, are common
denominators of contemporary high-performance sport policies in the
four countries’ (p. 255).
In the area of sport participation, Bergsgard et al. (2007) found diver-
gence. They explained how sport for all is often a responsibility that is
held by local governments. As a result, ‘one may expect a greater variety
of adaptations regarding policies for mass participation’ (p. 255). The
increasing involvement of governments in sport participation is logical
given participation’s connection to health and the public good. Even
with greater government (federal, provincial/territorial) involvement in
sport participation and more resources invested in national, p rovincial/
territorial, and local sport organisations for sport participation however,
Canada’s focus on high-performance sport remains where most efforts
and funding appear to be invested. Kikulis (2013) questioned whether
we should support a sport system ‘that places medals above all else as
the only performance indicator of success and where the accumulation
of medals is seen as a symbolic representation of global superiority’ or a
sport system ‘where success is translated into nation building and lever-
aging the achievements of excellence by all our national athletes so that
the passion for excellence may be the health and well-being of Canadian
communities’ (p. 139).
5 Concluding Remarks
With the number of stakeholders involved in Canadian sport, issues of coor-
dination are often challenging both between non-profit sport organisations,
and between non-profit sport organisations, and governments. Working
collaboratively at all levels (i.e., local, provincial/territorial, and federal/
national) and ensuring collaboration between governments and non-profit
sport organisations are crucial to the effective operations of Canadian sport.
The level of coordination and interaction among all stakeholders is impor-
tant in achieving the goals of sport participation and high-performance
sport. In practice, however, collaboration among all stakeholders is chal-
lenging given the number of stakeholders, their different foci, and the size
of Canada. Governments’ relationships with sport organisations are often
characterised by resource dependency. Governments have regulated their
relationships with the non-profit sector by imposing policies and account-
ability measures. As such, governments have power over non-profit sport
organisations because these sport organisations need public funds and thus
must follow policies and procedures set by government. Negotiating these
relationships is sometimes difficult when sport organisations must acqui-
esce to the multiple demands and expectations of governments.
With recent increases in the level of investments in sport and enhanced
collaboration among federal and provincial/territorial governments with
regards to the Canadian Sport Policy, Canada’s sport system has greatly
benefited. As well, hosting numerous high-profile international sport
events in recent years has contributed to raising the profile and capac-
ity of sport in Canada. The contribution sport continues to make to
Canadian society, to the well-being of Canadians, and to national pride,
identity, and unity warrants support from all levels of governments and
involvement of an extensive network of non-profit sport organisations.
84 L. Thibault
References
Andrews, D. L., & Jackson, S. J. (2001). Sports stars: The cultural politics of sport
celebrity. London, UK: Routledge.
Barnes, M., Cousens, L., & MacLean, J. (2007). From silos to synergies: A net-
work perspective of the Canadian sport system. International Journal of Sport
Management and Marketing, 2(5/6), 555–571.
(2007). Sport policy: A comparative analysis of stability and change. Oxford,
UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Canadian Heritage. (2012). Sport participation 2010. Research paper. Ottawa,
ON: Canadian Heritage. Retrieved June 30, 2015 http://publications.gc.ca/
collections/collection_2013/pc-ch/CH24-1-2012-eng.pdf
Canadian Olympic Committee. (2014). Transforming Canada through the power
of sport. Canadian Olympic Committee. Annual report 2014. Retrieved July
2, 2015 http://olympic.ca/canadian-olympic-committee/governance/annual-
reports/.
Canadian Sport Centres. (2005). Long-term athlete development: Resource paper
V2. Canadian Sport for Life. Vancouver, BC: Canadian Sport Centres.
Canadian Sport for Life. (2011). LTAD stages. Retrieved January 13, 2013
http://canadiansportforlife.ca/learn-about-canadian-sport-life/ltad-stages.
Comeau, G. S. (2013). The evolution of Canadian sport policy. International
Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 5(1), 73–93.
De Bosscher, V., Bingham, J., Shibli, S., van Bottenburg, M., & De Knop, P.
(2008). The global sport race: An international comparative study on sports policy
factors leading to international sport success. Oxford, UK: Meyer & Meyer
Sport.
De Bosscher, V., Shibli, S., Westerbeek, H., & van Bottenburg, M. (2015).
Successful elite sport policies: An international comparison of the Sports Policy
Factors Leading to International Sporting Success (SPLISS 2.0) in 15 nations.
Maidenhead, UK: Meyer & Meyer Sport.
Doherty, A. (2005). A profile of community sport volunteers. Final report. Toronto,
ON: Parks and Recreation Ontario and Sport Alliance of Ontario.
Donnelly, P. (2010a). Own the podium or rent it? Canada’s involvement in the
global sport arms race. Policy Options, 31(1), 41–44.
Donnelly, P. (2010b). Rent the podium revisited: Reflections on Vancouver
2010. Policy Options, 31(4), 84–86.
Donnelly, P., & Harvey, J. (2011). Volunteering and sport. In B. Houlihan &
M. Green (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports development (pp. 55–71).
London, UK: Routledge.
Federation of Canadian Municipalities. (2015). What we do. Retrieved
November 30, 2015 http://www.fcm.ca/home/what-we-do.htm.
Government of Canada. (2003). Physical activity and sport act. Ottawa, ON:
Minister of Justice. Retrieved March 8, 2012 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/
PDF/P-13.4.pdf.
Governor General of Canada. (2014). A proclamation. Retrieved June 27, 2015
http://canada.pch.gc.ca/DAMAssetPub/DAM-PCH2-sport-sport/
STAGING/texte-text/yos-proclamation_1429297785716_fra.pdf?WT.
contentAuthority=13.0.
Green, M. (2007). Policy transfer, lesson drawing and perspectives on elite sport
development systems. International Journal of Sport Management and
Marketing, 2(4), 426–441.
Green, M., & Houlihan, B. (2005). Elite sport development: Policy learning and
political priorities. New York: Routledge.
Harvey, J. (2008). Sport, politics, and policy. In J. Crossman (Ed.), Canadian
sport sociology (pp. 221–237). Toronto, ON: Thomson Nelson.
Harvey, J. (2013). Multi-level governance and sport policy in Canada. In
L. Thibault & J. Harvey (Eds.), Sport policy in Canada (pp. 37–68). Ottawa,
ON: University of Ottawa Press.
Havaris, E. P., & Danylchuk, K. E. (2007). An assessment of Sport Canada’s
sport funding and accountability framework, 1995–2004. European Sport
Management Quarterly, 7, 31–53.
Houlihan, B. (1997). Sport, policy and politics: A comparative analysis. London,
UK: Routledge.
Houlihan, B. (2005). Public sector sport policy: Developing a framework for
analysis. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 40(2), 163–185.
Houlihan, B., & Green, M. (Eds.). (2008). Comparative elite sport development:
Systems, structure and public policy. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hoye, R., Smith, A. C. T., Nicholson, M., & Stewart, B. (2015). Sport manage-
ment: Principles and applications. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Kidd, B. (1996). The struggle for Canadian sport. Toronto, ON: University of
Toronto Press.
Kikulis, L. M. (2013). Contemporary policy issues in high-performance sport.
In L. Thibault & J. Harvey (Eds.), Sport policy in Canada (pp. 97–145).
Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.
86 L. Thibault
KPMG International. (2014). Benchmarking analysis on sport organizations. Retrieved

June 29, 2015 http://www.sport.fi/system/resources/W1siZiIsIjIwMTQvMDQv
MDQvMTRfNDNfMDRfMTk1X0tQTUdfQmVuY2htYXJraW5nX0FuY
Wx5c2lzX29uX1Nwb3J0X09yZ2FuaXphdGlvbnMucGRmIl1d/KPMG
%20Benchmarking%20Analysis%20on%20Sport%20Organizations.pdf.
Macintosh, D., Bedecki, T., & Franks, C. E. S. (1987). Sport and politics in
Canada: Federal government involvement since 1961. Montréal, QC &
Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Maguire, J. (2013). Reflections on process sociology and sport: ‘Walking the line’.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2015).
Level of GDP per capita and productivity. OECD StatExtracts. Retrieved
November 30, 2015 https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=
PDB_LV.
Own the Podium. (2015a). Summer sports 2014–2015. Retrieved July 2, 2015
http://ownthepodium.org/Funding/Summer-Sports-2014-2015.aspx.
Own the Podium. (2015b). Winter sports 2014–2015. Retrieved July 2, 2015
http://ownthepodium.org/Funding/Winter-Sports-2014-2015.aspx.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A
resource dependence perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sport Canada. (2002). The Canadian sport policy. Ottawa, ON: Department of
Canadian Heritage. Retrieved September 25, 2013 http://sirc.ca/sites/
default/files/content/docs/pdf/2002-the_canadian_sport_policy.pdf.
Sport Canada. (2012). Canadian sport policy 2012. Ottawa, ON: Department of
Canadian Heritage. Retrieved September 9, 2015 http://sirc.ca/sites/default/
files/content/docs/pdf/csp2012_en.pdf
Sport Canada. (2014). 2013–2014 Sport Canada recipients and contributions.
Ottawa, ON: Canadian Heritage.
Sport Canada. (2015a). National sport organizations. Retrieved December 18,
2015 http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/1414085745696/1414086180293.
Sport Canada. (2015b). Role of Sport Canada. Retrieved December 18, 2015
http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/1414510019083/1414510158761.
Thibault, L. (2011). Sports development and adult sport participation in
Canada. In B. Houlihan & M. Green (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports
development (pp. 243–252). London, UK: Routledge.
Thibault, L., & Babiak, K. (2013). Athlete development and support. In
L. Thibault & J. Harvey (Eds.), Sport policy in Canada (pp. 147–176).
Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.
Thibault, L., & Harvey, J. (Eds.). (2013). Sport policy in Canada. Ottawa, ON:
University of Ottawa Press.
Thibault, L., & Kikulis, L. M. (2011). Canada. In M. Nicholson, R. Hoye, &
B. Houlihan (Eds.), Participation in sport: International policy perspectives
(pp. 268–293). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2014). 2014–15 Estimates. Parts I and
II. The government expenditure plan and main estimates. Ottawa, ON:
Government of Canada. Retrieved September 24, 2014 http://www.tbs-sct.
gc.ca/ems-sgd/me-bpd/20142015/me-bpd-eng.pdf.
The World Bank. (2013). Urban population. Retrieved December 18, 2013
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS.
Denmark: The Dissenting Sport System
in Europe
Bjarne Ibsen
1 Introduction
The Danish sports system differs in several areas from other countries’
organisation and political regulation of sport. Therefore, the purpose of
this chapter is threefold: first, to describe how the organisation of sports
and government financial support and the regulation of the area differ
from that observed in other countries; secondly, to provide an explana-
tion of these differences; and thirdly, to discuss the pros and cons of the
Danish sports system.
B. Ibsen ()
Centre for Sports, Health and Civil Society, University of Southern Denmark,
Odense, Denmark

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0_5
90 B. Ibsen
2 Country Profile
Denmark has a population of 5,669,000 and extends over an area of
approximately 43,000 km², resulting in a density of 132 inhabitants per
km². In 2015, 12 per cent of residents were citizens of different ethnic
or cultural backgrounds other than Danish (Statistics Denmark, 2015).
Since 1849, Denmark has been a constitutional monarchy with a par-
liamentary system of government and a free market economy. The coun-
try’s standard of living is very high, with a GDP per capita of US$42,787
(OECD, 2014). Since 1973 Denmark has been a member of the European
Union, although it has not adopted the euro. The country is divided into
five regions and 98 municipalities. It has one of the most decentralised
public sectors in the world, since the municipalities are responsible for
the majority of the public tasks and expenses, including sport.
Over the past 50 years, governments have alternated between social
democratic and liberal/conservative. Denmark is a universal welfare state,
also referred to as the Scandinavian or Nordic model (Andersen et al.,
2007; Esping-Andersen, 1990) (Table 1).
Table 1 Facts and descriptives of Denmark

Population (number of 5,669,000
inhabitants)
Area (km²) 43,000
Urbanisation rate (%) 87
constitutional
monarchy
Structure of the state Unitary
Number of regions 5
GDP per capita (US dollars) 42,787
Number of official languages One
Welfare model Scandinavian
3 Sport in Denmark
Denmark has a relatively high level of sports participation. Among adult
Danes (16 years and above), the participation rates have increased from
just 15 per cent in 1964 to 61 per cent in 2016. Surveys also indicate a sta-
ble and high level of children’s sports participation, with between eight and
nine out of ten children participating in sport (Pilgaard & Rask, 2016).
The latest survey (from 2016) shows that 86 per cent of children and
39 per cent of adults had participated regularly during the previous year
in one or more sports activities in a voluntary club. The same study shows
that 25 per cent of the adults and 22 per cent of the children do some
kind of sport or exercise in a commercial fitness club, dance institute or
similar institution. The most popular way to do sport or exercise, how-
ever, is ‘on your own’ (as an individual on in a group), outside any kind
of voluntary, public or commercial organisation. In 2016, 62 per cent of
the adults and 47 per cent of the children did that regularly (Pilgaard &
Rask, 2016).
The development in sports participation has led to relative equality in
terms of participation rates both between men and women and between
young and old. There are, however, still many inequalities between socio-
economic groups and between people with a Danish background and
people with an ethnic and cultural background other than Danish.
The number of sports clubs in Denmark is estimated to be approxi-
mately 16,000. This includes independent branches (e.g., football,
handball and badminton) of large sports clubs. Most of these clubs
are members of one of the three national organisations for sport: the
National Olympic Committee and Sport Confederation of Denmark
(DIF), the Danish Gymnastic and Sports Association (DGI) and the
Danish Federation of Company Sport (DFIF) (Table 2).
Research into voluntary organisations is dominated by two theoretical
approaches to the explanation of how an area of society is organised. The
first explanation, known as ‘social origins theory’ or ‘path dependence
92 B. Ibsen
Table 2 Sports profile of Denmark

Ministry for
Government authority responsible for sport Culture
Membership sport club (share of adult population) (%)* 25
Membership fitness or health centre (share of adult 25
population) (%)*
Membership socio-cultural club that includes sport in its 10
activities (e.g. employees’ club, youth club, school- and
university-related club) (%)*
Number of umbrella organisations for sport 3
Number of national sports federations (member of DIF) 61
Number of sport clubs App. 16,000
Number of sport club members No exact figures
Average number of members per club 160
National budget for sport (2012) (€) 120,000,000
National budget for sport federations (2012) (€)a 97,000,000
Local budget for sport (2012) (€) 634,000,000
Share of economic value of volunteers in sport in the GDP 0.56
(%)**
Sources: *European Commission (2014)b; **GHK (2010: 217).
a
Non-governmental sports organisations (DIF, DGI and DFIF) and intermediate
sports organisations (excepted Finance Foundation for Horse Racing).
b
Several surveys in Denmark show a different and more valid picture:
Membership of sport club: 39 %. Membership fitness or health centre: 25 %.
theory’, explains the specific characteristics of the organisational system

in historical terms (Pierson & Skocpol, 2002; Salamon & Anheir, 1998;
Stinchcombe, 1965). It suggest that the organisational structure within
a country, which was formed several decades ago, has a tendency to con-
tinue, even though the social conditions that led to the formation of the
organisational system have now changed. According to this approach,
the organisational system largely reflects past ideological trends and social
conflicts and groupings. Both because there are strong vested interests
within the organisations that seek to maintain the system and because
over the years a number of institutional frameworks have been created,
the organisation system is ‘protected’ against new and competing forms
of organisation. This ‘protection’ is the result—among other things—of
legislation, the way that the public sector supports the sector and coop-
eration and exchange relations to the environment, which has created a
mutual dependency.
The second theoretical approach seeks to explain the organisational

system in terms of the current state of society, in which organisations exist
with a particular focus on the limits and possibilities that the political
system and the public sector provide (Micheletti, 1994). The societal role
of certain forms of organisation is partly conferred ideological status (e.g.,
associations’ and voluntary organisations’ role and legitimacy in relation
to the public sector and the commercial sector), while, in part, it is also
regarded in terms of the specific requirements made for certain organisa-
tions in the form of, inter alia, public support and conditions for public
support (see, e.g., resource dependence theory, Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).
We make the assumption that behind the analysis of the organisation
of sports in Denmark, the specific characteristics of the Danish sports
system can be explained both in terms of the social origins of the sports
system and also by the contemporary political framework and conditions
established for organisations and associations. In the following, we first
consider how sport is organised in Denmark. This is followed by an out-
line of the political framework with a focus on legislation. Finally, there is
an analysis of the level of public support for organised sports.
4.1 Structure
Figure 1 displays the organisation of sports in Denmark today at national,

regional and local levels and for governmental, intermediate and non-
governmental structures. Below, the most relevant sport actors in the
Danish sports system are described (Ibsen & Eichberg, 2012; Ibsen &
Ottesen, 2004).
At the national level the Ministry of Culture is responsible for sport,

because in Denmark both elite sport and ‘Sport for All’ are considered
to be important features of the culture. The Ministry of Culture has the
main responsibility for forming and adapting legislation on sport and
also for drawing up general agreements with the main sports organisa-
tions. The office for sport in the Ministry of Culture has a coordinating
94 B. Ibsen
DENMARK Governmental Intermediate Non-governmental
Ministry of Team Denmark

Culture
Sport Event Denmark
DIF DGI DFIF
Danish Foundation for Culture
and Sport Facilities
National level
IDAN Sport Studies
Lottery Pool National sport
Anti-Doping Agency federations
Finance Foundation for Horse Racing
District Regional Regional

Regional level Regions (5) federations associations divisions
Committees for
Company
distributing subsidies Clubs Clubs
Clubs
(9000) (6000)
(8000)
Local level Sport facilities
Municipal
councils (98)
Evening schools
Financing
Fig. 1 Sport framework Denmark. Note: DIF (The National Olympic

Committee and Sport Confederation of Denmark); DGI (The Danish Gymnastic
and Sports Associations); DFIF (The Danish Federation of Company Sport).
Source: Own processing based on Hallmann and Petry (2013).
role, developing and implementing the government’s sports policy and

managing the legislative basis and the financial framework in the area of
sport.
The five regions play almost no role in sports policy. Their main tasks
relate to the health system (hospitals), regional development and tourism.
At a local level, 98 municipalities are in charge of the public sports facil-
ities and of providing support to the local sports clubs. They have a major
role to play in local sports, which is regulated by the Act on the Allocation
of Financial Support to Non-formal Adult Education and Youth Activities,
which obliges them to support leisure, culture and sports associations.
The state and municipalities are responsible for providing a proper

framework for sport, while the sports clubs and non-governmental
sports organisations are responsible for organising and developing sports
activities.
The voluntary sports system consists of a network of non-profit organisa-

tions, comprising clubs, regional organisations, national sports federa-
tions and national umbrella organisations with the following common
characteristics: (1) voluntary membership; (2) a democratic decision-
making structure; (3) the formal independence of public authorities; and
(4) voluntary and unpaid work (Horch, 1982; Ibsen, 1992).
In contrast to many other countries, and as a consequence of its specific
history, sport in Denmark at the national level is organised into three major
umbrella organisations which have different aims, structures and ideologies:
The National Olympic Committee and Sport Confederation of Denmark
(DIF) is an umbrella organisation for 61 national sports federations, encom-
passing approximately 9000 local clubs and approximately 1,900,000
members. The organisation was founded in 1896 and became the central
organisation for a wide range of sports federations and also the body in
charge of organising Danish national championships. This led to natural
ties with the Danish Olympic Committee, a body founded in 1905 and
then merged with the DIF in 1993. The DIF governs both ‘Sport for All’
and ‘elite sport’ and at the national level the organisation is responsible for
issues of common interest across the different sports federations.
The Danish Gymnastic and Sports Associations (DGI) is the umbrella
organisation for 15 regional associations (decentralised units of the
DGI), which focus on the pursuit of ‘Sport for All’. In 2015, the DGI
has approximately 6000 clubs and 1,500,000 members. The origin of
this organisation was the Danish Rifle Shooting Association, founded in
1861, which later included (Swedish) non-competitive gymnastics, and
then evolved into the the DGI. This part of Danish sport was originally
a part of the agrarian movement in the rural areas of the country, with
ideals of sport other than those of the Olympics (DGI, 2014).
96 B. Ibsen
The Danish Federation of Company Sport (DFIF) has 80 local company

sports associations with approximately 370,000 members. The DFIF was
founded in 1946 and played the lead in developing a particularly Danish
tradition of merging the personal and professional spheres by engaging in
sporting activities with colleagues (Ibsen & Eichberg, 2012). The DFIF
provides sport and physical activities for people during their affiliation
to a workplace in approximately 8000 informal groups or clubs (DFIF,
2015).
While the DFIF focuses on company sport, the DGI and DIF mainly
have the same target group, namely the whole Danish population, with
a particular emphasis on promoting sports participation among young
people. Most of the clubs which are either members of the DIF or of the
DGI are, in fact, members of both of these organisations (60 per cent),
whereas, by contrast, there is almost no overlap between the DFIF and
the other two organisations.
Danish sports clubs have an average of 160 members, but this fig-
ure conceals a large diversity in terms of the membership of sports clubs
(Laub, 2013). The most important resource available to the sports clubs
is unpaid voluntary work. The latest survey of volunteering in Denmark
from 2012 showed that 11 per cent of the adult population take part in
some form of voluntary work in sport (Henriksen & Fridberg, 2014;
Ibsen, 2012).
All three organisations coordinate sport in Denmark and they repre-
sent and advise clubs and federations in their dealings with the state and
the public (Ibsen & Eichberg, 2012; Pfister, 2011). They have three main
purposes: (1) they organise tournaments, competitions and festivals; (2)
they devote considerable resources to holding courses for members; and
(3) they provide support, advice and inspiration to the sports clubs.
In addition to the more than two million members of sports clubs,
approximately 200,000 Danes are physically active in so-called ‘evening
schools’. These are non-profit organisations, which, among other leisure
and culture activities, offer courses in physical exercise (such as yoga,
Pilates and Callanetics). These evening schools receive money from the
municipalities based on the Act on the Allocation of Financial Support to
Non-formal Adult Education and Youth Activities. The evening schools
are not part of the formal sports system.
Intermediate Sport Actors: Semi-Governmental Institutions
Another uniqueness of the Danish sports system is that, even though

the government, in principle, does not have much influence on sport, in
Denmark we find a number of semi-governmental institutions for sports,
which in other countries either are included as part of a national organ-
isation for sport or part of the state department responsible for sport.
These institutions—called independent state organisations—are
all established by the state, which can decide to close or to change the
institutions. Their operation is based on legislation (most of them), they
rely primarily on state funding and the state appoints the members of
the board. There are six semi-governmental institutions for sport on the
national level in Denmark:
Team Denmark is an organisation under the Ministry of Culture. It
has the aim of promoting elite sport specified in the Act on Elite Sport.
The organisation’s mission is to develop Danish top-level sport in a
responsible manner on a social and ethical footing. They provide finan-
cial support to selected sports and their elite athletes benefit from either
financial support or expert assistance (Ibsen, Hansen, & Storm, 2010;
Team Denmark, 2015).
Sport Event Denmark’s most important task is to be part of the bid-
ding process for major sport events in an effort to attract such events to
Denmark. For years, their focus was on elite sports events, but in recent
years they have broadened their focus to also include recreational sport
(Sport Event Denmark, 2015).
The Danish Foundation for Culture and Sports Facilities’ mission is to
develop and support facilities in the field of sport, culture and leisure
(Danish Foundation for Culture and Sports Facilities, 2015).
The Danish Institute for Sports Studies is a knowledge and research cen-
tre with the objective of analysing political initiatives regarding sport and
to stimulate public debate around central questions related to these ini-
tiatives (Idan, 2015).
Anti-Doping Denmark has the task of combating the use of drugs and
to reinforce the core values of both elite sport and grassroots sport in
Denmark (Anti-Doping Denmark, 2015).
98 B. Ibsen
The Finance Foundation for Horse Racing is an organisation that dis-

tributes money from the lottery pool to local organisations working with
horse racing.
All six of these independent state organisations receive a percentage of
the lottery pool from the Ministry of Culture, according to the Act on
Distribution of Profit from Lotteries and Bets on Horses and Dogs.
At a local level most municipalities have established a committee for dis-
tributing municipal subsidies to voluntary sports and leisure associations
and non-formal education in the so-called evening schools. The commit-
tee has members from the municipal board as well as representatives from
sport and leisure associations. This committee decides in principle how
to support the sports clubs and other leisure associations (scout groups,
etc.).
4.2 Steering
As stated above, the public sector is responsible for providing a proper

framework for sport which is described in the following section.
Legal Framework
Non-Specific Sport Legislation
The Danish constitution does not contain specific references to sport,

and nor is there a legislation for sport in general. However, several gov-
ernment acts do have an impact on sports (Colin & Jappert, 2013).
The Act on the Allocation of Financial Support to Non-formal Adult
Education and Youth Activities—sometimes referred to as the ‘Leisure
Act’—is the most important act regarding sport at a local level and falls
under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Culture. The act ensures that
the voluntary sports clubs or leisure associations have access to munici-
pally owned indoor and outdoor facilities (free of charge or with a minor
fee), the reimbursement of two-thirds of the cost to rent privately owned
facilities, and economic grants to the clubs and associations.
The Act on Distribution of Profits from Lotteries and Horse and Dog
Betting also lies within the field of the Ministry of Culture. The act defines
the distribution of the lottery revenues to good causes being supported
by the various ministries, which receive a proportion of the lottery rev-
enue. Based on the latter, 70 per cent of the revenue is distributed to the
Ministry of Culture and the remainder to other ministries. Most of the
share allocated to the Ministry of Culture is redistributed to the national
sports organisations and the semi-governmental institutions.
Specific Sport Legislation
In addition to the non-specific sport legislation, there are four specific

sports acts:
• The Act on the Promotion of Elite Sports, which is the legal basis for
Team Denmark.
• The Act on the Promotion of Doping-free Sport which comprises rules for
Anti-Doping Denmark objectives, etc. with the purpose of combating
doping in sport.
• The Act on Prohibition Against the Use of Certain Doping Substances
consists of rules for which doping substances it is prohibited to buy,
sell, produce, etc. (Anti-Doping Denmark, 2015).
• The Procuring of a Child Certificate in Connection with Employment of
Personnel Act is intended to increase the efforts to prevent sexual abuse
of children.
These acts apply to all sports organisations and clubs from the state
level right down to the local level. Despite the presence of these laws, the
degree of governmental intervention in Denmark is relatively limited.
Policy Framework
The main purposes of the Danish government’s sports policy are: (1) to
strengthen the sports movement in all its diversity; (2) to strengthen the
100 B. Ibsen
opportunities for the population—especially children and young peo-

ple—to engage in sports and exercise in all contexts; (3) to support sports
culture in associations; (4) to create strong elite sport in Denmark; and
(5) to combat doping both at elite and recreational level.
Every four years a general agreement between the Ministry of Culture
and the individual sports organisations is drafted jointly. During these
meetings both parties present their suggestions for what the general agree-
ment for the concerned organisation should look like the coming years.
Such an agreement is made with the three main sports organisations, the
DIF, DGI and DFIF, and with the six intermediate organisations. But
it is up to each of the organisations to decide which concrete initiatives
have to be launched to reach the goals in the framework agreement. All
three major sports organisations have their own policy strategy describing
how to reach the goals in the agreement with the ministry. Nevertheless,
the organisations are very much aware of the expectations of the politi-
cians and do respond to these expectations.
4.3 Support
Financial Framework
As stated in the previous section, there are almost two separate sports sys-
tems on a local and national level, which becomes even more visible when
taking into account the financial flows in the Danish sports system. The
local sports clubs are very dependent on the municipal support (primar-
ily the right to use sports facilities free of charge) and do not receive any
economic support from the state or the national sports organisations. The
national organisations are very dependent on the surplus of the national
lottery. The economic relations between the national and local level are
almost non-existent, except for a small membership fee paid by the clubs
to the federation, for cheap insurance, courses, involvement in tourna-
ments, etc. Table 3 gives an overview of the financing of organised sport
in Denmark in 2012.
Table 3 Overview of the division of the sport budget among the sport organisa-
tions (in million €)1
Source Ministry
of Other Other
Receiver
Culture Ministries Regions Municipalities resources Total
National level
Intermediate organisations
Team Denmark 13.68 3.22 16.9
Anti-Doping 0.67 0.67 1.34
Denmark
Danish 6.84 2.28 9.12
Foundation
for Culture
and Sport
Facilities
Sport Event 2.68 0.13 2.81
Denmark
Danish Sports 0.80 0.54 1.34
Studies
Finance 13.15 0 13.15
Foundation
for Horse
Racing
Non-governmental umbrella organisations
DIF 38.23 1.61 39.84
DGI 34.61 1.61 36.22
DFIF 5.23 1.74 6.97
National/regional level
Sport 0.27 120.72 120.99
federations
(DIF) and
regional
organisations
(DGI)
Local municipality level
Sport clubs 633.40 822.40 1 455.8
Total 115.76 3.76* 0.67* 633.67 954.80 1 704.24
*There are no figures on the distribution on organisations.
Source: Ministry of Culture (2014b).
1
The conversion rate which has been used is 7.45 Danish Krone/€. There are no figures on the
distribution on organisations.
102 B. Ibsen
The discussions about public economic support for sport are usu-
ally related to the level of the support. However, it is also important to
understand how associations and organisations are supported. Table 4
distinguishes between six different types of economic support to volun-
tary organisations, each of which is associated with varying degrees of
government control. The differentiation of the various forms of support
is based on a combination of two dimensions (Ibsen, 2014):
The vertical dimension relates to how the organisations obtain finan-
cial support from the public.
• Basic grant is given to an organisation or organisational area on the

basis of legislation or a ministry’s annual allocation of a budget line.
• The performance-based grant is granted in relation to the results
obtained. The criteria are defined in advance, and the aid is automati-
cally released if the defined performance requirements are met.
• Between basic grant and performance grant is project funding, where
the aid is granted on application to a pool or budget line with rela-
tively detailed demands on and expectations of the impact of the
funding.
The horizontal dimension relates to the demands for how the financial
support has to be used.
Support without specific demands implies that the public authority, in
principle, leaves it to the organisation itself to dispose of public support
in promoting their own purposes.
Support to specific activities and goals is more explicitly aimed at pur-
poses which the state or municipality wants to promote. Here, the sup-
port is typically earmarked with more or less specific instructions on what
the aid should be used for and how.2
In the following, the public support for organised sports is analysed
using the analytical model outlined above.
2
The inspiration for the analytical model comes from three public steering and management theo-
ries: ‘Budget based public management’ (Christensen, 2006), ‘NPM-based public management’
(Hood, 1991) and ‘governance based public management’ (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011).
Table 4 Types of grants for public funding of voluntary associations and

organisations
What are the requirements for how the money
should be used?
Few requirements for Specific requirements
how the money should for how the money
be used should be used
How to Basic grant Annual grant for the Annual total allocation
obtain whole organisation as for the entire
funding? defined in the law or organisation as a result
in accordance with of prior negotiations.
traditions of public Specific requirements
grants. for the use of the
Few or no specific grant with stated
requirements on how objectives, success
the grants are used, criteria and monitoring
control thereof, etc. of the realisation of
the objectives.
Project-based Grants on the basis of Grants on the basis of
grant an application for an application for
funding from the funding from the
amount that the state amount that the state
has allocated to has allocated to
promote a defined promote a defined
purpose. purpose.
Few or no specific Specific requirements on
requirements on how how the grant are
the grants are used, used, control thereof,
control thereof, etc. etc.
Performance- Financial support in Economic support in
based grant relation to members’ relation to a number
adherence to the of defined
organisation (such as performance targets
an amount per. by benchmarking
member or one euro principle.
for every two euros It may be activity goals
the members pay). or recruitment of
Only requirements for specific groups.
organisational form
(e.g., democratic
organisation) and
that the organisation
has a charitable
purpose.
104 B. Ibsen
State Support
In relation to the model above, which shows types of public funding to

voluntary organisations, the public support for sports organisations at
the state level in Denmark is characterised as basic grants with very few
requirements. This is supplemented, however, with support from pools of
financial resources for activities and projects for specific purposes.
The three umbrella sports organisations and the six semi-governmental
organisations are financed to a large extent by the state—based on legisla-
tion on lottery pools and therefore not part of the state budget adopted
in the Parliament. The percentages for each organisation are exactly
described in the Act, and the organisations do not have to apply for this
funding. Consequently the amount of subsidies differs annually, depend-
ing on the total revenues of the lottery that year.
The umbrella organisations support their national sports federations,
district and regional associations, etc. They do not, however, transfer a
share of the state support to the clubs. The umbrella organisations decide
for themselves the criteria for how the state aid is used and distributed
among member federations and regional associations.
The financing structure of the national federations varies across fed-
erations. Some federations, typically the smaller ones under the DIF, are
almost solely financed by DIF funds. Other federations also receive sig-
nificant levels of funding from sponsorships and/or membership fees.
Municipal Support
More than 80 per cent of the total public expenses for sport come from
the municipalities, as they are obliged to, according to the ‘Act on the
Allocation of Financial Support to Non-formal Adult Education and
Youth Activities’. Their most important contribution is the provision of
facilities, which sports clubs and other voluntary leisure associations can
use free of charge. This support is crucial, because the sports clubs are not
supported by the state.
While at the state level no specific criteria are in place for funding, at
the municipal level funding is more performance-based, with few require-
ment for how the money should be used. The size of the grant primarily
depends on the number of members in the club or how much activity is

taking place in it, but in most municipalities there are very few restric-
tions on how the money should be used.
Other Financial Support
From Table 3 one can calculate the proportion of the voluntarily organ-
ised sports total revenues coming from the state and municipalities. Some
7 per cent of total income comes from the state, 37 per cent comes from
municipalities and 56 per cent comes from other sources.
At the national level the state aid represents 38 per cent of the total
revenue of the umbrella organisations (DIF, DGI and DFIF) and their
member organisations (federal and regional organisations), while the rest
comes from the clubs’ membership fees (a low share) as well as support
from foundations and sponsors, which in some federations constitutes a
large part of the overall economy.
At the local level the largest proportion of the income of sports clubs
is also self-generated. It derives from membership fees, which make up,
on average, some 60 per cent of the total revenues; through events and
activities, which make up 10 per cent of the income; through sponsor-
ships, which make up 10 per cent of the total revenues; and from public
funding, which comprises only 13 per cent of the total revenues (Laub,
2013). This latter figure, however, does not include the economic value
of the associations’ free use of sports facilities, which are included in the
37 per cent of the total public financial support that comes from the
municipalities.
Elite Versus Grassroots Sport
The Danish sports system also differs from the sports system in most
European countries due to a stronger organisational separation between
the organisation of elite sports and the organisation of grassroots sport or
Sport for All. Firstly, there is, as described above, a special organisation
(Team Denmark) for elite sports, which only has the task of dealing with
the Danish elite. Secondly, there is also a large national organisation,
which deals only with sport for all (DGI).
106 B. Ibsen
All national sports federations that are members of the DIF have, how-
ever, both elite sport and ‘Sport for All’ duties. But most of their interest
and money go to elite sport.
At the local, municipal level, there are requirements on how sports clubs
must be organised in order to receive local authority subsidies, which is
defined in the Leisure Act (e.g., individual membership, democratic and
non-profit organisation). Similarly, the state has determined the organisa-
tional and management form of the so-called intermediate organisations.
Among other things, the state appoints board members. In practice, the
state (through the Ministry of Culture) does not interfere in how the organ-
isations are controlled and managed. As regards non-governmental sports
organisations, there are no explicit requirements for how organisations
should be organised. Implicitly, however, there is an expectation that the
organisations are democratic and public utility and non-profit organisations.
Unlike the state, which has almost never interfered in how sport in
Denmark is organised and managed (Ibsen, 2002), the umbrella organ-
isations for sport try to influence the organisational pattern on the lower
level. First, there are specific requirements for how a sports federation
must be organised if the federation wants to become a member of the
DIF. In addition to demands for a democratic organisation, the sport
must have a certain popularity and it must not deal with sports activities
that are addressed by another sports federation. The DGI does not oper-
ate with member federations similar to the DIF but is, as described above,
divided into regional organisations for the various parts of the country.
5 Conclusion
The Danish sports system differs from the sports systems in most European
countries in six distinct ways. First, sport in Denmark is organised into
three umbrella organisations that have different purposes and are based
on different attitudes and values.
Secondly, the Danish sports system has a stronger organisational sepa-

ration than we find in many countries between the organisation of elite
sports and the organisation of ‘Sport for All’.
Thirdly, Denmark has a number of semi-governmental institutions for
sports, which in other countries are either included as part of the national
organisation of sport or as part of the state department responsible for sport.
Fourthly, the Danish sports policy is very decentralised. At the state
level, the Ministry of Culture is responsible for sport in Denmark, but
the ministry has, in practice, little significance with regards to public
support.
Fifthly, there are almost two separate support systems, one at a local
level and one at the state level. The national organisations are funded
from the surplus from the state-owned company that runs the lottery and
these funds are not allocated to the local clubs. The local sports clubs are
funded by the municipalities.
Finally, the relationship between the public sector and organised sport
is characterised by the fact that, even though the level of public support
is one of the highest in Europe, both sports organisations and sports clubs
have a high degree of autonomy.
But does it make any difference whether the state and the munici-
palities support sports organisations and clubs in one way or another? In
relation to the government’s ability to promote political objectives of the
sport, the existing form of support on the national level—basic grants
with very few requirements—gives small and indirect opportunities to
pursue an active sports policy. The state support is neither connected
with precise indications of what the money should be used for nor trig-
gered by performance obtained. In turn, the current form of support is
easy to manage and gives each sports organisation a great autonomy to
pursue their own goals and interests. As a result of state aid, the sports
organisations are independent from their own sports clubs—in economic
terms—because the membership fees represent a very small proportion
of the organisations’ revenue. The current form of support is therefore
neither ideal from the point of view of the political influence on how
state support is used, nor from the perspective that the support must
strengthen the purpose of organisations and their raison d’être: To work
for their member clubs’ interests and needs.
108 B. Ibsen
What can explain the Danish sports systems specific nature, and, in par-
ticular, the existence of several umbrella organisations for sport? Inspired
by the theory, presented in Section 4, three supplementary explanations
can be identified. First of all, the existing sports organisations are a result
of different sports cultures that previously had roots in different popula-
tion groups and different political and cultural movements in Denmark.
From the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s a strong sports culture developed
with other values and a different sports practice to those of Olympic
sport, which was the basis of the gymnastics and ‘Sport for All’ move-
ment, which today is represented by the DGI. This we also find in other
countries, but in contrast to these countries, the state at no time has tried
to gather sports into one organisation, as has happened, in particular, in
Norway, Sweden and Finland (Ibsen, 2002). On the contrary, the way
the state supports sports organisations, which in principle has not been
changed since 1948, has contributed to maintaining an organisational
pattern that might have been different if government support was perfor-
mance-based, in contrast to the current grant-based system.
How is the organisation of sport on a national level in Denmark likely
to evolve over the next two decades? One can imagine three plausible
scenarios: The first and most likely scenario is minor adjustments to the
existing organisational structure. In 2011, the two major sports organ-
isations—the DIF and DGI—agreed a merger, but this failed to occur
because major sports federations, members of the DIF, were opposed to
it. In 2013 and 2014, the Ministry of Culture undertook a major analysis
of the economy and structure of Danish sport and during this process,
new proposals for a change of government support emerged. Despite
this, the subsequent political agreement on the sport economy resulted
in minor changes, which did not contest the existing system.
It is likely, however, that the government will change the framework
for sport depending on how well the existing system ‘performs’ over the
coming years. In 2014, sporting organisations agreed about the vision
‘25–50–75’: under this development the DIF and DGI are joining forces
to attain a 50 per cent rate of the Danish population participating in
a sports club and a 75 per cent rate of the Danish population being
physically active in 2025. In a political agreement in May 2014 on how
the Ministry of Culture’s share of the surplus from the lottery must be
distributed to sport, all the political parties joined in this vision of sport
(Ministry of Culture, 2014a). If it turns out—after a few years—that the
sports organisations and associations are failing to live up to the promises,
it is conceivable that the state will make greater demands on sport if they
are to achieve the same public support. Historically, the political system
has been very reluctant to make greater demands on sport and to change
existing forms of support. Sport is not a policy area that the political par-
ties make their mark on with different (competing) ideas and suggestions.
But if a political ‘claim’ for a change in the organisation of sport occurs,
the change will be determined by the discourse of the sports organisation
that acquires the greatest legitimacy in the coming years. As an alternative
to the first ‘maintaining of the status quo scenario’, one can imagine a
second and a third scenario. The second scenario is a ‘centralisation sce-
nario’, which seeks to assemble sports organisations at the national level
into one organisation with a stronger centralisation of management and
a stronger political leadership and control of the use of public financial
support. Behind this discourse is the idea that large organisations are
generally more efficient and professional than smaller organisations. If
this scenario wins, one can expect an amalgamation of the three umbrella
organisations of sport (DIF, DGI and DFIF), maybe also the integration
of Team Denmark in the organisation, and probably also a merger of
the intermediate sport actors in a department of sports governed by the
Ministry of Culture.
This scenario, however, competes with the third scenario, which
emphasises the importance of competition to promote efficiency and
adaptation to users and citizens’ needs and wishes. This is a scenario that
is especially prominent in the commercial sector, but it has increasingly
influenced the development of the public sector over the past two to three
decades, influenced by the New Public Management discourse in public
administration. In Denmark, this has, inter alia, resulted in a ‘free choice’
between public institutions and many public institutions’ economy
depends on how well they perform. If this scenario wins, one can expect
that government support for sports organisations will be determined by
their ‘performance’ of political priorities, it will emphasise the impor-
tance of competition between several organisations, and it will provide an
opportunity to new sports organisations to emerge and receive economic
110 B. Ibsen
support from the state, if they meet the performance requirements that
trigger government support.
At the moment it seems to be the first and the second discourse that
dominates the view of the future organisation of sport in Denmark—
although the comparison with other countries could suggest that the
high level of participation in sport in Denmark is, among other things,
the result of competition between the different organisations.
References
Andersen, T. M., Holmström, B., Honkapohja, S., Korkman, S., Söderström,
H. T., & Vartiainen, J. (2007). The Nordic model: Embracing globalisation and
sharing risks. Helsinki: Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
Anti-Doping Denmark. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.antidoping.dk.
Christensen, T. (2006). Smart policy? In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Colin, M., & Jappert, J. (2013). L’organisation du sport dans les Etats membres de
l’Union européenne. Think Tank Européen Sport et Citoyenneté.
Danish Foundation for Culture and Sports Facilities. (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.loa-fonden.dk/om-fonden/in-english,
DFIF. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.firmaidraet.dk/,
DGI. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.dgi.dk/.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
European Commission. (2014). Sport and physical activity (Special Eurobarometer
and Culture (DG EAC). Final Report submitted by GHK. 17 February.
Hallmann, K., & Petry, K. (2013). Comparative sport development. Systems, par-
ticipation and public policy. New York: Springer.
Henriksen, L. S., & Fridberg, T. (2014). Udviklingen i frivilligt arbejde
2004–2012 (The development of volunteering 2004–2012). Copenhagen:
SFI—Det Nationale Forskningscenter for Velfærd, 14.09.2014.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration,
69(1), 3–19.
Horch, H.-D. (1982). Strukturbesonderheiten freiwilliger Vereinigungen. Analyse

und Untersuchung einer alternativen Form menschlichen Zusammenarbeitens.
Frankfurt/Main; New York: Campus Verlag.
Ibsen, B. (1992). Frivilligt arbejde i idrætsforeninger (Voluntary work in sports
clubs). Herning: Systime.
Ibsen, B. (2002). En eller flere idrætsorganisationer—hvorfor forskelle mellem
de nordiske lande (One or more sports organisations—Why differences
between the Nordic countries). In H. Eichberg & B. V. Madsen (Eds.),
Idrættens enhed eller mangfoldighed. Århus: Klim..
Ibsen, B. (2012). Frivilligt arbejde i idræt (Volunteering in sport). Note made for
DGI. Odense: University of Southern Denmark.
Ibsen, B. (2014). Grundstøtte eller præstationsstøtte (Basic support or perfor-
mance based support). In K. Eskelund & T. Skovgaard (Eds.), Samfundets
idræt (The societies sport). Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Ibsen, B., & Eichberg, H. (2012). Dansk idrætspolitik. Mellem frivillighed og
statslig styring (Danish sports policy. Between volunteering and governmen-
tal steering). In H. Eichberg (Ed.), Idrætspolitik i komparativ belysning:
National og international (pp. 147–209). Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Ibsen, B., & Ottesen, L. (2004). Sport and welfare policies in Denmark. In
K. Heinemann (Ed.), Sport and welfare policies. Six European case studies,
Series Club of Cologne (Vol. 3, pp. 31–86). Schorndorf: Hofmann Verlag.
Ibsen, B., Hansen, J., & Storm, R. K. (2010). Sports development and elite
athletes in Denmark. In B. Houlihan & M. Green (Eds.), Routledge handbook
of sport development. London: Routledge Publishers.
Ibsen, B., Østerlund, K., & Laub, T. (2015). Sports clubs in Denmark. In
C. Breuer, R. Hoekman, S. Nagel, & H. W. Werff (Eds.), Sports clubs in
Europe. A cross-national comparative perspective (pp. 85–110). Switzerland:
Springer.
Idan. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.idan.dk/about-us/.
Micheletti, M. (1994). Det civila samhället och staten. Medborgarsammanslutningarnas
roll i svensk politik (Civil society and the state. The role of civil society associations
role in Swedish politics). Stockholm: Publica/Fritzes.
Ministry of Culture. (2014a). Politisk stemmeaftale om idræt. (Political agree-
ment on sport). Retrieved from http://kum.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/
Politisk_stemmeaftale_om_idraet.pdf.
Ministry of Culture. (2014b). Udredning af idrættens økonomi og struktur.
Analyse (Analysis of the economy and structure of Danish sport). Retrieved
from http://www.kum.dk/publikationer.
112 B. Ibsen
OECD. (2014). OECD Factbook 2014: Economic, environmental and social sta-
tistics. OECD Publishing.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, R. (1978). The external control of organisations: A resource
dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Pfister, G. (2011). Sports governance in Denmark. In C. Sobry (Ed.), Sports
governance in the world: A socio-historic approach. Sport Social Studies,
Editions Le Manuscrit. Paris: Sobry.
Pierson, P., & Skocpol, T. (2002). Historical institutionalism in contemporary
political science. In I. Katznelson & H. V. Milner (Eds.), Political science:
State of the discipline (pp. 693–721). New York: W.W. Norton.
Pilgaard, M., & Rask, S. (2016). Danskernes motions- og sportsvaner 2016 (Danes
exercise and sports habits 2016). Copenhagen: Idrættens Analyseinstiut.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative
analysis-new public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Salamon, L., & Anheir, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil societies: Explaining
the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Voluntas: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations, 9(3), 249–260.
Sport Event Denmark. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.sporteventdenmark.
com/.
Statistics Denmark. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.statistikbanken.dk.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organisation. In J. G. March
(Ed.), Handbook of organisations. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Team Denmark. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.teamdanmark.dk/.
Finland: From Steering to the Evaluation
of Effectiveness
Hanna Vehmas and Kalervo Ilmanen
1 Introduction
The Finnish sport system consists of three major elements: firstly, volun-
tarism in sport clubs, secondly, public sector involvement with the gov-
ernment subsidy of municipalities, and thirdly, the private sector’s offering
of sport-related business opportunities and support of professional sport.
There are some 6000–9000 active sport clubs and 130 sport federations
and other national sports organisations in Finland. Annually, an esti-
mated 350,000 children and young people and 500,000 adults make
use of the services of sports clubs and federations. These clubs are mainly
run on a not-for-profit basis, with ownership being cooperatively based
on membership. Sports clubs in Finland belong to sport-specific domain
organisations, which connect them, in turn, to the central organisation
VALO (Vehmas & Ilmanen, 2013). Municipalities offer support for
H. Vehmas (*) • K. Ilmanen

Department of Sport Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0_6
114 H. Vehmas and K. Ilmanen
sports clubs both directly through subsidies and indirectly through the
provision of inexpensive sport facilities. The role of the state is to steer
and subsidise activities on a national level and to create favourable condi-
tions for sport and physical activity.
As a result of diminishing economic public involvement in the sport
system, the relationship between different sporting actors is presently in a
state of flux. This chapter discusses the relationship between sport (con)
federations and the public sport sector in Finland.
2 Country Profile
Finland is a republic with a parliamentary democracy. It declared its inde-
pendence in 1917, previously it was a grand duchy within the Russian
Empire for just over a century. It had been a part of Sweden for 600 years
before that. Present-day Finland is a member of the European Union
(EU) and its official languages are Finnish (spoken by 91 per cent of the
population) and Swedish (5.4 per cent). In addition, Sámi is the mother
tongue of about 1700 people, members of the indigenous Sámi people of
northern Lapland (This Is Finland, 2014).
The fundamental administrative divisions of the country are the
312 municipalities (at the time of writing in 2015), whose spending is
financed by municipal income tax, state subsidies, and other revenue.
Local authorities provide basic public services for their residents, the
most important of which relate to social welfare and health care, educa-
tion and culture, the environment and technical infrastructure. The total
expenditure of local and joint municipal authorities is approximately
€46 billion per year (2013) (Local and Regional Government Finland,
2015). Finland has a GDP per capita of US$39,207 (OECD, 2014). The
country extends over 338,000 km² (See Table 1) and has a population of
5,471,000 inhabitants (Statistics Finland, 2015), resulting in a density of
17.8 people per km². Finland has an urban population rate of 84 per cent
(The World Bank, 2013).
The economic state of the country, as discussed above, has worsened
in recent years: following the 1 per cent growth recorded in 2008, GDP
fell by 8 per cent in 2009, more than the average decline of 4.2 per cent
Table 1 Facts and figures of Finland

Area (km²)* 338,000
Urbanisation rate (%)** 84
constitutional
republic
Number of regions 19
Welfare model Scandinavian
Sources: *Statistics Finland (2015); **The World Bank (2013); ***OECD (2014).
recorded across the whole of the EU. The necessary correction of the
government deficit and the required reduction of the debt burden will
probably have a significant bearing on future public spending decisions,
which may limit the government’s ability to increase expenditures on
sport (Eurostrategies, 2011)
3 Sport in Finland
From the beginning of the twentieth century, class division has played
a critical role in the emergence of political parties and the development
of sports. The civil war of 1917 resulted in a division between the left
and the right in both political and sporting organisations, a d
evelopment
which had long-term implications for the organisation of sport in
Finland. The sports organisations which emerged at this time were closely
aligned with political ideologies and impacted by extrinsic interests. The
Finnish National Sport Federation’s members held a right-wing/centre
political ideology, while the Workers Sport Federation’s members were
socialist-orientated. These two main federations were supplemented by
the Swedish Central Sports Federation (SFI), which represented the
physical culture of the Swedish-speaking population in Finland (Vehmas

& Ilmanen, 2013). It was not until the reforms introduced in 1993 that
the structure of Finnish sports was altered in an effort to streamline and
professionalise the system and remove the political influence involved in
the funding (Collins, 2010).
A structural reform took place in 1993 to reduce the influence of polit-
ical ideologies on the structure and funding of sport and to move Finnish
sport away from the traditional hierarchical structure, controlled from
the top, to a bottom-up organisation (Heikkala & Koski, 1999). This was
done through the formation of the Finnish Sports Federation (SLU) which
had the aim of establishing a long-lasting organisation that would repre-
sent the interests of different civic sport organisations. At that time, three
domain organisations operated within the Finnish sports sector: Young
Finland was responsible for youth sport; the Sport for All Association
(SfAA) was responsible for recreational and health-related activities; and
the Finnish Olympic Committee (NOC) assumed responsibility for elite
sport. It was because of the overlap and duplication of work carried out
by national sport organisations in relation to youth sport, ‘Sport for All’
and elite sport that the domain organisations were given the responsibil-
ity of coordinating and overseeing activities across each of these areas
(Collins, 2010). In the beginning of 2013, however, a new umbrella
organisation called VALO (Valtakunnallinen liikunta- ja urheiluorgan-
isaatio) (see Fig. 1) was established as the successor of the SLU (Vehmas
& Ilmanen, 2013). The domain organisations Young Finland and Sport
for All Association, as well as the SLU, were then dissolved and combined
into VALO. The National Finnish Olympic Committee continued to be
a separate independent organisation until 2016. However, it was decided
in June 2016 that VALO and the National Olympic Committee were to
merge, and as a result, the Finnish National Olympic Committee is now
the head organisation of sport in Finland.
The concept of physical culture has a very broad meaning in Finland.
It encompasses organised activities as well as unorganised activities,
competitive as well as recreational activities, top sport, youth sports and
health-related physical activities. Organised competitive sport is typically
carried out within sports clubs. However, in practice most Finns engage
FINLAND Governmental Non-governmental
Lottery pool Paralympic Committee Other national PA

organisations
NOC
Ministry of
National level Education and
Culture (incl. National sport
National Sport 1
Council) VAU VALO federations
FSI
Provincial Regional Sport institutes

Regional
Regional level offices and sport and training
regional sport associations
federations centers
councils
Municipal
Local level
sport councils
Sport clubs
Financing
Fig. 1 Sport framework in Finland. Note: VALO: Valtakunnallinen liikunta-

ja urheiluorganisaatio (successor of Finnish Sports Federation), NOC National
Olympic Committee, FSI Swedish Central Sports Federation, VAU Finnish
Sports Association of Persons with Disabilities, other National PA Organisations
(social outdoor, health, youth, senior citizens, adapted, etc.)
Note: The three previous domain organisations—Young Finland, SfA
Association and SLU (Finish Sport Federation)—were dissolved and combined
in VALO. VALO and NOC will be one organisation from 01.01.2017 onwards.
Source: Own analysis based on Vehmas and Ilmanen (2013).
in physical activities independently, spontaneously and recreation-

ally. Sports and physical activities are the most popular leisure activities
amongst both children and young people and the rates of participation
in physical culture among women is broadly the same as that for men. It
is also notable that elite sport is relatively marginal from an international
perspective (Heikkala, 2011).
In 2014, Finland had 120 subsidised national sport organisations
(see Table 2). Of these, 70 sport federations focused on a particular
Table 2 Sports profile of Finland

Ministry of
Education and
Government authority responsible for sport Culture
Membership sport club (%) 12
Membership fitness or health centre (%) 13
activities (e.g. employees’ club, youth club, school- or
university-related club) (%)
Sports participation, at least once a week (%) 66
Number of national sports federations 120
Number of sport clubs est. 6000–9000
National budget for sport (€) 149 million
Share of economic value of volunteers in sport in GDP 0.77
(%)*
Sources: *GHK (2010: 217).
sport discipline, 15 were regional associations and the rest focused

on various issues (such as the workers’ movement, Swedish-speaking
population, school sport, outdoor sport). In Finland, sport provision is
based largely on voluntary activity; sport services are mainly provided
by sports clubs and by more than 500,000 volunteers (Ministry of
Education and Culture, 2014). Volunteering in sports in Finland has
an economic value of 36,273 full-time equivalents (FTE), comprising
0.77 per cent of Finnish gross domestic product (GDP) (GHK, 2010).
The beginning of the millennium has seen major challenges to the
Finnish physical culture and voluntary activities. These cultural and
structural changes have affected both the volunteers and the munici-
palities. Even though there has been an increase in the number of vol-
unteers, people are less committed to long-term voluntary activities.
The municipalities are facing major structural changes as well as finan-
cial challenges, which undermine their role in providing the necessary
conditions for sport and physical activities. However, the popularity
of sport and physical activities and the benefits they offer for both
the individual and the society are key factors in securing the future of
Finnish physical culture.
4.1 Structure
As shown in Fig. 2, at a national level the Ministry of Education and

Culture and its Sports Division (in the Department for Cultural, Sport
and Youth Policy) are responsible for the development of sports and
physical activity policy in Finland. The Sports Division leads, develops
and coordinates sports policy and finances sports in order to promote
health-enhancing, competitive and performance sports and related civic
activities with a view to advancing the well-being of the population
(Heikkala, 2011). According to the Sports Act of 2015, the Ministry “is
responsible for the general governance, coordination and development
of the sport policy together with providing the general preconditions for
Fig. 2 Organisation of the public sport sector in Finland. Source: Suomi

(2015)
sport in the government policy” (He 190/2014 vp). There are six regional
offices responsible for sports administration, whereas the creation of the
general preconditions for sports falls under the responsibility of the coun-
try’s 312 municipalities. In addition, it is stated in the Exercise Act that
“while taking care of sports matters the government needs to, when nec-
essary, collaborate with the municipalities, civic associations and other
sports actors” (He 190/2014 vp).
The Ministry is assisted by the National Sports Council, a consulta-
tive expert body attached to the Ministry, which acts as an advisory
board to the government and is a strategic unit of the Sports Division.
The Council is based on the composition of the parliamentary coali-
tion, as the parties represented in Parliament nominate the candidates
for the Sports Council. One key role of the National Sport Council
is to provide comments and recommendations on key sporting issues
(Collins, 2010).
At a regional level, the responsibility for the general direction, devel-
opment and coordination of sports services within the public adminis-
tration lies with the provincial sports administrations. This refers to the
provincial state office and regional sport councils appointed by it. The
regional sport councils are independent and nominated by the munici-
palities (Ministry of Education, 2014; Suomi, 2015).
At a local level, the municipalities support sports clubs both directly
through providing subsidies and indirectly by offering inexpensive sport
facilities. Free or inexpensive municipal sports services are also available
for all citizens independent of club membership (Vehmas & Ilmanen,
2013). Municipalities are self-governing; they organise public services
according to the decisions made by the individual local councils. This
also means that it is at their discretion how and to what extent they
promote sports and physical activity in their area. In this respect, munici-
palities have become increasingly differentiated in organising sport and
physical activities. Some of them integrate sport and physical activities
in their service strategies with the aim to enhance well-being across the
whole population, while some are downsizing sport administration to a
minimum (Heikkala, 2011; Suomi, 2015).
The main non-governmental sports organisation VALO has 75 full mem-

bers, divided into 60 national members (national sports federations) and
15 regional association members; there are also 21 other partnership
members. The national sport federations are connected with the Ministry
of Education and Culture, but they are independent. There are altogether
total of 120 national sport organisations which are subsidised by the state.
Of these, 70 focus on one sport discipline and competition (national
sport federations) and 15 of them are regional sport associations. Of the
major national sport federations, eight have regional federations with paid
staff. These regional sport federations are decentralised organisations of
the larger sports’ national federations, like ice hockey or volleyball. In
addition, there are 20 other national sport organisations which have an
emphasis on non-competitive sports (for example, sport for the disabled,
school sport federation, student sport federation).
The 15 regional associations, which are also presently members of
VALO (2015), are independent organisations. These organisations also
provide management support for the sport clubs, as well as VALO, which
is sometimes confusing for the sports clubs.
The Finnish Olympic Committee (NOC) is an independent registered
association, which was founded in Helsinki in 1907. The NOC has the
aim of leading and developing ethical and international success-oriented
Finnish elite sports. The NOC operates as the high-level sport unit in
Finland, since it manages and coordinates Finnish elite sports activities
and their network. The Paralympic Committee is also a founding member
of VALO.
SFI is the Swedish Central Sports Federation for the Swedish-speaking
minority in Finland; it has its own offices and is also a member of
VALO. SFI has its own Swedish-speaking minority sport federations in
eight disciplines. VAU Finnish Sports Association of Persons with Disabilities
is the sport federation for sports organisations for the disabled, and it is a
member of the NOC. The sport institutes and training centres are respon-
sible for scientific and vocational education, research and development
(Heikkala, 2011).
At the local level, sport clubs act independently, managing their activi-
ties and collecting membership fees from their participants. Nearly all
(i.e., 95–97 per cent) of the Finnish sports clubs are non-profit and
volunteer-based. Some ice hockey clubs operate as private profit-making
organisations.
Intermediate Sport Actors
Recently, municipalities have started to provide sport services, either

in collaboration with sport clubs and private companies or by subsidis-
ing the clubs to maintain sports facilities. In larger towns, in particular,
municipalities have started to offer financial support to private sport-
related entrepreneurs so that they can offer sports services or found joint
companies with them in order to maintain service production. Football,
ice hockey, horse riding and swimming halls, as well as golf courses, are
examples of this type of collaboration between the public and private
sectors.
4.2 Steering
One key characteristic of Finnish physical culture is the bottom-up

organisation. The civic sector lays claim to the public sector in order to
have its position legitimised, whilst the public sector focuses on creating
the necessary conditions (Vehmas & Ilmanen, 2013).
Since 1993, the Finnish government has attempted to direct the
activities of the subsidised sport organisations by means of performance
management. This enables the government to estimate whether organisa-
tions are using their funding in accordance with the wishes of the pro-
viders. This system has been both difficult and inefficient, however. The
recent Exercise Act has thus strengthened the role of the National Sports
Council and appointed a responsible governance body for this evaluation
(He 190/2014 vp). Until now, the possibilities of such evaluation have
been limited for at least three different reasons: (1) the scale of the evalu-
ation; (2) the independent position of the sports organisations; and (3)
the fact that by far the most work for Finnish sport is done on a volun-
tary basis in the local clubs. It is then worth asking whether the govern-
ment should steer bottom-up civic activities too strictly in the first place.
The Exercise Act (2015) describes the responsibilities of municipali-

ties as follows: “The creation of the general preconditions for sport is
the responsibility of the municipalities. The municipalities need to cre-
ate preconditions for the residents: (1) by organizing sport services and
health and wellbeing enhancing physical activities for different groups,
(2) by supporting civic and club activities and (3) by constructing and
maintaining sport facilities” (He 190/2014 vp). About 75 per cent of the
33,000 sport facilities in Finland are owned and managed by municipali-
ties (SiVM 18/2014 vp).
In common with many other EU countries, Finland has faced economic

recession over the last few years. As a result, the government and munici-
palities have cut back on many public services. In this situation, more
attention is being paid to the equal right of citizens for basic services.
In the spirit of the Equality Act (2004), the authorities are entitled to
make sure that such basic sport services as sportshalls, outdoor fields and
routes—and, whenever possible, also swimming halls—are equally avail-
able for all citizens (Suomi, 2015). It should be noted, however, that
sports services are considered as basic services. This means that they are
not legally binding in the same way as health care, education and social
services, and has resulted in a withdrawal of some sport services, espe-
cially in some rural areas.
The Act on Equality between Women and Men (1986) imposes a duty on
authorities to promote gender equality in all their activities. Although the
Act is not legally binding on the sport federations, the aim is to ensure
equal rights, duties and opportunities in physical activity, competition and
decision-making. The Ministry of Education advances gender equality

through resource allocation. Activities that support gender equality are
a criterion in performance-based state subsidies. The Ministry promotes
and reviews the implementation of equality by means of various commit-
tees. Sports bodies also receive development and project subsidies for that
purpose (Suomi, 2015).
Finnish sport NGOs qualify for special tax treatment if they qualify
as non-profit organisations under the terms of tax legislation. Under the
Finnish Tax Act, the profits realised by non-profit sports organisations are
exempt from taxes. The provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act also allow
most sport organisations to avoid paying value-added tax. This facilitates
the sale of marketing rights of sport organisations.
To a large extent, Finnish physical culture is regulated by the Exercise

Act. However, it is a so-called guidance law, which means that no sanc-
tions occur due to non-compliance. Thus, in the current economic situ-
ation, municipalities need to cut sporting possibilities or facilities. It is
a law, but it is not binding. The Exercise Act, as well as the Association
Law, are key laws regarding sports culture. But both are a kind of a frame-
work; they do not give specific details (Suomi, 2015).
In 1987, Finland ratified the Council of Europe’s Convention on
Spectator Violence, which is aimed at securing the safety and security of
sport facilities and spectator behaviour at all sporting events. The agree-
ment pays special attention to guaranteeing the safety of very large sport
events. According to the general agreement of the Council of Europe,
Finland is required to act against doping and to use every possible effort to
promote clean, equal and fair sport (Suomi, 2015). The government and
sports organisations are obliged to arrange and implement anti-doping
activities, which extend to monitoring the general ethical rules of sport.
Finland was among the first countries in the summer of 2014 to ratify the
Council of Europe’s general agreement against the economic manipula-
tion of sport events. It is expected that, alongside doping, other forms of
malpractice, such as match-fixing, violence, racism and intolerance, will

be monitored by a special ethical administrative body (Tarasti, 2014).
The Lotteries Act (1047/2001) is the main act concerned with the
operation of gambling and betting activities in Finland. It establishes the
provisions on running lotteries, supervising the running of lotteries, and
rendering lottery accounts. It also defines the how any proceeds should
be disbursed. Finland’s national lottery is known as Veikkaus Oy and
the annual amount allocated to the sport system from Veikkaus Oy is
approximately €150 million. This is delivered to sport organisations as
defined each year in the state budget on sport (Eurostrategies, 2011).
Other acts with an impact on sport are specific to governmental
domains. The Ministry of the Interior, for example, is responsible for
overseeing the gaming monopoly and granting licenses whereas the
Ministry of Environment lays down construction guidelines. Similarly,
the Ministry for Agriculture is responsible for issues concerning the use
of land. Many ministries also have specific laws that have an indirect
influence on sport and there are, in addition, policy guidelines at many
different levels.
Policy Framework
The government, municipalities, sport federations and local sports clubs

are all involved in sport policy. The Sport Act (2015) outlines the overall
aims of sport policy. The stated aim is to promote recreational, com-
petitive and elite sports and related civic activity. Sports are a means of
enhancing the population’s health and well-being and supporting chil-
dren’s and young people’s growth and development. Other objectives
laid down in the Act are equality and equity, tolerance, cultural diversity
and sustainable development of the environment. Under the Act, the
Ministry of Education and Culture coordinates intergovernmental work
within different ministries and provides subsidies for national sport fed-
erations and the infrastructures of municipalities. The municipalities take
care of the facilities, maintenance and subsidising of local sports clubs.
The federations and clubs are responsible for organising sport for people.
That is the basic idea of Finnish sport policy.
Reflecting their responsibilities as outlined under the Sports Act (2015),

the government and the Ministry work jointly on the preparation of a
national sports policy. The sitting government develops a national pro-
gramme to cover the next four years, which concerns all sectors, includ-
ing sport. This governmental programme provides guidelines for the
Ministry to develop the sport policy, which it does in close collabora-
tion with the national sport organisations. It is an interactive system.
There has been some criticism that the policy framework is not effective
enough, however, because it is not translated into practical actions and
decisions (Suomi, 2015). The Ministry states that the basic idea behind
its sport policy is the results-based funding system for the individual
sport federations.
The newest document for the next four years may be the government
policy of the new government formed in Finland on 29 May 2015, which
states that “by expanding the Finnish Schools on the Move program to the
national level Finns should be physically active one hour per day” and
that “public health, sport participation of the citizens, healthy life style
and nutrition, and individual life responsibility should be promoted”
(Ratkaisujen Suomi, 2015). This indicates that the government is con-
cerned more than ever before about the fall in the level of sports partici-
pation and related health problems. It is also noteworthy that securing
the supporting conditions for elite sport is not specifically mentioned
in the policy, a contrast from many previous government policies. The
Ministry also finances a substantial amount of sport projects and pro-
grammes, which from the government’s point of view is a significant
means of implementing policy (Vehmas & Ilmanen, 2013).
4.3 Support
Financial Framework
The National Lottery Company is the primary financer of the Finnish

sport culture (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2015). The Act on the
Use of Proceeds from Lotteries and Betting Games (1054/2001) is a key ele-
ment in the financial framework in Finland. It states that 25 per cent of
all proceeds go to sports, which is crucial for the organisation of sports

in Finland. The major part of the financial resources that the Ministry
divides comes from lottery funds. The governmental budget for sport
in 2015 is about €149 million. All of that money comes from lottery
funds, not from people’s pay cheques or taxes. The money for projects
also comes from lotteries. This money is used for different purposes. The
sport federations altogether received approximately €46 million in 2015.
Sports-related research, sport institutes and construction of sport facili-
ties are subsidised, as are other different fields (Ministry of Education and
Culture, 2015).
A total of €544 million in lottery funds were allocated to the Ministry’s
budget in 2015. From this amount, the sciences received €104.2 million,
the arts €237.3 million, sports €148.9 million and youth €53.6 million
(Ministry of Education and Culture, 2015). With respect to the 25 per
cent allocated to sport, Parliament decided on the amount based on a bud-
get proposal. Once approved, the assistance was distributed to the sport
organisations by the Ministry of Education and Culture. In each sport
organisation, 75 per cent of the allocation must be allocated to grassroots
activities (50 youth + 25 adult sports) and 25 per cent to high-level sport.
When assessing the amounts to be distributed to each sport organisation,
the Ministry placed 70 per cent of the emphasis on quality and 30 per
cent on the quantity (number) of activities (Eurostrategies, 2011).
State Support
In 2015, the budget for sport was €149 million (see Table 3), while in
2014 the budget for sport was €147 million. It should be mentioned that
the allocations follow the new Sports Act (1 May 2015), which empha-
sises sport participation and the significance of sport and physical activity
for the whole population.
Approximately 90 per cent of the funds go to local sport provision,
national and regional sport bodies, liberal education, the construction of
sport institutes and sports facilities, and sport research. The rest is used
to support performance sports, children’s and young people’s sports, and
health-enhancing physical activity. The government and local authorities
Table 3 Total budget of the Ministry of Education and Culture for sport in 2015
Target 1000 euros
Equal accessibility of sport/PA 28,700
Subsidies for sport facility construction 27,200
Equality of sports/PA 1500
Sport participation 63,227
Civic activities of sport 46,060
Elite sport 11,760
Mega sport events 1700
Ethical activities in sport and PA 3250
International activities 457
Sports promotion for the whole population 27,970
State subsidies for municipal sport activities 19,200
Promotion of physically active lifestyle 8770
Knowhow in sport 29,025
Sport institutes 18,608
Sport science and research 3730
Research and development organisations and 4489
education activities
Regional administration of sport 350
National sport council 480
Ministry of Education and Culture 1368
Total 148,922
Source: Ministry of Education and Culture (2015).
are responsible for creating favourable conditions for sport and physical
activity (for instance, by providing sports facilities). Sport services are
supplied by over 7800 sports clubs (Ministry of Education, 2014).
The government does not subsidise professional sport. However, the
Ministry of Education and Culture promotes favourable conditions for
competitive and performance sport. To this end, it intensifies coaching,
develops coach training, awards grants to athletes, subsidises anti-doping
work and coordinates performance sport (Vehmas & Ilmanen, 2013).
VALO has been funded by the government, based on annual talks
and informal discussions, through basic funding and program funding.
The federations and VALO receive basic funding for their operations.
When it comes to programs, VALO is like other federations, carrying
out its functions in order to fulfil the policy objectives of the Ministry.
Accordingly, VALO and the federations are dependent on the Ministry
for funding, but there is no hierarchical relationship.
Municipal Support
As stated in a section of the Sports Act (2015), the municipalities receive

grants from the state in order to allow them to create the facilitating
conditions for its inhabitants to engage in sport: developing local and
regional cooperation and health-promoting sport, supporting civic activ-
ities, providing sport facilities and arranging sport activities, with due
attention being paid to the needs of special groups. This is a small part of
the total budget of the municipalities, however. It is estimated that the
municipalities spend about €680 million on sport and physical activities,
including investments in sport facilities, subsidies to sports clubs (direct
grants or lowered rent of facilities), and the organisation of adapted phys-
ical activities. Their main resource is municipal tax collection. The direct
municipal subsidies to sports clubs are quite low on average (7 per cent of
the total municipal budget), but on the other hand, low-rent municipal
facilities are a major contribution to the sports clubs’ economy (Vehmas
& Ilmanen, 2013). Local authorities promote access to sport services and
maintain sports facilities. About 75 per cent of the 30,000 sports facili-
ties in Finland have been constructed and are run by local authorities.
Private facilities are mostly found in major cities and population centres
(Ministry of Education, 2014).
Other Resources
Monetary resources vary a lot between different sport federations.

Governmental funding varies from 10 per cent to 80 per cent of the
budget of each federation. On average, approximately 25 per cent of the
budget of a federation comes from state funding. This means that federa-
tions are quite independent from the government. Their funding comes
from various sources, they have their own foundation, and they have
sponsorships from partners in the private sector, fees from competitions,
licenses, etc.
Elite versus Grassroots
Although there are fixed percentages in the Ministry’s funding system,

it is unclear how much money goes to elite sport or to grassroots sports.
Following the criteria of the Ministry’s funding, 50 per cent of the b udget
for sport goes to youth sports, 25 per cent to sport for all and 25 per
cent to elite sport. However, the federations are not obliged to spend
the money according to these percentages. Consequently, it is impos-
sible to distinguish between funding to elite and grassroots sport. There
is a gap between the government and the federations with regard to this
topic. The government attaches great importance to the promotion of
the population’s well-being and health through sports. But this does not
mean that the public grants distributed to the federations are spent for
these purposes. The federations mainly focus on competitive sport and
thus spend the most of their money in that field.
The government does not provide management support; they function

through policy decisions based on the distribution of money. In the sub-
sidies for the sport federations, they can spend money for their admin-
istration and management. One of the new criteria that the Ministry is
trying to implement is the evaluation of the administration and manage-
ment of sport federations, in order to increase the quality of management
and good governance. But there is no direct individual support.
For specific needs, the sport federations have their own private part-
ners. The federations use various forms of private actors, consulting firms,
educational institutions, etc. This again highlights the diversity of the
Finnish sport system, in contrast to its former centralised structure. The
federations have their own sources for management support, training,
education, consulting, and so on.
5 Conclusions
Economic investment in promoting the sport participation of citizens
increased greatly in Finland in the 1970s and 1980s. The new division
of labour between the state, municipalities and civic sector in sport was
declared by the Sports Act in 1980. In the Act, the public sector was
given the responsibility of creating the appropriate conditions for sports,
while it fell to the civic sector to organise these activities. This division
was strongly influenced by the values of the Nordic welfare state, in
which there is an emphasis on equal and affordable possibilities for the
accessibility to welfare services. This was justified by research that indi-
cated that health was—and still is—considered to be one of the central
values and components of welfare in Finland (Allardt, 1976; Helkama,
2009; Mikkola, 2003). On the other hand, it was believed that public
health could be improved by developing health services and increasing
possibilities for citizens to participate in sport. This connection between
health and physical activity has remained in Finland as the most impor-
tant justification of why the public sector is involved in guaranteeing the
conditions for participation in sport.
The Nordic welfare state model was influenced by John Rawls’ theory
of justice, which emphasises equal possibilities for citizens. Although
there is a certain social inequality in society, everyone should be guaran-
teed the right to tuition-free education and basic welfare services, such
as sport. However, as a result of the economic recession, the welfare state
faced a crisis in the beginning of the 1990s. The state and the munici-
palities no longer had the same kind of resources to invest in service
production as before. At the same time, the global economy increasingly
adopted the neoliberal approach, which emphasises the phasing out of
public services production (Uusitalo, 1993). Thus, at the shift of the mil-
lennium Finland was moving from a welfare state to a welfare society
where private service production and citizens’ own responsibility for their
well-being were clearly emphasised more than before (Rodger, 2000).
The responsibilities of the Sports Act were loosened under the influ-
ence of neoliberalism. The most recent act (2015) gives the municipali-
ties the right to freely choose how to produce sports services. As a result,
small and medium-sized municipalities, in particular, have shifted service

production responsibilities to sports clubs. In large and growing cities,
on the other hand, the share of private, there has been an increase in the
number of for-profit companies. Since 2008, public sport services in gen-
eral have shrunk, as a result of the spending pressures following the global
economic recession. At the moment, Finland is facing its fifth year of zero
growth or recession, which has led to the central government’s expenses
being financed by borrowing. In a situation like this, it is clear that the
government is pruning its budget, including sport expenses.
The weak economic outlook has also had an impact on the interac-
tion between the state and sport federations. In fact, the organisational
changes of sport in 1993 and 2013 resulted from the government’s
attempts to reduce its expenses by renewing the NGO field and by elimi-
nating overlaps, as a result of which the large (domain) sport federations
have felt that their independence is threatened. At the same time, the elite
sport sector has been concerned about maintaining its position, which
has resulted in part in a tense atmosphere between elite sport and the
‘sport for all’ organisations during the establishment of VALO. It remains
to be seen whether the merge of VALO and NOC can gather all sport
federations under the same umbrella organisation or if the paths of the
sport federations will diverge from one another.
References
Allardt, E. (1976). Hyvinvoinnin ulottuvuuksia [Dimensions of welfare]. Helsinki:
WSOY.
Collins, S. (2010). Finland. In M. Nicholson, R. Hoye, & B. Houlihan (Eds.),
Participation in sport—International policy perspectives. London: Routledge.
Eurostrategies. (2011). Study on the funding of grassroots sports in the EU. With
a focus on the internal market aspects concerning legislative frameworks and
systems of financing. (Final report/Volume II—Country reports). s.l.:
Eurostrategies/Amnyos/CDES/Deutsche Sporthochschule Köln.
GHK. (2010). Volunteering in the European Union. Educational, Audiovisual
& Culture Executive Agency (EAC-EA) and Directorate General Education
and Culture (DG EAC). Final report submitted by GHK. 17 February.
HE 190/2014 vp. Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle liikuntalaiksi [Government

proposal to the parliament of the Sports Act].
Heikkala, J. (2011). Physical culture and sport governance in Finland. In
C. Sobry (Ed.), Sports governance in the world. A socio-historic approach (Vol.
I). Paris: Sport Social Studies, Editions Le Manuscrit.
Heikkala, J., & Koski, P. (1999). Reaching out for new frontiers: The Finnish
physical culture in transition in the 1990s. Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
Helkama, K. (2009). Moraalipsykologia. Hyvän ja pahan tällä puolen. [Psychology
of morality. This side of the good and bad]. Helsinki: Edita.
Local and regional government Finland 2015 Source: http://www.localfinland.
fi/en/Pages/default.aspx (retrieved 30.5.2015).
Mikkola, T. (2003). Muuttuvat arvot ja uusi keskiluokka. Tutkimus arvojen mit-
taamisesta ja monitasoisuudesta. [Changing values and the new middle class. A
study about multible levels and measuring values]. Helsingin yliopiston sosiolo-
gian laitoksen tutkimuksia 241. Helsingin yliopistopaino.
Ministry of Education. (2014). Sports. Sport finance and administration. http://
www.minedu.fi/OPM/Liikunta/liikuntapolitiikka/rahoitus/?lang=en
(retrieved 10 November 2014).
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2014). Sports. Voluntary activity in sports.
http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Liikunta/kansalaistoiminta/?lang=en (retrieved
10 November 2014).
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2015). Talousarvioesitys 2015 [State Budget
2015]. Pääluokka 29. OKM:n hallinnonala.
OECD. (2014). OECD Factbook 2014. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/econom-
ics/oecd-factbook_18147364 (retrieved 14 November 2014).
Ratkaisujen Suomi. (2015). Neuvottelutulos strategisesta hallitusohjelmasta
27.5.2015 [Results of the government policy negotiations 27.5.2015]. http://
dynamic.hs.fi/arkku/tiedostot/23878780Hallitusohjelma_27052015
(retrieved 30 May 2015).
Rodger, J. J. (2000). From a welfare state to a welfare society: The changing context
of policy in a postmodern era. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
SiVM 18/2014 vp. Sivistysvaliokunnan mietintö. Hallituksen esitys eduskun-
nalle liikuntalaiksi [Report of the Civilized Board. Government proposal to
the parliament of the Sports Act].
Statistics Finland. (2015). Finland in figures. http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/
index_en.html
Suomi, K. (2015). Valtion liikuntapolitiikan linjauksia 1980–2014 [Finnish
sport policy in 1980–2014]. In H. Itkonen & A. Laine (Eds.), Liikunta
yhteiskunnallisena ilmiönä [Sport as a societal phenomenon] (pp. 59–76).

Jyväskylän yliopisto: Liikuntakasvatuksen laitos.
Tarasti, L. (2014). Selvitys urheilun eettisten kysymysten hallinnoinnista
Suomessa. [Report about the governance of ethical questions of sport in
Finland] Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä
2014:8. Ministry of Education and Culture.
tor/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS (retrieved 14 November 2014).
This Is Finland. (2014). Finland in facts. http://finland.fi/Public/default.aspx?c
ontentid=160032&nodeid=44491&culture=en-US (retrieved 14 November
2014).
Uusitalo, H. (1993). Pohjoismaisen hyvinvointivaltion arvot ja käytäntö. [Values
and practices of the Nordic Welfare state]. In J. O. Andersson, A. Hautamäki,
R. Jallinoja, I. Niiniluoto, & H. Uusitalo (Eds.), Hyvinvointivaltio ristiaallo-
kossa. Arvot ja tosiasiat. [Welfare state in the cross sea. Values and facts]
(pp. 59–96). Helsinki: WSOY.
Vehmas, H., & Ilmanen, K. (2013). Finland. In K. Petry & K. Hallmann (Eds.),
Comparative sport development. Systems, participation and public policy
(pp. 47–59). New York: Springer.
France: Organisation of Sport and Policy
Towards Sport Federations
Nicolas Scelles
1 Introduction
This chapter deals with the relationship between the government and
the sport federations in France. This relationship is largely the result of
its history and, in particular, France’s poor performance during the 1960
Summer Olympics in Rome (Cour des Comptes, 2009, 2013), when
France ranked 25th with no gold medals (it received only five med-
als, two silver and three bronze). Following this poor performance, the
French government implemented a strategy aimed at winning medals
(Loret, 2004). This meant the introduction of a public system for federa-
tions in France, albeit this was initially established and organised within
an exclusively private framework (Latty, 2007). This strategy was success-
ful as measured by performance in international events and explains in
part why the government still has a primary influence over French sport
N. Scelles ( )
Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0_7
136 N. Scelles
policy even though the national sport federations are essentially autono-
mous. This government influence is strengthened by the fact that most of
the national federations rely on government financial support to survive.
2 Country Profile
France is a unitary semi-presidential constitutional republic. From a geo-
graphical point of view, its territorial levels include:
• 18 ‘régions’, five of which are overseas territories;

• 101 ‘départements’ that collectively form the ‘régions’;
• 342 ‘arrondissements’ (or districts) that group to form the
‘départements’;
• 2054 ‘cantons’ that group into ‘arrondissements’ and are further
divided into 36,781 ‘communes’ (or municipalities).
France is the fourth-largest European country by population (67 mil-

lion). It extends over an area of 675,000 km², meaning an average den-
sity of 98.8 inhabitants per km². The population density ranges from
Paris and its 21,370 inhabitants per km² to French Guyana (Guyane) and
its 3 inhabitants per km². At present, approximately 79 per cent of the
population of France live in urban centres (The World Bank, 2013) and
the number of people under 20 years old is around 16 million (INSEE,
2016). The percentage of women is about 51.5 per cent.
France’s gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is about $40,375,
measured in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms (International
Monetary Fund, 2015), ranking it 13th in Europe. France has a con-
tinental welfare model (also known as a social economic model) with
an emphasis on the provision social security for the inhabitants and a
substantial governmental involvement in the social and economic life in
an attempt to secure equality of opportunity for the inhabitants. The
French health care system is one of universal health care largely financed
by government national health insurance. Higher education is funded by
the government, meaning that the fees are very low compared to some
other countries. Table 1 summarises the demographic features of France.
France: Organisation of Sport and Policy Towards Sport Federations 137
Table 1 Facts and descriptive statistics of France

Area (km²) 675,000
Political organisation Semi-presidential constitutional
republic
Number of regions/departments/districts/ 18 regions, 101 departments, 342
cantons districts, 2,054 cantons
Number of municiplities 36,781
Source: * The World Bank (2013).
3 Sport in France
From a historical point of view, the establishment and the organisation
of the national sport federations were made in an exclusively private
framework with the first unions of sport associations beginning to appear
from the 1870s onwards (Cour des Comptes, 2013; Latty, 2007). This
autonomy was set aside by a law passed by the Vichy government on 20
December 1940, inducing a government control of the sport movement
(Simon, 1990). This was subsequently rescinded by the Ordinance of
Algiers of 2 October 1943 and then the Ordinance no. 45-1922 of 28
August 1945 regarding the activities of sport associations, leagues, federa-
tions and groups, restoring the autonomy of sport groups while estab-
lishing the first step of the publicised system for federations in France
(Latty, 2007). This system was strengthened following France’s poor per-
formance during the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome into a strategy
aimed at winning medals (Loret, 2004). In the light of this objective,
the national sport policy related to the previous elements was successful.
Even today, this success offers a partial explanation of why the govern-
ment still has primary influence over French sport policy and thus federal
sport policies, even though the national sport federations are essentially
autonomous.
138 N. Scelles
At the end of 2013, some 8 per cent of French exercise or play sport
regularly, 35 per cent with some regularity, 15 per cent seldom and 42 per
cent never (European Commission, 2014). Similarly, approximately 16
per cent of French belong to a sports club, 4 per cent to a health or fitness
centre and 4 per cent to a sociocultural club that includes sport among its
activities. Significantly, some 74 per cent were not a member of any type
of club.
In 2012, the expenditure on sport in France was equal to €36.5 bil-
lion or 1.74 per cent of the country’s GDP (Ho-Ta-Khanh, 2015). This
amount was divided as follows: 45 per cent from households (€16.3
billion), 33 per cent from local and regional authorities (€12.1 billion),
13 per cent from the government (€4.7 billion) and 9 per cent from com-
panies (€3.3 billion in sponsoring and TV rights).
In 2006, according to GHK (2010), the sport sector accounted for 25
per cent of the voluntary work in France, amounting to approximately
3.5 million volunteers. Based on an average of four hours of volunteering
over a period of 44 weeks (220 effective working days), this amounts to
350,000 full-time equivalents (FTEs). Based on the 2007 French aver-
age annual gross salary, the total value was estimated by GHK (2010) to
represent almost €10.7 billion.
Table 2 summarises the sports profile of France.
Figure 1 provides an overview of the organisation of sport in France in
2015. More details are given in the remainder of this section.
4.1 Structure
Governmental Actors
In 2015, the Ministry for the City, Youth and Sports and the State
Secretariat for Sports were the leading sports organisations in the gov-
ernment sector in France. The State Secretariat for Sports consists of a
Table 2 Sports profile of France

Ministry/State
Government authority responsible for sport Secretariat for Sports
National budget for sport (€) 4.7 thousand million
National budget for sport federations (€) 200 million
Local budget for sport (€) 12.1 thousand million
Share of economic value of volunteers in sport in the 0.12
GDP (%)**
Sources: *European Commission (2014); **GHK (2010: 217).
Cabinet Office and a Sport Directorate. The latter works out and imple-
ments the national sport policy. To do so, it relies on different organisa-
tions, including:
• the Regional Directorates for Youth, Sports and Social Cohesion

(DRJSCS);
• the Departmental Directorates for Social Cohesion (DDCS);
• the Ministry’s establishments: 17 Regional Centres for Community
Education and Sport (CREPS), three national schools, the National
Institute of Sport, Expertise and Performance (INSEP), the National
Centre for the Development of Sport (CNDS) and the national
museum of sport (Sports Gouv, n.d.-a).
The missions of the State Secretariat for Sports are to support high-level
sport; to secure the legal environment and ensure the regulation of sport;
to promote ‘Sport for All’; to protect the practitioners and fight against
social problems such as violence and doping; to implement regional plan-
ning for sport and introduce sustainable development in sport policy;
and to promote France’s international influence through sport in major
140 N. Scelles
FRANCE Governmental Intermediate Non-governmental
Ministry for the City, National Federation National Olympic and Sport
Youth and Sports of Municipal Offices Committee (CNOSF)
of Sports (OMS)
National State Secretariat for
level Sports
National sport federations
National Centre for
the Development of
Sport
Regions + Regional Regional

Directorates for Regional
Regional Committees Olympic and
Regional Youth, Sports and Committees/
of OMS Sport
level Social Cohesion Leagues
Committees
Departments + Departmental Departmental

Departmental Departmental Olympic and Committees/
Directorates for Committees of OMS Sport Districts
Social Cohesion Committees
Local level
Municipalities / Local OMS / Offices of

Sport clubs
Authorities Sport
Hierarchical relation
Partnership
Financing
Fig. 1 The organisation of sport in France in 2015. Source: Adapted from

Cour des Comptes (2013: 19), Fischer (2013: 63)
international competitions and within international sporting authorities

(Eurostrategies, 2011).
The National Centre for the Development of Sport (CNDS) is a
public-owned establishment that operates under the supervision of the
State Secretariat for Sports. Its missions are to contribute to the devel-
opment of ‘Sport for All’; to facilitate access to high-level sport and the
organisation of sport events (for example, the 2016 UEFA European
Championships); to promote health and well-being through sport; to
improve safety in sport activities and also the protection of sportswomen

and sportsmen; and to strengthen the supervision of sport activities.
It exercises its missions through the allocation of assistance in the form
of functioning or investment subsidies to the actors of sport—registered
sport associations, leagues and departmental committees, and local and
regional authorities (CNDS, n.d.). Its resources are derived from a number
of sources: a contribution based on the revenue from the French national
lottery (La Française des Jeux), fixed at 1.8 per cent of the total sum of
bets placed; a 5 per cent contribution on the value of media rights on the
broadcasts of sport events; and financial returns (Eurostrategies, 2011).
The French Olympic and Sport Committee (CNOSF) is the recognised

non-government, umbrella body for sport in France. It represents 95 of
the 117 national sport federations and some 180,000 sport associations.
Eurostrategies (2011) notices that the missions of the CNOSF include
representing the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in France; rep-
resenting French sport in negotiations with public authorities and other
organisations; ensuring compliance with the rules which govern Olympic
sport; and providing assistance and services to the member federations.
In relation to this last mission, the CNOSF intervenes in the follow-
ing areas: the professionalisation of sport (employment development);
the recognition and valorisation of volunteering; training for manag-
ers, employees, technician executives; spatial planning; the promotion
of sportswomen and sportsmen; promotion of health through sport;
and sport dispute resolution by reconciliation or arbitration (France
Olympique, n.d.-a).
The 95 national sport federations represented by the CNOSF can
be broken down into four categories: 31 Olympic federations, 45 non-
Olympic federations, 14 multi-sport or affinity federations and five school
or university federations. The 22 national sport federations not represented
by the CNOSF are 16 non-Olympic federations, four multisport and two
recognised sport and disability federations. Each national sport federation
is an association which organises and promotes the practice of its sport
142 N. Scelles
discipline. In France, sport federations are placed under the umbrella of

the Ministry of Sports, except for school and university federations which
are placed under the umbrella of the Ministry of Education.
Intermediate Actors
The Offices of Sport are associations, which can be local, intercommunity

or territorial. They facilitate the coordination between actors in their ter-
ritory and support local sport associations in their daily organisation. As
an interface between sport associations and local authorities, the Offices
of Sport facilitate the development of resources and capabilities in sport
associations in their territory. They are territorial sport councils, which
aim to develop and promote physical and sporting activities for all.
At present, there are 1200 Offices of Sport in France, supporting
7500 municipalities, and servicing around 40,000 sport associations and
30 million individual members.
The relationship between the sports (con)federations and the govern-
mental body can be understood within the principal–agent framework,
with the government and sports (con)federations acting as principal and
agent, respectively. This means that there is a direct relationship between
the sport governing body and sport federations, with a mediating and sup-
porting role for the sport confederation. The Ministry of Sports provide
human resources and financial support to sports federations. Financial
support depends on agreed objectives as this will be explained later (Cour
des Comptes, 2013). Flanders and Slovenia have a similar relationship
between their sports (con)federations and their government body.
4.2 Steering
In order to position France’s steering in comparison with other countries,

this chapter draws on the typologies established by Houlihan (1997) and
Henry (2009) (see Chap. 1). In terms of Houlihan (1997)’s typology,
France belongs to the first category (a major role for central government).
This is the result of the provision of human resources and financial sup-
port to sports federations, as mentioned above, but also to the legislative
framework explained below, in particular the public service objective

of the registered sport federations (Eurostrategies, 2011). Indeed, this
means that they comply with the objectives set by the government, grant-
ing the latter a considerable influence over the organisations’ activities.
In Houlihan (1997)’s typology, France stands in contrast to the other
Rhineland countries Belgium/Flanders, Switzerland (the fragmented
administration of public policy), Germany and the Netherlands (shared
responsibility). Regarding Henry (2009)’s typology, France has a bureau-
cratic configuration, similar to that found in Belgium and Switzerland,
meaning that there is a focus on throughputs/process with the regula-
tion of processes through the government body and the monitoring of
standards and systems. French sport federations have access to govern-
ment support if they adopt statutes that satisfy the requirements speci-
fied by government, such as a disciplinary regulation in accordance with
a model regulation, and a disciplinary regulation regarding anti-doping
(France Olympique, n.d.-b). The bureaucratic configuration for France
is also different to that found in some other Rhineland countries, namely
Germany (missionary configuration) and the Netherlands (social con-
figuration). When combining the two typologies, France has a similar
profile to Lithuania and Slovenia, two Eastern European countries. In
terms of capacity development and the level of dependency on govern-
mental support, France is characterised by a low-capacity development
and a high dependency on governmental support, as found in countries
like Belgium, Spain, Slovenia and Lithuania.
In 2004, the Ministry of Sports was part of the global governmental

approach aiming at improving the access to law for citizens (Sports Gouv,
n.d.-b). This led to the Code of Sport by Ordinance of 23 May 2006 for
its legislative part and Decrees of 24 July 2007 for its regulatory part. The
Code of Sport is based principally on previous laws in sport. An impor-
tant text is the Law no. 84-610 of 16 July 1984, known as ‘Loi Avice’,
which affirms the public service objective of the registered sport federa-
tions (Eurostrategies, 2011). As noted by Bayle (2005), this clearly means
144 N. Scelles
that sport comes under the government’s authority. The ‘Loi Avice’ also
stipulates an explicit ‘contractualisation’ between the government and the
CNOSF, strengthening the legitimacy of the latter (Lavaure, Petrequin,
& Watrin, 2013). In line with this, Eurostrategies (2011, p. 93) speci-
fies: ‘The Law of 1984 and subsequent texts, in particular the Law no.
2000-627 of July 6, 2000, referred to as the “Loi Buffet”, organise the
statute and role of the sport federations and the sport clubs under the
umbrella of the National French Olympic and Sport Committee.’The
‘Loi Buffet’ also reinforces the principle of solidarity between the profes-
sional and grassroots levels of sport. Indeed, Eurostrategies (2011, p. 93)
notes that ‘the law [‘Loi Buffet’] creates the so-called “Buffet tax” (Article
302 (a) of the General Tax Code) which installs a compulsory levy of 5 %
on the revenue from broadcast rights. The revenue goes to the CNDS.’
The CNDS mainly funds local sport clubs (Ho-Ta-Khanh, 2015). This
has been confirmed in the Code of Sport which also defines the links
between the professional leagues and the federations: ‘Articles R 132-16
and R132-17 stipulate that the financial provisions are the subject of a
protocol approved by the Minister in charge of sport’ (Eurostrategies,
2011, p. 92). It is worth noting that only a few federations are con-
cerned with this legal framework—those which have created a profes-
sional league (track & field, cycling, basketball, handball, football, rugby,
volleyball)—and even fewer professional leagues make payments to their
respective federations: ‘only the leagues whose championships generate
important revenue through the sale of rights TV [TV rights] (football
and rugby)’ (Eurostrategies, 2011, p. 92).
In the Code of Sport, sport federations are referred to specifically from
Article L131-1 to Article L131-21 (and R131-1 to 131-45). Article L131-1
confirms that sport federations are independent of government and that they
operate autonomously according to their own approved statutes. The Code
of Sport distinguishes between those federations simply recognised by the
government (Articles L131-8 to L131-13) and those federations delegated
for public service (Articles L131-14 to L131-21) (France Olympique, n.d.-b):
• to be recognised, and thus take part in the carrying out of a public

service role, federations must adopt statutes that satisfy the require-
ments specified by government, such as a disciplinary regulation in
accordance with a model regulation, and a disciplinary regulation

regarding anti-doping. The recognition of these measures make the
sport federations eligible for government support including financial
and human resources;
• delegated federations, which must necessarily be recognised, are
responsible for carrying out a public service role entrusted by the gov-
ernment. In this regard, they have a monopoly, in particular to organ-
ise competitions with international, national, regional, departmental
titles, and to proceed to corresponding selections.
Policy Framework
The sport policy for France is founded on two principles: the delegation
of sport management by the government to sport associations; and soli-
darity between professional and grassroots sport within the sport federa-
tions (Vie Publique, 2008). While the autonomy of sport organisations
in France is respected, it is important to keep in mind that the govern-
ment also has a significant influence on sport policy. Sport federations
have a financial incentive to follow the national sport policy which can
be assimilated to the Programme ‘Sport’ and also relies on the resources
provided by the National Centre for the Development of Sport (CNDS)
(République Française, 2014). The Programme ‘Sport’ has been imple-
mented in 2005 following the Institutional Act on Financial Legislation
(LOLF) of 1 August 2001 which aimed at reforming the government
in France (Nikonoff & Bayle, 2007). Its strategic orientations manifest
themselves in its four distinctive actions: (1) the promotion of grassroots
sport; (2) the development of elite sport; (3) prevention by sport and
sportswomen/men’s protection; (4) the promotion of careers in sport.
The government also funds around 1680 Sport Technical Advisors
(CTS) that are seconded to 77 national federations. There are four distinct
categories of Technical Advisors: National Technical Director (DTN, 4
per cent), National Trainer (EN, 21 per cent), National Technical Advisor
(CTN, 36 per cent) and Regional Technical Advisor (CTR, 39 per cent).
Within this classification, each of these roles have different responsibilities:
National Technical Directors take part in the definition of the federal
146 N. Scelles
sport policy, attend to its implementation and contribute to its evalu-

ation. National Trainers supervise French team members and facilitate
participation pathways to elite sport in federations. National Technical
Advisors provide advice and expertise and carry out observation and anal-
ysis of sportswomen and sportsmen at both national and regional levels.
They also supervise the training, organisation and development of sport-
ing activities for the federation. Finally, Regional Technical Advisors carry
out similar tasks to National Technical Advisors, but at the regional level.
The principal–agent relationship between the sport (con)federations
and the governmental body is due to the steering power by the latter, laid
down in the French Code of Sport and the Programme ‘Sport’. These
capture the general sports policy framework and the conditions for the
sports federations to receive public subsidies. The sport confederation has
no steering role, but is rather a mediating partner in the sports policy.
4.3 Support
Financial Framework
In terms of funding, sport appears to receive much less financial support

in the annual national budget than is allocated to other areas such as cul-
ture. Indeed, the budget for the Ministry of Culture and Communication
is €7 billion compared with only €509 million for the Ministry of Sport
(MCC, 2014; République Française, 2014). Nevertheless, the budget for
the Ministry of Culture and Communication includes €3.78 billion for
public service broadcasting which incorporates sport. If public service
broadcasting is excluded from these figures, the budget for culture is thus
€3.22 billion. In addition, the budget for the Ministry of Sport does not
include support expenditure (the €347 million for staff salaries directly
paid by the Ministry and operating expenditure for central and decen-
tralised services) and the main expenditure by the State on sport comes
from the Ministry of Education (€3.8 billion) (Ho-Ta-Khanh, 2015).
The total expenditure by the State on sport is, therefore, some €4.7 bil-
lion. Consequently, it is not so clear that culture receives more in the
budget than sport.
As already noted in section 3, 33 per cent of French sport expen-

diture come from local and regional authorities (€12.1 billion) and
only 13 per cent from the government (€4.7 billion), meaning that
the national and local budget for sport (€16.8 billion) represents 46
per cent of French sports expenditure. Within expenditure by local
and regional authorities, €10.8 billion come from the communal sec-
tor (communes, groups of communes with own tax system, intercom-
munal syndicates) and €1.3 billion from the ‘départements’ and the
‘régions’. The communal sector’s expenditure on sport mainly focusses
on the construction, maintenance and management of sport facilities,
which are often given free of charge to schools for the teaching of
physical and sporting education. In addition, communes frequently
provide support to sport associations and participate in the organisa-
tion of local sport events.
As discussed above, expenditure by the Ministry of Sports (€856 mil-
lion) corresponds to only 18 per cent of the government’s expenditure
in physical activity and sport. Indeed, most of the latter are spent by the
Ministry of Education (€3.8 billion, 81 per cent), particularly for physical
and sporting education in primary and secondary schools (teachers’ sala-
ries and management costs). It is worth noting that within the €856 mil-
lion specifically spent by the Ministry of Sport, €259 million come from
CNDS with a large part for subsidies to local sport clubs as noted above.
CNDS also funds the construction and renovation of sport facilities and,
to a lesser extent, support to the sport organisations that conduct inter-
national major sports events in France, and the development activities
of CNOSF and the French Paralympic and Sport Committee (CPSF)
(République Française, 2014). The other €597 million spent by the
Ministry of Sports are for the Programme ‘Sport’ (subsidies and interven-
tion) and support expenditure (Cour des Comptes, 2013).
The national budget for national sports federations is about €200 mil-
lion with around €90 million of subsidies for specific objectives (conven-
tions of objectives) and €110 million directly spent by the government
on the Sport Technical Advisors (CTS) (Cour des Comptes, 2013).
Subsidies from the government to federations have decreased in recent
years: €107.5 million in 2007, €96.4 million in 2011, €83.05 million
in 2015 (Cour des Comptes, 2013; République Française, 2014). This
148 N. Scelles
decrease is partially related to the overall reduction of government sub-

sidies. Furthermore, the median dependency rate (subsidies + provision
of Sport Technical Advisors jobs) remained to a high level in 2010: 46.4
per cent of the Olympic federations’ budgets and 18.3 per cent for the
non-Olympic federations’ budgets.
With regard to performance, the relationship between the government
and the sport federations is regulated according to their agreed strate-
gic objectives. These specify the particular actions the sport federations
agree to take at the request of the Ministry and for which subsidies are
provided. These strategic objectives are related to the Programme ‘Sport’
and thus the national sport policy. They can be annual or multi-annual
(four years = an Olympiad). In 2011, it is worth noting that 73.8 per cent
of the subsidies provided by the Ministry to sport federations were for
the development of elite sport (action 2 in Programme ‘Sport’). Another
4.2 per cent was provided for the medical prevention of elite sports-
women/men and contenders (action 3 in Programme ‘Sport’) (Cour des
Comptes, 2013). This means that 78 per cent of the subsidies from the
strategic objectives were for elite sport, consistent with the idea that the
objective to win international medals implemented in the 1960s is still
a dominant feature of the relationship between the government and the
sport federations.
Sport federations are guided by the need to justify the achievement
of their strategic objectives laid out in the national sports policy and in
subsequent planning documents (MSJEPVA, n.d.). Such an achievement
is studied from two angles: the achievement of qualitative or quantitative
objectives; and the study of the costs of the actions.
The individual sport federations are required to present the achieve-
ment of their objectives in any given year by no later than 31 March of
the following year through a summary table that gives a breakdown of
the costs faced by the federation. This table must be accompanied by
the federation’s financial statements. Sport federations are also indirectly
controlled through the presence of the Sport Technical Advisors funded
by the government. Since they are seconded to the federations by the
government, they act as ‘go-betweens’ for the actions of the federations
(Cour des Comptes, 2013).
For the 2014–2017 period, the Ministry has specified eight national
performance indicators (MSJEPVA, n.d.): (1) the number of licence
holders and the number of other participation title holders; (2) the num-
ber of women licence holders; (3) the number of 14–20-year-old licence
holders; (4) the number of clubs (or club sections) providing sporting
activities for disabled people; (5) the percentage of licence holders living
in ‘sensitive urban areas’ (ZUS); (6) France’s position in reference compe-
titions; (7) the rate of full medical follow-up for elite sportswomen/men
and contenders; and (8) the federation’s financial strength, calculated as
the ratio between own funds and total balance sheets.
These are quantitative outcome-based indicators, commonly attrib-
uted to evaluating the efficacy of agreed objectives. The extent to which
they are successful will have an impact on the future subsidies that a
federation will receive.
As a consequence of the legislative, policy and financial frameworks

described above, there is a direct link between the sport administration
and the sport federations. Sport Technical Advisors are hierarchically
attached to the central administration (Sport Director) or the Regional
Directions of Youth, Sport and Social Cohesion, while being seconded
to federations (Cour des Comptes, 2013). Contracts of objectives are
negotiated between the sport administration and the sport federations to
define their agreed strategic objectives. A guide is provided to the latter in
order to help them for the preparation of their convention of objectives
(MJSEPVA, n.d.). In addition, the sport federations can be supported by
research analysts and expert evaluators from the Sport Directorate. A first
meeting before summer between the sport administration and the federa-
tion President and National Technical Director has a number of aims:
(1) to present the whole federal project for the period; (2) to remind
federations of the government’s orientations; and (3) to define the shared
objectives between the government and sports federations.
A second meeting during the autumn aims to determine the human
and financial resources that the government will allocate to the federation
150 N. Scelles
for its programme and management. The performance indicators associ-

ated with each of the financial allocations are also agreed.
Among the priorities set by the sport administration is to present a
feminisation (women in sport) plan with respect to the governance and
management of sport federations, by improving access to management
for women (MJSEPVA, n.d.). The sport administration also encour-
ages the management of the National Technical Direction (DTN) of the
federations through their strategic objectives. It asks the federations to
present a strategic plan for the next Olympiad, which will chart the direc-
tion of the sport at both national and territorial levels. The operational
and management priorities of Sport Technical Advisors are specified by
the strategic plan and include: annual meetings; the transmission of the
national technical directives; and training, monitoring and evaluation.
The sport administration also promotes financial effectiveness and rigour
in sport federations (objective 2 in Programme ‘Sport’). For this purpose,
it has undertaken to implement the following recommendations: to pres-
ent an updated and accurate financial situation, on demand, through
regular meetings and accurate financial reporting; and to put in place
in-service training for employees and volunteers in sport federations that
improves the understanding of financial accounts and procedures.
The principal–agent relationship between the sport (con)federations
and the governmental body is due to the conditional subsidy policy by
the latter and its governance and management support.
5 Conclusion
This chapter has described and analysed the principal-agent relationship
between sports (con)federations and the governmental body in France.
This relationship is the consequence of the organisation of sport: its
structure, its steering (legislative and policy framework) and the support
provided by the governmental body to sports (con)federations (financial,
and governance and management support).
5.1 Cross-National Comparisons
France belongs to Rhineland countries like Belgium/Flanders,

Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland. According to the typology of
Henry (2009), it has a bureaucratic configuration like Belgium/Flanders
and Switzerland and in contrast to Germany (missionary configuration)
and the Netherlands (social configuration). For this reason, the focus is
initially on cross-national comparisons between France, Belgium/Flanders
and Switzerland. As countries having a bureaucratic configuration, they
share a focus of service delivery on throughputs/process with the regu-
lation of processes through the government body and the monitoring
of standards and systems. Nevertheless, the application of the typol-
ogy established by Houlihan (1997) for sport policy reveals a difference
between France, Belgium/Flanders and Switzerland with a major role of
central government for the former versus a fragmented administration of
public policy for Belgium/Flanders and Switzerland. When combining
the two previous typologies, France has the same profile as Lithuania
and Slovenia. Interestingly, this is also the case when crossing capacity
development and dependency on governmental support. Lithuania and
Slovenia are observers within the Francophonie, what is not surprising
as most of Eastern European countries are Francophonie members or
observers, the only exceptions being Russia and Belarus. Francophone
countries share common values like democratic governance. This could
offer a partial explanation of the similarities in the organisation of sport
between France, Lithuania and Slovenia.
5.2 Evolution
In January 2013, the ‘Cour des Comptes’ (Court of Auditors) pub-

lished a report in which it stresses the need to redirect the action of the
government (Cour des Comptes, 2013). Chapter IV of the report spe-
cifically focuses on the relationship with the sport federations. Its two
subchapters highlight the need to renew this relationship and that the
federations become more autonomous and show more solidarity. The
renewal of the relationship would require a revision of the strategic
152 N. Scelles
objectives of federations and improvements in the management of Sport

Technical Advisors.
Concerning the change in the strategic objectives, the report first men-
tions that subsidies are more the fruit of the history than the consequence
of a clear strategy. It then describes the procedures used to administer
funding for sport as too time-consuming both for the Ministry and the
sport federations. This has been attributed to the identification of too
many subsidies offering a small amount of funds for the federations. The
report also criticises the general nature of some objectives. As a conse-
quence, it encourages the implementation of fewer objectives that will be
more specific in nature.
Concerning the improvement in the management of Sport Technical
Advisors, the report notes that 80 per cent of them depend on five
regions and 50 per cent on just one region, Île-de-France around Paris.
This organisation does not guarantee follow-up and evaluation of activ-
ity at the national level. To try to remedy this situation, the Ministry of
Sports has elaborated a project of creation of a service with national com-
petence. By an order issued on 30 April 2012, a Centre of Operational
Management for Sport Technical Executives (CGOCTS) has been estab-
lished with the Director of Sports.
The report considers that the improvement of the federations’ auton-
omy requires an increase of their own resources through sources such
as licence revenues and commercial receipts: gate receipts, TV and mar-
keting rights. The relative part of these resources differs significantly,
depending on the existence of a developed professional sector or support
from the media. For example, licence revenues corresponded in 2010 to
4.4 per cent of the income of the French Football Federation (FFF), 28
per cent of the income for athletics and 62 per cent of the income for
golf. More generally, licence revenues reached half of the non-Olympic
federations’ budget but less than 20 per cent of the Olympic federations’
budget.
The report stresses the necessity for the federations to modernise their
governance, consistent with the findings of Bayle (2010). It states that
a reform of governing bodies must be envisaged to improve their man-
agement and to facilitate the adoption of reforms required for them to
increase their autonomy and effectiveness in the management of their
sport. When the number of boards and elected representatives on these

boards are too large, this leads to badly defined functions and a great
complexity of decision-making processes that reduces the governing bod-
ies’ reactivity as well as their ability to change.
The report also suggests that the feminisation of governing bodies is
still too slow. It notes that at national level, only 42 federations of the
117 respected these provisions for the forming of their management
committee in 2013 and women represented only 18 per cent of the
elected representatives in the CNOSF board of directors. This figure
is still short of targets set by the International Olympic Committee for
December 2005 (20 per cent; International Olympic Committee and
Institute of Sport & Leisure Policy, Loughborough University, 2004).
As mentioned by the report, the Ministry of Sports will need to be more
attentive to this aspect by reminding the federations about their obliga-
tions and by writing them in the conventions of objectives.
Acknowledgements I am grateful to Brian Minikin for his valuable comments.

Any errors are my own.
References
Bayle, E. (2005). Institutional changes and transformations in an organisational
field: The case of the public/private ‘model’ of French sport. International
Journal of Public Policy, 1(1/2), 185–211.
Bayle, E. (2010). La gouvernance des fédérations d’associations chargées d’une
mission de service public: Le cas des fédérations sportives françaises. Revue
Politiques et Management Public, 27(1), 11–32.
Centre National pour le Développement du Sport (CNDS). (n.d.). Présentation
[Presentation]. http://www.cnds.sports.gouv.fr/Presentation (retrieved 31
October 2016).
Cour des Comptes. (2009, 4 February). L’Etat et les fédérations sportives face aux
mutations du sport. Annual public report.
Cour des Comptes. (2013, January). Sport pour tous et sport de haut niveau: Pour
une réorientation de l’action de l’État. Thematic public report.
European Commission. (2014). Special Eurobarometer 412: Sport and physical
activity. Report.
154 N. Scelles
Eurostrategies. (2011). Study on the funding of grassroots sports in the EU: With a
focus on the internal market aspects concerning legislative frameworks and systems
of financing. Final report, Volume II—Country Reports.
France Olympique. (n.d.-a). Le CNOSF représente le mouvement sportif fran-
çais [CNOSF represents the French sport movement]. http://franceo-
lympique.com/art/90-le_cnosf_represente_le_mouvement_sportif_francais.
html (retrieved 31 October 2016).
France Olympique. (n.d.-b). Le système fédéral français [The French federal
system]. http://franceolympique.com/art/1674-le_systeme_federal_francais.
html (retrieved 31 October 2016).
Fischer, C. (2013). France. In K. Hallmann & K. Petry (Eds.), Comparative sport
development: Systems, participation and public policy (pp. 61–73). Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer.
Ho-Ta-Khanh, J. (2015). Le poids économique du sport en 2012. Paris: Mission
des Etudes, de l’Observation et des Statistiques: Ministère de la Ville, de la
Jeunesse et des Sports.
Routledge.
Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE). (2016).
Population totale par sexe et âge au 1er janvier, 2016, France. http://www.insee.
fr/fr/themes/detail.asp?ref_id=bilan-demo&reg_id=0&page=donnees-
detaillees/bilan-demo/pop_age2b.htm (retrieved 26 October 2016).
International Monetary Fund. (2015, April). World economic outlook database.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/weodata/index.aspx
(retrieved 31 October 2016).
International Olympic Committee and Institute of Sport & Leisure Policy,
Loughborough University. (2004). Women, leadership and the Olympic move-
ment. Final report. https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20
Library/2015/08/12/18/30/25/Women-Leadership-and-the-Olympic-
Movement.pdf (retrieved 31 October 2016).
Latty, F. (2007). La lex sportiva: Recherche sur le droit transnational. Leiden:
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Lavaure, P., Petrequin, L., & Watrin, D. (2013). Mission relative au partenariat
entre l’État et le CNOSF. Report. Paris: Inspection Générale de la Jeunesse et
des Sports.
Loret, A. (2004). Concevoir le sport pour un nouveau siècle. Voiron, France:

Presses Universitaires du Sport.
Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication (MCC). (2014). Projet de loi de
finances 2015. http://www.culturecommunication.gouv.fr/Projet-de-loi-de-
finances-2015 (retrieved 31 October 2016).
Ministère des Sports, de la Jeunesse, de l’Education Populaire et de la Vie Associative
(MSJEPVA). (n.d.). Conventions d’objectifs 2014–2017: Guide méthodologique.
Methodological guide. http://developpement-durable.sports.gouv.fr/m/down-
load-ressource.php?file=859609CPO%202014-17%20GUIDE%20
METHODOLOGIQUE.pdf (retrieved 17 March 2015).
Nikonoff, L., & Bayle, E. (2007). Les conditions de mise en œuvre de la loi
organique relative aux lois de finances au sein du ministère chargé des Sports
entre 2001 et 2006: Quels premiers enseignements? Revue Européenne de
Management du Sport, 19.
République Française. (2014, October). Budget général: Mission ministérielle:
Projets annuels de performances: Annexe au projet de loi de finances pour 2015:
Sport, Jeunesse et Vie Associative. http://www.performance-publique.budget.
gouv.fr/sites/performance_publique/files/farandole/ressources/2015/pap/
pdf/PAP_2015_BG_sport_jeunesse_vie_associative.pdf (retrieved 31
October 2016).
Simon, G. (1990). Puissance sportive et ordre juridique étatique. Paris: LGDJ.
Sports Gouv. (n.d.-a). Direction des sports (DS) [Sport Directorate (SD)].
http://sports.gouv.fr/organisation/missions-organisation/administration-
centrale/article/Direction-des-sports-DS-15368 (retrieved 10 November
2015).
Sports Gouv. (n.d.-b). Organisation en France: Code du Sport [Organisation in
France: Code of Sport]. http://sports.gouv.fr/organisation/organisation-du-
sport-en-france/droit-du-sport/ (retrieved 10 November 2015).
Vie Publique. (2008). La politique du sport (1984–2008): Evolution des modes
d’intervention de l’Etat dans une économie du sport mondialisée. Society feature.
http://www.vie-publique.fr/politiques-publiques/politique-sportive/index/
(retrieved 31 October 2016).
Germany: Autonomy, Partnership
and Subsidiarity
Christoph Breuer and Tobias Nowy
1 Introduction
Germany’s governmental sport policy is shaped by the Federal Ministry of
the Interior (BMI) and 16 state governments. Competence for elite sport
lies within the BMI, while the development of grassroots sport is in the
hands of the state governments. The non-governmental structure is rep-
resented by the German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB), which
defends the interests of its member organisations as the sole umbrella
organisation towards state and public. To ensure adequate national repre-
sentation and success at international sport competitions, the BMI coop-
erates with the DOSB. In 2007, those institutions specified their roles
and responsibilities within a target agreement. Federal funding in 2014
C. Breuer (*) • T. Nowy

Institute of Sport Economics and Sport Management, German Sport
University Cologne, Cologne, Germany

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0_8
158 C. Breuer and T. Nowy
amounted to a total of €55 million for 31 Olympic sport federations

(€52.6 million), and 23 non-Olympic sport federations (€2.4 million)
and was based on two broad categories: basic and project funding. While
basic funding is mainly based on historic success, project funding is based
on target agreements between the DOSB and its member federations.
The federal sport funding system for elite sport has recently undergone
evolutionary steps but still is subject to a restructuring process.
2 Country Profile
According to Article 20 (1) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz), the Federal
Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) is a democratic,
social and federal state. The federal structure is represented in a central
government (Bund) and 16 constitutive federal states (Länder), where
state authority is distributed between Bund and Länder. The Basic Law
assigns governmental powers and the discharge of state functions to the
16 Länder—unless competence is explicitly specified to lie with the fed-
eral government1 (Pahl-Weber et al., 2015). Germany can be considered
a well-developed and economically strong country as the indicators in
Table 1 demonstrate.
3 Sport in Germany
In a nation of sport enthusiasts, professional, Olympic, and recreational
sports play an important role in German society (Bundesministerium
des Innern, 2015a). Recently, several studies on sport participation
have been conducted in different nationwide surveys (for example,
Becker, Klein, & Schneider, 2006; Krug, Jordan, & Lampert, 2012;
Preuß & Alfs, 2013) and in various German cities (for example, Breuer,
Hallmann, & Wicker, 2011; Klostermann & Nagel, 2014). As can be
1
Article 30 Basic Law reads: ‘Except as otherwise provided or permitted by this Basic Law, the exercise
of state powers and the discharge of state functions is a matter for the Länder’ (Deutscher Bundestag,
2012, p. 34).
Table 1 Facts and descriptives of Germany

Number of inhabitants* (2014) 81,100,000
Surface (km²)**(2012) 357,137
Population density (inhabitants/km²)** 231.8
Urban population (%)** (2012) 74.2
Average age of population 44.2
(in years)*** (2013)
Population with migrant background 20.5
(%)* (2014)
Political organisation Parliamentary constitutional republic
Number of states 16 federal states
Number of municipalities**** 11,291
GDP per capita (US dollars)*****(2014) 44,203
Sources: *DESTATIS (2015c); **UNdata (2015); ***DESTATIS (2015a);
****DESTATIS (2015b); *****OECD (2015).
seen from Table 2, sport participation in Germany is moderately high,

especially when put into the European context (European Commission,
2014). However, it has to be noted that reported participation rates
in omnibus survey are lower than in single-issue surveys (Breuer &
Wicker, 2009).
The financing of autonomous sport in Germany includes govern-
mental subsidies and funds made available from state lottery revenues,
membership fees, sponsoring deals, TV rights and merchandising (Petry
& Hallmann, 2013). The federal government contributes mainly to the
financing of top-level sports; for example, in the period 2006 to 2009 it
funded them to the tune of €842 million, and in the period from 2010
to 2013 it provided €946 million (Deutscher Bundestag, 2014). This is
a historical arrangement: elite sports in Germany and their respective
governing bodies have been supported by the imperial German govern-
ment since 1914. Ever since, the successional governments have made the
national office of the Minister of the Interior responsible for supporting
elite sports for the benefit of national representation (Hallmann, Breuer,
Disch, Giel, & Nowy, in press; Krüger, 2013). Pawlowski and Breuer
Table 2 Key findings on sport participation in Germany

Author(s) Key findings
Becker et al. In 2003, two-thirds of the German population were
(2006) physically active, though only one-third once per week
Breuer et al. Several surveys conducted in various German cities between
(2011) 2007 and 2009 with an overall sample size of n = 26,263
indicate that 73.6% of the population took part in sports at
least once per week
Klostermann and • Sport participation rose from almost 40% in 1978 to
Nagel (2014) almost 60% in 2008
• After 2004, more women than men practised sport
• In both 1978 and 2008, about 40% of those engaging in
sport practised one to three hours per week and
approximately one-fifth reported practising up to one
hour per week
Krug et al. (2012) • 72.6% of the male population and 65.4% of the female
population practiced at least once per week sport
• There was an increase in sport participation of 14% for
males and 16% for women from 1998 to 2008–2011
Preuß and Alfs • More than half of the population (55.5%) actively
(2013) participates in sport while almost two thirds (64.2%) of
the population under 16 years actively participate in sport
• More than 50% of individuals under 16 years practice
sport at least once a week
• Up to the age of 35, men are more active than women—
women over 50 are more active than men
(2012) estimated that, in 2007, the 16 Länder had accumulated sport-

related expenses (net value) of €4.430 billion.2
In 1949, the National Olympic Committee (NOK) for Germany was set
up; this was followed, in 1950, by the establishment of the German Sports
Association (DSB). While the Olympic ideal was represented by the NOK,
the DSB served as an umbrella organisation representing every sport federa-
tion at the federal level (Petry & Hallmann, 2013). In 2006, these organisa-
tions were merged into the German Olympic Sport Confederation (DOSB),
thereby establishing a new single umbrella organisation responsible not only
for grassroots sports, but also for top-level sports (Kerth, 2011). The almost
2
Länder expenses on sport include the expenses of publicly owned swimming pools and sporting
facilities, the development of grassroots sports, policing operations at sporting events, operating
costs for school and university sport, and so on.
4000 sport(s) (con-)federations in Germany at the federal, regional, district

and local levels are organized as either sport-specific federations or as multi-
sports governing bodies. In general, they generate revenues from member-
ship fees and public subsidies. When only national sport federations are
taken into account, they reported annual revenues in 2011 of €646,000 from
federal subsidies and €164,000 from regional/state subsidies (Breuer, 2013).
According to Breuer and Feiler (2015), all German sports clubs gener-
ate revenues from membership fees (mean per club in 2013: €16,620);
further common revenues streams are donations (€3093) and public sub-
sidies (€1721). In this context, it is important to note that organised
sport is the largest supplier of volunteer work in Germany. Extensive,
unpaid work performance is a key resource for grassroots clubs. This can
be underlined by the following numbers: 1.7 million volunteers work on
average 13.8 hours per month for their club. This amounts to 289.2 mil-
lion working hours per year, and corresponds to a nationwide yearly
added value of €4.3 billion even when secondary volunteers with spe-
cial employment contexts (sport events, festivals, renovations, etc.) are
not considered (Breuer & Feiler, 2015; Breuer, Feiler, & Wicker, 2015).
Further facts on Germany’s sports profile are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3 Sports profile of Germany
Ministry of the
Government authority responsible for sport Interior
Membership sociocultural club that includes sport in its 4
activities (for example employees’ club, youth club, school-
and university-related club) (%)*
Number of national sports federations** 62
Number of sport clubs** 90,802
Number of sport club memberships in 2014** 27,775,763
Federal funding of sport in 2013 (€)*** 241,700,000
Funding for national sport federations through the Federal 55,000,000
Ministry of the Interior in 2014 (€)***
(%)****
Sources: *European Commission (2014); **DOSB (2014); ***Deutscher Bundestag
(2014); ****GHK (2010).
4.1 Structure
The German sport system is—similar to the general political structure—

shaped by the concept of subsidiarity within the governmental and non-
governmental sports pillar—as can be seen in Fig. 1. The DOSB serves as
the linking partner between the federal sport authorities and the national
sport federations, while regional sports confederations are in close coop-
eration with regional governmental actors.
Describing the relationship between governmental and non-
governmental actors from a theoretical point of view is challenging, as
the sports system is too complex to be categorised as a pure principal–
agent or pure co-governance relationship. While at the federal level the
support for elite sport is based on target agreements that would allow
it to be classified in terms of a principal–agent relationship, the auton-
omous sport movement is considered as a fair partner in the develop-
ment of sport policies in the eyes of the current federal government
(Deutscher Bundestag, 2014). This fair partnership at arm’s length would
fall into the co-governance typology of Groeneveld (2009). Within the
VOCASPORT typology of sports policy systems in Europe (Henry,
2009), Germany is described as an example for the missionary configu-
ration. From a capacity-building point of view, organisational capacity
of sport(s) (con-)federations in Germany can be considered as relatively
developed. Based on the concept of autonomy, partnership and subsid-
iarity, governmental actors contribute to the financial capacities of fed-
erations only as a last resort. It is the (con-)federations themselves that
develop management capacity without significant support of governmen-
tal actors. With respect to infrastructural capacities, communities often
provide sporting facilities for free or for a relatively low fee to sports clubs
(Breuer & Feiler, 2015).
Intermediary
Governmental structures Non-governmental structures
structures
DOSB
Federal BMI
level SMK/
DST
National Sport
Federations
Regional Sports
Confederations
Ministries at
Regional Regional Sport
federal state
level Federations
level
District Sports
Confederations
Local Sports Local Sport

Local and Confederations Federations
Local level community
administration
Sport(s) clubs
Financing
Membership / partnership
Fig. 1 The organisation of sport in Germany. Notes: BMI Federal Ministry of

the Interior; SMK Meeting of Sport Ministers of all federal states; DST
Association of German Cities; DOSB German Olympic Sports Confederation;
In some federal states (e.g., Bavaria), sports clubs are members of the regional
sports confederations, in others (e.g., North Rhine-Westphalia), they are rep-
resented in the regional sports confederations by their respective local/dis-
trict sports confederation.
Source: Adapted from Petry and Hallmann (2013: 76).
Governmental Actors
National Level
In line with Article 30 of the Grundgesetz, it is the 16 federal states that

are in charge of subsidising sport. Nevertheless, the Federal Ministry of
the Interior (BMI) takes on a coordinating role for sport in Germany,
and 11 other federal ministries are also involved in sport-related matters

(Deutscher Bundestag, 2014).
Responsibility for top-level sport lies with the BMI, which operates as
the specialised department. It also takes the leading role in coordinating
the activities of other federal ministries that have specific responsibilities
such as supporting top-level sport in the federal armed forces, the federal
police force, and the customs authority (Deutscher Bundestag, 2014).
The BMI has taken on subsidiary tasks in the field of sports, includ-
ing the representation of Germany in international sports bodies, and
the provision of financial support for superregional sporting facilities
and institutions such as the Federal Institute of Sport Sciences (BISp;
Bundesministerium des Innern, 2015b).
In addition to the BMI, a standing committee for sports (Sportausschuss)
of the German Parliament regularly prepares and passes laws regarding issues
such as the federal support for top-level sports and the fight against doping and
match fixing. Additionally, the federal government supports non-profit sports
clubs by passing tax reduction legislations (Deutscher Bundestag, 2014).
Regional and Local Level
On the regional level, the 16 state governments largely operate inde-

pendently and their legislative actions play a significant role (Bergsgard,
Houlihan, Mangset, Nødland, & Rommetved, 2007). The states (Länder)
are responsible—and provide subsidies—for the education and develop-
ment of teachers at universities, research in the field of sports sciences, the
construction of infrastructures, the promotion of recreational sports, sup-
porting top-level sports at the Länder level and school sports (Kerth, 2011).
The sport ministers of the 16 Länder meet once a year and coordi-
nate their activities as part of the Conference of Ministers of Sports of
the States (SMK), along with guest representatives of the BMI, repre-
sentatives of the Association of German Cities (DST), and the German
Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB). Sport matters are also discussed
in a sports committee of the Association of German Cities. Within this
body, the representatives of the BMI, SMK, DOSB and the BISp work
on a trusting relationship (that is, a co-governance relationship) in the
field of sport, dealing primarily with those topics that require close coor-
dination between the local and federal levels—for example, the provision
of sporting facilities (Deutscher Bundestag, 2014). At the local (commu-
nity) level, sport is administered by the city and by the community sport
bodies and involves, for example, building and maintaining recreational
sport facilities (Kerth, 2011).
At the apex of the non-governmental sport movement is the DOSB, which

represents the interests of its member organisations as the sole umbrella
organisation towards the state and public. As of 2014, the DOSB had 98
member organisations, comprising 16 federal state sports confederations
and 62 national federations (34 Olympic and 28 non-Olympic), as well
as 20 sport federations with particular tasks (DOSB, 2015). Additionally,
Breuer (2013) estimated 838 sport-specific federations on the Länder
level, more than 2400 district and regional sport federations and 43 inter-
regional sport(s) (con-)federations. What is significant here is the financial
and organisational independence of all member organisations from the
DOSB and also the substantial emphasis on the idea of subsidiarity. A
monopolistic structure exists in the sense that each sport (for example:
football) is governed by only one national sport federation, for example,
the German Football Association (Deutscher Fußballbund; Fahrner, 2012).
The nation’s 91,000 sports clubs form the grassroots of the German
sport movement. A club can be organised as a single-sport or a multi-
sports club. Recently reported figures amount to 27.7 million member-
ships in total (multiple memberships in different sport clubs are possible),
constituting about one-third of the total German population (DOSB,
2014). The clubs are integrated into the self-administration of sport geo-
graphically and sport-specifically. For example, consider a club which is
offering football and swimming to its members and is based in Cologne
(in the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia). This multi-sports club
is a member of the football federation of North Rhine-Westphalia and
of the swimming federation of North Rhine-Westphalia. Furthermore,
this club is a member of Cologne’s Municipal Sports Confederation
(StadtSportBund Köln) which is the umbrella organisation for all single-

sport and multi-sports clubs in the city of Cologne. This confederation
is, in turn, a member of the sports confederation on the Länder level.
Every sports club is independent from the DOSB and the regional and
local sport federations and sports confederations and not directed by
them (Deutscher Bundestag, 2014). The great autonomy of sports clubs
is characteristic for Germany’s bottom-up structure of sport.
There is a clear separation between performance and grassroots sports.
While the sports confederations at the Länder level (Landessportbünde)
focus on grassroots sport, the (top-level) national sport federations
(Spitzenverbände) coordinate high-performance sport. In addition to
representational tasks, Landessportbünde discuss the general direction of
sport development through, for example, task forces and workshops at
the regional, district and municipal levels. They also coordinate the dis-
tribution of public subsidies from the Länder governments for the educa-
tion of coaches, trainers and managers, and of subsidies for the general
development of a sport. The support of voluntary engagement and inte-
gration through sport programs are additional areas of responsibility.
Spitzenverbände support sport-specific federations at the Länder level in
their development of financial and management capacities. Furthermore,
they work closely with regional sport federations to fulfil normative, stra-
tegic and operative management tasks for their sport. The sports-specific
federations on the Länder level represent the sports federations on the
district and municipal level and the clubs. Their tasks include the recruit-
ment, selection and support of talented athletes, and the training and
development of coaches (Fahrner, 2012). Those federations also develop
the management capacity of the grassroots of a particular sport through
consulting sports clubs in workshops and on information days.
elationship Between Governmental and Non-Governmental

R
Actors at the Federal Level
In an attempt to ensure adequate national representation and success at

international sport competitions, the Federal Ministry of the Interior
(BMI) cooperates with the German Olympic Sports Confederation. In
2007, these two institutions published a target agreement in which they

specified their respective roles and responsibilities within their coopera-
tive structure. Within this contractual agreement, the BMI decides on
the general sports policy (that is, the nature and extent of federal financial
support) while the DOSB is in charge of coordinating high-performance
sport in Germany. The funding of elite sport in Germany can therefore
be considered a principal–agent relationship, where the actions of the
agent (DOSB) affect not only its own welfare but also the welfare of the
principal (Picot, Dietl, & Franck, 2008). The DOSB is required to:
• develop measurable objectives that the sport system in general—and

the national sport federations in particular—should be able to attain
within a Olympic cycle;
• develop and formalise target agreements with the national
federations;
• control whether the agreed objectives have been met;
• assess whether the steering instruments of the high-performance sport
system in Germany were effective and efficient.
The last requirement is particularly interesting from an incentive point

of view. Here, the agent (DOSB)—instead of the principal (BMI)—
assesses whether the relationship was successful. When federal funding
and target agreements (and their level of attainment) are negotiated,
the DOSB simultaneously acts as an agent for its members, that is, the
Spitzenverbände. In 2012, the target agreement was analysed and revised.
DOSB and BMI agreed on extending their cooperation for the funding
cycle 2013–2016 by signing a respective agreement to support elite sport
in Germany in January 2013 (Bundesrechnungshof, 2014).
4.2 Steering
According to Houlihan (1997), Germany can be classified as a country

in which the responsibility for sport is shared between governmental and
non-governmental organisations. In line with Henry (2009), Germany’s
missionary configuration of sports policy is based on the governmental
authorities’ belief that by leaving control of sport to those with expertise and
commitment, the externalities associated with sport will presumably follow.
Germany’s (federal) government steers (elite) sports in Germany through
financial support rather than commanding sport specific legislation.
All individual sporting activity is protected in the Grundgesetz by the fun-

damental rights of free development of personality and freedom to pur-
sue a professional activity (Article 2 (1) and Article 12 (1), respectively).
At the organisational level, the Grundgesetz guarantees the right to assem-
ble and form (sport) associations (Article 9 (1); Deutscher Bundestag,
2014). Moreover, the Grundgesetz assigns governmental powers and the
discharge of state functions in the area of education, research and sport
to the 16 Länder—unless the matter exceeds the capacity of a single Land
(Heinemann, 1996; Kerth, 2011).
The Grundgesetz does not explicitly assign competence to the federal gov-
ernment in the area of sports. Therefore, federal support for sport can
only focus on high-performance sport and exceptional sporting events
of national interest (including the Olympic Games, the Paralympics,
Deaflympics, World and European Championships, and the World
Games) and is oriented on the constitutional principle of subsidiarity. The
federal government understands its role as a promoter of world-class sport,
while the Länder have responsibility for promoting recreational sport for
all (Deutscher Bundestag, 2014). The funding from the BMI for elite sport
is based on the Competitive Sports Program (Leistungssportprogramm) of
28 September 2005. This programme includes guidelines for grants for
national sports federations, the development of grassroots sports, sport
academies and other sport agencies, and for adequate infrastructure for
high-performance sport (Bundesministerium des Innern, 2005, 2015a;
Deutscher Bundestag, 2014).
Sport Policy Framework
The basic principles of federal sport policy are: autonomy of sport, subsid-
iarity of sport funding and partnership. The federal government recognises
the great sociopolitical importance of sport, particularly in the fields of
integration, education, health care and social cohesion. The autonomous
sport movement is seen to act as a proxy for governmental interests in a fair
partnership. Therefore, this relationship can be categorised as co-governance
rather than co-production in the sense used by Groeneveld (2009), because
the non-governmental actors are at no distance from the state, and sport
policy in Germany rather involves direct interaction between the govern-
mental actors and sport federations within policy making and implemen-
tation. Federal government and the autonomous sports organisations are
united in their objectives to develop sport and to protect it from nega-
tive influences such as match fixing and doping. The federal government
also supports high-performance sport by athletes with a disability because
their achievements merit recognition (Deutscher Bundestag, 2014).
Furthermore, Germany’s sport policy also has an international dimension:
the federal government believes that Germany is a world leader in sport,
and its expertise is often highly sought after in international sport organisa-
tions. It is, therefore, seen to make a significant contribution to the devel-
opment of sport in Europe and around the world (Bundesministerium des
Innern, 2015a). In order to achieve the described objectives, the federal
government is committed to the principles of good governance and is
developing a quality reference system with control and steering mecha-
nisms for improved efficiency (Deutscher Bundestag, 2014).
4.3 Support
Financial Framework
National Budget for Sport in General
The federal government’s financial support for sport is based on three

principles: the autonomy of organised sport, subsidiarity, and partnership.
According to budget law, all sports clubs and federations must exhaust all
other funding possibilities before they are entitle to claim federal funds
(Bundesministerium des Innern, 2015b). Federal funding relies on the
self-sufficiency of autonomous sport and only supplements activities by
providing optimal conditions for training and competition to ensure
international success. In the years 2010–2013, the federal government
spent around €948 million for sport-related matters, with the largest share
(€635 million) stemming from the sport budget of the BMI (Deutscher
Bundestag, 2014). In particular, the BMI provided funds of €109 mil-
lion for Olympic Training Bases and €2 million for training academies
to ensure sporting success at the top level (Deutscher Bundestag, 2014).
In 2014, the federal government supported elite sports of disabled ath-
letes (€6.5 million), school sports programmes (€350,000) and federa-
tions with special tasks (€1.1 million) and grassroots projects (€345,000;
Bundesministerium des Innern, 2015c).
Federal Budget for National Sport Federations
With respect to elite sport, the BMI supported national sport federations
(Spitzenverbände) with €46.3 million in 2013 (Bundesrechnungshof,
2014). In 2014, this amount increased to a total of €55 million, divided
between 31 Olympic sport federations (who received €52.6 million) and
23 non-Olympic sport federations (€2.4 million; Bundesministerium
des Innern, 2015d). According to Emrich, Pierdzioch, and Rullang
(2013), the five federations that received the highest absolute federal
funding between 2009 and 2013 were: athletics (€20.3 million), swim-
ming (€14.5 million), rowing (€12.0 million), cycling (€9.0 million) and
canoeing (€8.5 million). National sport federations are supported finan-
cially in particular for training and scouting activities, participating in
international championships and other domestic or international sporting
competitions, but also for hosting sporting events of national interest and
maintaining international sport relations (Deutscher Bundestag, 2014).
With the help of basic funding, the BMI provides a substantial basis
for competitive sport and youth development in the respective national
federation. The amount of basic funding is calculated for one Olympic
cycle and gives the federations planning certainty as they receive constant
annual subsidies over one Olympic cycle (Deutscher Bundestag, 2014).
With project funding, the BMI aims to support specific measures that
have the potential to ensure sporting success at the next Olympic Games.
In contrast to basic funding, project funding can be adjusted annually
based on the extent of current success at international competitions. BMI
and DOSB negotiate target agreements for one Olympic cycle, including
the number of (gold) medals, success at international competitions, and
meeting the qualification criteria for the Olympic Games. Here, the BMI
acts as a principal that engages the agent (DOSB) to perform some ser-
vice (success at top-level competitions for national representation) on its
behalf which involves the delegation of some decision-making authority
to the agent (Jensen & Meckling, 1976).
In 2014, Germany’s Federal Audit Office (Bundesrechnungshof; BRH)
analysed the cooperation of BMI and DOSB and concluded that the
DOSB is not an independent consultant for sports policy, but was first
and foremost a beneficiary administering and defending the interests of its
member federations. Currently, the DOSB enjoys a sport consulting monop-
oly—where the BMI has little to counter (Bundesrechnungshof, 2014).
When subsidies to the Olympic sport federations are distributed, the
DOSB acts as a common agent of the sport federations, on the one hand,
and, on the other hand, of the BMI (Emrich et al., 2013). This leads to
an imbalance in the relationship between the BMI and the DOSB, since
the DOSB not only develops and determines sporting success criteria,
but also assesses to what extent those criteria have been met or not met.
This agency relationship is characterised by a great deal of information
asymmetry. The DOSB has little to none incentive to reduce this asym-
metry because it wants to ensure high funding levels, while the BMI
has high monitoring costs to limit divergent activities from the agent
(Jensen & Meckling, 1976). The result is a welfare reduction within the
area of elite sport funding as the funds are not distributed efficiently
due to the transaction costs outlined above, in particular when sporting
success is controlled and assessed. The BRH advised the BMI to break
the consulting monopoly of the DOSB and to attain sporting expertise
from independent institutions (Bundesrechnungshof, 2014). However,
this recommendation implies a rise in monitoring costs for the principal
and a shift towards a more bureaucratic configuration of the relation-
ship between the two institutions. The BMI will include the expertise
of the BISp in future sport funding negotiation processes and will apply
another modified distribution key for the funding cycle 2017–2020
(Bundesrechnungshof, 2014).
With respect to the dimension of project funding, BMI and DOSB
developed a new distribution key in which the Spitzenverbände are cat-
egorised into five categories ranging from category A (high potential for
medals) to category E (no potential for medals or participation in final stages
of competition). This categorisation can be interpreted as an answer to the
call for more transparency through rules and regulations in order for the
BMI to gain more accountability—and as a shift towards the bureau-
cratic configuration, as described by Henry (2009).
State Level
According to Breuer (2013), all of the Landessportbünde (regional sports

confederations) received subsidies in 2011 from respective state gov-
ernments (mean: €4,461,500), while 32.3 per cent of all district and
municipal sports confederations received subsidies from the Länder
(mean: €160,881). 18.2 per cent of the Spitzenverbände (federal level)
received subsidies from the Länder (mean: €164,000), 59.6 per cent of
the Landesfachverbände (sport federations on Länder level), and 16.9 per
cent of district sport federations had revenues from state subsidies in 2011
(Breuer, 2013). In Bavaria, the second-largest state in Germany, the state’s
financial support for roughly 17,000 grassroots sports clubs amounted
to more than €82.5 million between 2009 and 2013. Here, the financial
support of clubs is generalised, and based solely on the club’s size and
budget (Bayerisches Staatsministerium des Inneren, für Bau und Verkehr,
2015). However, the situation differs in the other 15 federal states.
Regional and Local Level
National sport federations and sports federation on Länder level did not
receive communal subsidies in 2011. A total of 82.9 per cent of all district
and municipal sports confederations received subsidies from communal
authorities (with a mean payment of €110,180). In the same year 7.1 per
cent of the sport federations on the Länder level, and 21.1 per cent of the dis-
trict and community sport federations had revenues (with means of €25,829,
and €8306, respectively) from communal subsidies (Breuer, 2013). 54.1 per
cent of the German sports clubs received s ubsidies from district/community
authorities in 2012—an average of €1721 (Breuer & Feiler, 2015).
The Leadership Academy (Führungsakademie des Deutschen Olympischen

Sportbundes; FA) is the central institution within the DOSB for sport
managers and officials in the autonomous sport movement in issues relat-
ing to sports management and development. The FA is closely linked
to the structures and networks of the sports movement. Its main objec-
tive is to professionalise organised sports and emphasising its strengths.
Main tasks include developing executives’ management skills, assisting
member organisations in their development, and promoting a nation-
wide exchange of best-practice concepts and projects in the area the
development of sport(s) federations. The range of guidance covers the
areas of training, consulting and science (Führungs-Akademie, 2015b).
The FA offers workshops in the areas of strategy development, project
development and project management, the development of leadership
guidelines, workflows, organisational charts, and job descriptions, as well
as the financial support of federations, accounting, and the conceptuali-
sation of own workshops and conferences (Führungs-Akademie, 2015a).
Taken as a whole, the FA is a central element in the development of
financial and management capacities of sport(s) federations in Germany.
5 Conclusion
Germany’s general sport governance model is based on a co-governance
relationship of governmental and non-governmental actors—similar to
that found in the Netherlands. In the governmental pillar of sports—
and unlike, for example, France—there is no specific Federal Ministry of
Sport. In the non-governmental pillar, the national Olympic committee

has joined forces with the umbrella sports confederation. Compared with
the situation in Ireland and the UK, which demonstrate an entrepreneur-
ial configuration of sport governance (Henry, 2009), the intermediary
structures are of less significance in the German structure. Moreover, due
to its federal structure and the autonomy of the sport system Germany
does not have a national approach to overall national sport policy.
With respect to elite sports and the funding of top-level national sport
federations, the relationship of governmental and non-governmental
actors can be described from a principal–agent perspective. The federal
funding system for elite sport has undergone some evolutionary steps;
however, the process is currently far from complete. The latest distribu-
tion key for federal funding of national sport federations can be con-
sidered evolutionary because—for the first time—project funding is to
be allocated according to potential success/medals at Olympic Games
and because the BMI has demonstrated a stronger position in the nego-
tiation process. The BRH recommends, however, that the BMI ensures
that targets and measures are adjusted annually through milestone talks
in which the BMI assesses itself whether the proposed success potentials
are appropriate and realistic. For the previous Olympic funding cycle,
federations had stated overly optimistic medal expectations as they were
hoping to acquire more project funds. Future funding from the BMI for
national sport federations is still subject to a restructuring process which
is characterised by a shift from the missionary to a more bureaucratic
configuration of Germany’s sport policy, and an attempt to make the
agency relationship more efficient.
References
Bayerisches Staatsministerium des Inneren, für Bau und Verkehr. (2015). Daten
und Fakten zum Breitensport. http://www.stmi.bayern.de/sug/sport/breitens-
port/datenundfakten/index.php (retrieved 27 August 2015).
Becker, S., Klein, T., & Schneider, S. (2006). Sportaktivität in Deutschland im
10-Jahres-Vergleich: Veränderungen und soziale Unterschiede. Deutsche
Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, 57(9), 226–232.
Bergsgard, N. A., Houlihan, B., Mangset, P., Nødland, S. I., & Rommetved, H.
(2007). Sport policy: A comparative analysis of stability and change. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Breuer, C. (2013). Sportbünde und Sportverbände in Deutschland. In C. Breuer
(Ed.), Sportverbände, Sportvereine und ausgewählte Sportarten. Weiterführende
Analysen der Sportentwicklungsberichte (pp. 328–376). Köln: Sportverlag
Strauss.
Breuer, C., & Feiler, S. (2015). Sport development report 2013/2014: Analysis of
the situation of sports clubs in Germany—Abbreviated version. Köln: Sportverlag
Strauß.
Breuer, C., & Wicker, P. (2009). Decreasing sports activity with increasing age?
Findings from a 20-year longitudinal and cohort sequence analysis. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80(1), 22–31.
Breuer, C., Feiler, S., & Wicker, P. (2015). Germany. In C. Breuer, R. Hoekman,
S. Nagel, & H. van der Werff (Eds.), Sport clubs in Europe. A cross-national
comparative perspective (pp. 243–272). New York, NY: Springer.
Breuer, C., Hallmann, K., & Wicker, P. (2011). Determinants of sport partici-
pation in different sports. Managing Leisure, 16(4), 269–286.
Bundesministerium des Innern. (2005). Leistungssportprogramm—LSP. http://
www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-
Verfassung/Sport/DatenundFakten/FR_Leistungssportprogramm_LSP_05.
pdf?__blob=publicationFile (retrieved 26 October 2016).
Bundesministerium des Innern. (2015a). Federal Sport policy. http://www.bmi.
bund.de/EN/Topics/Sport/Federal-Sport-Policy/federal-sport-policy_node.
html;jsessionid=E109B50ECA982CF178DA0574663B262C.2_cid287
(retrieved 27 August 2015).
Bundesministerium des Innern. (2015b). Sport funding. http://www.bmi.bund.
de/EN/Topics/Sport/Sport-Funding/sport-funding_node.html (retrieved 27
August 2015).
Bundesministerium des Innern. (2015c). Zuwendungen des Bundes aus Kapitel
0601 Titel 684 21 und Titel 684 23. http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/
Downloads/DE/Themen/Sport/foerderung-leistungssport-behinderung-
2014-PDF.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (retrieved 27 August 2015).
Bundesministerium des Innern. (2015d). Zuwendungen des Bundes aus Kapitel
0601 Titel 684 21 und Titel 684 23. http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/
D o w n l o a d s / D E / T h e m e n / S p o r t / f o e r d e r u n g - s p i t z e n s p o r t -
bundessportfachverb%C3%A4nde-2014-PDF.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
Bundesrechnungshof. (2014). Abschließende Mitteilung an das Bundesministerium

des Innern über die Prüfung Förderung der Spitzensportverbände. https://www.
bundesrechnungshof.de/de/veroeffentlichungen/pruefungsmitteilungen/
langfassungen/langfassungen/2014-pm-foerderung-der-
spitzensportverbaende-pdf (retrieved 27 August 2015).
DESTATIS. (2015a). Current population. https://www.destatis.de/EN/
Fa c t s Fi g u r e s / S o c i e t y S t a t e / Po p u l a t i o n / C u r r e n t Po p u l a t i o n /
CurrentPopulation.html (retrieved 27 August 2015).
DESTATIS. (2015b). Gemeindeverzeichnis-Informationssystem (GV-ISys).
https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/LaenderRegionen/Regionales/
Gemeindeverzeichnis/Administrativ/AdministrativeUebersicht.html
DESTATIS. (2015c). Society & state: Population. https://www.destatis.de/EN/
FactsFigures/SocietyState/SocietyState.html (retrieved 27 August 2015).
Deutscher Bundestag. (2012). Basic law for the Federal Republic of Germany.
https://www.bundestag.de/blob/284870/ce0d03414872b427e57fccb-
703634dcd/basic_law-data.pdf (retrieved 27 August 2015).
Deutscher Bundestag. (2014). 13. Sportbericht der Bundesregierung (Drucksache
18/3523). http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/18/035/1803523.pdf (retrieved
27 August 2015).
DOSB. (2014). Bestandserhebung 2014. http://www.dosb.de/fileadmin/share-
point/Materialien%20{82A97D74-2687-4A29-9C16-4232BAC7DC73}/
Bestandserhebung_2014.pdf (retrieved 27 August 2015).
DOSB. (2015). Profile of German Olympic Sports Confederation. Retrieved
August 27, 2015, from http://www.dosb.de/en/organisation/wir-ueber-uns/
dosb-profile/.
Emrich, E., Pierdzioch, C., & Rullang, C. (2013). Zwischen Regelgebundenheit
und diskretionären Spielräumen: Die Finanzierung des bundesdeutschen
Spitzensports [Between rule-based decisions and discretionary power: On the
system of financing German elite sports]. Sport und Gesellschaft, 10(1), 3–26.
European Commission. (2014). Sport and physical activity: Report. Special
Eurobarometer (Vol. 412). Brussels: European Commission.
Fahrner, M. (2012). Grundlagen des Sportmanagements. München: Oldenbourg
Verlag.
Führungs-Akademie. (2015a). Beratung. http://www.fuehrungs-akademie.de/
beratung.html (retrieved 27 August 2015).
Führungs-Akademie. (2015b). Die Führungs-Akademie des DOSB e.V. http://
www.fuehrungs-akademie.de/die-akademie/selbstverstaendnis.html

Groeneveld, M. (2009). European sport governance, citizens, and the state.
Public Management Review, 11(4), 421–440.
Hallmann, K., Breuer, C., Disch, J., Giel, T., & Nowy, T. (in press). The sport
industry in Germany. In J. J. Zhang, R. H. Huang, & J. Nauright (Eds.),
Global development of the sport industry.
Heinemann, K. (1996). Sport policy in Germany. In L. Chalip, A. Johnson, &
L. Stachura (Eds.), National sport policies. An international book (pp. 161–186).
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Houlihan, B. (1997). Sport, policy, and politics: A comparative analysis. London
and New York: Routledge.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial
behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial
Economics, 3, 305–360.
Kerth, G. (2011). Opportunities and boundaries of a sport policy in the European
Union: Realities—Expectations—Visions (neue Ausg). Saarbrücken:
Suedwestdeutscher Verlag fuer Hochschulschriften.
Klostermann, C., & Nagel, S. (2014). Changes in German sport participation:
Historical trends in individual sports. International Review for the Sociology of
Sport, 49(5), 609–634.
Krug, S., Jordan, S., & Lampert, T. (2012). Physical activity: What are the pat-
terns among Germans? Bundesgesundheitsblatt, 55(8), 985–986.
Krüger, M. (2013). The history of German sports clubs: Between integration
and emigration. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 30(14),
1586–1603.
OECD. (2015). Country statistical profile: Germany 2015/1. http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/economics/country-statistical-profile-germany_20752288-table-
deu (retrieved 27 August 2015).
Pahl-Weber, E., Henckel, D., Klinge, W., Lau, P., Zwicker-Schwarm, D., Rütenik,
B., & Besecke, A. (2015). General description of the constitutional system. http://
arl-net.de/commin/germany/11-general-description-constitutional-system
Pawlowski, T., & Breuer, C. (2012). Die finanzpolitische Bedeutung des Sports in
Deutschland. SpringerLink: Bücher. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien
Wiesbaden; Imprint: Springer Gabler.
Petry, K., & Hallmann, K. (2013). Germany. In K. Hallmann & K. Petry (Eds.),
Sports economics, management and policy: Vol. 8. Comparative sport develop-
ment. Systems, participation and public policy (pp. 75–86). New York, NY:
Springer.
Picot, A., Dietl, H., & Franck, E. (2008). Organisation: Eine ökonomische
Perspektive (5th ed.). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.
Preuß, H., & Alfs, C. (2013). Wirtschaftliche Bedeutung des Sportkonsums in
Deutschland. Sportwissenschaft, 43(4), 239–252.
UNdata. (2015). Country profile—Germany. https://data.un.org/CountryProfile.
aspx?crName=GERMANY (retrieved 27 August 2015).
Lithuania: The Organisation
and Governance of Sport
Vilma Čingienė
1 Introduction
Sport as a system of knowledge, institutions and activities was passed
on to the next generation following the restoration of Lithuanian inde-
pendence from the Soviet Union in 1990. Lithuania is a relatively small
Eastern European country with a population of about three million.
Sport organisation and governance is a challenging process that involves
retaining the traditions and models from the past, focusing on good
examples from the leading European organisations and building new
structures. National sport federations are building their own identity and
perform their tasks in an attempt to match public interests and expecta-
tions of their members. According to the Typology of European Sport
Systems (Camy, Clijsen, Madella, & Pilkington, 2004), the Lithuanian
V. Čingienė (*)
Institute of Management, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0_9
180 V. Čingienė
sport system corresponds to the bureaucratic model characterised by the

very active role of the state.
Legislative, policy and financial frameworks supporting the develop-
ment of sport federations will be presented. Inter-institutional and cross-
sectoral cooperation is one of the main goals of all stakeholders in the
national sport system. Sport federations see better mutual understanding
and evidence-based decision making as a primary task in their activities.
2 Country Profile
After being occupied by the Soviet Union, by the Nazi Germany and the by
the Soviet Union again after World War II, in 1990 Lithuania became the
first Soviet Republic to declare the restoration of its independence (Čingienė
& Laskienė, 2004). Lithuania, officially the Republic of Lithuania, is a par-
liamentary republic with a unitary government and one of the three Baltic
States. Since 2004 Lithuania has been a member of the European Union (EU)
and in 2015 it joined the eurozone. The country is divided into 10 counties
and 60 municipalities. Following the dissolution of the County Governor
Administration institutions in 2010, the major administrative functions
have now been assumed by local government. Lithuania has 2,979,000
inhabitants (OECD, 2014) and extends over an area of 62,674 km² (The
World Bank, 2013a), resulting in a density of 47.5 people per km² (Table 1).
The country has a relatively low urbanisation rate of 67 per cent (The World
Bank, 2013b). Lithuania has a GDP per capita of US$23,876 (OECD,
2014). Lithuanian is the official language in Lithuania.
3 Sport in Lithuania
Following the restoration of independence in 1990, the development
of sports gained wide and promising opportunities. A sport organisa-
tion and administration structure (hierarchical and vertical levels) and
organizations’ activity content (vision, mission and tasks) had to be rein-
stalled (Čingienė & Gobikas, 2011). A legal and political framework laid
Table 1 Facts and descriptive statistics of Lithuania

Area (km²) *Area 2013a; **Urbanization rate 2013b 62,674 km²
Urbanisation rate (%)** 67
Political organisation Semi-presidential
republic
Number of counties 10
GDP per capita (US dollars)* 23,876
Welfare model Eastern European
Sources: *OECD (2014); **World Bank (2013); *area 2013a; **rate 2013b.
the background for the new system in sport. The Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania adopted in 1992 states that “The State shall pro-
mote physical culture of society and shall support sport”. The Law on
Physical Education and Sport was adopted on 20 December 1995. Four
sports Congresses were organised, in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2005, in
order to promote the development of sports, to discuss topical issues and
analyse the prospects for the country.
In 2000 the Lithuanian Sports Congress adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Strategy on Physical Education and Sport 2000–2012. This
strategy was launched only ten years after the regaining of Lithuanian
independence in 1991, meaning that over the period 1990–2000 the
sport system was developing without any guiding document. In 2005 the
document was revised and the Republic of Lithuania Strategy on Physical
Education and Sport 2005–2015 was adopted. This strategy was not
approved by the Parliament, however. As a result of the political, admin-
istrative and economic changes in the country, the Lithuanian Parliament
adopted the National Sport Development Strategy 2011–2020 and
Lithuanian Government approved the 2014–2017 Inter-institutional
Action Plan for the implementation of the strategy. The scope of the
plan covers the following activities: (1) the promotion of a healthy life-
style among all Lithuanian residents through physical activity, physical
182 V. Čingienė
education and sports; (2) creating appropriate conditions for Lithuanian

residents to participate in physical activity and sport; and (3) improve-
ment of elite athletes training system (Government of the Republic of
Lithuania, 2014).
Actually, the organisation of sport in Lithuania takes a significant place
in the Lithuanian political arena. Section XVI “Sports Policy” of Lithuanian
Government Programme 2012–2016 contains sport development guide-
lines (Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 2012: 284–301).
Sport in Lithuania has always been subject to considerable attention
from political parties. Tamulaitienė and Norkus (2012) made a initial
investigation and proved the influence of political programmes regarding
physical education and sports to the Lithuanian policy on sports.
In October 2014, a Sports Forum “Healthy, physically active, and
sport savvy children and youth for modern, economically strong and
secure country” was held in the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania.
The aim behind the forum was to engage the general public and stake-
holders in the debate about the worsening health of children and youth
and to find methods to remedy this situation (Gedvilas, 2014). On 18
November 2014, the resolution entitled “Considering Sport Politics” was
adopted, with 77 members of parliament voting in favour.
The participation levels in sport at the national level were investigated
for the first time in 2002. Hereafter longitudinal surveys on the attitude
of Lithuanian residents aged 7–80 towards exercising and doing sport
were conducted in 2002, 2007 and 2011 (Table 2).
The findings of the last study are similar to the most recent
Eurobarometer survey on sport and physical activity (European
Commission, 2014). In 2014, 37 per cent of Lithuanians answered that
they exercised or participated in sport on a regular basis (36 per cent in
2009). The survey results show that 22 per cent of Lithuanians exercise
or do sport at least once a week, 15 per cent exercise more than five
times a week. 8 per cent are members of a sport club, only 1 per cent are
members of health or fitness clubs and 6 per cent of another type of club
(such as employees’ club, youth club, school- and university-related club
or other) (European Commission, 2014). According to the number of
citizens exercising regularly, Lithuania ranks 15th among 28 EU member
states and membership of sport clubs consist 8 per cent only (Table 3).
Table 2 Participation rate in sport in Lithuania (%)

Type of participation/year 2002 2007 2011 Number of respondents
Organised sport 16.6 15.9 20.6 7512
Non-organised sport 31.04 32 46.8 3974
Do not take part 52.4 51.6 36.8 4007
Source: Lithuanian Sports Information Centre (2002, 2007, 2012).
Table 3 Sports profile of Lithuania

Department of Physical
Government authority responsible for sport Education and Sports
Membership of sport club (%)* 8
Membership of fitness or health centre (%)* 1
Membership sociocultural club that includes sport in 6
its activities (e.g. employees’ club, youth club,
school- and university-related club) (%)*
Number of sport clubs** 1240
Number of sport club members** 74,606
Average number of members per cluba** 40–60
National budget for sport (€)** 22,755,705
National budget for sport federations (€)** 3,968,026
Local budget for sport (€)** 46,074,287
Sources: *European Commission (2014); **Lithuanian Sports Information Centre
(2014).
a
The calculation is based only on organised sport for children and youth up to 19
years of age.
Two studies on the levels of physical activity among the Lithuanian

population were conducted in January 2012 and November 2013.
According to Čingienė and Laskienė (2014), the participation rate in
sport and physical activity dropped 12 percentage points between these
two dates. Younger respondents (those aged 15–24) participate in sport
and physical activities more often; however, more than 60 percent of the
respondents aged 45–74 years of age never exercise or do sport. The anal-
ysis of exercising or doing sport at a sport club or at a health/fitness centre
showed that approximately one-fifth (22 per cent) of respondents exercise
regularly, whereas more than half (62 per cent) never go to a sport club or
a health/fitness centre. Active respondents most often participate in sport
and physical activity in other places (71 per cent). More than half of the
184 V. Čingienė
respondents (54 per cent) exercise or do sport on a regular basis, 17 per

cent—sometimes; respondents of age group 55–74 (pensioners) exercise
or do sport more than five times a week in other places. The comparison
of the results of two studies showed that there has been an increase in the
number of Lithuanians participating in other physical activity more than
five times a week.
In 2010 the Ministry of Health contracted a survey to assess the
physical activity of the Lithuanian population through use of the Global
Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) (Valintėlienė, Varvuolienė,
& Kranauskas, 2012). 1038 Lithuanians aged 15–74 years were inter-
viewed by telephone, using the GPAQ designed by the World Health
Organization. According to the results, half of the respondents (53.8
per cent) were classified as belonging to the ‘high physical activity (PA)’
group, 22.1 per cent to the ‘moderate PA’ group, and 24.1 per cent to
‘low PA’ groups. In terms of duration, physical activity takes about 223
minutes per day (male − 238 minutes, female 207 minutes). A bigger
share of “inactive” people at work is found among urban citizens (52.5
per cent), females (54.0 per cent), and people with higher education
qualifications (64.5 per cent). Only 9.1 per cent of respondents partici-
pated in “vigorous” sports, fitness or other active recreational activities.
On average, Lithuanians spend just under five hours (299 minutes) per
day in a seated position.
4.1 Structure
Figure 1 displays the current organisation of sport in Lithuania at the

national, regional and local levels, and according to governmental, inter-
mediate and non-governmental structures. The graphical representation
of the organisational framework is followed by the description of the
most relevant sport actors in the Lithuanian sport system, starting with
the governmental actors, followed by the non-governmental actors and
concluded with the intermediate actors.
LITHUANIA Governmental Intermediate Non-governmental
Department of
National PE and Lithuanian NOC
PE and Sport
sport council
(under the
Sport for All Association
Government of the
Republic of
Lithuania) Lithuanian Union of Sport
National level Federations
PE and sport
promotion fund
Olympic sport National sport Sport for All

center federations organisations
[Administrations of
Regional level county governors]
Association of the Heads
of the Lithuanian Sport Federations of
Municipalities Sports Counties, Districts and
Sports education
Divisions Cities
centers
Municipal
Local level sport
Association of the Heads Sport clubs
divisions
of the Lithuanian Sports
Education Centers
Sport facilities
Financing
Fig. 1 Sport framework Lithuania.

Note: PE-Physical Education; NOC-National Olympic Committee.
Source: Modified from Scheerder, Willem, Claes, and Billiet (2015).
At the national level the Department of Physical Education and Sports

(hereinafter the Department, DPES) is responsible for the supervision
of sporting activities. The Department reports to the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania and is under the direct supervision of the Interior
Ministry (Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 2010). The mission
of DPES is to enrich the lives of Lithuanians through physical educa-
tion and to create conditions for the development of talent in sport. The
Department is currently following the 2015–2017 strategic action plan
186 V. Čingienė
(DPES, 2014a). Two main activity priorities are defined for 2015: (1) to
create conditions to develop a healthy and physically active society: and
(2) to ensure the professional preparation of talented athletes to represent
the country in the most important international sporting events.
The Physical Education and Sport Promotion Fund (hereinafter the
Fund; originally founded as the Culture and Sports Fund in 1998),
receives one per cent of the annual income from alcohol and tobacco
excise and 10 per cent from lotteries and gambling tax (Republic of
Lithuania, 2007). The Fund supports physical education and sports proj-
ects according to five defined priorities.
Lithuanian Olympic Sport Centre (LOSC) is a public institution
engaged in non-formal sport education programs, preparing the top-level
athletes for Olympic Games, World and European championships and
other international competitions.
At the regional level there is no responsibility with regard to sports.
At the local level, all 60 municipalities (12 cities and 48 districts) have
a responsibility for the promotion of sporting activities. There are two
types of structural units: sport division (in Kaunas city) or culture, edu-
cation and sport division (in Vilnius). Divisions are responsible for the
sports policy, for the operation and maintenance of sports facilities, for
the funding sport activities, for awarding grants and bonus payments to
high performance athletes, and so on.
At the local level, there are 93 public sports education centres (SEC)
across the country, where 45,314 children and youth do sport (according
to the data for the end of 2013). These centres are under the responsibil-
ity of local authorities and a large part of the local budget goes to the
funding of these schools. Children between 7–19 years old are engaged
in different sports and participate in championships at local, national or
international levels. Sport federations looking for talented athletes keep
close contacts with the centres.
At the national level, the three main non-profit organisations are the
Lithuanian National Olympic Committee (LNOC), the Lithuanian
Union of Sport Federations (LUSF) and the Lithuanian Sport for All
Association.
In 1991, just a few months after Lithuania declared its indepen-
dence, the Lithuanian National Olympic Committee (LNOC) re-
established its membership of the International Olympic Committee.
The LNOC includes 36 national Olympic sports federations and as a
body, it is charged with the exclusive role of developing and promoting
the Olympic movement in Lithuania and also a duty to represent the
Republic of Lithuania in the Olympic movement. Over the course of
the four-year Olympic cycle, the LNOC, together with DPES and the
Lithuanian Olympic Sports Centre, prepare the selection criteria of the
candidates for the Lithuanian Olympic team and annually approve the
updated team of candidates (LNOC, 2015). The best athletes are sup-
ported financially not only by the state, but also through the provision of
LNOC Olympic scholarships.
Another organisation, the Lithuanian Union of Sport Federations
(LUSF), was founded, and by 2015 it had a total of 80 members, includ-
ing both Olympic and non-Olympic sport federations. The main objec-
tives of this organisation are to take care of the promotion, dissemination
and development of sport in Lithuania in partnership with other sport
organisations, to coordinate the activities of sport federations, to provide
services to sport federations, to initiate new programmes and to debate
and represent the interests of its members (LUSF, 2015). There are spe-
cial agreements between the DPES and the LUSF for the organisation of
sport events, but LUSF’s other tasks are not implied by the government,
nor captured in any regulation or law.
The activities of sport federations are prescribed by the Law on Physical
Education and Sport (Article 15) (Republic of Lithuania, 1995). Only
one national sport (sports branch) federation can be recognised by the
Department according to certain criteria (DPES, 2014b). Following the
evaluation of sport results achieved during the last Olympic cycle, the
sport that the sport federation is responsible for may be classified in one
of three ways: as a priority, as a strategic or as an other sport branch. The
requirements for priority sport (11) and strategic (7) sport branches are
created by the DPES and approved for the period 2013–2016 (DPES,
2013).
188 V. Čingienė
In addition to the 80 member sport federations of the LUSF, there are

24 federations that do not belong to the LUSF and also five federations
that focus on disability sport. The national sport federations are respon-
sible for the running of around 1340 sport clubs in the country. More
than 95,000 people of all ages attend sport clubs on a regular basis (LSIC,
2014).
The Sport for All association, founded in 1991, is an independent
non-governmental organisation that brings together 16 voluntary sport
organisations, 471 clubs, about 25,000 members and more than 700 vol-
unteers (LSIC, 2014). The association’s main objectives are to enhance
people’s health and social well-being through programmes of physical
education and sport, to promote healthy lifestyles and to organise physi-
cal education, grassroots sport and recreation activities for all ages (Sport
for All Association, 2015). The association provides clubs with organisa-
tional and methodological assistance in preparing competitions, champi-
onships, promotion and the organisation of joint festivals and workshops.
The National Physical Education and Sport Council (hereinafter the

Council) was established with the aim of encouraging the interests of all
public administration institutions and non-governmental o rganisations
in physical education and sport as well as their cooperation. The Council
consists of representatives of nine governmental institutions (Ministries,
Commissions and the Department) and also representatives of non-
governmental sport organisations. The Council principally has an advi-
sory function and is responsible for ‘the promotion of PE and sport and
seek that the development of PE and sport would be in compliance with
the international regulations on PE and sport’, as provided by the Law on
Physical Education and Sport (Republic of Lithuania, 1995).
The Association of the Heads of Lithuanian Municipal Sports Divisions
(hereafter the AHLMSD) is the main actor at the regional level. This
association consists of representatives from local councils and also from
regional/local sport organisations. AHLMSD members can influence or
give their opinion in the strategic decision making process. The president
of the Association is also member of the board of the Fund and of the
Council.
The Association of the Heads of the Lithuanian Sports Education
Centres (hereinafter AHLSEC) is the main actor at the local level. Its
members are the directors of sports education centres. They supervise the
organisation of sports activities, discuss on various issues related to the
development of sports education centres, etc.
It can be seen that the organisations above, the DPES (governmen-
tal), the LNOC (elite sport), the LUSF (Olympic and non-Olympic
federations), the Sport for All Association, the Council, AHLMSD and
AHLSEC, are the main organisations in the Lithuanian sport system.
They take part in all of the strategic commissions and working groups
that consider the implementation of the national sport policy.
4.2 Steering
In addition to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, sport is

also covered by other non-specific statutory acts on Non-Governmental
Organisations, on Associations, on Public Establishments, on Charity
and Sponsorship, on Volunteering.
The Law on Physical Education and Sport (Republic of Lithuania, 1995),

as last amended in 2013, lays down the general regulatory framework
applying to sport. The Law describes the competence of state and munic-
ipal institutions, and non-governmental sport organisations (Sections 1
and 2). Section 3 describes the organisation of physical education and
sport in educational establishments and Section 4 describes the funding
of PE and sport. The law also deals with elite sport, sport competitions
and events, and sport facilities.
190 V. Čingienė
The Law on Physical Education and Sport Promotion Fund (Republic

of Lithuania, 2007) regulates the legal framework of the Fund, the fund-
ing sources, the scope, the objectives, and the management.
In addition to these two laws, there are three important orders of the
head of the Department: (1) regarding the criteria for funding from the
public budget; (2) regarding the criteria for funding from the PE and
Sport Promotion Fund; (3) regarding the recognition criteria of sport
federations in Lithuania (Department of PE and Sport, 2014b).
Policy Framework
The Lithuanian sports policy framework corresponds to the bureaucratic

configuration as described by Camy et al. (2004). The main character-
istics of the framework are: the active role that the public authorities
take in regulating the sport system; a legislative framework specific to the
field; and a rather limited bargaining processes towards common actions
among all stakeholders in the sport system. There is a high degree of cen-
tralisation of service delivery through regulation of processes, rules and
requirements. The main feature of the bureaucratic configuration is to
secure accountability in all possible processes. The orientation to outputs,
flexibility and efficiency is an aspiration of modern sport o rganisations
as the current socioeconomic circumstances insist for the innovative
approaches as well as fundamental changes. The prominence of the state
and the predominant role of political parties remains the prevailing force
in the development of the Lithuania sport system.
According to the Law on Physical Education and Sport (1995), the
sport policy guidelines are defined by the government. The broad guide-
lines on the improved implementation of the sport policy in the country
are constantly discussed among the four key organisations (the DPES, the
LNOC, the LUSF and the Sport for All Association). Currently National
Sports Development Strategy 2011–2020 (Republic of Lithuania, 2011)
is being implemented. The strategic goal is ‘by creating the conditions
for all social groups in Lithuania to participate in sports, the important
objectives of social cohesion, quality of life, public health and health
promotion, better performance, leisure and employment as well as to
develop the social background for high performance athletes training sys-
tem are met’ (2011).
The Strategy contains obligations to arrange more than 25 differ-
ent programmes for the implementation of strategic actions on ama-
teur as well as on high-performance sport. In spite of the fact that the
Department is representing the national sport policy, there is a lack of
in-depth understanding and agreements for the more efficient policy
implementation tools and instruments. A real challenge is to reach the
consensus of all stakeholders in the sector regarding the evidence-based
decision-making not only on money spending priorities but also on how
to ensure the constant self-control of the policy process.
The sport federations act as independent non-governmental bod-
ies. The Law on Physical Education and Sports (Republic of Lithuania,
1995) defines the role of federations. Federations need to fulfil certain
criteria and requirements in order to receive public funding. This enables
the government to steer the federations indirectly. Each federation indi-
vidually sets the term of the strategic plan and operational plan according
to the agreement made by the internal management body.
Communication between the government and the federation is often
strained because limited financial resources force the Department to seek
the right model for the allocation of public funds according to certain
criteria (Čingienė, Laskienė, & Vyštartaitė, 2014).
At the national level, the LUSF and the LNOC are the principal actors
steering sports federations. At the local level, each local government has
the autonomy to make their own policy and the steering of sports federa-
tions by local governments depends on the traditions of certain sports
and events, the number of the participants, the competence of respon-
sible persons and their ability to work for the community interest.
4.3 Support
Financial Framework
The central government and the local authorities share the responsibility
to finance sport. Section 4 of the Law on Physical Education and Sport
192 V. Čingienė
(Republic of Lithuania, 1995) indicates the following funding sources

for sport federations: appropriations from the state budget and munici-
pal budgets, funds from the organisation of lotteries and other legally
obtained funds. Table 4 shows that most of financial allocations for sport
are spent on the local level.
National Level
The largest part of the government’s support to sport is distributed prin-

cipally through the national and local government budgets. Most sports
federations are funded by public money.
The total budget of the Department for 2013 was €22.9 million, which
was distributed as follows:
• €10.8 million to national federations and sport facilities (for physical

education, sport federations and sport facilities).
• €7.1 million to the National Olympic Team (for the preparation of
Olympic teams, athlete health care, etc.).
• €5.0 million to the Sport and PE Promotion Fund (10 per cent from
gambling, betting and 1 per cent from alcohol and tobacco).
Department has drawn up the following sport federation’s recognition

criteria which they need to meet in order to receive public funding:
• Statute of the sport federation.
Table 4 Overview of the financing of sport In Lithuania, in 2013

€ million
Department of PE and Sport (incl. 22.9
Promotion Fund)
Other ministries NA
Regions NA
Municipalities 46.0
Own resources of sport federations 5.0
LNOC 5.2
Total 79.1
Source: LSIC (2014).
• The popularity of the sport (number of members, participants).

• The presence of competition safety rules.
• The development strategy.
• A confirmation letter from the international federation regarding
membership.
• A certificate from public institutions to prove the federation has no debts.
Sport federations generate public financing through the Fund and use
it to cover various expenses which are accounted for according to the legal
requirements. The financial control and compliance with the criteria for
funding by the Department is very strict. Annually, the steering commit-
tee with representatives from the DPES, the LUSF and the NOC audits
the performance of sport federations.
In 2015, the money in the Fund is allocated as follows (approximately):
67 per cent to elite sport, 12 per cent to sport for all, 6 per cent to sport
facilities, 10 per cent to sport equipment and 6 per cent to sport science.
The fluctuations in the budget of the Fund show a critical decline of
resources in 2012 (Table 5).
Local Level
As defined in the Law on Physical Education and Sport (Republic of

Lithuania, 1995), the local governments shall allocate the investments for
the development of PE and sport (construction, the acquisition of prop-
erty, human resource development, etc.) in accordance with the munici-
pal budgeting process. These investment projects shall be drawn up in
compliance with the strategic plans of local authorities. With autono-
mous responsibility for sport, local authorities have their own sport pol-
icy and sport budget.
Table 5 The budget of Physical Education and Sport Promotion Fund in

2010–2015
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
EUR 5,709,511 5,337,697 4,705,167 4,895,186 5,683,909 5,868,275
Source: LSIC (2011–2015).
194 V. Čingienė
Although sport federations receive relatively small direct funding from

local authorities (approx. €100,000 in 2013), there are cases of indirect
financial support for organising sport events, reduction or exemption
from property tax and the like.
Other Financial Support
Most of the federations rely mainly on public support. The problem lies in
the relatively poor fundraising capacities of the federations. Lithuania is a
small country with rather limited market and business opportunities. Active
and enterprising federations, such as the Lithuanian Basketball Federation,
receive more substantial national government funding than other federa-
tions, but also generate three times more money from other sources, such as
sponsorships, licensing and other resources. On the other hand, basketball
being the most popular sport in Lithuania has become a significant source
of soft power of the state with tangible (number of broadcasts, viewers,
fan clubs, etc.) and intangible (identity, image, reputation) effects. Thus,
the balance between private funding and special support from the national
government should be taken into c onsideration (Čingienė, Damijonaitis,
& Komskienė, 2014; Čingienė, V., Laskienė, S. & Vyštartaitė, G., 2014).
Olympic sport federations also receive funding from LNOC, which
generates the main income from lotteries. According to the Law on
Lotteries, 8 per cent of the revenue from lottery tickets goes to LNOC.
Table 6 shows that sport federations are dependent on sponsors and
LNOC for the majority of their income.
Table 6 Income of national sport federations in 2013

Source Budget
PE and Sport Promotion 3,750,000
Fund
Sponsors, commercial activity 5,000,000
LNOC 3,832,000
LOSC 4,475,440
Total 13,950,000
Source: LSIC (2014).
Elite Versus Grassroots Sport
The majority of sport federations in Lithuania focus mainly on elite

sport. Grassroots sport is the main responsibility of the “Sport for All”
association at the national level. Local authorities make their own deci-
sions regarding the promotion of grassroots sport. Usually, it is a big
issue of balancing the political power among the interest groups and the
investments foreseen to sport at the local level.
DPES provides some services to sport federations: helps to speed up the

process of obtaining visas for athletes traveling abroad, awards scholar-
ships to athletes, awards athletes, coaches and other staff members for
certain sporting achievements, etc.
Governance and management support to sports federations is prin-
cipally provided by the LUSF, who focus on two principal activities:
first, the organisation and coordination of important sport competi-
tions (Lithuanian Youth Games, Baltic Youth Games, and the like);
and secondly, the promotion of the continues professional develop-
ment of the employees of the federation and it’s members trough
education courses, learning mobility projects, and the like. In the
past few years LUSF has encouraged the staff of sports federations to
develop their management competencies. A feasibility study on future
mobility measures for sport in Europe (Feasibility study, 2013) com-
pleted in nine targeted countries (including Lithuania) showed the
key opportunities available for the sports sector in order to improve
skills and employability, modernise education, training and youth
work. Exchanges, placements, periods of study, job-shadowing, train-
eeships offer a flexible framework of learning mobility with benefits
for individuals, for organisations and for the sector as a whole. The
LNOC provides medical services, sport science services for Olympic
sports federations.
196 V. Čingienė
5 Conclusion
The organisation and governance of Lithuanian sports is characterised
by a high degree of centralisation at both the national and local levels.
The interests of political parties, the role of the national government in
the making and implementation of sports policy, and the allocation of
financial resources, reveal the features of bureaucratic configuration.
Considering the important social, educational and cultural functions
inherent in sport as well as the declining level of state resources avail-
able to support the system, it is inevitable that different stakeholders
may become involved in the country’s sport system. Some important
changes were implemented during recent years: the recognition crite-
ria of national sport federations were adjusted, recommendations for
the activities of public sport schools were introduced, and the criteria
for the allocation of public expenditure to sport federations are under
revision.
When compared to sports organisation and governance practices in
the other Baltic States, Lithuania is notable in terms of the dominant role
of the state in institutional and administrative jurisdiction. In Latvia,
sports issues are dealt with by the Sports Department of the Ministry of
Education and Science. In Estonia there is a department responsible for
sports in the Ministry of Culture. The activities of non-governmental
sports organisations are based on the collaboration of stakeholders in the
development of public–private partnerships.
Considering the future developments of Lithuanian sports organisa-
tion and governance, the Department of Physical Education and Sports
will remain responsible for the education and training of athletes in pri-
ority and strategic sport disciplines. There should be a strengthening of
the close collaboration between all of the stakeholders in the sport sec-
tor. The improvement of labour regulations for sport specialists (espe-
cially coaches) also requires substantial revision. Sport statistics database
should be elaborated in partnership with main stakeholders in order to
strengthen evidence base decision making process.
References
employment in the field of sport in Europe through vocational training. Vocational
education and training in the field of sport in the European Union. Situation,
trends and outlook. Lyon: Université Claude Bernard Lyon.
Čingienė, V., & Gobikas, M. (2011). Sport in Lithuania. In C. Sobry (Ed.),
Sports governance in the world. A socio-historic approach. Volume II The transi-
tion in central and eastern european sport. Paris: Sport Social Studies, Editions
Le Manuscript.
Čingienė, V., & Laskienė, S. (2004). A revitalized dream: Basketball and national
identity in Lithuania. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 21(5),
762–779.
Čingienė, V., & Laskienė, S. (2014). Lietuvos visuomenės sveikatinimo per
sportą politikos įgyvendinimo aktualijos “Europos Sąjungos fizinio akty-
vumo gairių” kontekste. (Actualities of health enhancing physical activity in
Lithuanian society in the light of the EU Physical Activity Guidelines)//
Sveikatos politika ir valdymas: Mokslo darbai = Health policy and manage-
ment: Research papers/Mykolo Romerio universitetas. Vilnius: Mykolo
Romerio universitetas, 1(6), 116–124.
Čingienė, V., Damijonaitis, M., & Komskienė, D. (2014). Soft power index
extension: The case of the influence of Lithuanian basketball. Transformations
in Business & Economics 13(2A,32A), 462–482.
Čingienė, V., Laskienė, S., & Vyštartaitė, G. (2014). The Organizational perfor-
mance of Lithuanian sport federations. Phycical activity in science & prac-
tice: Conference Proceedings. Faculty of Physical Education and Sport,
Charles University in Prague: [Prague, 19–21 June 2013]/Editors: Libor
Flemr, Jiří Němec, Kateřina Kudláčková; Charles University in Prague. Czech
Olympic Committee. Czech Kinanthropology Association. Prague:
Karolinum Press, 2014. (6. Economics, management and marketing of
sport.). ISBN 9788024626208 ; 9788024626550. p. 303-310.
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. (1992). http://www3.lrs.lt/home/
Konstitucija/Constitution.htm (retrieved 23 March 2015).
Department of PE and Sport. (2013). Isakymas dėl prioritetinių valstybės ir
strateginių sporto šakų nustatymo 2013−2016 metams reikalavimų (Order
priority for state and strategic sports requirements for the years 2013–2016).
http://lsfs.lt/dokumentai/dokumentai/dokumentai%20federacijoms/
ISAK%202012%20KRITERIJAI%20PRIORITETINES%20IR%20
STRATEGINES%20V-49.pdf (retrieved 6 November 2014).
198 V. Čingienė
Department of PE and Sport. (2014a). Kūno kultūros ir sporto departamento

prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės. 2015–2017 metų strateginis veiklos
planas. (Physical Education and Sports Department under the Government
of the Republic of Lithuania. 2015–2017 Strategic Action Plan). http://
www.kksd.lt/index.php?1234157877# (retrieved 23 March 2015).
Department of PE and Sport. (2014b). Dėl nacionalinių sporto (šakų) federacijų
pripažinimo tvarkos aprašo patvirtinimo. (The national sports (branches) fed-
erations: Description of the procedure for recognition of approval). https://
www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/abbd5ac06ffd11e484b9c12b550436a3
(retrieved 6 November 2014).
European Commission. (2014). Sport and physical activity. (Special
Eurobarometer 412). Brussels: European Commission.
Feasibility study on sport mobility in Europe. (2013). http://ec.europa.eu/sport/
news/2014/future-mobility-measures-sport_en.htm (retrieved 23 March
2015).
Gedvilas, V. (2014). Kelias link modernios, ekonomiškais stiprios ir saugios
valstybės. (Becoming modern, economically powerful, and responsible coun-
try). Sporto mokslas, 78, 2–7.
Government of the Republic of Lithuania. (2010). Dėl ministrams pavedamų
valdymo sričių. (Regarding the management areas on devolved to the minis-
ters). Resolution No. 330; approved on 24 March. http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/
inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=397275 (retrieved 23 March 2015).
Government of the Republic of Lithuania. (2012). XVI Lietuvos Respublikos
Vyriausybės programa 2012–2016m. (XVI Lithuanian Government
Programme 2012–2016). http://www.lrv.lt/bylos/vyriausybes/16_vyr_%20
programa_EN.pdf (retrieved 23 March 2015).
Government of the Republic of Lithuania. (2014). 2011–2020 metų valstybinės
sporto plėtros strategijos įgyvendinimo tarpinstitucinis veiklos planas. (The
inter-institutional action plan for the implementation of the National Sports
Development Strategy 2011–2020). Resolution No 112 on 5 February 2015.
https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/79300c30a88b11e4a82d9548fb
36f682 (retrieved 23 March 2015).
Lithuanian Sports Information Centre, LSIC. (2014). http://www.kksd.lt/
index.php?1590309353 (retrieved 30 March 2015).
LNOC Lithuanian National Olympic Committee. (2015). LTOK veiklos kryp-
tys (LNOC areas of activity). http://www.ltok.lt/ltok/apie-ltok/ltok-veiklos-
kryptys/# (retrieved 30 March 2015).
LUSF Lithuanian Union of Sport Federations. (2015). Apie mus. (About us).
http://www.lsfs.lt/apie-mus/apie-mus (retrieved 30 March 2015).
OECD. (2014). OECD Factbook 2014. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/econom-

ics/oecd-factbook_18147364 (retrieved 14 November 2014).
Republic of Lithuania. (1995). Law on physical education and sport (last
amended in 2013). http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/sport/doping/antidoping_
database/reports/2010/leg/LEG1-LTU_EN.pdf (retrieved 6 November
2014).
Republic of Lithuania. (2007). Law on physical education and sport promotion
fund. https://www.e-tar.lt/rs/legalact/TAR.6F6FE78741D7/format/OO3_
ODT/ (retrieved 30 March 2015).
Republic of Lithuania. (2011). Nutarimas dėl 2011–2020 metų valstybinės
sporto plėtros strategijos patvirtinimo. (Resolution on the approval of the
2011–2020 National Sports Development Strategy). https://www.e-tar.lt/
portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.5149504F601C (retrieved 30 March 2015).
Scheerder, J., Willem, A., Claes, E., & Billiet, S. (2015). International study on
the organisation of sport in twelve countries and their policy towards sport federa-
tions. Country profiles (Volume 2). Leuven/Ghent: University of Leuven—
Policy in Sports & Physical Activity Research Group/Ghent University—Team
Sports Management.
Sport for All Association. (2015). Apie mus. (About us). http://www.sportas-
visiems.lt/lt/asociacija/apie_mus/ (retrieved 30 March 2015).
Tamulaitienė, R., & Norkus, S. (2012). Lietuvos politinių partijų sporto poli-
tikos programinių nuostatų analizė (The Analysis of Lithuanian Political
Parties’ Sport Policy Guidelines). Sporto mokslas, 67, 19–26.
The World Bank. (2013a). Land area. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
AG.LND.TOTL.K2 (retrieved 14 November 2014).
The World Bank. (2013b). Urban population. http://data.worldbank.org/indi-
cator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS (retrieved 14 November 2014).
Valintėlienė, R., Varvuolienė, R., & Kranauskas, A. (2012). Lietuvos gyventojų
fizinis aktyvumas, vertinat GPAQ metodu. (Evaluation of physical activity
among Lithuanian adults using Global physical activity questionnaire).
Visuomenės sveikata 4(59), 67–75. http://www.hi.lt/images/Sv_4(59)_
Valinteliene.pdf (retrieved 23 March 2015).
The Netherlands: How the Interplay
Between Federations and Government
Helps to Build a Sporting Nation
Koen Breedveld and Remco Hoekman
1 Introduction
In 2010, the Dutch head of sports (‘technisch directeur’) Maurits
Hendriks calculated that a gold medal costs the Dutch considerably less
than it costs the UK or any other leading sporting nation (NOC*NSF,
2010). This finding had considerable appeal to the Dutch since it is well
known that they are keen on keeping their money in their pockets. As
a nation that is dominated historically by the middle classes, and with a
culture firmly rooted in a Protestant ethic, hard work and a concern over
money are part and parcel of Dutch heritage. Furthermore, even though
the Dutch are as proud of their sporting heroes as any other nation, the
country is relatively hesitant when it comes to making investments in
elite sport. In Dutch society standing out from the crowd may quickly
K. Breedveld ( ) • R. Hoekman
Department of Sociology, Radboud University and Mulier Institute,
Nijmegen and Utrecht, The Netherlands

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0_10
202 K. Breedveld and R. Hoekman
give rise to negative emotions, such as scepticism, envy and jealousy.

There is, for example, a characteristic Dutch saying that states ‘Act nor-
mal, that’s crazy enough’.1 No wonder, then, that earning medals while
not having to make a large investment in elite sports had considerable
appeal to the Dutch. What does this fact tell us about the sports cul-
ture in the Netherlands? Can the Dutch be rightfully labelled a sporting
nation and, if so, what kind of sporting nation might that be? And, more
importantly, how can it be that a gold medal costs the Dutch less than the
British, or, for that matter, the Australians?
2 Country Profile
The Netherlands are one the largest of the smaller European countries.
With 16.8 million inhabitants,2 it has around three times more inhab-
itants than the Scandinavian countries such as Norway, Denmark or
Finland, and around one-quarter of the inhabitants of the UK or Italy.
Demographic forecasts suggest that the Dutch population will peak at
17.0 million inhabitants in 2035, before beginning to decline. With 486
inhabitants per km2, the Netherlands is a densely populated country.
Indeed, in a ranking of the countries of the world in order of population
density, the Netherlands ranks in the top 30. Good planning is, therefore,
essential and well integrated into the political structures of the country.
A culture of working together
The Netherlands are known as the ‘low lands’. The ever-present threat
of floods has been a strong impetus to the formation and sustaining of
coalitions, in order to raise money to build dykes and otherwise man-
age water (through building mills, draining water, creating new land,
and other methods). In addition, the ever-present water has aroused an
interest in water-related activities (such as swimming, skating, sailing)
(Breedveld & Tiessen-Raaphorst, 2011).
1
In Dutch: ‘Doe maar gewoon, dan doe je al gek genoeg’.
2
See, among others, the database of the World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/country/
netherlands.
The Netherlands: How the Interplay Between Federations... 203
Traces of that history of coalitions are still to be found in today’s

Dutch culture. In the Netherlands, the emphasis is on stable social rela-
tions rather than social conflict, and on forming alliances rather than on
emphasising differences. As a result, social trust in one another is at a
relatively high level in the Netherlands—58 per cent state that they trust
other people, a figure higher than in most other European countries and
close to Scandinavian countries (Dekker, van der Meer, & Steenvoorden,
2009). Participation in voluntary work remains high despite processes
of individualisation. Strikes, for example, are relatively infrequent in the
Netherlands and wage differences and social inequality are low when
compared to international standards.
An emphasis on working together also stems from the fact that the
Netherlands are a society in which both the Catholic and the Protestant
religion have substantial presence. Historically, both religions had their
own set of institutions. Those who were not religious organised them-
selves in a third—neutral/public—pillar. Hence, in most cities, even
today, one will find at least three schools, one for each ‘denomination’,
as well as three football clubs. Governments are similarly based on coali-
tions of usually two or three parties. Politically, culturally and economi-
cally, the Netherlands are a clear exponent of the Rhineland model.
Economics: a trading nation
The Netherlands are a prosperous nation with the gross domestic
product stands at US$869 billion, putting the Netherlands in the top
20 of the International Monetary Fund rankings (see note 2). One in ten
households have a low income; among non-Western ethnic minorities,
this figure rises to over a quarter. Its wealth is reflected upon (and partly
based upon) its high educational standards. Recent figures showed that
29 per cent of the Dutch population aged between 15 and 64 years are
educated to bachelor’s level or higher.3
At present, young women in the Netherlands tend to be more
highly educated than young men. The current high levels of education
3
Statistics Netherlands (CBS) publishes frequently on this subject. See http://statline.cbs.nl/
StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71822NED&D1=0&D2=a&D3=0&D4=1,3-
9&D5=0-2,4,8-10&D6=0&D7=l&HD=081216-1451&HDR=T,G6,G2,G5,G3&STB=G1,G4
(retrieved 11 August 2015) or look for ‘opleidingsniveau’ on the CBS website. The main source is
the Dutch Labour Force Survey.
among women illustrates the impact of the emancipation process in the

Netherlands. While in the 1950s it was considered undesirable for mar-
ried women to work, labour force participation among Dutch women is
now among the highest in the EU, although most women prefer to work
part time (generally three days a week (Cloin, 2012).
Because of its small home market and its nature as a trading nation,
the Dutch have always had an open and welcoming orientation towards
new markets and newcomers. Historically, divergent views have been
embraced and respected. At present, 11 per cent of the population are
non-Western in ethnic origin; by 2050 this proportion is projected to
have increased to 16 per cent.4 The majority of ethnic minorities live in
the four largest cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht).
As in other countries, cultural differences (a low level of education, prob-
lems speaking the native language, different values) have recently started
to cause tensions between these new immigrant groups and the native
Dutch.
As a trading nation, power in the Netherlands has never rested solely
with the monarchy. Rather, it was the tradesmen and municipal author-
ities that were in control. Dutch culture is predominantly petit bour-
geois. Expressions of authority and superiority quickly raise suspicion
and are challenged openly. The other side of the coin is that the Dutch
do not easily express pride, nor of their nation nor of their own achieve-
ments (Elling, 2010; Kullberg, 2004; Smith & Jarkko, 1998). A sense of
jealousy or envy easily reaches the surface whenever someone, or some
organisation, stands out or attempts to excel. Normalcy is generally val-
ued higher than the extraordinary (Table 1).
4
For historical reasons, the Netherlands has a sizeable community of (mainly Dutch-speaking)
people from Surinam and the Dutch Antilles. In the 1950s and 1960s, there was a significant influx
of ‘guest workers’ into the Netherlands, especially from the countries around the Mediterranean
Sea (Italy, Spain). In recent decades it has mainly been Turkish and Moroccan immigrants who
have sought and found work in the Netherlands.
Table 1 Facts of The Netherlands

inhabitants)
Area (km²) 4.1 hectare
constitutional
monarchy
Number of provinces 390
Sources: *The World Bank (2013).
3 Sport in the Netherlands

The origins of Dutch sport lie in private initiatives (Breedveld & Tiessen-
Raaphorst, 2011; Hoekman & Breedveld, 2013). As early as the eigh-
teenth and nineteenth centuries, concerned middle-class representatives
took initiatives to elevate the standards of their own class, as well as of
the classes ‘below them’ (e.g. working class). In so doing, museums were
built, as were theatres, libraries, gymnastic clubs, and even schools and
universities. The most common model in this is that once those initiatives
‘landed’, governments (often consisting of the same people that started
the initiatives in the first place) would step in and start building political
and financial structures to support these initiatives.
Sport is no exception to this rule. Whilst the late nineteenth century
was the starting point for many of today’s federations (e.g., football, ath-
letics, swimming, tennis), and new sporting clubs were started by the
dozens in the years to follow, it was only in 1970 that the first formal
sport act was published, by the Ministry of Wellbeing.5 Before that, if the
national government took an interest in a sport-like domain, it would be
5
The Ministry of CRM (Culture, Recreation and Society), which later developed in the ministry of
WVC (Health, Well-being and Culture) and then into the current ministry of VWS.
in the area of physical education (and within the Ministry of Education).

Typical of that sport-reluctant attitude is the fact that when in 1928 the
Olympics were organised in Amsterdam, Dutch governments refused
to invest in the project and a lottery was required to help raise funds
(Breedveld & Hover, 2009). Locally, there always has been more interest
in sports. As early as the twentieth century, Dutch provinces, and espe-
cially Dutch cities, have invested in sports, by building sports facilities
and by subsidising sports clubs.
Since the 1970s, however, the Dutch government has taken an active
interest in sport. The oil crisis and the accompanying economic recession
of the early 1980s implied that budget needed to be cut, including bud-
gets for sports. However, once the economy began to grow again in the
1990s, the interest in sport quickly resumed. At that time, a neo-liberal
doctrine had gained ground also in the Netherlands. Sport, with its meri-
tocratic principle and its focus on performance, rewards and excellence,
was conducive to such a policy and therefore gracefully embraced. In addi-
tion, a series of sporting successes (European football champions in 1988,
Ellen van Langen winning gold at the 800 metres in 1992 in Barcelona,
Olympic gold in volleyball in 1996, Richard Krajicek winning Wimbledon
in the same year, and a long-standing series of triumphs in speed skating
since 1992) helped raise public awareness of sport. As a consequence, in
1994 we see the word Sports appearing in the name of a ministry (the
VWS—Ministry of Health, Well Being and Sports). The above-average
success at the Sydney Games of 2000 (where the Netherlands gained 25
medals, of which 12 were gold, reaching 8th place in the medal table)
helped spur public attention and political interest to sports. That interest
rose to such levels, that by 2004, after the Athens Games, politicians and
the sports sector openly started dreaming of hosting the Olympic Games
once again. This project helped fuel interests in sport until it needed to be
abandoned in 2012, largely because of the recession and the accompanying
need for a new ‘financial realism’. Since the ‘Olympic Plan 2028’, however,
there has been a renewed interest in sports and the budget allotted to it
has been largely protected. It would appear that the interest in sports is
now ‘here to stay’. The political agenda for sports had always been that
sports helped social and cultural integration and raise social capital. These
fields of interests became more important when the social climate became
more aggressive after ‘9/11’, and when the recession fuelled an increase
in individualisation and self-interest after 2008. In addition, increases in
health costs and worries over the dangers of obesity helped generate inter-
est in physical activity and healthy lifestyles, and as such made both the
general public and the political arena more aware of the possible benefits
of promoting sports.
Today, the Dutch can pride themselves on having the highest percent-
age of inhabitants belonging to sports clubs in the EU, the highest satis-
faction with sports facilities among its citizens, ranking equal 2nd in terms
of EU countries (after Sweden and alongside Denmark) when it comes to
volunteering (18 per cent), and scoring levels of sport participation that
are consistently well above the EU average (see Table 2). As in most EU
countries, individual sports like fitness, running, swimming, walking and
cycling are most popular, with football ranking 6th. Football, however, is
still the sport with both the largest number of clubs (3200) and around
1.2 million members (NOC*NSF, 2014), well ahead of tennis (1700
clubs, 0.6 million members) and with all other sports following on quite
some distance behind. In the case of elite sports, the Dutch continue to
excel in water-related sports such as swimming, speed-skating and some-
times sailing and rowing. In addition, its long-standing history in foot-
Table 2 Sports profile of The Netherlands

Government authority responsible for sport VWS (Health)
National budget for sport (2015) (€ × 1.000.000)*** 127
National budget for sport federations (€ × 1000) 0
Local budget for sport (2012) (€ × 1.000.000)**** 1494
Share of economic value of volunteers in sport in the GDP (%)** 0.86
Sources: *European Commission (2014); **GHK (2010: 217); ***Ministry of VWS
(2015); ****Tiessen-Raaphorst (2015).
ball, hockey, equestrian sports and judo brings elite sporting success to
the Netherlands on a regular basis, with additional occasional successes in
sports such as cycling, gymnastics (Epke Zonderland), athletics (Daphne
Schippers) and tennis. In general, Dutch female athletes are more suc-
cessful than their male colleagues, suggesting either that women’s libera-
tion in the Netherlands is at the forefront—or that Dutch elite sports fail
to succeed in the most competitive sporting arenas.
4.1 Structure
In the Netherlands, there is clearly a shared responsibility for sports (see

Houlihan, 1997). On the national level, the ministry of VWS (Health,
Well-Being and Sports) is responsible for the implementation of sport
policies (and the Ministry of Education and Culture is responsible for
physical education). In developing policies, the ministry teams up with
the Dutch NOC*NSF, to coordinate both elite sports policies and grass-
roots policies. With regard to the latter, NOC*NSF acts not only on
behalf of the members of sporting clubs that belong to any of NOC*NSF’s
76 federations, but also on behalf of the wider sporting community. In
addition, a whole range of policy, knowledge and lobby organisations
(e.g., KVLO6 for physical education, VSG7 for urban sport policies, for
people with disabilities, for the fight against doping) are woven into a
policy network that exchanges viewpoints and receives budgets to exe-
cute specific programmes on their own specific fields. In addition, at the
national level, some of the larger sport federations (like football, swim-
ming or gymnastics), private foundations with their own funds like the
Cruyff Foundation or the Krajicek Foundation, and organisations that
act as coordinators for non-club sports (as in fitness or swimming, both
of which have many commercial providers), are also woven into this
6
Koninklijke Vereniging voor Lichamelijke Opvoeding (Royal Association for Physical Education—
founded). See www.kvlo.nl.
7
Vereniging Sport en Gemeenten (Association for Sport and Municipalities. See www.sportenge-
meenten.nl.
national sport policy network. Needless to say that in such a busy land-
scape of nationally operating organisations acting within a specific social
configuration (Henry, 2009), there are more often than not debates over
who is responsible for (and should be funded for) which policies and
programmes. This is a constant struggle in the Dutch sport landscape.
Today, NOC*NSF is the major player alongside the ministry, with the
VSG (coordinating urban sport policies) as its natural ally, and the many
federations, foundations and other coordinating bodies as counterparts.
On the below subnational level, in the Netherlands the responsibil-
ity for implementing sport policies is allocated more to cities than to
provinces. In 2008, an agreement was drawn up, stating that no political
subject is to be the responsibility of more than two ‘layers’ over govern-
ment.8 Hence, sport, as a form of well-being policies, was allocated to the
national level and to the local level, but not to the intermediate level of
provinces. The agreement leaves ample room for interpretation, however.
Wealthy provinces, as is currently the case for Brabant and Gelderland,
who have recently earned large sums by selling their interest in cable
companies, may well decide to continue investing in sports and to subsi-
dise provincial sport councils. In other provinces, however, such councils
are struggling to survive on private budgets, or have simply vanished alto-
gether (as, for example, in Utrecht). Over 90 per cent of the government
budgets for sports come from local policies. Typically, football fields and
sportshalls will be built by local governments and be rented out to sports
clubs (or to schools) to actually provide sports (organise competitions
and training, and often run the facility as well). Swimming pools and ice
rink are either built by municipalities or by private companies that in that
case almost always receive grants from a municipality to run the facility.
Swimming clubs and skating clubs will rent the accommodation for their
needs, while the swimming pool and ice-stadium itself will be also rented
out directly to individuals, and facility managers will develop their own
programmes for training and events. Tennis courts are usually owned by
clubs (although some companies operate tennis courts as well, especially
8
Commissie Lodders, see http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/
2008/03/17/rapport-commissie-lodders-ruimte-regie-en-rekenschap.html.
indoor ones). Golf courses, fitness centres and bowling alleys are owned
mostly by private companies.
In addition to building or funding facilities, municipalities will sup-
port local sportsclubs financially (through the provision of grants, etc.),
and build programmes for community sports for minority groups (retired
people, single mothers, ethnic minorities, unemployed and others that
live off welfare schemes). Municipalities differ in the way in which they
organise their sport policy departments. It used to be that all policies
were developed and carried out by the municipality itself. Today, how-
ever, many municipalities outsource parts of their policies to separate
organisations (both companies and non-profit organisations).
Schools receive their funding for PE from the Ministry of Education
and Culture, although sometimes municipalities (especially in the larger
cities) may supplement these budgets for extra hours of PE, swimming
classes or hiring dedicated PE teachers.9
4.2 Steering
In the Netherlands, there is no law that states what Dutch governments

should and should not do with regard to sports, and the specific goals
and obligations of sport federations. Until 2007, sport was covered as
part of the Public Welfare Act of 1994 (‘Welzijnswet’) and its predeces-
sors (Breedveld & Tiessen-Raaphorst, 2011; Breedveld, van der Poel, de
Jong, & Collard, 2011; Hoekman & Breedveld, 2013). As such, it was
stated clearly that providing for sports (that is, building sports facilities)
was the responsibility of local government. The role of the national gov-
ernment was to steer and coordinate, stimulate innovation and provide
a knowledge database. This act was abandoned in 2007, however, and its
9
In the Netherlands, at the primary education level, there is no requirement for schools to hire PE
teachers that have a teaching qualification in the subject. Teachers with a general teaching degree
and that take a minor qualification in PE, may also teach PE. In secondary education (roughly
12–18 years old), PE is being taught by teachers with a four-year bachelor’s degree in PE. After that,
in tertiary education (university, and universities of applied sciences), PE is generally not part of the
curriculum.
successor, the Act on WMO,10 makes no mention of sports. It is under-

stood, however, that the distinction between national and local govern-
ment has not changed since, and that the provision of sports is still very
much a local matter.
Until 2003, NOC*NSF and its many federations were eligible for
grants and subsidies for their existence from the national government.
Since then, neither NOC*NSF nor its 76 federations, and nor any of its
24,000 sports clubs, are eligible for structural, ‘unconditional’ financial
support from the national government. However, in its many statements
and policy documents, the ministry of VWS acknowledges the central
position of NOC*NSF (and many of its federations) in the sports sector.
As a result, NOC*NSF and also sometimes the individual federations
may receive millions to develop and sustain projects and programmes,
e.g., on sportsmanship and respect, on volunteering, on stimulating
sporting participation, on supporting clubs, on fighting doping, on
developing programmes for talent development or for supporting ath-
letes with scholarships.
Outside these arrangements, two laws especially are of prime
importance to the sports sector. One is the Act on Gambling of 1964
(‘Kansspelwet’). This act allocates the right to organise gambling to cer-
tain organisations, such as the national Lottery which is being run—indi-
rectly—by NOC*NSF. The act also demands that a percentage of the
net incomes from gambling needs to be allocated to certain merit goods,
such as sports. This is an important source of income for the sports sector,
one that is used, e.g., to build elite sport programmes together with fed-
erations. Currently, the law is under review, mainly because of the advent
of (international) online gambling.
Another important law is the law on VAT. This law states that provid-
ing for sports is eligible to a lower VAT rate (currently 6 per cent) than
the regular VAT rate (currently 21 per cent). Sports clubs are exempted
from paying VAT on their incomes.
In addition, there are many laws and by-laws that either directly
or indirectly influence sports, e.g. on environmental issues, on public
10
Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning, Law on Social Support. This law was changed considerably
in 2015 and is since then referred to as WMO 2015.
broadcasting or on different taxes. Generally speaking, though, it is more

salient to see how the absence of laws has not meant that the interest
in sports or the support for sports was lost. The most obvious example
of this is the abandonment of the Act on Well Being in 2007, which
clearly described the role of the Dutch government in sport. Abandoning
the act, however, has by no means meant that governments (not at the
national level and not at the local level either) have stopped paying atten-
tion to sports. Similarly, the fact that there is no anti-doping act in the
Netherlands has not prohibited the government and the sports sector
from building and sustaining a strong anti-doping programme. And to
cite another example, although schools in the Netherlands are not by
law forced to give a minimum of two hours per week of PE, most do
and most would not easily give up on this. Hence, even though acts/laws
may be important for generating political support for sport, the power of
sports today is such that sport does not fully depend on such legal sup-
port, at least not in the Netherlands.
Policy Framework
A key aspect of the policy framework in the Netherlands is that the sports
sector sets its own goals and defines its own programmes, using in part its
own funds, controlled in organisations that are governed independently
of the national government (see Breedveld & Tiessen-Raaphorst, 2011;
Breedveld et al., 2011; Henry, 2009; Hoekman & Breedveld, 2013).
Regular and coordinated communication between representatives of the
sports sector (headed mostly, although not exclusively, by NOC*NSF
management) and representatives from the municipalities (headed
mostly, although not exclusively, by the VSG) warrant that the goals of
the national government and the sports sector are being realigned. This
communication occurs formally and publicly once or twice a year in the
Dutch parliament, and in addition in more frequent and less formal and
smaller meetings. In these meetings policy goals and programs are being
proposed, which will then be the subject of debate in Parliament, after
which budgets will be determined and allocated to the sports sector to exe-
cute programmes. Thus, though the sports sector operates independently
to a large degree, its financial dependence on government budgets means

that it can never act with full autonomy. Vice versa, the sports sector,
with its appeal to the masses and the loud voice of famous elite sportsmen
and women, also holds considerable lobbying power over the political
arena. Thus, politics and sports are more or less condemned to each other,
forming coalitions and working together—and fighting each other on
occasions—in the best of Dutch political-economy tradition.
Within the sports sector, NOC*NSF is a club, whose 76 federa-
tions are its members. An internal charter defines the responsibilities
of NOC*NSF and of its federations, and sets rules for (re-)distributing
funds, voting and decision procedures, and for establishing committees
and boards. As such, NOC*NSF demands specific performances on the
part of federations, e.g., on elite sports, or allocates funds to federations
based on certain criteria (e.g., on the amount of members). Such deci-
sions are framed within four-year plans that run alongside the summer
Olympic cycles.11 Needless to say, these performances and criteria are con-
stantly being debated and argued upon, as is the position of NOC*NSF
towards the federations (how ‘big’ should NOC*NSF become, who acts
as spokesman for what issues, and so on). These debates take place within
the framework of the NOC*NSF charter and the four-year plan, and
are decided upon ‘collectively’ at either one of the bi-annual assemblies
(although the use of power and symbolic capital is used here as much and
as often as in any other political arena).
Outside its federations, NOC*NSF holds little power. Federations
‘control’ their clubs, although these are also independent. Other organ-
isations within the Dutch sports policy network, such as the VSG, are not
governed by NOC*NSF. Hence, collective action needs to come from
communication, and cannot be forced upon. This fits in nicely within the
Dutch political economy, one that is characterised more by exchange of
arguments than by use of force.
11
Hence, the Sportagenda 2012 (NOC*NSF, 2012) is the current four-year plan which will be in
operation until the Olympic Games in Rio in 2016. Preparations for a new four-year plan are well
underway, formal decision-making on the new plan is expected in the upcoming spring and
autumn assemblies.
4.3 Support
Financial Framework
The budget for sport at the national level is currently €126 million
(Ministry of VWS, 201512). This budget is decided upon by Parliament
and goes largely to (grassroots) projects that are being executed by the
many organisations that combine together to form the Dutch sport
policy network (NOC*NSF, federations, VSG, foundations and other
coordinating bodies). As these are primarily grants for specific projects,
the organisations involved must report on how they spent their money
on a yearly basis, or sometimes at the end of the programme (typically
a period of two-to-five years). This reporting most often involves some
form of auditing by a CPA (Certified Public Accountant). Sometimes, a
certain achievement (a project goal) is set in advance to be reached. This
is not often the case, however. Seldom are grants being allotted under the
explicit objective to reach so many gold medals, or to gain so many new
members. It is generally accepted that sport-stimulation programmes, or
elite sport programmes, are too complex to allow for such a straightfor-
ward input–output relationship.
In addition, the receiving organisations usually also face some sort
of legal obligation to publicly account for their actions, usually in the
form of an annual report. Usually, the authority to approve of this annual
report lies with a supervisory board that is independent of management.
This is the case for NOC*NSF as well as for most of its federations.
Clear governance rules state who is eligible to positions within manage-
ment and/or supervisory boards and under what conditions. Generally,
government representatives refrain from such positions, though there are
exceptions.
Local municipalities spend some 1500 million euro on sport (and
earn some 0.35 million in revenues—Tiessen-Raaphorst, 2015). These
budgets are decided upon in local parliaments, with some 85–90 per
cent spent on facilities and the remainder on grants to sports clubs or
to specific projects. As most of this money comes from the national
12
Excluding budgets with the Ministry of Education and Culture for Physical Education.
government, municipalities must account for their expenditures to the

national government. There is a political tendency to leave municipalities
greater freedom to make their own financial choices. That means, that
though some money may specifically be allocated for building sport-pro-
grams, there is indeed little control over how much this money actually
goes into sport locally.
In 2014, NOC*NSF had revenues of 96 million (NOC*NSF, 2015).
Of this, 30 per cent comes directly from the national government, 40 per
cent from the lottery and 30 per cent from other sources (such as spon-
sors or commercial revenues). Thus, the direct influence of the national
government on NOC*NSF is rather limited.
Federations get their incomes from NOC*NSF, from sponsors, from
the membership dues of their clubs (based usually on their number of
members) and sometimes from project grants issued by the national
government. This means that they are substantially independent. They
rely upon NOC*NSF and their own members, rather than on either
national or local governments. NOC*NSF may demand specific infor-
mation from federations, in the form, for example, of a reporting struc-
ture, giving detailed information on the goals reached. This is not public
information, however, and is considered to be a private matter between
NOC*NSF and its members.
Clubs depend on revenues generated by their members, their spon-
sors and some support from their municipality (in that order). This may
differ between sports, however. In addition, sports that require expensive
accommodation, such as football, ice skating or swimming, depend on
their municipality for building and sustaining their facility. In the case of
football, or swimming, it is not uncommon for the club itself to pay only
some 10 per cent of the costs of the facility. In tennis this situation tends
to be reversed, mostly for historic reasons.
Governance and Management-Support
In the Netherlands, the Dutch government, NOC*NSF, the sport fed-

erations and the municipalities largely operate independently. Each has
its own resources, and has its own governance structure. In parliament,
at NOC*NSF assemblies and during a number of less formal meetings,

decisions are reached and funds are allocated on an ad hoc basis. Influence
is sometimes asserted by appointing officials to positions. Although rep-
resentatives from the Dutch government will typically refrain from tak-
ing up positions at NOC*NSF or at federations, aldermen or mayors
may join the boards of NOC*NSF or of federations, and board mem-
bers of NOC*NSF or of federations may be active politically. Between
NOC*NSF and the federations and between federations among them-
selves it is good practice that employees and even board members may
change positions and move from one position to the other (while respect-
ing the formal procedures). The same holds for the other organisations
that are tied into the sports policy network (see Fig. 1). NOC*NSF runs
several programmes to strengthen the managerial capacities of its clubs
and federations. Other umbrella organisations (such as, e.g., VSG, NPZ,
Fitvak) run similar programmes for their constituents.
5 Conclusion
In the Dutch landscape for sports, we see a Ministry of Health that focuses
mostly on steering and coordinating, municipalities that provide the basic
sport infrastructure (facilities), 24,000 self-sustaining clubs that pro-
vide sports within 76 self-reliant federations, and a largely independent
NOC*NSF that coordinates those clubs and federations and acts as a part-
ner of governments in developing sports policies. In addition, the different
nationally operating coordinating bodies, e.g. the VSG, which acts as the
spokesman for the 400 Dutch municipalities, act as counterparts and part-
ners in both developing and executing sport policies. Physical education is
a different matter, one that belongs to the arena of schools and the Ministry
of Education and Culture. As such, sport in the Netherlands very much
forms a showcase for the Dutch political-economy tradition of coalitions
and of shared state-private initiative responsibilities (Houlihan, 1997).
Given that levels of sporting participation in the Netherlands is above
average and Dutch citizens state that they are satisfied with the sporting
infrastructure, this is apparently regarded as something of an asset, at least
in the Dutch context. The reliance on sports clubs and volunteering also
THE
Governmental Intermediate Non-governmental
NETHERLANDS
Interest groups
Ministry of Kenniscentrum
Health, Welfare Sport and related
NOC*NSF and umbrella
organisations
research institutes1 (e.g. Fit!vak,
and Sport NPZ)³
National level VSG/VNG
National sport KVLO, and

Doping authority other
federations education and
branch unions²
Provincial sport Regional departments

Regional level (Provinces)
councils of sport federations
Local level Sport clubs

Municipalities
Financing
Fig. 1 Sport framework of the Netherlands. Note: VSG/VNG, Association

Sports and Municipalities/Association of Dutch Municipalities (Vereniging
Sport en Gemeenten/Vereniging Nederlandse Gemeenten); KVLO, Royal
Society for Teachers of Physical Education (Koninklijke Vereniging voor
Leraren Lichamelijke Opvoeding); NOC*NSF, Dutch Olympic Committee *
Dutch Sports Federation (Nederlands Olypisch Committee*Nederlandse
Sportfederatie). Note1: like Mulier Instituut, VeiligheidNL, RIVM and Sociaal
en Cultureel planbureau. Note2: like the education councils (de onderwijs-
raden (PO-, VO- en MBO-raad)), de Academie voor sportkader and de
Vereniging Sportgeneeskunde VSG. Note3: NPZ Nationaal Platform
Zwembaden, NL coach. Source: own processing based on Hoekman and
Breedveld (2013).
makes for a cost-effective sporting infrastructure. Much of the labour that

is needed to develop talents and eventually win medals is performed for
free by volunteers (or is being paid for by the educational system). Thus,
it should come as no surprise that medals costs less in the Netherlands
than it does in countries that are more ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in nature, such as
the UK or Australia.
The Dutch sporting landscape mirrors that of Scandinavian countries

in particular: a strong commitment from national governments especially
to grassroots sports, and clubs and local municipalities that play key roles
in maintaining both the hardware and the software for sports (Sobry,
2011; Scheerder et al., 2011; Hallmann & Petry, 2013). This model has
worked well over the course of the twentieth century, and resulted in
high levels of sports participation and enough successes in elite sports to
warrant interest from the media, the general public and from politicians.
The challenge for the future is to adapt this system to changing circum-
stances. As fewer people join clubs, this threatens both the financial and
the moral position of both clubs and federations. Commercial organisa-
tions are gaining ground and drawing economic and social capital away
from the traditional sports sector. In addition, the continuing ‘sporting
arms race’ (de Bosscher, Bingham, Shibli, van Bottenburg, & de Knop,
2007) demands sharp choices and the adoption of clear strategies. These
are, in general, not the strong suit of a ‘social configuration’ (Henry, 2009)
that depends, to a large degree, on coalitions and independent agents.
References
de Bosscher, V., Bingham, J., Shibli, S., van Bottenburg, M., & de Knop, P.
(2007). The global sporting arms race: An international comparative study on
sports policy factors leading to international sporting success. Oxford: Meyer &
Meyer.
Breedveld, K., & Hover, P. (2009). Expertrapport Nederlandse sport naar
Olympisch niveau. Arnhem: NOC*NSF.
Breedveld, K., & Tiessen-Raaphorst, A. (2011). Low countries, high perfor-
mances. In C. Sobry (Ed.), Sports governance in the world. A socio-historic
approach (pp. 347–374). Paris: Editons le Manuscrit.
Breedveld, K., van der Poel, H., de Jong, M., & Collard, D. (2011).
Beleidsdoorlichting sport. Hoofdrapport. ’s-Hertogenbosch: W.J.H. Mulier
Instituut.
Cloin, M. (2012). A day with the Dutch. The Hague: SCP.
Dekker, P., van der Meer, T., & Steenvoorden, E. (2009). COB Kwartaalbericht
2008|4. The Hague: SCP.
Elling. (2010). Topsport als motor voor nationale trots? Sport & Strategie, 4–8, 29–30.
European Commission. (2014). Special Eurobarometer 412. Sport and Physical

Activity. Brussels.
ticipation and public policy, Sports Economics, Management and Policy 8.
New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
Hoekman, R., & Breedveld, K. (2013). The Netherlands. In K. Hallmann &
K. Petry (Eds.), Comparative sport development, systems, participation and pub-
lic policy (pp. 119–135). New York: Springer.
Routledge.
Kullberg, J. (2004). Braziliaanse toestanden. In SCP (Ed.), Hollandse taferelen
(pp. 15–21). Den Haag: Sociaal en cultureel Planbureau.
Ministry of VWS. (2015). Rijksbegroting Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport
2015 via http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/begrotin-
gen/2014/09/16/xvi-volksgezondheid-welzijn-en-sport-rijksbegroting-2015.
html December 17 2015.
NOC*NSF. (2010). Studie top 10. Arnhem: NOC*NSF.
NOC*NSF. (2012). Sportagenda 2012, via http://nocnsf.nl/nocnsf.nl/over-
nocnsf/sportagenda/sportagenda December 17 2015.
NOC*NSF. (2014). Ledentallenrapportage 2013. Arnhem: NOC*NSF.
NOC*NSF. (2015). Financieel verslag 2014. Arnhem: NOC*NSF.
Scheerder, J., Vandermeerschen, H., Van Tuyckom, C., Hoekman, R., Breedveld,
K., & Vos, S. (2011). Understanding the game: Sport participation in Europe.
Facts, reflections and recommendations (Sport Policy & Management 10).
Leuven: KU Leuven/Research Unit of Social Kinesiology & Sport
Management. (Can be downloaded for free via www.faber.kuleuven.be/spm.)
Smith, T., & Jarkko, L. (1998). National pride. A cross-national analysis. Chicago:
National Opinion Research Center.
Sobry, C. (2011). Sports governance in the world. A socio-historic approach.
Volume I, II and III. Paris: Sport Social Studies, Editions Le Manuscrit.
Tiessen-Raaphorst, A. (2015). Rapportage sport 2014. The Hague: SCP.
Slovenia: Towards a Social
Configuration of the Sport System
Gregor Jurak
1 Introduction
In Slovenia, sport policy is defined by the National Programme of Sport
(NPS), which is adopted by Parliament at the proposal of the government.
As a representative of the civil sport sphere, the Olympic Committee of
Slovenia is also a key partner in the preparation of the NPS.
The many tasks and activities in the NPS are divided between the gov-
erning bodies and the sport federations. Since the government sets the
goals, indicators, actions and timeframe of the NPS, it exerts significant
influence. On the local level, where the majority of public expenditure in
Slovenian sport occurs, there are different practices with essentially the
same decision-making power of sport organisations. However, the cur-
rent NPS emphasises the importance of engaging representatives of local
sport organisations in decisions about the implementation of the NPS.
G. Jurak (*)
Faculty of sport, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0_11
222 G. Jurak
2 Country Profile
Slovenia is located at the crossroads of major European cultural and trade
routes: Slavic, Germanic, Romance, and Hungarian languages can all be
encountered in the country. Although the population is not ethnically
homogeneous, the majority is Slovene. Slovene is the official language
throughout the country, and Italian and Hungarian are co-official regional
minority languages. Slovenia is a largely secularised country, but its culture
and identity have been significantly influenced by both Catholicism and
Lutheranism. The economy of Slovenia is small, open, and export-oriented
and has been strongly influenced by international conditions (Table 1).
Historically, the current territory of Slovenia was part of many different
state formations, including the Roman Empire, followed by the Habsburg
Monarchy. In 1918, the Slovenes joined the Serbs and Croats in form-
ing a new nation named the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes,
renamed Yugoslavia in 1929. After the Second World War, Slovenia
became a republic of the new Yugoslavia, which, though communist,
distanced itself from Moscow’s rule. In 1991, after the introduction of a
multi-party representative democracy, Slovenia split from Yugoslavia and
became an independent country. Over the following decades, it became
increasingly integrated into the international community: In 2004, it
joined both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the
Table 1 Facts about Slovenia

inhabitants)
Area (km²) 20,140
Urbanisation rate (%) 50
constitutional
republic
Number of regions 12
Welfare model (make selection) Rhineland
Source: The SORS (2012)
Slovenia: Towards a Social Configuration of the Sport System 223
European Union (EU); in 2007, it became the first former Communist

country to join the eurozone; and in 2010, it joined the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Among European
countries, Slovenia has significantly pronounced population ageing, due
to a low birth rate and increasing life expectancy.
3 Sport in Slovenia
In 1689, the Slovene polymath Janez Vajkard Valvasor wrote about skiing, the
oldest surviving Central European reference to this sport. It was not, however,
until nearly two centuries later, in 1863, that the first Slovenian sports associa-
tion, Južni sokol (the Southern Falcon), was founded. This was the beginning
of the general organisation of physical activities in Slovenia. The first sports
leagues were formed between the First and the Second World Wars. After
the Second World War, Fizkulturna zveza (the Physical Culture Association)
was established, which later became the Športna zveza Slovenije (the Sports
Association of Slovenia). In the 1970s and 1980s, there were a number of spe-
cial physical culture associations, which were responsible for the financing of
sports activities. At that time, many more gymnasiums and other sports facili-
ties were built. In 1991, the Olympic Committee of Slovenia was founded.
Despite the country’s unique characteristics, the model of financing
sport organisations in Slovenia is relatively decentralised and similar to
that seen in the rest of the EU (Bednarik, Petrović, & Šugman, 1998).
The macroeconomic effects of sport is similar to that of other developed
countries (SpEA, 2012).
In terms of participation, Slovenia is one of the most active nations
in Europe; only the Nordic countries have a higher rate of activity
(Eurobarometer, 2014). Up to 78 per cent of Slovenians are involved in
sports, and the government want to improve this figure still further (Jurak
& Pavletič Samardžija, 2014). Although the level of sport participation
has risen (52 per cent of the population engaged in sport once a week in
2009), only 13 per cent of the Slovenian population were members of a
sport club in that year (Waelbroeck-Rocha et al., 2011). Over the previous
15 years, there has been an increase in women’s participation in sport. This
seems to have been caused by an evolution in lifestyle, rather than being
the result of an orchestrated plan. Nevertheless, it is a development that
has been supported by both the government and the sport organisations.
224 G. Jurak
Table 2 Sports profile of Slovenia

Ministry of Education,
Government authority responsible for sport Science and Sport
Membership in a sport club (%)* 12
Membership in a fitness or health centre (%)* 5
Membership in a socio-cultural club that includes sport 3
in its activities (e.g. employees’ club, youth club,
school- and university-related club) (%)*
Number of sport club members*** 200,000
Average number of members per club*** 19.6
National budget for sport (€) 26,017,695
National budget for sport federations (€)*** 18,000,000
Local budget for sport (€) 89,285,099
GDP (%)**
Sources: (*) European Commission (2014); (**) GHK (2010: 17); (***) estimation
4 The Organisation of Sport in Slovenia

Over the previous 15 years, the organisational aspect of sport has also been
growing. The number of sport organisations since 2001 has increased by
147 per cent, reaching 10,201 entities in 2012. The level of private sector
participation has also increased, particularly in terms of both the number
of organisations and also the revenue they generate. Despite this, the model
of sport outside the educational system remains based on sport associa-
tions, which are the main drivers of Slovenian competitive sport. In 2012,
there were 122,052 registered athletes who were active in the competition
systems of the national sport federations that award the titles of national
champions. The number of sport disciplines, the number and the share
of Slovenian municipalities with categorised athletes, and the number of
top-level athletes has risen since 2001, which indicates both an increas-
ingly broader quality of sport as well as top-level sport. Consequently,
the number of medals won at major international sports competitions
(Olympic Games, World and European championships) increased steadily
between 2001 and 2012 by an average of 9.46 % per year (Jurak & Pavletič
Samardžija, 2014). High levels of engagement in sport, well-established
physical education in schools (Hardman, 2002), and the entire organisa-

tional infrastructure of sport organisations (Kolar, Kovač, & Jurak, 2010)
in all probability result in Slovenia being one of the most active sporting
nations in Europe (Eurobarometer, 2014) and one of the successful coun-
tries at the world’s largest sporting competitions, adjusting to income per
capita and population (Humphreys, Maresova, & Ruseski, 2012).
Slovenia has 94 national federations, 88 local federations, 7200 clubs, and
5037 associations, with a mean of 190 members. The sport federations are
mostly single-sport federations, while the multi-sport federations concentrate
on the promotion of ‘Sport for All’. The umbrella federation, the Olympic
Committee of Slovenia and the Association of Sports Federations (OCS-
ASF), is the result of a merger between the Olympic Committee and the
national association of sports federations, which had experienced financial
problems. The umbrella organisation has approximately 95,000 members.
4.1 Structure
The organisation of sport in Slovenia is currently based on a newly devel-

oped sport policy, the NPS 2014–2023.
For the implementation of the NPS, all organisations carrying out the
NPS are co-responsible (the OCS-ASF, municipalities, ministries, etc.)
with the other organisations delivering the NPS (associations, federations,
institutions, schools, companies, etc.). Figure 1 portrays the position of
different actors according to their management or implementation tasks.
The NPS is adopted by the Parliament of the Republic of Slovenia
following proposals advanced by the government of the Republic of
Slovenia. In accordance with the relevant legislation, the Expert Council
on Sport of the Republic of Slovenia and the OCS-ASF also participate
in the preparation of a draft NPS. The central responsibility regarding
the management of the NPS at the national level lies with the OCS-
ASF and the ministry responsible for sports (currently, the Ministry for
Education, Science and Sport). The government should make an annual
report to Parliament on the implementation of the NPS. We will now
discuss the most important participants regarding sport at the grassroots
level. It should be noted that the list is not exhaustive.
226 G. Jurak
National Assembly of the

Republic of Slovenia
Olympic Commitee of
Slovenia-Association of
Managing
Sports Federations
General
Ministry of Education, Science and Sport
Sectoral ministries, Sport Foundation,

Expert Council of the Government on Sport
Local Communities
National and municipal sport federations,

regional centres
Sport clubs and associations, schools,

kindergartens, public sport agencies, companies,
Implementing
enterpreneurs, etc.
In detail
Sport active citizens
Fig. 1 Participants in the NPS’s management. Source: Jurak and Pavletič

Samardžija (2014: 93)
Governmental Actors
The Ministry of Education, Science and Sport handles the networking

activities of all participants while being supported by government agen-
cies. It is responsible for linking the NPS with other national strategies
and policies. To this end, the ministry draws up an Action Plan for the
realisation of the NPS, in which it defines the activities and institu-
tions responsible for those activities in order to achieve the objectives of
the NPS. The Action Plan is a dynamic document that responds to the
findings of the realisation of the NPS in specific areas (monitoring the
indicators) and changes in other sectoral strategies and policies (Jurak &
Pavletič Samardžija, 2014).
The Directorate of Sport is the main ministerial body responsible for the
management of the NPS and the coordination of the activities of all enti-
ties involved in the implementation of the annual programmes of sport.
The latter represents those contents of the NPS that are funded from state
or local community budgets, and also by the Sport Foundation. The min-
istry and the Sport Foundation are obliged, prior to the adoption of their
annual programme, to obtain an opinion from the OCS-ASF regarding
it (Jurak & Pavletič Samardžija, 2014). The Directorate of Sport is also
responsible for establishing an information system for the needs of the
NPS. This system should include the monitoring of indicators to check
the effects of the different actions of the NPS.
Sectoral ministries (e.g. the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Finance,
and the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning) are involved in
the implementation of various activities of the NPS or are responsible for
carrying out the activities themselves. With the help of the relevant govern-
ment departments, their work is coordinated by the Directorate of Sport.
Municipalities are the most important participants in the Slovenian
model of sport since they are its main financers. They are involved in
the implementation of the NPS at the local level through autonomous
budgeting according to their strategic orientation in sport, passing the
annual sport programmes (which determine what kinds of sport pro-
grammes will be subsidised), determining the importance of local and
regional sport facilities and the monitoring and evaluating the execution
of the NPS at the local level.
The Inspectorate for Sport exercises supervision over the implementa-
tion of programmes based on the NPS and the implementation of the
annual programmes of sport.
Non-governmental Actors
The OCS-ASF1 is a representative sport organisation that brings together

national and local sport associations and some other sport-related organ-
isations (e.g., Society of Sport Journalists, Association of Sport Centres
of Slovenia). It is responsible for the strategic management of the NPS,
1
More information: www.olympic.si/en/.
228 G. Jurak
functioning as a partner to the government in the negotiations over the

realisation of the NPS. Through its representatives, it has significant
influence on the functioning of the Expert Council and the Board of the
Sport Foundation, and it participates, in accordance with the law govern-
ing sport, in the coordination and execution of the annual programmes
of sport (Jurak & Pavletič Samardžija, 2014).
Educational and research institutions in the field of sport, together with
the OCS-ASF, coordinate the implementation of development tasks for
the NPS and, together with the expert professional councils of national
sport federations, assist in the enforcement of expertise in practice.
Intermediate Actors
The Expert Council of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia on Sport is

responsible for making decisions on expert professional matters on techni-
cal issues in sport and for technical assistance in decision-making as well as
for the preparation of regulations. The Expert Council is a body of the gov-
ernment; however, half of the members are delegated from the OCS-ASF.
The Sport Foundation2 is a public funder of sport and is financed
mainly from licence fees on lotteries, sport betting and gaming. It dis-
tributes these funds to various sport programmes at the state and local
levels. Decisions about the allocation of its funds are made by its board,
which mainly consists of representatives of sport organisations.
Local authorities’ bodies responsible for sport manage and coordinate the
activities of the annual programme of sport at the local level. Local com-
munities have to appoint at least half of the members of these authorities
at the proposal of the municipal sport federations and other organisations
that represent sport clubs’ activities at the local level.
4.2 Steering
The organisations implementing the NPS are sports clubs and their asso-
ciations, public institutions related to sport, pre-schools, schools, business
companies in the field of sport, entrepreneurs, private sport profession-
als, and other sport organisations. Most of them are also r esponsible for
2
Similar to Sport England.
the implementation of the annual sport programme under the legisla-

tion governing sport. They acquire this status by signing contracts on
the implementation of the annual sport programme with the ministry
responsible for sport, or with the Sport Foundation at the state level and
with the local community’s authorities at the local level. More informa-
tion about steering procedures can be found in the work of Jurak and
Pavletič Samardžija (2014).
In short, there is a national framework, and the municipalities and
sport federations have to adopt the guidelines. In addition, they can
make their own strategic plans for sport development adapted to their
specific environments (Fig. 2).
According to Houlihan’s (1997) typology, the sport policy can be clas-
sified as the ‘fragmented administration of public policy’ because the
SLOVENIA Governmental Intermediate Non-governmental
Council of
Ministry of experts OCS-ASF
National level Education, Science
and Sport
National sport
Sport
federations
Foundation
Regional level
Local sport
associations
Local
Local level authorities’
Municipalities bodies for
Sport clubs
sport
Financing
Fig. 2 Sport framework of Slovenia. Source: own processing based on the

framework in Hallmann and Petry (2013)
230 G. Jurak
responsibilities for sport policy are shared between local and central gov-
ernments. Since almost 77.4 per cent of all public finances for the fulfil-
ment of the sport policy (NPS) come from local authorities, the major
role is carried by their bodies responsible for sport. However, their service
is not entirely autonomous, since the NPS, which is set by the state gov-
ernment, defines the main characteristics of public interest in sport.
Municipalities can adapt the NPS to suit their own circumstances,
choosing which sport disciplines they want to develop and finance. It is
not similar to ‘Sport England’, in which there is a list of the national top
sports, although this was the case in Slovenia just a few decades earlier.
While municipalities do enjoy a certain degree of freedom, they are lim-
ited by the priorities of implementation actions (i.e., they must give prior-
ity to supporting the sport activities of young people over sport events)
and certain objective measures (i.e., the number of sport participants in a
municipality, categorisation of sport achievements by the OCS-ASF, etc.).
However, the model is still founded on the public sector as the driver
for delivering local or state government-specific requirements; therefore,
it can be classified, in the terms employed by Henry (2009), as a ‘bureau-
cratic configuration’.
Because of Slovenia’s relatively small size, very few national sport fed-
erations have organisational capacities for co-governance. Only the OCS-
ASF, which is also a confederation, has sufficient organisational capacities
to fulfil this role. Details about that are described further in this chapter.
Slovenia has a Law on Sport created in 1998, but a new law is in the final
stage of preparation. However, the main strategic directives are given via
the NPS and not by the law.
Non-specific Sport Legislation
There is a variety of legislation which has a direct impact on sport, includ-

ing the Society Act (which deals with the organisation of sports clubs and
sport federations), the Law on Safety against Drowning (regarding all
water sport activities), the Law on Public Meeting and Events (on sport
events), the Law on Safety on Ski-slopes (on alpine ski activities), the
Law on Mountain Trails (on mountaineering), the Law on Overcoming
Insurance of Professional and elite athletes (on ensuring social security
after the end of an active sports career), etc. In addition, there is also
some significant legislation that has an indirect influence on sport, such
as gaming legislation (on the financing of sport) and tax legislation. These
parts of legislation will be discussed next since they are important for
national sport federations.
Allocation of Revenues from Gambling Services to Sport
The gaming legislation defines the market operating conditions for lot-
teries and gambling services operators, and also establishes the Sport
Foundation. This body allocates approximately €9 million (approxi-
mately a quarter of all revenues for good causes from lotteries in Slovenia)
to 55 programmes of the national sport federations as well as a number of
sport programmes at the local level.
Tax Legislation
The VAT Act implements exceptions to the application of VAT, by apply-

ing special rules to service providers related to sport: a lower rate of 9.5
per cent is applied to the admission to sport events or the use of sport
facilities.
Under the Personal Income Tax Act, an individual taxpayer can grant
0.5 per cent of their income tax to sport or other not-for-profit organisa-
tions that have the special status of public interest. No social tax exemp-
tions are indicated for sport employment contracts.
The Law on Sport establishes the responsibility for safeguarding the pub-
lic interest in the area of sport and regulates the competencies of the
232 G. Jurak
different institutions with responsibilities in that area. Furthermore, it

contains certain provisions regarding the governing framework of sport
programmes. The prerogatives of local bodies are defined by the Self-
government Act, which (among others) requires that an urban municipal
authority must provide sport and recreation areas and facilities on its ter-
ritory and must also promote the development of sports and recreation.
The concrete principles governing the safeguarding of the public inter-
est in sport are then detailed in the NPS. The annual sport programmes
(annual budgets for sport) implemented at national and local levels inte-
grate these principles.
National sport federations have no special position within sport leg-
islation. However, in the proposal of a new law on sport, the OCS-ASF
as a representative sport organisation has a special position regarding the
co-governance of sport through its authority (i.e., the classification of
sports into groups and the categorisation of sport achievements), which
has a direct impact on public subsidies for sport organisations. The OCS-
ASF also gives consensus to the NPS and annual sport programmes (the
yearly budgets for sport). Through its representatives, it also has signifi-
cant influence on the functioning of the Government Expert Council on
Sport and the Board of the Sport Foundation.
Policy Framework
Central to Slovenia’s sport policy is the NPS, which was recently devel-
oped for the 2014–2023 period. Through the NPS, the state creates
conditions for the development of sport as an important element of the
development of each individual and society, and contributes to the reduc-
tion of inequality of access to sports. The NPS defines the public interest
put in place by the responsible organisations carrying out Slovenian sport
activities. Among them, it emphasises the national sport federations and
their members with one of the sport policy goals: ‘strengthening the role
and importance of those sport associations which provide society with
quality sport services, and have a character of public good and as such
occupy an important part of civil society and which mostly through their
voluntary activities, strive for the benefit of the entire society’ (Jurak &
Pavletič Samardžija, 2014, p. 13).
The vision of NPS 2014–2023 is that ‘Sport shall remain an impor-
tant part of our nation’s culture, and each individual sport shall become
or remain an indispensable part of [a] healthy lifestyle and positive life
attitudes’ (Jurak & Pavletič Samardžija, 2014, p. 22). The main aim is
to increase the quality of the sport activity of citizens. By improving the
programmes of sports clubs and federations, the NPS aims to increase the
number of members of federations and thus the number of sport active
citizens, their awareness of sport, the volume of professionally carried
out work in sport, and the adherence of individuals to sport. The func-
tioning of sports clubs and their federations is in the public interest; in
this manner, the state encourages and materially supports the federations’
activities.
The NPS is followed by the NPS Action Plan, which contains practical
and concrete projects and actions for the implementation of the measures
and the realisation of the fundamental objectives of the NPS, and by the
new Law on Sport, which will, once passed, constitutes the legal and
normative framework for the implementation of the NPS. A large part of
the entire sport sector has been involved in policy making.
4.3 Support
Financial Framework
An analysis of Slovenian sport financing has shown that the annual expen-
diture on sport has increased nominally over the course of the previous
decade. In 2001, €433.9 million (2.38 per cent GDP) of expenditure on
sport was recorded; by 2007, the figure had risen to €597.5 million (1.93
per cent GDP). Most funding (about 85 per cent) of Slovenian sport is
secured from private sources; the main source is households, which account
for about 67 per cent of all expenses for sport (Bednarik, Kolar, & Jurak,
2010). The average Slovenian household spends 2.88 per cent of the fam-
ily budget on sport, equating to €496 per year (Bednarik et al., 2010).
Two-thirds of these funds are spent on sport products and one-third on
sport services (Table 3).
Table 3 The expenditure for sport in Slovenia
234
For sport
accessories,
For equipment,
Expenditure on For sport investments clothing,
sport 2007 Total (€) % services (€) % in sport (€) % shoes (€) %
G. Jurak
TOTAL 597,521,712 100.0 244,807,553 100.0 65,133,760 100.0 287,580,399 100.0

EXPENDITURE
Total public 103,941,672 17.4 38,807,912 15.9 65,133,760 100.0
expenditure
Government 19,338,079 3.2 9,365,546 3.8 9,972,533 15.3
budget
Local 76,491,426 12.8 25,305,161 10.3 51,186,265 78.6
communities’
budget
Lottery money 8,112,167 1.4 4,137,205 1.7 3,974,962 6.1
Total private 493,580,040 82.6 205,999,641 84.1 0.0 287,580,399 100.0
expenditure
Expenditure of 119,553,133 20.0 119,553,133 48.8 0.0
companies
Expenditure of 374,026,907 62.6 86,446,508 35.3 287,580,399 100.0
population
Expenditure of 287,580,399 48.1 287,580,399 100.0
population on
sport products
Expenditure of 86,446,508 14.5 86,446,508
population on
sport services
Source: Bednarik et al. (2010)
Despite its roots in a communist political system and, consequently,

extensive public financing of sport in the past (pre-1991), the share of
public funding of Slovenian sport in recent decades has remained at
about 16 per cent (Bednarik et al., 2010). The level of public expenditure
at both the national and local levels is lower than is found in most other
EU countries (Bednarik et al., 2010; Waelbroeck-Rocha et al., 2011).
Another valuable resource for Slovenian sport should also be men-
tioned: volunteers. These account for almost 80 per cent of the workers
in sport NGOs. These volunteers perform 65.8 per cent of all work in
these organisations, and the estimated contribution of volunteer work to
the revenues made by sport organisations is nearly 15 per cent. It is also
estimated that volunteer work represents 13.5 per cent of the economic
value of sport outside the education system, equating to €81.2 million,
or 0.311 per cent of GDP (Kolar et al., 2010). However, the amount of
volunteer work is below the levels observed in other developed European
countries (Waelbroeck-Rocha et al., 2011).
According to the Action Plan of the NPS, sport federations can obtain
public subsidies from the state government and the Sport Foundation for
their functioning and for different projects. If these are sport programmes
(from competitive sport to ‘Sport for All’), they are validated on the basis
of previous performance (sport achievements, number of participants,
etc.). National sport federations receive an annual public subsidy of
approximately €18 million. The realisation of these subsidies is limited
by conditions set by state governments and Sport Foundations (e.g., no
expenses are allowed for the payment of athletes for sport performance,
expenses only for staff and athletes that participate in sport programme,
and the share of total expenses must be covered from other sources).
In 2011, up to €159.4 million was allocated for sport from public
funds; this was much higher than in 2001, when the figure was €63.4
million. The funds for local communities in 2011 represent 70.5 per cent
of this amount, and the state funds 29.5 per cent of all public expen-
diture in sport (from this figure, €15.8 million, or 10.1 per cent, was
allocated from European Structural Funds). The realisation of the specific
contents of the NPS was quite diverse. The best realisation was recorded
in the area of the construction of sporting facilities. This category also
received the highest amount of public funds and, in addition to that, its
236 G. Jurak
share within total public expenditure was increasing steadily. In 2001, its
share was at 48.1 per cent, and in 2011 it was 54.1 per cent of the total
public expenditure for sport. National sport federations chiefly received
subsidies in the areas of functioning, the competitive sport of children
and youth, top sport, and international sport events, but also in research
and development, and sport facilities.
Consequently, the revenues of all sports organisations had increased
in the previous decade from €158.9 million to €300.3 million in 2010.
Despite extensive increases of revenues in private sport organisations, the
revenues of sports clubs and federations have increased steadily. In 2010,
the revenues were €214.8 million; however, the average revenues of sports
clubs or federations has stagnated due to the increased number of these
sport organisations. At the beginning of the global economic crisis, the
greatest financial impacts were experienced in grassroots sport, whereas,
by contrast, professional sport NGOs have increased their operating reve-
nues, mostly as the result of increases in public revenues. The findings sug-
gest that the true impact of the recession on Slovenian sport organisations
remains to be seen (Jurak, Andreff, Popović, Jakšič, & Bednarik, 2014).
The NPS focuses on regulating the professional, organisational and man-

agerial tasks related to sport. These tasks are determined by the annual
programme of sport co-financed each year by state and local budgets
as well as from the financial resources of the Sport Foundation. Where
sports is intertwined with other social sectors, it determines the basis for
the positioning of sport into the strategies and policies of those sectors
and thereby promotes their mutual action for the common public good
(Jurak & Pavletič Samardžija, 2014).
Degree of Governmental Participation
Many tasks and activities are divided between the governing bodies and
the sport federations. Since the government assigns the task of develop-
ing the goals, indicators, measures, actions and timeframe to the NPS, it
possesses significant power. This responsibility is partially shared through

the governmental Expert Council for Sport, which acts as an intermediary
between the state government and civil sport organisations. However, this
intermediate role depends on the government (which sets the agenda of the
Expert Council) and the competencies of the Expert Council (members
of the council should have adequate competencies to prosecute the tasks).
The government is not perceived as being very supportive or encourag-
ing; it is understood that it has to deal with a very wide range of issues.
The government should support the activities and coordinate them on
the national level with the other ministries and the OCS-ASF. However,
there has to be a political will to do so, and this represents a problem.
Another intermediate participant that is also influenced in part by the
government is the Sport Foundation. The state government appoints one
member of its board and its director, while the majority of the board
members are named by sport organisations. The board takes decisions
about subsidiaries to sport organisations. The Sport Foundation’s funds
represent almost half of the public expenditure on the state level. Another
part is directly funded from the state government budget.
On the local level, there are different practices with varying levels of
participation on the part of sport organisations. There are also some
extreme cases in which a municipality’s mayor is a strong actor and
decision-maker about sport on the local level. Hence, the NPS defines
The local authorities’ bodies for sport should manage and coordinate
activities of the annual programme of sport at the local level. The local
authorities’ bodies for sport have to be formed by members, of whom half
are delegated by municipal sport federations or other sport organisations
that represent clubs/associations activities at the local level.
Support by the OCS-ASF
The OCS-ASF coordinates many projects supporting the sport federa-

tions as well as ‘Sport for All’. The main projects supporting sport fed-
erations are connected with sport competitions (Olympic Games, Youth
Olympic Games, Mediterranean Games, etc.) and care for athletes (schol-
arship for talented athletes, special health insurance for top sportsman,
238 G. Jurak
dual careers, etc.). ‘Sport for All’ projects contribute to encouraging and
promoting a balanced and active lifestyle. With the Slovenian Olympic
Academy and the Municipal-Level Sport Committee, the Sport-for-All
Committee introduces additional high-quality Olympic and expert value
to the programmes of the associations and clubs who are actually staging
its various events (OCS-ASF, 2014).
Support by Public Financing and Public Services
The relevant ministry prepares the criteria and the annual programme
of sport; the OCS-ASF can only confirm them and give their opinions.
It is not entitled to set up, for example, other criteria to the federations.
Each federation then has to apply for the subsidies. In this manner, the
government money flows directly to the federations. The OCS-ASF is
the main non-government organisation, since it is the association of all
sport federations, directing and supervising some national programmes.
For this, they also have to apply to the ministry and its available funds.
The Board of the Sport Foundation also sets up annual plans with criteria
by which the OCS-ASF can apply for the financing of its programmes.
Moreover, individual sport organisations, such as sports clubs, can also
propose requests for the financial support of the Sport Foundation.
Local authorities’ budgets for sport can only be used for local initia-
tives, such as club requirements; the OCS-ASF and other associations on
the national level cannot rely on it. However, the budget is much bigger
than at the national level (see Table 2).
The OCS-ASF also supports the sport sector by providing a training
programme for people who want to obtain a qualification in order to
work in sport. Certain federations can then also give specific training
and degrees in their sport discipline. The programme of the OCS-ASF is
more general and targeted towards ‘Sport for All’ schemes. In Slovenia,
people cannot coach in the sports sector without a university education
or the appropriate degree of qualification. The project of qualifications in
the field of sport is led by the OCS-ASF.
Another major project is the career development of coaches and ath-
letes. This is not a typical education or qualification programme; it helps
athletes to develop themselves to be able to work on a higher level in

the sport sector and motivates top coaches to participate in initiatives
broader than their own sport discipline.
Other programmes include marketing programmes for their members,
the federations and local sport federations, helping them with partner-
ships using the partners of the OCS-ASF to make deals with the federa-
tions. In general, if a specific group or target should be reached because
of, for example, changed trends, the OCS-ASF can set up a project to
attract the attention of federations to the subject, but whether or not
they want to focus on those groups and projects, within the limits of the
NPS, remains at the discretion of the federation. Once they agree on a
project, however, they have to follow the guidance of the OCS-ASF. Even
though the OCS-ASF represents the national Olympic Committee, in its
projects, once a sport discipline wants to be part of a project and attains
the relevant criteria, no distinction is made between Olympic and non-
Olympic sports.
5 Conclusions
The analysis of the NPS adopted in 2000 showed that it had a significant
positive impact on the growth and development of Slovenian sport. It
was particularly important to determine that the individual indicators of
the development of Slovenian sport are significantly positively correlated;
this means that the individual segments of sport (sport of children and
youth, competitive sport, sport of disabled, sports recreation) are mutu-
ally interdependent, so the development of one segment has a positive
impact on the development of the others. However, the analysis identi-
fied also certain shortcomings from the previous period. One of these
is that sport remains under the significant influence of politics. A new
government can slow down or even stop ongoing projects. Furthermore,
on the municipal level, mayors may have disproportionate influence and
impact, which is not always stable.
Slovenia has attempted to balance the power of decision-making and,
at least proportionally, shifted it back to direct providers of sport (i.e.,
civil society in sport), by defining the distribution of empowerment in
240 G. Jurak
the new NPS management through different mediating bodies (Expert

Council, local authorities’ bodies for sport, and the Sport Foundation)
and the empowerment of OCS-ASF in decision-making at the national
level. This shift could be interpreted as a future direction towards the
‘social configuration’ of the Slovenian sport system, according to Henry
(2009), in which the public sector will increasingly serve as a partner in
achieving changes. According to our knowledge, such a model of the
development and execution of the sports policy is unique, and it is not
similar to those in neighbouring countries.
References
Bednarik, J., Kolar, E., & Jurak, G. (2010). Analysis of the sports services mar-
ket in Slovenia. Kinesiology, 42(2), 142–152.
Bednarik, J., Petrović, K., & Šugman, R. (1998). Funding of Slovenian sport
during transition. Kinesiologia Slovenica, 4(1), 12–16.
Eurobarometer. (2014). Eurobarometer sport and physical activity. Retrieved May
15, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/
ebs_412_en.pdf
European Commission. (2014). Sport and physical activity. (Special Eurobarometer
Hardman, K. (2002). European physical education/sport survey. Reports of sum-
mary of findings. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
ticipation and public policy. Sports Economics, Management and Policy 8.
New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
Henry, I. (Ed.). (2009). Transnational and comparative research in sport:
Globalisation, governance and sport policy. London: Routledge.
Humphreys, B., Maresova, K., & Ruseski, J. (2012). Institutional factors, sport
policy, and individual sport participation: An international comparison.
Retrieved December 28, 2012, from http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/
risalbaec/2012_5f001.htm

Routledge.
Jurak, G., Andreff, W., Popović, S., Jakšič, D., & Bednarik, J. (2014). The
impact of the global economic crisis on the finances of non-governmental
sport organizations in Slovenia remains to be seen. Motriz, 20(2), 131–142.
Jurak, G., & Pavletič Samardžija, P. (2014). National programme of sport in the
Republic of Slovenia. Ljubljana: Tiskarna Knjigoveznica Radovljica d.o.o.
Kolar, E., Kovač, M., & Jurak, G. (Eds.). (2010). Analiza nacionalnega programa
športa v Republiki Sloveniji 2000–2010 [Analyses of national programme of
sport in Republic of Slovenia 2000–2010]. Ljubljana: Faculty of Sport.
OCS-ASF. (2014). Sports for All. http://www.olympic.si/en/sports-for-all/ June
15, 2015.
SORS. (2012). Slovenia in figures 2012. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from www.
stat.si/doc/pub/slo_stevilke_12.pdf
SpEA. (2012). Study on the contribution of sport to economic growth and employ-
ment in the EU. Brussels and Vienna: SportsEconAustria.
Waelbroeck-Rocha, E., Avice, E., Nguyen, T. A., Mirgon, C., Lourimi, S.,
Mialet, G., et al. (2011). Study on the funding of grassroots sports in the
EU. With a focus on the internal market aspects concerning legislative frame-
works and systems of financing. Brussels: Eurostrategies.
Spain: Putting the Pieces of the Sport
System in Place — The Role of the Sport
Federations
Ramón Llopis-Goig
1 Introduction
The Spanish sport system is the result of collaboration between the public
and private sectors. The public sector distributes its functions in terms
of territoriality (local, regional and national), while in the private sector
a distinction has to be made between the commercial private sector (for
profit) and the associative private sector (non-profit). This latter sector
largely consists of the sport federations. Along with the sports clubs and
associations, this chapter examines the functions and characteristics of
the sport federations in the Spanish sport system. This involves a con-
sideration of the socioeconomic and cultural characteristics of Spanish
society. The chapter then goes on to outline the legislative framework
R. Llopis-Goig (*)
Department of Sociology and Social Antrhopology, University of Valencia,
Valencia, Spain

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0_12
244 R. Llopis-Goig
of Spanish sport, and to give a panoramic overview of the main sport

policies developed in recent decades at the national level, in both cases
emphasising aspects related to sport federations. The chapter then offers
an analysis of the budgets and sources of financing of sport federations
and an analysis is also presented of the role played by sport federations
in public policies, and the way this role has evolved in recent years in a
context of tight budget restrictions and changes in the sport culture of
Spanish society.
2 Country Profile
Spain is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of
government. The Spanish Constitution of 1978 was the culmination
of the Spanish transition to democracy. As a result, Spain is now com-
posed of 17 regions—officially called Autonomous Communities—
and two Autonomous Cities with varying degrees of autonomy.
These communities have their basic institutional law—the Statute
of Autonomy, considerable legislative and executive autonomy, and
their own parliaments and regional governments. The distribution of
power is different for every community and laid out in their Statutes
of Autonomy.
In turn, the country is subdivided into 50 provinces that represent
the territorial divisions designed to carry out the activities of the State.
Spain has 8122 municipalities that have been granted the autonomy to
manage their internal affairs and provinces (Ministerio de Hacienda y
Administraciones Públicas, 2015). The country’s extension is 498,800 km²
(The World Bank, 2013a), and it has a population of 46,464,053 inhab-
itants, resulting in a density of 92 people per km² (INE, 2015). Spain
has an urbanisation rate of 79 per cent (The World Bank, 2013b). It
has a GDP per capita of US$29,882.1 (The World Bank, 2013b), and
has been a member of the European Union since 1986. In addition to
Spanish—the official language of the country—Catalan, Valencian,
Galician, Euskera and Aranese are also official languages in their respec-
tive regions (Table 1).
Spain: Putting the Pieces of the Sport System in Place — The Role... 245
Table 1 Facts and descriptive data for Spain

Population* 46,596,236
Area** 498,800
Density* 92.0
Urbanisation rate (%)*** 79
Structure of the state Semi-federal
Number of provinces 50 provinces
Number of autonomous regions 17 regions and 2 cities
Number of municipalities**** 8122 municipalities
Number of official languages Spanish (and five languages in their
respective regions)
Welfare model Mediterranean
Sources: *INE (2015); **The World Bank (2013a); ***The World Bank (2013b);
****Ministerio de Hacienda y Administraciones Públicas (2015).
3 Sport in Spain
The decentralised system of administration in Spain is reflected in the
country’s organisation of sport. The 17 Autonomous Communities have
specific competences in the area of sport, but the transfer of competence
from the state to the regions refers to sport promotion rather than to
sport in general. Thus, some responsibilities remain at the national level,
and the main organisation in charge of sport at that level is the High
Sport Council (Consejo Superior de Deportes, CSD).
Today, sport is a social activity which has very important implications
in terms of health, integration or socialisation. The concept of sport has
been extended from that of an organised and competitive practice to a
much broader concept also involving unorganised, non-competitive
and recreational activities (García-Ferrando & Llopis-Goig, 2011) that
have evolved into a growing economic sector (Lera-López & Lizalde-
Gil, 2013). According to the Eurobarometer, in 2013, 46 per cent of
the population practiced sport once a week; 7 per cent were members
of a sport club, and 10 per cent belonged to a health and fitness club
(European Commission, 2014). According to the national statistics,
246 R. Llopis-Goig
sport participation in Spain has increased in recent decades, from 22 per

cent in 1975 to 47.1 per cent in 2014 (CIS, 2014; Llopis-Goig, 2015).
Spain has 66 legally constituted national sport federations and 64,755
sport clubs with a total of 3,388,098 participants (CSD, 2015). As the
Eurostrategies report states, ‘sport clubs benefit from the contribution
of approximately 35,000 volunteers, working an average of three hours
per week’ (Eurostrategies, 2011). This is equivalent to 2625 full-time
employees and a monetary contribution of €34.7 million, which repre-
sents 1.37 per cent of the economic value of sport in the GDP, a relatively
low amount compared to other EU countries (Table 2).
In Spain, following the death of the dictator Franco in 1975, the political
transition to democracy was underpinned by a predominance of dem-
ocratic and solidarity values (Subirats, 1999) that were clearly present
in discussions about future policies. Franco’s dictatorship did not pro-
Table 2 Sports profile of Spain

High Council for Sport
Government authority responsible for sport (CSD)
Membership other clubs that include sport activities 4
(%)*
Number of sport clubs*** 64,755
Number of sport club members*** 3,388,098
Average number of members per club (***) 52.3
National budget for sport (€)*** 152.123 million
National budget for sport federations (**) 296.245 million
Regional budget for sport (€)*** 336.567 million
Local budget for sport (€)*** 2046.966 million
GDP (%)****
Sources: *European Commission (2014); **CSD (2014); ***CSD (2015); ****Own
processing based on Eurostrategies (2011) and CSD (2015).
vide equal opportunities for access to education, health, culture and, of

course, sport. In some regions, the small number of sports clubs existing
at the time were reserved for the upper classes or for people who had
a particular interest in competitive sport. People who had no financial
resources or interest in competitive sport were generally denied access
to this activity. This obvious lack of opportunities was probably why the
reinstatement of democracy led to a strong consensus about the need to
contribute to a reduction in the level of social inequality in sport (Puig,
Sarasa, Junyent, & Oró, 2003). At the same time, there was also a general
belief that the voluntary sector was unable to provide access to sport for
the general population. This argument was so widely accepted that the
Spanish Constitution of 1978 accorded the State the responsibility for
access to sport. As a result, the public sector has gradually acquired a cen-
tral position in the development of the Spanish sport system, providing
a clear example of the so-called process of governmentalisation of sports
(Bergsgard, Houlihan, Mangset, Nødland, & Rommetvedt, 2007).
Based on these antecedents, this section examines the organisation of the
Spanish sport system, focusing on its structure, legislative and financial
framework, policies, governance and management support.
4.1 Structure
Figure 1 displays the organisation of sport in Spain today at the national,

regional and local levels and according to governmental, intermediate
and non-governmental structures. Below, the most relevant actors in the
Spanish sport system are described, starting with the governmental agents
and followed by non-governmental and intermediate agents.
The organisation and structure of sport in the Spanish public sector in

Spain is characterised by a decentralised political structure that operates
at three levels (national, regional and local). The public sector distributes
its functions and responsibilities in terms of these three levels of action
through the operations of different actors at the respective territorial levels.
248 R. Llopis-Goig
SPAIN Governmental Intermediate Non-governmental
Ministry of Education, The Olympic Sports National Olympic

Culture and Sport Association (ADO) Committee (COE)
Sport
High Sport Council promotion
National
(CSD) National sport entities
level
federations
Association
Advisory committee The of sport
Professional clubs
leagues
Regional
Autonomous regions Regional sport
level federations
Local
Provincial councils
level Sport clubs
City councils
Membership/ Hierarchical
Financing
partnership relationship
Fig. 1 Sport framework in Spain. Source: own processing based on Lera-

López and Lizalde-Gil (2013: 157)
In the case of the national authorities, the responsibility for sport belongs
to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport, of which the High Sport
Council (CSD) is a part. Among other competences described in the
National Sports Act (Spanish Parliament, 1990), the CSD approves the
creation of a new sports federation and has the competence to authorise
and revoke the establishment and approval of the articles of association and
regulations of Spanish sport federations. The CSD agrees on the objectives
and sports programmes with the Spanish sports federations—in particular,
those concerning high-level sport—and it grants financial subsidies, when
appropriate, to sports federations and other sports entities and associations.
In cooperation with the national sport federations, the CSD gives approval
for the organisation of any international competition in Spanish territory
and for the participation of Spanish athletes, and it manages the distribu-
tion of grants to various sports structures, while controlling their use.
The Autonomous Communities have a wide range of responsibilities in

terms of developing and implementing sport policy in their respective
territories. Their roles and responsibilities in the promotion and develop-
ment of the sports policy are established in their respective Statutes of
Autonomy. Their tasks include the regulation and organisation of sport
at different levels, the management of their own sport services, recognis-
ing and overseeing the territorial federations and clubs, and organising
competitions (Lera-López & Lizalde-Gil, 2013). They are in charge of
building or funding the construction of regional sport facilities, promot-
ing sport for all and supporting elite sport.
With regard to local authorities, a distinction must be made between
provincial and city councils since they have different competences.
The provincial governing bodies (diputaciones provinciales) have similar
responsibilities, with regard to the sport sector, to those of Autonomous
Communities, but their principal focus is on supporting local coun-
cils. Municipalities are ‘the principal managers of public sports services
through the municipal sports services’, and they ‘play a decisive role in
the construction and management of local sports facilities’ (Delorme &
Raspaud, 2011: 424).
The main actors in the voluntary sector in Spain are the Spanish Olympic
Committee and the national sport federations, the regional sport fed-
erations, and the sports clubs. The Spanish National Olympic Committee
(Comité Olímpico Español, COE) is a non-profit organisation of declared
public interest with its own legal personality. It consists of the national
sport federations of Olympic specialities (30) and is responsible—with
the support and backing of the CSD—for the teams that participate in
Olympic competitions.
The Spanish sport federations are ‘private entities, with their own legal
personality, which operate in the whole of the country to fulfil their
responsibilities’ (Lera-López & Lizalde-Gil, 2013: 152). The National
Sports Act (Ley del Deporte, Law 10/1990) situated the sport federa-
tions as the driver force behind sport in Spain—with the CSD being
250 R. Llopis-Goig
the driver—and attributed to them public functions of an administrative

nature. As a result, they were recognised as organisations of public utility.
In addition to their particular attributes, they exercise public functions
through a process of administrative delegation, in this case acting as part-
nership agents of the public authority. Thus, the relationship between
sport federations and governmental bodies can be considered to corre-
spond to the principal–agent (PA) approach (Hallmann & Petry, 2013;
Llopis-Goig, 2015; Scheerder, Willem, Claes, & Billiet, 2015). However,
unlike many other European countries, there is no umbrella organisation
that compiles the demands of the different organisations and discusses
them with public authorities (Tokarski, Petry, Groll, & Mittag, 2009),
probably because of the strong state intervention in organised sport.
Thus, as in the Australian case, there is a direct relationship between sport
governing bodies and sport federations (Scheerder et al., 2015).
According to Act 10/1990 (Spanish Parliament, 1990), along with
their own government activities, the administration, organisation and
regulation of sporting specialties corresponding to each of their sports,
the national sport federations also assess and organise official sports com-
petitions at the State level; they design, prepare and carry out the prepa-
ration plans for top-level athletes in their respective sporting modalities
with the regional federations; they organise or hold the official interna-
tional competitions held in state territory; and they are responsible for
representing Spain in international sports activities.
The sport federations are distributed into 30 Olympic federations (28
of them relating sports in the Summer Olympic Games and the other two
corresponding to Winter Olympic sports); 30 non-Olympic federations
and five multi-sport federations, dedicated to different modalities of
sport practices in which athletes with physical, psychological and senso-
rial disadvantages are integrated.
The regional sport federations have similar characteristics and purposes
to the national sport federations, but their scope is limited to the regional
territory in which they operate. They are the official representatives of
the national sport federations in each of their respective Autonomous
Communities. These federations organise, manage and regulate sports
competitions at the regional level.
Sports clubs are private associations made up of private individuals

or legal entities whose purpose is the promotion of one or several sport
modalities, the sport participation of their members, and their partici-
pation in sports competitions and activities. In 2014 there were some
64,755 sports clubs in Spain (CSD, 2015). Sports clubs can be divided
into two main types: elementary, basic and professional sports clubs. The
main difference between elementary sports clubs and basic sports clubs is
that the latter have their own legal personality, but each type can partici-
pate in sport competitions if they join the corresponding sport federation.
Clubs that take part in official professional or state-level sports activities
have to become Sports Public Limited Companies (Sociedad Anónima
Deportiva, SAD), as this is the way in which the Sports Act separates pro-
fessional sports from non-professional sports (Llopis-Goig, 2015).
The general assembly for sport or the advisory committee is chaired by the
President of the CSD and made up of members who are representatives
of the state administration, Autonomous Communities, local authorities,
Spanish sports federations and professional leagues. Their objective is to
advise the President of the CSD in the areas they recommend.
The professional leagues are associations of clubs constituted exclu-
sively and compulsorily for official competitions at the professional and
national levels. The leagues ‘are composed of the clubs or sport public
limited companies that participate in official professional and national
competitions’ (Lera-López & Lizalde-Gil, 2013: 152). The professional
leagues are subject to provisions from the public authorities (Spanish
Constitution, laws on sport, Royal Decree on sport public limited com-
panies) and to the private rules (status of federations, status of the league,
collective agreements) (Delorme & Raspaud, 2011: 428). There are pro-
fessional leagues of football (LPF), basketball (ACB), indoor football
(LNFS) and handball (ASOBAL).
Finally, it is important to mention the Olympic Sports Association
(Asociación de Deportes Olímpicos, ADO), created in 1988 and aimed
at high-performance sport development mainly in the area of Olympic
252 R. Llopis-Goig
sports. This support took the form of the entry of private sponsors who
made it possible to finance specific plans for the Olympic training of top
athletes.
4.2 Steering
Traditionally, Spain has a strong culture of public sector intervention,

and sport is no exception to this. This is clearly reflected in the way Spain
was classified in a project commissioned by the European Commission
(Camy, Clijsen, Madella, & Pilkington, 2004; Henry, 2009). In their
study, these authors characterise the national sports systems of the
Member States as being composed of four configurations. The first ideal
typical policy system is what they term the bureaucratic configuration,
which exhibits high degrees of state involvement. Along with a number
of other countries, Spain is included in this type, characterised by ‘the
very active role that the public authorities take in regulating the system’.
According to Camy et al. (2004), in the countries included in this ideal
type there is almost always a legislative framework specific to the field
of sport and the voluntary sports sector acts by delegation. This ideal
type fits the situation Spain and offers a better description of it than the
other three ideal types (Camy et al., 2004; Henry, 2009): the entrepre-
neurial configuration (characterised by a high level of involvement of mar-
ket forces): the missionary configuration (characterised by the dominant
presence of a voluntary sports movement with great autonomy to make
decisions): and the social configuration (characterised by the presence of
the social partners within a multifaceted system).
A second typology that could help to situate the Spanish sport sys-
tem in the European context is the one developed by Houlihan (1997),
although in this case with various nuances. In his contribution, Houlihan
distinguishes five ideal types, and he allocates Spain to what he terms
quango. In this type, responsibility for sports policy is delegated to a
quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation. According to Houlihan,
the ‘quango’ is independent to a certain extent, but it is accountable
to the ministry because of the financial resources it receives from state
sources (Houlihan, 1997). This description coincides with the role of the
CSD in Spain, but it differs with regard to various details that make it
necessary to refine Houlihan’s classification of the Spanish sport system:
first, because the direction of the CSD is named by the political party in
power, and therefore its independence is quite limited; secondly, because
some of the traits of the other two ideal types described by Houlihan
(1997) are also clearly present in the Spanish system, specifically the ones
he calls fragmented administration of public policy, on the one hand, and
shared responsibility, on the other. According to the former, a major role
for sport policy agents is located at subnational levels, something that can
be perfectly applied to the Spanish case, where—as described in the pre-
vious section—the sport competences are transferred to the Autonomous
Communities and the offer of ‘municipalised’ sports services. Similarly,
some characteristics of the ideal type that Houlihan calls shared responsi-
bility are not unlike the Spanish system. In this type, the responsibility for
sports policy making is shared between a governmental authority and a
non-governmental organisation that receives financial resources from the
government but also generates its own income. This description fits the
type of relationship that exists in Spain between the central and regional
governments and the national and regional sport federations, so that it
must also be considered when categorising the Spanish sport system.
Taking these antecedents into account, this section offers both a dis-
cussion of the legislative framework for Spanish sport and a panoramic
view of the main sport policies developed in recent decades at the national
level, in both cases emphasising aspects related to sport federations.
Although the different public administrations at the national, regional
and local levels have specific activities in the area of sport, this section will
focus on the national level.
The main law regulating sport at the national level in Spain is the National
Sports Act (Law 10/1990), which places sport in the jurisdiction of the
State. The 1990 National Sports Act proposed the development of its
254 R. Llopis-Goig
own rules system for the federative model, and to adapt this federative
model to a decentralised State. Along with the National Sports Act, Spain
has a number of laws that regulate the organisation, governance and elec-
tion process of the sport federations (Royal Decree 1835/1991, applying
to the Spanish sport federations and the register of sport associations, and
Order ECI/3567/2007), discipline in sport (Royal Decree 1591/1992),
the composition, organisation and governance of the Sport Limited
Companies (Royal Decree 1251/1999) and high-level and elite athletes
(Royal Decree 971/2007). There are also laws that apply to health protec-
tion and the fight against doping in sport (Law 7/2006), the fight against
violence, racism, xenophobia and intolerance in sport (Law 19/2007),
and general audio-visual communication (Law 7/2010).
There are also a number of regulations for non-specific sport legislation.

Alcohol consumption and smoking are both prohibited in sport facili-
ties, as is any type of direct or indirect publicity (for example, through
sponsorship). It is also important to note that sport organisations that are
recognised as being of ‘public utility’ are tax exempt; and that only the
sport federations and the Spanish Olympic and Paralympic Committee
are recognised as having a public utility status. Very few clubs appear to
benefit from this status, meaning that most sport clubs are not exempt
from income taxes, and neither is there any exemption with regard to
social contributions paid by clubs. There are VAT exemptions, but these
are not specific to sports clubs: the exemption only applies to organisa-
tions that organise non-profit sporting activities.
Policy Framework
Public authorities play a clear role in the organisation of Spanish sport. Local
councils are responsible for making sport accessible to the population, while
the central government has more general responsibilities, including the coor-
dination and planning of sport facilities and sport research programmes and
responsibilities related to international representation. Regional governments
are responsible for implementing sport policies within their own territories,
and both regional and central governments provide funding and support for
the activities promoted by the local councils. Thus, the public sector as a
whole occupies the central position in the Spanish sport system.
The Sports Act establishes that the national sport authorities coordi-
nate with the autonomous regions and local entities for the general pro-
motion of sport. It also establishes, as a general principle, ‘the inclusion
of physical education and sport in compulsory education and the provi-
sion of sport facilities in schools, support for the federations and clubs,
promotion of equality in sport practice, national support for top perfor-
mance sport as an essential factor to encourage grassroots sport and to
represent Spain in official international competitions, and the promotion
of research and scientific support in sport’ (Spanish Parliament, 1990).
In order to promote universal access to quality sport for the whole popula-
tion, the CSD, in close collaboration with the Autonomous Communities,
local authorities, universities and other ministerial bodies, along with the
private sector, launched a series of guidelines, objectives, strategic priori-
ties, programmes and measures that shape the A + D Comprehensive Plan
for Physical Activity and Sport (CSD, 2010). This Plan was designed to be
developed during the 2010–2020 period and had four main objectives:
to achieve a significant increase the level of sports participation across the
whole of the population; generalise sports in school-aged children; to pro-
mote sports as a tool for social inclusion; and to make progress in achieving
true equality between men and women. As the majority of the compe-
tences in sports matters correspond to the Autonomous Communities,
the actions mentioned in the plan were proposed so that they could align
themselves with these objectives and pursue them in their sports policies.
4.3 Support
Financial Framework
The different public authorities devote specific budgets to the promo-

tion and development of sport. Although the funding models vary sig-
nificantly across disciplines and regions, the sport organisations typically
256 R. Llopis-Goig
receive important amounts of public funding. The expenditure on sport

of the three levels of the administration in 2013 was €152.123 million
(General State), €336.567 million (Autonomous Communities) and
€2046.966 million (see Table 3).
According to the Sports Act, national sport federations ‘annually
submit themselves to financial audits and, in the case of management,
limited review reports concerning the entirety of the costs’ (Spanish
Parliament, 1990). These actions can be commissioned and offset by the
CSD. Annually the sport federations are audited financially, and they are
monitored to make sure that the grants received are used for the intended
purposes. This audit is performed by the CSD through independent
companies. To be eligible for funding, the federations must meet certain
obligations or criteria. When federations receive funding for a specific
activity, the grant must be spent on the intended activity.
National Support
The state investment in sport financing at national level is carried out

through the CSD. The budget assigned in 2002 was €142.3 million,
increasing gradually to a figure of €191.3 million in 2009. Since then,
as a result of the economic crisis, which hit Spain particularly hard, the
budgets have decreased to €166.6 million in 2011 and €152.123 million
in 2013.
The available budget for sport is mainly devoted to developing high-
performance sport, which accounts for 81 per cent of the budget in
2011 (Lera-López & Lizalde-Gil, 2013: 154). The rest of the budget is
devoted to financing national school and university championships and
to supporting scientific research on sports. With regard to the entities
Table 3 Expenditure on sport of the three levels of the administration in 2013

Budget Millions (€) % of GDP Per inhabitant (€)
General State 152.123 0.01 3.3
Autonomous communities 336.567 0.03 7.2
Local administration* 2046.966 0.19 43.7
Source: Own processing based on CSD (2015: 57). * 2012.
and organisms that receive state financing, the most important ones are
the national sport federations. These are supported financially by the
central government, whereas regional governments support the regional
federations.
In 2014, the national sport federations received direct financing from
the CSD in the amount of €42.17 million, which represented 14.24
per cent of their total resources, with their own resources being their
main source of financing (82.79 per cent). The remainder (2.97 per cent)
comes from the ADO programme to support high-performance sport
(see Table 4). The distribution of the financing to the federations depends
on their fulfilment of a series of previously established criteria and does
not give priority to any specific sports. Basically, there are three criteria:
sports performances, criteria for economic viability, and efficacy criteria
in the administration.
Regional and Municipal Support
The budget contribution of regional and local governments to financing

sport has played a central role in the so-called process of democratisation
of sport in Spain (Puig et al., 2003). The Autonomous Communities
have the exclusive responsibility for the promotion and development of
sport in their territories, and so each regional government independently
establishes the budget designated for this purpose. They have annual calls
for proposals, to which sport clubs and autonomic sport federations can
present their projects in order to obtain a grant. Among other things, the
expenditure on sport in the autonomous regions is directed to maintain-
ing the activities and competitions of the regional sport federations, the
Table 4 Budget of the sport federations in 2014

€ %
Own resources 245,264,362.2 82.79
CSD grants 42,178,801.5 14.24
ADO 8,802,307.4 2.97
programme
Total income 296,245,471.1 100.00
Source: Own processing based on CSD (2014).
258 R. Llopis-Goig
construction and management of sport facilities, subsidies for regional

sports clubs, and the development of their own sports promotion
programmes.
The municipalities intervene actively in sport policy through favour-
ing the development and encouragement of grassroots sport activities
and promoting and developing physical activity through the Municipal
Sports Schools. They finance the building of local sport facilities, provide
funding for the sport services through the municipal sport structures, and
subsidise and give aid to sport clubs in their territory.
The sports clubs finance their activities through membership fees, spon-
sorship revenue and public grants. Normally, clubs receive direct sub-
ventions not from the federations, but rather from the Autonomous
Communities or municipalities where they are located. The federations’
support takes the form of programme funding, training and organising
competitions, for example, but only the clubs that participate in these
programmes and events benefit from this. All ‘generic’ support mecha-
nisms are linked to local governments’ support, rather than to support
from the federations. Finally, although most clubs receive financial sup-
port from the public sector, this generally accounts for a limited share of
their overall budget: revenue from members constitutes the bulk of their
financial resources (Eurostrategies, 2011).
5 Conclusion
The current Spanish sport system was established during the transition
period to democracy with the passing of the 1978 Constitution, which
stipulated that the public authorities would promote sport. Thus, a pro-
cess began that would lead to the governmentalisation of sport (Bergsgard
et al., 2007), which would be in contrast to with the previous period
of politicisation and ideological instrumentation. Influencing this pro-
cess was the awareness of the unequal access to sport practice during the
Francoist period and the relatively low confidence that the voluntary sec-
tor would be able to provide access to sport for the general population.
This starting point, along with the strong public sector intervention cul-
ture that has traditionally characterised Spain, produced a sport system
that can currently be classified as a bureaucratic configuration (Camy
et al., 2004; Henry, 2009).
Sport federations make up one of the main components of the associa-
tive private sector of the Spanish sport system, even though they receive
significant amounts of public funding. The relationship between sport
federations and governmental bodies can be considered to correspond to
the principal–agent (PA) approach (Scheerder et al., 2015). However, in
contrast to other European countries, there is no umbrella organisation
that compiles and discusses the demands of the different organisations
with the public authorities (Tokarski et al., 2009), and so there is a direct
relationship between sport governing bodies and sport federations.
In recent years, various authors have pointed out the need to make
some changes in the structure of the Spanish sport system, the financing
sources, and the modernisation of the federative management (Cabello,
Rivera, Trigueros, & Pérez, 2011; FDF, 2012). The first one is the fact
that federated sport is no longer the only integrating element of sport
activity. In this sense, it seems necessary to carry out a reconceptualisa-
tion of the Spanish sport model that would increase its efficacy and adjust
to social changes. Secondly, the decentralisation of the Spanish state into
Autonomous Communities requires greater coordination. Thus, it would
be important to reinforce or introduce more effective mechanisms for
cooperation and coordination between the national and Autonomous
Community. In addition, it is necessary to search for solutions for financ-
ing federated sport at the autonomic level, as its dual fit with the national
federation and the Autonomic Community suffers from difficulties that
are still not resolved (FDF, 2012). Thirdly, the federative system currently
finds itself with a situation of weakness in what some call the ‘inversion
of the model’, which would involve the creation of a scheme for the
provision of services by local, provincial and regional governments that,
in reality, no longer carry out their sports activity through the federal
route (Cabello et al., 2011: 705). This situation is provoking a growth
crisis in the federative system that affects its organisational structures and
260 R. Llopis-Goig
development and its prospects for future survival. Fourthly, the sport
federations currently face a series of financing problems in developing
the activities they have been delegated. This aspect requires an analy-
sis that would make it possible to establish whether public authorities
must guarantee the financing of the basic aspects of the tasks the sport
federations have been assigned or whether it is necessary to search for
and agree on other public and private financing mechanisms. Fifthly, the
sport federations must increase the efficacy of their operations by follow-
ing mechanisms and codes of good governance that can guide them based
on the principles of transparency and sustainability, especially with regard
to aspects of hiring and spending, as well as the publication and reporting
of economic accounts (FDF, 2012).
Federated sport is the largest voluntary movement in the country, and
the Spanish sport model depends on it. Although it has obtained a num-
ber of sport victories in recent years, it still has important deficiencies
related to its structure and financing. An effort will have to be made to
adapt it to the new circumstances and social changes that have occurred
in the past few decades.
References
(2007). Sport Policy—A comparative analysis of stability and change. Oxford:
Elsevier.
Cabello, D., Rivera, E., Trigueros, C., & Pérez, I. (2011). Análisis del modelo
del deporte federado español del siglo XXI. Revista Internacional de Medicina
y Ciencias de la Actividad Física y el Deporte, 11(44), 690–707.
employment in the field of sport in Europe through vocational training—
Vocational education and training in the field of sport in the European Union:
Situation, trends and outlook. Lyon: Université Claude Bernard Lyon.
CIS (2014). Barómetro de Junio de 2014. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones
Sociológicas.
CSD. (2010). Plan Integral para la Actividad Física y el Deporte. Madrid: CSD.
CSD. (2014). Memoria 2014. Otras Estadísticas. Datos Económicos. Madrid:
CSD.
CSD. (2015). Anuario de Estadísticas Deportivas 2015. Madrid: CSD.

Delorme, N., & Raspaud, M. (2011). The organization of sport in Spain: Between
state and autonomous communities. In S. Sobry (Ed.), Sports governance in the
world—A socio-historic approach. Volume II—The transition in Central and
Eastern European sport (pp. 413–431). Paris: Editions Le Manuscrit.
European Commission. (2014). Special Eurobarometer 412. Sport and Physical
Activity. Brussels: Report.
Eurostrategies. (2011). Study on the funding of grassroots sports in the EU. With a
of financing. Final report/Vol. II—Country reports. http://www.bloso-kics.
be/Sporteneu/Documents/110601_EU_study_funding_grassroots_sports_
finalreport_vol2.pdf.
FDF. (2012). Jornadas de Debate sobre el futuro del deporte federado español.
Madrid: CSD. http://www.munideporte.com/documentacion/
García-Ferrando, M., & Llopis-Goig, R. (2011). Ideal democrático y bienestar
personal. Encuesta sobre los hábitos deportivos en España 2010. Madrid: CIS.
Hallmann, K., & Petry, K. (Eds.). (2013). Comparative sport development:
Systems, participation and public policy. New York: Springer.
Henry, I. (2009). European models of sport—Governance, organisational
change and sport policy in the EU. Journal of Policy for Physical Education and
Sport, 18, 1–22.
Houlihan, B. (1997). Sport, policy and politics—A comparative analysis. London:
Routledge.
INE. (2015). Anuario Estadístico de España 2015. Madrid: INE.
Lera-López, F., & Lizalde-Gil, E. (2013). Spain. In K. Hallmann & K. Petry
(Eds.), Comparative sport development: Systems, participation and public policy.
New York: Springer.
Llopis-Goig, R. (2015). El sistema deportivo español: estructura organizativa y
pautas de participación ciudadana. In R. Llopis-Goig (Ed.), La participación
deportiva en Europa: Políticas, culturas y prácticas deportivas (pp. 309–337).
Barcelona: UOC.
Ministerio de Hacienda y Administraciones Públicas. (2015). Registro de
Entidades Locales, Ministerio de Hacienda y Administraciones Públicas. Madrid:
Gobierno de España.
Puig, N., Sarasa, S., Junyent, R., & Oró, C. (2003). Sport and welfare state in the
process of Spanish democratisation. In K. Heinemann (Ed.), Sport and the wel-
fare state (pp. 295–350). Schorndorf: Hofmann & Schattauer.
262 R. Llopis-Goig
Scheerder, J., Willem, A., Claes, E., & Billiet, S. (2015). The position and power
of national sports (con) federations—Agency relationship or co-governance?
12th European Association for Sociology of Sport Conference, Dublin, 10–13
June.
Spanish Parliament. (1990). Sports Act 10/1990 of 15 October. http://www.
csd.gob.es/csd/informacion-en/legislacion-basica/ley-del-deporte/ (retrieved
14 September 2015).
Subirats, J. (1999). ¿Existe sociedad civil en España? Responsabilidades colectivas y
valores públicos. Madrid: Fundación Encuentro.
The World Bank. (2013a). Land area. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
AG.LND.TOTL.K2 (retrieved 15 September 2015).
The World Bank. (2013b). Urban population. http://data.worldbank.org/indi-
cator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS (retrieved 16 September 2015).
Tokarski, W., Petry, K., Groll, M., & Mittag, J. (2009). A perfect match? Sport in
the European Union. Maidenhead: Meyer & Meyer (UK)
Switzerland: The Organisation of Sport
and Policy Towards Sport Federations
Emmanuel Bayle
1 Introduction
This chapter examines the relationship between government and sport
federations in Switzerland. This relationship is not subject to national
public regulation, as in many other countries, and the independent
nature of the Swiss Olympic Committee (Swiss Olympic) and national
sport federations means that the federal government’s role is more to sup-
port and promote sport than to administer sport. Nevertheless, the fed-
eral government has a clear and incentivising national policy involving a
modest amount of direct public finance, although the sums invested in
sport have grown substantially over the last ten years. In addition, the
system for funding elite sport has recently been revamped through the
introduction of service contracts with sport federations, supervised by
Swiss Olympic.
E. Bayle ( )
Institute of Sport Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0_13
264 E. Bayle
2 Country Profile
Switzerland is divided into 26 cantons and 2396 municipalities. It is a
mountainous country consisting of part of the Alps, the Central Plateau
and part of the Jura. Two-thirds of the population is urban, with a third
living in the five largest cities. The country’s overall population density
is low, at just 201 people per square km. Switzerland, or more accurately
the Swiss Confederation, has four official languages: French, German,
Italian and Romansh. Switzerland draws its identity from a shared history
and its federal tradition. Two significant features differentiate Switzerland
from other countries:
• Its system of direct democracy, which allows citizens to use “popular

initiatives”, referenda and other mechanisms to “directly” influence
the political process.
• Its federal system, which divides policy areas between three levels of
government: the confederation, the cantons (26) and the municipali-
ties (Table 1).
Table 1 Facts and descriptives of Switzerland

Number of inhabitants* 8,237,000
Surface (in km²) 39,516
Population density (inhabitants/km²) 201.3
Urban population (%) 74
Average age of population (in years)* 39.77
Population with migrant background 24.3
(%)*
Political organisation Parliamentary constitutional republic
Number of cantons 26
Number of municipalities* 2,396
Number of official languages 4
EU membership No
Sources: *Swiss Statistics (2015); **OECD.
Switzerland: The Organisation of Sport and Policy Towards Sport... 265
3 Sport in Switzerland
According to Chappelet and Mrkonjic (2011), at the end of the nine-
teenth century it became the army’s responsibility to encourage sport in
Switzerland. Under the 1874 Army Act, schools had to provide gymnastics
lessons in order to prepare young men for military service, but it was not
until the 1960s that the government began to promote the positive effects
of sport on health and education. Without downplaying its contribution
to the country’s defence, sport was now seen as an important factor in
boosting personal well-being. It was also a question of ensuring Switzerland
performed honourably in international competitions. Public health and
education remained the responsibility of the cantons. As a result of this
sporting history and 40 years of government policy in favour of sport,
Switzerland is a very sporty country. In fact, 44 per cent of people between
the ages of 15 and 74 claim to do some sort of sports activity several times
per week (cf. 3.1), around 25 per cent do sport at least once a week and
a further 5 per cent do sport occasionally or rarely. The remaining 26 per
cent describe themselves as non-sporty. For many Swiss, sport is mostly
an outdoor activity (hiking, mountaineering, swimming, cycling) and is
often done outside any formal structure. Nevertheless, most sport is done
within clubs (25 per cent of the population), OFSPO (2011a realised
by Lamprecht et al.) and this is particularly the case for young men and
seniors. Friendship, conviviality, regular sessions and high-quality coaching
are cited as the main advantages of doing sport with a club. Approximately
7 per cent of Swiss people help out as volunteers in clubs, that is almost
285,000 people, equivalent to 21,000 full-time staff and CHF 2 billion in
saved costs. This compares with the clubs’ 17,500 salaried staff, equivalent
to 5300 full-time posts (OFSPO Club Study, 2011a). Hence, volunteers
are a vital component of Switzerland’s federal sports system. Fitness centres,
which have 14 per cent of the population as members, also play an impor-
tant role (Lamprecht, 2014). Asked to state the main attractions of fitness
centres, users cited their flexibility, the ease of using them and their long
opening hours. Unlike sports clubs, the majority of whose members are
men, the majority of fitness centre members are women, who are attracted
by the variety of the offers fitness centres propose. The study also found
that people in the German-speaking parts of Switzerland are sportier than
266 E. Bayle
those in either the Italian- or the French-speaking parts (although OFSPO’s

latest study, carried out in 2014, showed that participation levels among
French-speakers had caught up with German-speakers). Football, downhill
skiing, tennis and ice hockey are the most popular sports. Only two team
sports, football and ice hockey, are truly professional in Switzerland, and ice
hockey plays a major role in local culture and identity.
Sport contributes 1.7 per cent of the country’s GDP and provides 2.5
per cent of jobs (OFSPO, 2014). These figures are higher than in most
other western countries due to the presence in Switzerland of around 70
international sport organisations (including the head offices of the IOC,
FIFA and UEFA, each of which employs around 500 permanent staff),
which earn the country more than CHF 1 billion every year (Rutter &
Partner, 2013), and the importance of sports tourism, especially skiing (24
per cent of created value and one-third of jobs). However, the production
of sports equipment and clothing contributes much less to Switzerland’s
economy than it does in France or North America, for example. Thirty
per cent of jobs in Switzerland’s sports sector are provided by the coun-
try’s 27,000 sports facilities and 16 per cent are provided by fitness clubs.
In 2014, the Swiss spent CHF 17.5 billion on sport (OFSPO, 2014),
that is, an annual sports budget of CHF 2500 per person. A quarter of
this money is spent abroad (OFSPO, 2014) (Table 2).
4.1 Structure
The scheme in Fig. 1 presents an organisation of the structure of the

sports system in Switzerland. Regarding this scheme, we explain the role
of the main actors in the sport national system.
Governmental Actors
Under Article 68, paragraph 1 of the Swiss Constitution, the Confederation

shares responsibility for promoting sport with the cantons and the munic-
ipalities. The present chapter focuses uniquely on federal sports policy,
Table 2 Sports profile of Switzerland

Federal Department of Defence,
Government authority responsible for sport Civil Protection and Sport
Sports club membership (%)* 25
Fitness or well-being centre membership (%)* 16
Sports participation, at least once a week (%)* 25%
Number of national sports federationsa 86
Number of sports clubs 20,700
Number of sports club members 1,600,000
National budget for sport (CHF) 1.2 billion (around 120 million by
the State)
National budget for sport federations (CHF) 150 million
Local budget for sport (CHF) 1 billion for municipalities and
130 million for the cantons)
Economic contribution of volunteers in 0.30
sport as a percentage of GDP (%)**
Sources: *European Commission (2014); **GHK.
a
Affiliated to the Swiss Olympic Committee.
and therefore the national government’s expenditure on sport, without

examining the contributions of the cantons and municipalities. This deci-
sion was made for two reasons. First, the cantons’ sports policies follow
those of the national government, as it is the cantons that implement
federal policy. Second, although Switzerland’s municipalities spend eight
times as much on sport as the national government, municipal sports
policies vary so widely it would be impossible to describe them all.
Policies drawn up by the Federal Department of Defence, Civil
Protection and Sport (DDPS) are put into effect by the Federal Office for
Sport (OFSPO), which was set up in 1999 to implement Switzerland’s
sports policy. In 2000, OFSPO drew up a strategy document entitled
the “Concept of the Federal Council for a Sports Policy in Switzerland”
(CCFPSS). This document outlined five strategic objectives for develop-
ing sport: (1) to increase the percentage of the population who regularly
take part in physical activity (health); (2) to use the possibilities pro-
vided by sport for education (education); (3) to support young talent and
elite sport (performance); (4) to make use of sports’ economic potential
268 E. Bayle
PUBLIC PRIVATE
Anti-Doping
Foundation CH
Federal Sport federal Swissolympic
Department of commission Swiss Sports Aid
Defence, Civil Foundation
Protection and
Federal Office for National sport
Sport Sport-Toto
Sport (OFSPO) Federations
(lottery)
Canton and
Municipalities Regional and
cantonal
federations
Schools Clubs
Population
Fig. 1 Organisation of sport in Switzerland (-> Financing system for the pri-
vate side)
(economy); and (5) to make sport a training ground for the sustainable
development of society (sustainable development).
OFSPO runs two training centres for elite sport, at Magglingen and at
Tenero, which provide scientific monitoring and training facilities for elite
sportspeople and courses for the training of coaches. The Swiss Federal
Institute of Sports Magglingen (HEFSM) provides training courses for
universities, federations, associations, clubs and schools.
Two programmes specifically target young people:
• “School moves” encourages students to do at least 20 minutes physical

activity every day, in addition to their PE lessons (Lamprecht et al.,
2014).
• “Youth + Sport” (J + S) is OFSPO’s main programme for encouraging
sport. Its courses and camps for children and teenagers cover 75 differ-
ent sports. Every year, around 550,000 young people take part in this
flagship programme (Lamprecht, Fischer, & Stamm, 2011a), which
provides 55,000 courses and camps with places for up to 700,000

people between the ages of 5 and 20. Set up 40 years ago, J + S involves
more than 65,000 instructors (12,000 new instructors every year),
9000 coaches and 3000 experts who run more than 3000 training and
continuing training modules every year (Lamprecht et al. 2014). This
programme, which is of great benefit to sport federations and clubs,
costs the Confederation around CHF 80 million per year. The can-
tons, through their J + S departments, are J + S’s closest partners. They
perform a variety of tasks with respect to training managers, adminis-
tering training courses for young people and ensuring rules are fol-
lowed. The federations provide specialists in developing their sport
and run J + S approved initial-training and further-training modules.
Sports clubs have developed longstanding offers suited to different age
groups and use J + S subsidies to encourage young people to do sport
(Jeunesse + Sport, 2014).
In addition, OFSPO has projects focusing on the fight against dop-

ing and violence in sport. With respect to violence, OFSPO works in
conjunction with the Federal Office of Police and uses the following two
instruments to fight hooliganism:
• The HOOGAN electronic database of hooligans.

• Preventive measures (bans from approaching or entering sports
grounds, bans from visiting a given country, obligation to report to a
police station, preventive custody).
Swiss Olympic is both the National Olympic Committee and the umbrella
organisation representing Swiss federations for both Olympic and non-
Olympic sports. It was created on 1 January 1997, when the Swiss
Sports Association (ASS) merged with the Swiss Olympic Committee
(COS) and simultaneously integrated the National Committee for Elite
Sport (CNSE) (Lamprecht et al. 2014). Hence, Swiss Olympic is both
Switzerland’s Olympic committee and the national governing body for
270 E. Bayle
sport. It has three main strategic missions: to strengthen the federations;

to promote ethics; and to carry out Olympic missions (participation in
the Olympic Games).
Swiss Olympic is the umbrella organisation for 86 sports federations
with 1.6 million members (including people who are members of more
than one federation) in 20,700 clubs (OFSPO, 2014). The larger fed-
erations are divided into regional (3) and cantonal (26) associations.
Most are single-sport federations, but there are also a small number of
multi-sport federations, such as the Swiss Non-Commissioned Officers
Federation.
Given the size of their membership, the 20,700 sports clubs play an
essential role in the country’s sporting life (point 3; see also Lamprecht
et al., 2011a, 2014). Most clubs are run by unpaid staff and therefore rely
on their 300,000 volunteers (considered as such if they are paid less than
CHF 2000 per annum).
Intermediate Actors
The main body responsible for the fight against doping is a foundation
called Antidoping Switzerland, which is co-financed by the Confederation
and Swiss Olympic (Antidoping, 2014).
In recent years, the way in which Swiss sport is organised has evolved
significantly. Sport was essentially a private matter up until 1970. Since
then a number of developments, including the 1972 Sports Act and,
most importantly, the creation of OFSPO in 1999, have greatly increased
the level of government participation in sport. This has resulted in the
introduction of a federal policy for sport, whose structure is based on
the principle of subsidiarity. The cantons and municipalities are very
important in implementing this sports policy, although the cantons rule
supreme with respect to sport and have their own specific laws. On the
other hand, elite sport is run by Swiss Olympic.
The government plays a motivational role in sport, notably with
respect to sport for all and especially since the Act of 17 July 2011, which
defines the areas in which the Confederation can support or finance sport
directly. Principal–agent theory provides a useful framework for analysing
the relationship between Swiss Olympic and OFSPO, with the govern-
ment as the principal and sports (con)federations as agents.
4.2 Steering
In line with Henry and Ko (2009) and Vocasport (2004), the Swiss gov-
ernment believes that leaving the control of sport to those with expertise
and commitment, the associated externalities will follow. This means that
the country’s sports policy can be classified as having a missionary con-
figuration. Under Swiss law, the Confederation’s role is to drive/stimulate
sports policy but not to directly set elite sport policy, which is decided by
negotiations between Swiss Olympic and the sport federations.
Switzerland first introduced specific sports legislation in 1972. This leg-

islation, which was reviewed in 2011, sets out the Confederation’s areas
of competence. The following section is based on research by Chappelet
and Mrkonjic (2011).
Switzerland’s first federal law to encourage gymnastics and sport
(LEGs) came into force in July 1972. It laid down rules for compulsory
physical education at school (three hours per week), the support given to
different sports organisations, the subsidies available for building gymna-
siums and sports centres, and the financial support available for research
in the sports sciences. The biggest change brought in by this law was
the organisation of the “Youth and Sport” (J + S) programme for young
people between the ages of 14 and 20, which receives substantial levels of
government funding. During the 1980s and 1990s, no fewer than eight
sports-related government orders came into force, the most important of
which concerned the organisation of the J + S programme (1980), the
promotion of gymnastics and sport (1988) and the government’s tasks.
Other orders addressed the training of physical education teachers for
schools and universities (1988), the granting of subsidies to the Olympic
association and national sport federations (1989), allowances for advance
272 E. Bayle
sports courses (1992) and sports services for seniors provided by the
Confederation (1999).
On 17 July 2011 a new sports act was enacted, the Federal Law to
Encourage Sport and Physical Activity (LESp). The main modifications
concerned the extension of the J + S programme to children as young as
five years old (with the same upper age limit of 20 years), the provision of
extra support for competitive sport (through subsidising the training of
coaches), the strengthening of penal sanctions for doping by athletes and
the creation of a legal framework for exchanging data between national
and international anti-doping bodies. Other clauses in the LESp were
designed to make the financial aid attributed to sport federations and
organisations even more dependent on their actions to promote sporting
ethics and to efficiently manage the attribution of resources to promote
sport.
Policy Framework
The model underlying the organisation of sport in Switzerland is based

on two main principles: the independence of Switzerland’s Olympic
Committee (Swiss Olympic) and national sport federations from the
State and the “federalised implementation” of sports policies (Chappelet
& Mrkonjic, 2011)—a consequence of Switzerland’s federal structure.
Although there is substantial direct and indirect public investment in
sport on a local level, the national government’s contribution is tar-
geted quite narrowly through two national sports schools (most impor-
tantly, Magglingen, Switzerland’s top centre for elite sport), its flagship
“Youth + Sport” programme, the construction and renovation of nation-
ally important sports facilities and support for the hosting of interna-
tional sports events. Support for the professionalisation of national sport
federations is more recent and is provided in the form of financial incen-
tives paid via Swiss Olympic, which manages these sums through the
establishment of performance contracts with the federations. In terms
of the VOCASPORT typology, Switzerland’s sport policy/organisation
model can be categorised as an evolving missionary configuration, in which
the sports movement has traditionally relied on volunteers and had great
autonomy to make decisions, but which has recently seen a substantial

increase in the levels of government regulation and financing (with the
creation of a federal ministry for sport in 1999 and a fourfold increase
in government expenditure on sport between 1972, when Switzerland’s
first federal sports act was passed, and 2011). Private enterprise is also an
important part of Swiss sport, due to the size of the fitness industry and
the fact that elite athletes do not have any official status, so they have no
social security cover and receive little financial assistance from the State
to help them train as truly “professional” athletes.
4.3 Support
Financial Framework
National Level
According to Chappelet and Mrkonjic (2011), the national government’s

spending on sport increased fourfold between 1970 and 2007, a period
when the country’s GDP less than doubled. Municipalities are still the
main source of finance for developing sport in Switzerland, contribut-
ing around CHF 1 billion per year, according to official public figures
(Chappelet & Mrkonjic 2011). The national and cantonal governments
contributed around CHF 200 million, but this figure has undoubtedly
increased to almost CHF 300 million (half of which is provided by the
national government). The government finances both elite sport and
sport for all, providing around CHF 15 million for elite sport in 2013
(as direct finance and by financing the Magglingen centre) and transfer-
ring approximately CHF 80 million to sports clubs for the J + S pro-
gramme. A final CHF 25 million is available to finance national-level
sports infrastructure and to host international events (interview with
a Swiss Olympic executive). The 2000s were notable for the prepara-
tions for the 2008 European Football Championships, hosted jointly by
Switzerland and Austria. In 2002, during the bidding phase, the Federal
Council set at CHF 3.5 million the government’s contribution to organis-
ing what would be the largest event ever held in Switzerland. This money
274 E. Bayle
was to be spent on improving media facilities and safety at four stadiums

(Bern, Basel, Zurich, Geneva), an advertising campaign to promote the
benefits of sport on health and social integration, and policing to ensure
security during the event. Acceptance of the bid resulted in the govern-
ment greatly increasing its subsidy. Following a stormy debate in parlia-
ment, the Federal Council finally agreed to provide CHF 82.5 million,
most of which was earmarked to ensure security on a federal level (CHF
25.2 million), to help the host cantons (CHF 10.5 million) and to form
a reserve to provide extra security if needed (CHF 10 million, which was
not used). Thus, half of this provisional subsidy was set aside for security
(army and police); the rest was used to refurbish stadiums (CHF 10.8 mil-
lion), to promote Switzerland’s attractiveness to businesses and tourists
(CHF 10 million) and to finance projects to promote sport in Switzerland
both before and after EURO 2008 (CHF 5 million). In addition to these
sums, host cities and cantons invested around CHF 100 million, tak-
ing advantage of the favourable economic conditions at the time (just
before the stock market crash in October 2008). In order to justify this
expenditure, the government advertised the event’s economic impact. A
post-event study conducted in 2010 showed that the gross value added by
EURO 2008 was CHF 1008 million, a substantial sum that added 0.18
per cent to Switzerland’s GDP for that year (Universität Bern 2010).
Hence, Switzerland’s national sport budget is mostly devoted to the
Youth + Sport programme in order to supervise and develop youth sport.
In addition, the Federal Council may also provide substantial subsidies to
help host international sports events, especially for building and renovat-
ing sports facilities.
Local Level
Municipalities are the most important source of finance for Swiss sport,
as they contribute massively to the construction, renovation and mainte-
nance of sports facilities and also help clubs implement their sports poli-
cies by providing subsidies and guaranteeing their deficits. The cantons
rarely provide financial assistance to clubs; their main role is to supervise
the provision of sport in schools and to administer the Youth + Sport

programme in relation with clubs.
Other Sources of Finance: The Importance of the Lottery
Games of chance form another important source of finance for Swiss

sport. This market remains highly regulated in Switzerland with only
Swisslos and Lottery of Romande are allowed to offer sports betting.
However, they have to denote a proportion of their profits to sport.
According to Sport Toto (equivalent of other countries’ sports lotteries)
divides this money between national funds (CHF 36.6 million in 2010)
and cantonal funds (CHF 108 million in 2010) (see Table 3). It also
manages a national sporting foundation (Swiss Sports Aid Foundation,
CHF 1 million) and a separate foundation in each canton. The feder-
ations responsible for the two most popular sports in Switzerland, ice
hockey and football, which are open to regulated sports betting, receive
Table 3 Distribution of lottery funding for sport
FLOW OF SUBSIDIES 2011

Swisslos profits
CHF 345 million
CHF 327 million CHF 27 million
Cantonal funds Sport-Toto
Culture Sport Environ- Social Swiss Sports Football Ice

work Olympic aid Training, hockey
ment development
Training,
of young
development
players
of young
players
276 E. Bayle
extra funding from the lotteries. This money (CHF 2.2 million for ice
hockey, CHF 4.4 million for football) has to be spent on youth train-
ing. Sport Toto is also the largest contributor to Swiss Olympic (CHF
24.6 million), helping it to cover the cost of its 65 staff.
Financial Support from Other Actors
Swiss Olympic’s budget for 2015 was CHF 45 million, most of which was
provided by Sport Toto (55 per cent) and the government (22 per cent).
Other notable sources of revenue include sponsors (6 per cent). As is com-
mon to most other European countries, alcohol and tobacco companies
are not allowed to sponsor sport in Switzerland. Swiss Olympic distrib-
utes 42 per cent of its income to the national sport federations, 95 per
cent of which goes to elite sport (around CHF 20 million, interview with
SO). The 86 federations (18 are not involved in competitions) manage
142 disciplines. Swiss Olympic classifies the federations into five categories
on the basis of their size (number of members), media profile, economic
importance and their actual and potential results in top-level competitions.
The amount of money each federation receives depends on this classifica-
tion. Since 2013, Swiss Olympic has signed four-year (the length of an
Olympiad) service contracts in which the federations have to state their:
• overall strategy and their strategy for elite sport, ethics strategy (dop-
ing, corruption, violence, transparency, etc.);
• management report (annual accounts and business reports, without
which they will not receive the sums allocated to them).
Each federation receives a base contribution depending on the number

of its members (Table 3 provides figures for 2014). The most important
criterion with respect to finance is elite sport, most notably, participation in
the Olympic Games and developing emerging talent. In terms of subsidies
linked to the organisation of major events, the government awarded the
Swiss athletics federation, via service contracts managed by Swiss Olympic,
an annual subsidy of CHF 600,000 from 2012 to 2014 for hosting the 2014
European Championships in Zurich. The Swiss ski federation (Swiss Ski)
Table 3 Criteria governing the distribution of subsidies to national federations

via service contracts with Swiss Olympic (in 2014)
Type of contribution Per year Providers of funding
Base approx. CHF Confederation 100 %
1.5 million
Major sports event approx. CHF Confederation 85 %/
3.5 million Sport-Toto 15 %
New talent approx. CHF Confederation 50 %/
5 million Sport-Toto 50 %
Elite approx. CHF Sport-Toto 100 %
10 million
Olympia approx. CHF Sport-Toto 100 %
2 million
Success bonuses approx. CHF Sport-Toto 100 %
0.125 million
Compensatory payments approx. CHF Sport-Toto 100 %
0.25 million
Olympic games/Paralympic games/ approx. CHF Sport-Toto 100 %
Youth Olympic games/Universiades/ 1.5 million
World games
Source: Swiss Olympic.
received CHF 800,000 for organising the 2017 World Ski Championships
at Saint-Moritz. These subsidies are designed to help Swiss teams take part
in and achieve honourable results at sports events held in Switzerland.
As a result of applying these criteria, the Olympic federations receive
85 per cent of the subsidies, with 58 per cent going to Summer Olympic
sports and 27 per cent going to Winter Olympic sports, even though
the five winter sport federations won 60 per cent of Olympic medals
and diplomas at games between 1994 and 2014. Each federation receives
at least CHF 2000 per year, although the subsidies can be as high as
CHF 4.9 million. This system marks a new way, based on results and
performance, of regulating and justifying the public money distributed
by Swiss Olympic. It also explains the growing professionalisation of
Switzerland’s sport federations (Lamprecht, Fischer, & Stamm, 2011b),
which had 1300 employees in 2012 (an increase of 120 over the past six
years). These subsidies help finance posts such as national technical direc-
tor, head of elite sport and head of upcoming talent, and help pay for the
training of coaches, mostly oriented towards elite sport.
278 E. Bayle
As a consequence of the legislative, policy and financial frameworks

described above, there is no direct link between the government admin-
istration of sport and the elite sport federations. In fact, the federations’
goals are defined by Swiss Olympic in partnership with the federations,
rather than by the government. Nevertheless, the federations continue to
receive most of their finance from the lottery and the government.
Thanks to these ever-growing subsidies, the federations are gradually
becoming increasingly professional. Most have professional staff, even
if this is often currently a small administration department with a man-
ager and just two or three employees. Some federations, for example the
ski and football federations, are more professional, with around 50 paid
staff and budgets of CHF 40 million and CHF 60 million, respectively.
Around 60 per cent of sport federations have sponsors, but the contribu-
tion of sponsorship to their budgets is small (less than 10 per cent) and
five sports (football, hockey, tennis ski and athletics) attract 95 per cent
of the money provided by sponsors (interview with SO, 2015).
The government provides no specific support for hiring staff, so the
movement towards professionalisation has occurred on the initiative of
the federations and clubs, with added incentives coming from the perfor-
mance contracts signed with Swiss Olympic. This analysis illustrates that
the system is very different to that in France, where the national coaches
are mostly civil servants employed by the sports ministry. In Switzerland,
coaches working for a federation are paid directly by that federation, but
state-qualified youth and sport coaches working within clubs are paid a
salary or an allowance by the Youth + Sport programme.
Performance Measures
Federations have to report to their members during an annual general

meeting, where clubs or their representatives can use their votes to sanc-
tion poor sporting and/or financial results. In Switzerland, there are no
external public audits by private organisations; however, financial audits
are mandatory for federations with turnovers of more than CHF 20 mil-
lion and employing at least 50 staff. Swiss Olympic is the only supervisor
that can have a direct impact on a federation by, for example, refusing to
release a proportion of the federation’s subsidy if the federation fails to pro-
vide accounts and/or an annual report. Poor management can also result in
a federation losing its subsidy, but this type of sanction is very rare.
5 Conclusion
5.1 Cross-National Comparisons
This chapter describes and analyses the principal–agent relationship between

sports (con)federations and the government body responsible for sport in
Switzerland. This relationship is the consequence of the way sport is struc-
tured and steered (the legislative and policy framework) and the support
(financial, governance, managerial) sports (con)federations receive from the
government. Moreover, due to its federal structure and the autonomy of the
sport system, Switzerland has no national approach to overall sport policy.
Consequently, Swiss sport operates according to a liberal model that leaves
room for individual and collective initiatives by members of the sports
movement, although there is currently increasing government involvement
in sports policy. With respect to the configurations described by Vocasport
(2004), Switzerland’s organisational model appears to be a hybrid and atypi-
cal of the situation in Europe. Given the amount of public investment, both
direct and, most importantly, indirect (through th lottery), and the system’s
entrepreneurial dimension, it can be characterised as an evolving missionary
model. This model could be consider similar to the German model, given
Switzerland’s federal structure, but there are major differences between the
two systems, especially with respect to the management of elite sport, which
is more centralised, state-supervised and professional in Germany. A 2011
report on elite sport in Switzerland found, for example, that only 30 per cent
of Swiss athletes were truly professional, thereby showing that Switzerland
lags behind most other western countries (Kempf et al. 2014).
280 E. Bayle
5.2 Evolution/Perspectives
Switzerland has a federal system of government, meaning that there are a lot
of partners involved in reaching agreements. Such systems are potentially
very inefficient, as partners have different roles and it is not always easy for
them to coordinate. However, it has the advantage that once a project has
been decided on, the finance usually follows. Having a centralised policy is
much less important in the case of ‘Sport for All’ than it is for elite sport.
In fact, Switzerland lacks an overall strategy for elite sport, raising fears
among experts (Kempf, Weber, & Re, 2014) of a fall in the country’s sporting
results in major national competitions due to increased international competi-
tion (Shibli, De Bosscher, van Bottenburg, & Bingham, 2012). Consequently,
since the end of 2015, Swiss Olympic has been trying to negotiate an extra
CHF 30 million to maintain Switzerland’s current standing in international
sport. This extra money—CHF 15 million from the government and CHF
15 million from the lottery (through a negotiation with the canton; source:
interview with a manager of Swiss Olympic)—would enable Swiss Olympic
to improve the socio-economic standing of athletes, who receive very little
support (a maximum of CHF 18,000 or CHF 20,000 to help best athletes
in non-professional sports cover travel, equipment and training expenses) and
very little prize money, even from major competitions (maximum of CHF
40,000 for an Olympic gold medal; source Swiss Olympic).
A final point concerns the fragility of the way Swiss sport is organised,
which is based mostly on volunteers, even in the field of top-flight coaching.
Although professionalisation is spreading at the national level, the picture
at the regional and cantonal levels is more mixed due to a more professional
coaching and administrators, except in the largest federations (especially
with regard to football, skiing and gymnastics). Consequently, sport fed-
erations tend to focus on their core role (organising official competitions
at all levels and optimising the results of their national teams). Most of
them find it very difficult, if not impossible, to diversify their activities (lei-
sure sport, health through sport, social inclusion through sport, organising
‘Sport for All’ events, etc.); therefore, they are often unable to work towards
the five strategic objectives set by the government in 2000 (especially those
relating to the economy, health and sustainable development).
References
Antidoping. (2014). Retrieved from Antidoping, http://www.antidoping.ch/de
Chappelet, J.-L., & Mrkonjic, M. (2011). Politique sportive and conjoncture en
Suisse. In N. Soguel (Ed.), Des politiques au chevet de la conjoncture = Die
Politiken als Retterinnen der Konjunktur, Contributions à l’action publique
(pp. 127–147). Lausanne: PPUR.
European Commission. (2014). Special Eurobarometer 412: Sport and physical
activity. Report.
Eurostrategies. (2011). Study on the funding of grassroots sports in the EU: With a
of financing.
Henry, I., & Ko, L. (2009). European models of sport: Governance, organisa-
tional change and sports policy in the EU. In K. Petry & W. Tokarski (Eds.),
Handbuch sportpolitik. Berlin: Hofmann-Verlag..
Kempf, H., Weber, A., & Re, A. (2014). Elite sport in Switzerland. Swiss Federal
Office of Sport (OFSPO).
L’OFSPO. (2016). Retrieved from Office fédéral du sport OFSPO, http://www.
baspo.admin.ch/internet/baspo/fr/home/das_baspo.html.
Lamprecht, M., Fischer, A., & Stamm, H. (2008). Activité and consommation
sportives de la population suisse, OFSPO. http://www.sportobs.ch/fileadmin/
sportobs-dateien/Downloads/Sport_Schweiz_2014_f.pdf.
Lamprecht, M., Fischer, A., & Stamm, H. (2011a). Clubs sportifs en Suisse.
OFSPO, SSUP, Suva, Swiss Olympic. http://www.baspo.admin.ch/internet/
baspo/fr/home/dokumentation.parsys.000183.downloadList.2706.
DownloadFile.tmp/clubssportifsensuisseetudesurlesportorganise.pdf.
Lamprecht, M., Fischer, A., & Stamm, H. (2011b). Sport and économie en Suisse.
De l’importance économique du sport en Suisse. OFSPO.
Lamprecht, M., Fischer, A., & Stamm H.. (2014). Sport Suisse. Activité and
consommation sportives de la population suisse. OFSPO, SSUP, Suva, Swiss
Olympic. http://www.baspo.admin.ch/internet/baspo/fr/home/aktuell/
Sport_Schweiz_2014.html.
Rutter & Partner. (2013). Economic importance of international sport organiza-
tions in Switzerland. http://ruetter-soceco.ch/cm/en/project/sport-and-culture-
and-events/viewcategory/920-economic-importance-of-
international-sports-organizations-in-switzerland.
Shibli, S., De Bosscher, V., van Bottenburg, M., & Bingham, J. (2012).
Forecasting the performance of nations in elite sport. In L. Robinson,
282 E. Bayle
P. Chelladurai, G. Baudet, & P. Downward (Eds.), Routledge handbook of

sport management (pp. 86–100). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Stamm, H., Fischer, A., Nagel, S., & Lamprecht, M. (2015). Sport clubs in
Switzerland. In B. C. et al. (Eds.), Sport clubs in Europe—A cross-national
comparative perspective (pp. 401–417). Switzerland: Springer.
Swiss Olympic. (2016). Retrieved from Swiss Olympic, http://www.swissolym-
pic.ch/fr/Qui-sommes-nous/Organisation/Swiss-Olympic-l-Association-
faîtière-du-sport-suisse.
Swiss Statistics. (2015) http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index.html.
Vocasport. (2004). Vocational education and training in the field of sport in the
European Union: Situation, trends and outlook. http://eose.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/03/vocasport-Final-Report-English-Version.pdf
UK: England — National Governing
Bodies of Sport and Government
Agencies
Vassil Girginov
1 Introduction
The relationship between sport and the government in the UK has
changed remarkably in the space of some twenty years. The ‘status’ of
sport, as a specific policy subsector, has been elevated from an area that
was underfunded, lacking in strategic direction and sitting on the mar-
gins of government agenda at the beginning of the 1990s to a source of
social cohesion, national pride and a government partner in delivering its
wider social, political and economic objectives in the 2010s.
The growing political recognition of sport afforded by a number of
successive governments has been accompanied by important transforma-
tions in the UK National Governing Bodies of sport (NGB) and their
V. Girginov (*)
Department of Life Sciences, Brunel University London,
London, United Kingdom

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0_14
284 V. Girginov
position vis-à-vis the government. This chapter examines the modes of

governance within the UK sport sector, but the unique constitutional
arrangements of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (UK) make it rather difficult to offer a comprehensive picture of
the relationship between the state and sport in the UK without examin-
ing developments in each of the four home countries in detail. Therefore,
this chapter will focus mostly on England, although where relevant refer-
ences will be made to the UK.
2 Country Profile
The UK constitutional and political system has evolved over the centu-
ries. Some of the most significant recent changes with implications for
sport include joining the European Union (EU) in 1973 and the devo-
lution of power to Scotland and Wales in 1999 and then to Northern
Ireland in 2007. At the end of 2015, UK is a multicultural society
with some 80 per cent of the population living in urban areas. The
population aged 65 and over has grown by 47 per cent since mid-1974
to make up 18 per cent of the total population in mid-2014 (young
people aged 1–15 account for 19 per cent) while the number of people
aged 75 and over has increased by 89 per cent over the period and now
makes up 8 per cent of the population (ONS, 2015). These trends,
coupled with a very modest annual growth rate of less than 1 per cent,
suggest that Britain is an ageing society, which will have a number of
implications for the sports delivery system. Since 2008 the UK has
been going through very challenging economic times, resulting in the
accumulation of a national debt of £1.6 trillion (or 91 per cent of
GDP) and a budget deficit of 4.9 per cent, the second highest of all
the world’s developed economies. This has meant that two successive
governments have introduced a series of significant public cuts with
seriously implications for the sport system. Table 1 shows some back-
ground information about the UK.
UK: England — National Governing Bodies of Sport and Government... 285
Table 1 Facts and descriptives of UK

Population (number of 64.1 million: England (53.9m), Scotland
inhabitants) (5.3m), Wales (3.1m) and Northern Ireland
(1.8m)
Area (km²) 242,514
Number of regions/territories 27 regions and 1 territory
Number of official languages English
Welfare model Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-American
Source: *The World Bank (2013).
3 Sport in the UK
Modern sport has been underpinned by the ideology of ‘athleticism’
(Mangan, 2000), which can be discerned in all the key processes to which
sport has contributed, including asserting national identity, making
imperialist mentalities, justifying policies and shaping sports practices.
Sport organisations emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century,
a period during which Britain codified more than 25 per cent of modern
sports, and between the 1880s and the 1930s it formalised 67 national
governing bodies (NGBs) which set the rules, ethos and discipline, and
supervised the organisation of competition. A more recent burst of NGB
formation occurred in the 1960s, which not only saw their numbers grow
to over 470, but an expansion of their role as well to include training of
national teams and handling sponsorship and the media (Collins, 2008).
Table 2 shows the sport profile of England.
The rest of this section provides only a summary of the sport develop-
ment policies in the UK, since others have dealt with policies or aspect
of them in greater detail elsewhere (e.g., Bergsgard, Houlihan, Mangset,
Nødland, & Rommetvedt, 2007; Coalter, 2007; Coghlan, 1990; Collins,
2002, 2008; Green & Houlihan, 2005; Houlihan, 1991, 1997; Houlihan
286 V. Girginov
Table 2 Sports profile of England

Government authority responsible for sport DCMS
National budget for sport (€) 184,800,000a
National budget for sport federations (€) 540,000,000b
Local budget for sport (€) 4.8 billionc
(%)**
Sources: *TNS Opinion & Social (2014); **GHK (2010).
a
This figure represents the DCMS funding allocations for Sport England and UK
Sport for 2014–2015 only. In addition to that local authorities provide funding
for leisure and sport services. Exchange rate £1 = €1.4.
b
Sport England investment in 46 NGBs for 2012–2013.
c
This figure includes local authorities budget for culture and sport for 2010.
& White, 2002; Hylton & Bramham, 2008; Houlihan & Lindsey, 2013).
Keech (2013) also provided an abridged account of the historical devel-
opment of sport policies and structures in the UK. Following Collins
(2008), five main sport policy phases in the UK can be distinguished
since the government took a more sustained interest in sport in the post-
Second World War period, including: Developing the facilities base and
facility management (1960s–1982); Targeting and early sports develop-
ment nationally and regionally (1982–1991); Shifting priorities to per-
formance and excellence (1992–1997); Social inclusion and more medals
(1997–2015): ‘sport for good’; and ‘Active nation: enhancing the value
of sport for individuals 2016–?’. Each policy phase has been marked by a
particular focus and a range of policy documents, reports and strategies.
In summation, the ideological rationale of UK sport policy has remained
relatively unchanged and, despite political variations, it revolves around the
expressed concern of using sport to shape character and to promote social
good in the form of better health, education, national prestige, economic
development and citizenship. Houlihan and Lindsey’s (2013) examination

of British sport policy concluded that since the 1960s it has been charac-
terised by periods of equilibrium punctuated by abrupt changes in policy.
The period is characterised by a steady, though uneven, expansion in the
role of the state in sport, and a consistent prioritisation of elite success
and school/youth sport over community sport’ (p. 188). It should also be
noted that the regularity of producing new strategies every two or three
years meant that it has become difficult to see their implementation and
evaluation through so valuable policy lessons can be drawn.
To unpack the relationship between sport and the state the analysis
employs the governance framework as synthesised by Treib, Bähr, and
Falkner (2007). A number of authors (Jordan, 2008; Peters & Pierre,
1998; Rhodes, 2007) have tried to explain governance in terms of a polit-
ical theory, describing a certain type of exchange between the state and
society; a process of steering concerned with ‘enhancing government’s
capacity to act by forging strategic organisational coalitions with actors in
the external environment’ (Peters & Pierre, 1998: 231); and an empirical
phenomenon concerning the deployment of specific policy instruments.
Treib et al. (2007) made a useful distinction between governance in terms
of its institutional properties (polity), actor constellations (politics), and
policy instruments (policy), and proposed four modes of governance in
the policy dimension, including coercion, voluntarism, targeting and
framework regulation. Coercion ‘is characterized by binding legal instru-
ments prescribing detailed and fixed standards that leave little leeway
in implementation’ (p. 14). In contrast, voluntarism is based on non-
binding guidelines and only defines broad goals that actors may specify
in implementation. Targeting ‘also uses non-binding recommendations,
but these recommendations are more detailed and thus leave less room
for manoeuvre for specification at the implementation stage than is true
in the case of voluntarism’ (p. 15). Finally, similar to coercion, framework
regulation relies on binding law but it offers participants more leeway in
implementation (Girginov, 2012).
288 V. Girginov
Improving NGBs’ governance is a key strategic priority for the gov-

ernment because they are considered as custodians of their sport and
entrusted with managing significant public funds. What is more, NGBs
are providing services to a vast network of an estimated 151,000 affiliated
clubs and over three million adults in England (or 7.3 per cent of the adult
population) who volunteer in sport for at least one hour a week (Active
People Survey 9, 2015), an active membership of over 5,200,000 people.
The latest Active People Survey shows that there are 15.5 million adults
who play sport at least once a week in England (Sport England, 2015).
Sport England recognises more than 100 governing bodies and for the
period 2013 to 2017 invests £467 million through 46 NGBs to deliver
its strategy. In addition to allocations to individual NGBs there are over
£5 million for improving their governance and £16 million for coach-
ing development. Furthermore, the sports sector provides employment
for approximately 400,000 people in England, attracts around €1.7 bil-
lion in public spending every year, and caters for over 9.1 million people
members of a sports club, which is 21 per cent of the English popula-
tion with 86 participants per club and 1.62 clubs per km2 (Citoyenneté,
2013). UK Sport is the government agency responsible for elite sport and
through its World Class Programme funds only sports on the Olympic
and Paralympic Games programme. Both agencies make their funding
available against agreed targets and failure to deliver may result in a with-
drawal of or reduction in funds.
Significant changes have occurred in the organisation of sport in
England since the publication of the government strategy Game Plan
(DCMS, 2002). This policy document was highly critical of the then
existing structure of sport for being highly fragmented, lacking clear stra-
tegic priorities and having cumbersome funding mechanisms. The global
structure of sport in the UK, as in other countries, comprises three broad
sectors of provision, each subscribing to a particular philosophy and
modes of delivery including the public, voluntary and private sectors.
For the purposes of this analysis we will concentrate on the public and
voluntary sectors as they represent the backbone of the sport system,
whereas the private sector plays a greater role in the provision of spectacle
and entertainment services. Figure 1 shows the framework of sport in
England.
ENGLAND Governmental Intermediate Non-governmental
Department of National
Sport Sport/Multisport
Culture, Media England/UK
National Organisations
and Sport Sport
level
Regional County Sport Regional Regional

level Partnerships Sport Sports
England Associations
offices
Community
Local Local Sport Clubs
Authorities
Financing
Fig. 1 Framework of sport in England. Source: based on the framework in

Hallmann and Petry (2013)
4.1 Structure
The public responsibility for sport in the UK and England in particular

lies with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). DCMS
policies help to deliver Government’s ‘sport for all’ policy on one hand,
and realise its ambitions for sporting success at elite level, on the other.1
1
For example, in Scotland, sport is the responsibility of the Minister for Culture and Sport. Sport
Scotland (formerly the Scottish Sports Council) provides advice on sport-related matters to the
Scottish Executive, and also to local authorities, governing bodies and others involved in sports
policies in Scotland.
290 V. Girginov
Governmental Structures
The governing of the English sport system is grounded in the principles

of independence, partnerships and collaboration between actors at all
levels (Citoyenneté, 2013). Sport England’s and UK Sport’s indepen-
dence is guaranteed in part by their quasi-non-governmental status (i.e.,
a quango organisation) as they have been established by a Royal Charter,
which in theory provides a degree of independence from the govern-
ment. However, both organisations are almost completely funded by the
government and accountable to it. In consultation with Sport England
and UK Sport, NGBs set up performance targets against which they are
evaluated. The government finances these bodies, but does not legislate
in the area of sport. One example of this coordinated approach to sport
policy concerning grassroots sport is the ‘Community Amateur Sports
Club—CASC’ created by the government in 2002, which provides a spe-
cial tax regime for non-profit grassroots sport clubs. Since 2002, some
6000 clubs have registered with CASC already creating a value of around
£70 million (approximately €80 million) (Citoyenneté, 2013).
In addition to promoting community and elite sport, DCMS has also
been particularly concerned with establishing sound policy for host-
ing major sporting events in the UK (DCMS, 2013). The government
clearly recognises the social, sporting and economic value of major sport-
ing events and has put in place a mechanism to support NGBs wishing
to host such events and committed £40 million until 2023 to this end.
The main policy instrument used by Sport England, UK Sport and
NGBs to deliver their agreed targets is the Whole Sport Plan (WSP). This
is a four-year comprehensive plan that covers all of the activities of NGBs
from grassroots sport, to talent identification, elite sport as well as gover-
nance and the delivery of services. WSP fall into the framework mode of
governance as they represent a legally binding document for all NGBs in
receipt of public funding but allow for adaptations in their implementa-
tion. The WSP are reviewed bi-annually through a rigid process. There are
three possible outcomes of the review presented in the form of a semaphore:
In Wales, sport is a responsibility of the Ministry of Culture, Sport and the Welsh Language. In
Northern Ireland sport is a responsibility of the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, advised by
the Sports Council for Northern Ireland.
a ‘green’ light is given when the NGB is well on track for delivering its tar-
gets as well as it demonstrates that sound governance systems are put in
place; an ‘amber’ light indicates that some of the targets are not being met
or that there are governance issues; finally, a ‘red’ light signals fundamen-
tal problems within the organisation, which triggers a set of compulsory
measures to rectify the situation. Both Sport England and UK Sport policy
stipulates that NGBs’ funding is a privilege and not an entitlement and
failure to deliver the agreed targets results in withdrawing funding. NGBs’
WSP and major sporting events have been used as instruments to build
the organisational capacities of NGBs. However, as Girginov and Peshin
(2015) demonstrated, less than half of NGBs have developed deliberate
strategies for leveraging the opportunities from the 2012 London Games
and failed to ensure any significant organisational gains.
Sport England also provides a range of services to the sport system
by investing in facilities, supporting research, planning advice to local
authorities, and running schemes and training programmes to encourage
more people to practice sports.2 Since 2008 Sport England has included
a qualitative measure for the satisfaction with sport services provided.
Local authorities in England do not have a statutory duty to provide
sport and recreational services, but until the end of the 1990s they were
considered as the main provider to local communities, collectively invest-
ing up to £1.5 billion a year in sport.3 Amongst the main motives of local
authorities for putting sport on their agenda is a belief in the positive
effects of sport on community cohesion, youth crime reduction, health
benefits and economic regeneration (Eurostrategies, 2011). They work
closely with NGBs and Sport England and run a range of local sport
facilities and provide support to sport across the country.
Intermediate Structures
UK Sport works in partnership with the home countries’ sport councils

and other agencies regarding elite sport. UK Sport is responsible for man-
2
More info on: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/getting-more-people-playing-sport.
3
More info on: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget.htm.
292 V. Girginov
aging and distributing public investment and is a statutory distributor of

funds raised by the National Lottery (Eurostrategies, 2011). The work of
UK Sport is guided by the ‘No Compromise’ policy (UK Sport, 2008)
which stipulates that funding to NGBs will only be made on the basis of
delivering medals from major international competitions and mediocrity
will not be supported. This policy is an example of a coercive form of
governance as it does not allow for leeway in the implementation, and it
has received justified criticism.
Sport England is focused on the creation of a world-leading community
sports system. It invests revenues allowed from the National Lottery and
the Exchequer in organisations and projects aimed at growing participa-
tion in grassroots sport and creating opportunities for people to excel at
their chosen sport. Sport England works in partnership with UK Sport,
the Youth Sport Trust (which is focused on physical education and school
sport), NGBs and local authorities. Through policy advice and a network
of town planners in each of the regions, Sport England provides advice
on what type of sports facilities are needed and where by communities in
the future. They also advise on how to protect and improve the current
stock of facilities and infrastructures. In particular, Sport England has a
specific task to protect playing fields.
Sport England also implements various programmes to facilitate the work
of local authorities, such as the ‘Local Sport Profiles’, which is a database ser-
vice produced by the Active People Survey (Citoyenneté, 2013). Recently,
Sport England established a new department—Insights Directorate—the
role of which is to better capture and share the knowledge created in the
process of designing and implementing various strategies and programmes.
Non-Governmental Structures
In terms of sport in the UK, there are three principal umbrella bodies
operating at the national level: the National Governing Bodies or National
Federations for individual sports (NGBs), the Sport and Recreation
Alliance (SRA), the British Olympic Association (BOA) and the British
Paralympic Association (BPA). Furthermore there are several other non-
governmental actors.
The mission of both the British Olympic and Paralympic Associations

is to promote the Olympic movement in the UK and to prepare the best
able-bodied and disabled athletes optimally for the Olympics. The BOA
and the BPA are independent of the government: they receive no fund-
ing from the state or the National Lottery, and are financed from their
own funds mobilised privately, commercially or through public partici-
pation. (About the BOA, 2014) (Citoyenneté, 2013), (BPA, Maximizing
Momentum, 2012).
In the UK context, the National Governing Bodies represent the equiva-
lents of sport federations in Europe and elsewhere (Citoyenneté, 2013).
Each sport has its own governing body responsible for both mass sport
and high-level sport. NGBs are independent of the government but are
subject to the rules set by the international federations. In the UK, there
is no single recognised legal structure required for NGBs of sport and
they can assume a range of legal forms including incorporated associa-
tion, trust, limited company, community interest company and a chari-
table incorporated organisation. Naturally, each legal form presupposes
different requirements and statutes of the Board structure and operations
of the organisation.
The Sport and Recreation Alliance (the SRA, founded in 1935 under the
name ‘Central Council of Physical Recreation’—CCPR) has an undeni-
able influence on the organisation of the governance of sport in the UK,
as it helped the creation of the various Councils of sports (SRA, 2014).
The SRA is an independent umbrella organisation which includes the
governing and representation of 320 sport and recreation bodies. Their
aim is to ensure that sport and recreation remains high on the political
agenda in the UK. The SRA represents more than 150,000 clubs and
8 million regular sport participants or club members on the UK level
(KPMG Sport Advisory, 2014).
Sport Clubs
In general, there are two kinds of sport clubs in England—community
sport clubs and non-community sport clubs. The former are often based
in community centres and can be registered as independent. The latter are
clearly affiliated with a sport federation. There are also around 151,000
single sport clubs. As a result, the sport scene in England is made up of
many small clubs without any real power and with only l imited resources.
294 V. Girginov
However, once a club becomes a part of the Community Amateur Sports

Club (CASC) it benefits from a more favourable taxation treatment.
4.2 Steering
The steering of sport in England is accomplished through a combination

of various policies and policy instruments in each mode of governance,
which are discussed below.
There are several different laws affecting the work of sport governing bod-
ies, but there is no sport law as such in the UK. Most legislation concern-
ing sport is permissive in the sense that it allows (but does not require)
different levels of government to be active in the field of sports and in
sports funding. In this way many actors are actively and freely involved.
The laws having an impact on sport are considered briefly. The regu-
lation of alcohol advertising affects sponsorship both directly and indi-
rectly; various self-regulatory codes exist (e.g. sponsorship cannot be
aimed at youth events, alcohol and betting sponsorship should not appear
on replica junior shirts). The 2003 Licensing Act requires that the licens-
ing fees for all pubs and bars are calculated according to their rateable
value, regardless of opening hours, turnover or area. As a result, a sport
club which is open for just a few hours each week can pay the same fee
as neighbouring commercial drinking venues like pubs, bars and night-
clubs. Tobacco sponsorship is banned, as is the case throughout the EU.
The UK law on the marketing of media rights is formed by the 1998
Competition Act: The Competition Act was designed to harmonise UK
and EU law, and chapters I and II of the Act mirror Articles 81 and 82
of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the 2002 Enterprise Act. The European
Media and Services Directive allows the government to keep a number
of events which are considered as ‘nationally important’ on free-to-air
television. Sports rights owners have indicated that they fear that the
implementation of this Directive may affect their ability to optimise the
value of their product.
Sport organisations can attain charitable status, or take part in the

Community Amateur Sports Clubs (CASCs) scheme. The Corporate Tax
Act 2010 allows CASCs to benefit from certain tax reliefs, similar to
those normally given to charities. As such, the scheme contributes to the
objectives of both DCMS and the government as a whole. The CASC
scheme was introduced in April 2002. This enables grassroots sport clubs
to register with the HM Revenue and Customs for 80 per cent reduction
on mandatory tax rate, and to claim Gift Aid on certain types of donation
made to them.
Article 132 of the VAT Directive 2006/112/EC provides exemp-
tions for sport activities, and Annex III offers a reduced rate VAT (5
per cent) which can be used by Member States for admission to sport-
ing events and use of sporting facilities. In the UK, only two exemp-
tions exist for multiple lettings of sports facilities to and by clubs, and
for playing activities such as membership fees and match fees. Sport
clubs are allowed to reclaim all their VAT when exempt input VAT
is less than £7500. This figure has been in place since 1994 and has
not risen with inflation. If it had, it would now be nearer £11,000
(Eurostrategies, 2011).
The UK does not have a corporate tax exemption for not-for-profit
associations, unlike many other EU Member States. A survey by Deloitte
(Hackleton 2008) showed that 25 countries (the remaining two being
the UK and Bulgaria, for which no information was given) exempt their
National Olympic Association from corporate taxes; 14 have specific cor-
porate tax exemptions for not-for-profit associations; and other 11 have
specific tax relief for sport activities.
National lotteries were not authorised to operate in the UK until rela-
tively recently. Competition from foreign providers and the desire to raise
additional funds led to the establishment of the National Lottery in 1994.
The National Lottery Act 1993 (revised in 1998) and the Gambling Act
(passed in 2005 and implemented in September 2007) shape the legal
framework of games of chance in the UK today. The National Lottery
Act of 1993 establishes five areas to benefit from the Lottery: sport, arts,
heritage, charities and projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning
of the third millennium. The National Lottery Act of 1998 created a sixth
good cause of health, education and the environment.
296 V. Girginov
In the year ending 31 March 2015, the funds from the National
Lottery were shared as follows: health, education, environment and chari-
table causes—40 per cent; sport—20 per cent (or £390,360,000 of which
£380m to Sport England and £11m to UK Sport); arts—20 per cent; and
heritage—20 per cent. There is currently no statutory financial return spe-
cifically targeted to grassroots sport from the betting industry in the UK.
Policy Framework
Henry (2009, p. 45) described the sport policy framework in England as

entrepreneurial, which ‘focuses almost exclusively on outputs [emphasis
in original], particularly in the context of public sector bodies contract-
ing commercial entities to manage services, where contracts will stipulate
the kinds of outputs to be achieved’. While this is certainly still true,
more recently there has been a move to delegating more delivery respon-
sibilities to NGBs as non-public bodies although largely as a result of the
lack of capacity they have been outsourcing services to private providers.
The underlying philosophy behind this system has been the tenets of the
New Public Management, with its expressed concerns with efficiency and
targets. This has created tensions with most NGBs as historically they
have subscribed to a voluntary ethos and would not be able to survive
without the help of volunteers.
Although all NGBs in the UK are fairly independent from the state
they continue to receive between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of their
funding from the government mainly through Sport England. This puts
them in a power-dependence relationship. NGBs, however, continue
their efforts for strengthening their position vis-à-vis the state. In 2015,
they have formed the ‘Chief Executive Officers’ Forum (CEO Forum),
which represents 39 of the leading national governing bodies (NGBs)
of sport in England. The CEO Forum has published The State of Play
(NGBs CEO Forum, 2015), which is an impact statement document
where they clearly outlined the contribution of NGBs to society.
NGBs, therefore, have been using the output orientation of the sport
system to present themselves as guardians and deliverers of sport who
contribute to achieving the government’s wider social and economic
agenda and thus should continue to be supported by the state. This is

partly because, as Houlihan and Lindsey (2013, p. 9) argued, Britain’s
policy core beliefs/substantive policy continues to revolve around the
ideas that international sporting success projects a positive image of a
country and that young people’s participation in sport builds positive
personal characteristics.
4.3 Support
Financial Framework
The funding of most British sport organisations is largely dependent on

contributions from the government, either directly (through Exchequer
funds and home nation budgets) or indirectly (through the proceeds of
the National Lottery, which is licensed by the UK government). 83 per
cent of the DCMS budget goes to five arm’s-length bodies (i.e., Arts,
Sport, Museums and Galleries, Heritage and Media) through which
policies are carried out. However, financing from corporate sources, for
example, sponsorship deals and private fundraising, plays an important
role at many levels. Even though they are heavily dependent on the gov-
ernmental funding, the public funding of sport is limited. Altogether, the
public sector’s contribution represents only 13.1 per cent of all resources
allocated to sport, whereas the private sector contributes 86.9 per cent.
Within the public sector, the central government contributes more
than the local authorities to the funding of sport, partly because of the
channelling of the revenue from the state lottery channelled to sport via
the state budget. Local authorities’ contributions account for 5.6 per cent
of sport funding whereas that from the central government represents 7.4
per cent of the total resources allocated to sport. The average annual pub-
lic subvention was €67 per capita in 2008, whereas the average household
expenditure was €443.4 per capita, which represents 75.9 per cent of the
total resources allocated to the sport system.
According to Sport England’s study ‘Economic Value of Sport in
England’, the sport-related economic activity reached £16,668 million
in 2008 (€22,694.5 million based on current prices and exchange rates).
298 V. Girginov
As for the importance of sport in the national economy, this represents

a total of 1.9 per cent of GDP dedicated to sport, which is amongst the
highest in the EU. Another essential conclusion of the report is the large
number of people with sport-related jobs in England: this amount repre-
sents 1.8 per cent of all employment and has also grown from 304,000 in
1985 to 441,000 in 2008, an increase of almost 50 per cent in just 23
years (Eurostrategies, 2011).
Local authorities invest approximately £1.5 billion per year in infra-
structure and programmes dedicated to sport and physical activity. The
local level is undoubtedly a major contributor in the field of sport.
The Conservative government policy of austerity raised concerns over
a decrease of 28 per cent of the budget of ‘Communities and Local
Government’ over the next four years (7 per cent could be added to the
fifth year). If decreases in each area are distributed fairly, the loss for sport
should be about 500 million pounds sterling. These reductions will, of
course, affect various national agencies: Sport England would lose 33 per
cent of its budget by the end of 2015, and UK Sport 28 per cent.
NGBs’ funding vary greatly depending on the commercial viability
of sport. For clubs and federations the membership fees are important.
Most of the federations also sell specific merchandise. They also make
money from running different events. However, the funding of grassroots
sport is a core responsibility of Sport England. This financial support is
based on the ‘Whole Sport Plans’. Sport England invites NGBs to bid for
funding in relation to three separate areas: (1) increasing participation by
young people aged 14–25; (2) increasing participation by adults over 25;
and (3) talent. NGBs will be expected to ensure that their Whole Sport
Plan is clearly split into these three elements and that in respect of each
of them you have addressed the key criteria. Sport England has identified
four key criteria for evaluation including: (1) track record; (2) strength of
plan; (3) scale of impact; and (4) value for money. The 2013–2017 allo-
cations of Sport England are as follows: NGB Funding (up to) £467m;
NGB Awards (revenue and capital) £317m; Transition to clubs £20m;
Higher Education £25 m; Governance £5 m; Reward & Incentive Fund
£40m; Local Facilities £20m; and Football Foundation £40m.
Both Sport England and UK Sport have put in place robust, albeit vol-
untary governance codes for NGBs in receipt of public funding. This is
understandable as the government policy framework of outputs cannot
be pursued effectively without sound governance systems. Sport England
(2012) governance strategy provides clear principles and guidelines for
implementing these systems and their evaluation is an essential part of
the annual review of NGBs.
5 Conclusion
As the above discussion demonstrated, the sport policy system in England
has evolved over time with sport seeing a change in its role changed from
being at the margins of the policy agenda to becoming a recognised and
legitimate area of state involvement. Two modes of governance have been
established, including framework regulation and coercion. Increasingly,
NGBs are expected to modernise and to become more effective as well as
worthy partners of the government in terms of delivering its wider social
and economic objectives.
At the time of writing, the DCMS has completed a nationwide con-
sultation exercise with various stakeholders and the general public about
Britain’s new sport strategy. This is a reflection of the new Conservative
government’s desire to review the existing provision and to promote its
visions for the role in sport in the government’s proclaimed aim for a big
society. Sport England’s new strategy, ‘Towards an Active Nation (Sport
England, 2016) has challenged some old priorities and ways of working
in the field. The future of sport policy in the UK has been compounded
by the result of the 2016 referendum on the place of the country in
Europe. The implications of the Brexit vote have not been fully assessed
yet but are likely to affect the sport policy domain in a number of ways.
300 V. Girginov
References
About the BOA. (2014). Retrieved 4 December 2014. http://www.teamgb.com/
about-boa.
Bergsgard, N. A., Houlihan, B., Mangset, P., Nødland, S., & Rommetvedt, H.
(2007). Sport policy: A comparative analysis of stability and change. Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann.
British Paralympic Association. (2012). Maximising momentum. London: BPA.
Citoyenneté, T. t. (2013). L’organisation du sport dans les Etats membres de l’Union
européenne. Saumur: Imprimerie du Val de Loire.
Coalter, F. (2007). A wider role for sport: Who’s keeping the score? London:
Routledge.
Coghlan, J. (1990). Sport and British politics since 1960. London: Falmer Press.
Collins, M. F. (2002). England: Sport for All as a multifaceted product of
domestic and international influences. In L. DaCosta & A. Miragaya (Eds.),
Worldwide experiences and trends in Sport for All (pp. 493–522). Oxford:
Meyer and Meyer Sport..
Collins, M. (2008). Public policies on sports development: Can mass and elite sport hold
together? In V. Girginov (Ed.), Management of sports development. (pp. 59–88).
Oxford: Elsevier.
Department of Culture Media and Sport. (2002). Game plan: A strategy for
delivering the government’s sport and physical activity objectives. London:
DCMS.
Department of Culture Media and Sport. (2013). Gold framework. London:
DCMS.
Eurostrategies. (2011). Study on the funding of grassroots sports in the EU. With
a focus on the internal market aspects concerning legislative frameworks and
systems of financing. (Final report/Volume II—Country reports). s.l.:
Eurostrategies/Amnyos/CDES/Deutsche Sporthochschule Köln.
Girginov, V. (2012). Governance of London 2012 Olympic Sport Legacy.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47(3), 1–16.
Girginov, V., & Peshin, N. (2015). Leveraging the Olympic Games for capacity
building of the UK and Russian National Sport Governing Bodies. Report.
Lausanne: IOC.
political priorities. London: Routledge.
Hackleton, P. (2008). National Governing Bodies and Taxation, Deloitte.
Hallmann, K. and Petry, K. (2013). Comparative Sport development. London:
Springer.
Henry, I. (2009). European models of sport: Governance, organisational change
and sport policy in the EU. Hitoshubashi Journal of Arts and Sciences, 50,
41–52.
Houlihan, B. (1991). The government and politics of sport. London: Routledge.
Houlihan, B. (1997). Sport, policy and politics. London: Routledge.
Houlihan, B., & Lindsey, I. (2013). Sport policy in Britain. London: Routledge.
Houlihan, B., & White, A. (2002). The politics of sports development: Development
of sport or development through sport. London: Routledge.
Hylton, K., & Bramham, P. (Eds.). (2008). Sports development: Policy, process and
practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Jordan, A. (2008). The governance of sustainable development: Taking stock
and looking forwards. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,
26, 17–33.
Keech, M. (2013). The organization of sport in the United Kingdom. In
C. Sorby (Ed.), Sport governance in the world. A socio-historic approach
(pp. 467–496). Paris: Editions Le Manuscrit.
KPMG Sport Advisory. (2014). Benchmarking analysis on sport organizations.
Geneva: KPMG Advisory.
Mangan, J. A. (2000). Athleticism in the Victorian and Edwardian Public School:
The emergence and consolidation of an educational ideology. London: Frank
Cass.
National Governing Bodies CEO Forum (2015). State of Play. Sheffield: NGB
CEO Forum.
ONS. (2015). Retrieved 5 September 2015. http://ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/
index.html?nscl=Population.
Peters, G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking
public administration. Journal of Administration Research and Theory, 8(2),
223–243.
Rhodes, A. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organisation
Studies, 28(8), 1243–1264.
Sport & Recreation Alliance. (2014). About. Retrieved from Sport + Recreation
Alliance, 8 Retrieved December 2014. http://www.sportandrecreation.org.
uk/about/what-sport-and-recreation-alliance.
302 V. Girginov
Sport England. (2012). Active people survey 9. London: Sport England.

Sport England (2015). Active People Survey 8. London: Sport England
TNS Opinion & Social. (2014). Sport and Physical activity. Brussels: EC
Treib, O., Bähr, H., & Falkner, G. (2007). Modes of governance: Towards a
conceptual clarification. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), 1–20.
UK Sport. (2008). No compromise. London: UK Sport.
Conclusion: The Role of Sport Policies
and Governmental Support
in the Capacity Building of Sport
Federations
Annick Willem and Jeroen Scheerder
1 Introduction
Following the Sport for All ideology, most welfare states aim to create
active leisure-time sporting opportunities. Since the 1970s governments
have developed a sport structure through which they established their
grassroots sport policy system. Hallmann and Petry (2013) emphasised
both the differences and similarities among sport systems in Europe, as
well as the importance of obtaining comparative insights into the dif-
ferent sport systems. Aiming to achieve high sport participation rates
A. Willem ( )
Department of Movement & Sport Sciences, Ghent University, Belgium
J. Scheerder
Policy in Sports & Physical Activity Research Group, KU Leuven, Belgium

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0_15
304 A. Willem and J. Scheerder
in Europe cannot be disconnected from the sport systems that are in

place. Each of these systems has similarities in terms of the kind of actors
involved, but it is clear that large differences exist in both the role of these
actors and also the emphasis that is put on grassroots versus elite sports.
In the introductory chapter of this book we discussed the generic types of
sport systems described in the literature. In the different country-specific
chapters in this book, the sport systems are described in more detail. In
this concluding chapter, the focus will be on the capacity building of
sport federations within their specific sport system. The aim is to look at
how sport policies and sport systems result in developing different kinds
of capacity at the level of sport federations.
Sport federations play a key role in executing sport policy programmes in
their countries, both for elite and for grassroots sports (Brookes & Wiggan,
2009; Goodwin & Grix, 2011; Green & Houlihan, 2005). However,
in many countries responsibility for grassroots sports is shared by local
authorities and municipalities. The latter directly support the sport clubs.
Hence, the role of sport federations in grassroots sports differs from coun-
try to country, but in all countries, sport federations have the possibility to
influence grassroots sports by supporting their sports clubs. Two extreme
positions can be taken in considering the relationship between govern-
ments and sport federations. On one end of the spectrum sport federations
can be seen as public actors in sport policy making and implementing, and
thus as a kind of governmental agency, regardless of the fact that these fed-
erations are legally independent organisations. On the other extreme end,
sport federations can be considered to be actors that are entirely indepen-
dent of the government that might or might not play a role in executing
the country’s sport policy. In all the countries in the study, sport federations
received financial means from the government and are expected to assist in
executing (parts of ) the sport policy priorities. In other words, none of the
countries in the study is at any of the two extreme ends, but there is varia-
tion to what extent federations are closer to being purely agencies or purely
independent actors. Most common is the situation in which funding is
provided in return for meeting specific policy targets.
In the literature regarding policy implementation, three main ways of
implementing policy can be discerned: (1) hierarchy; (2) market; and (3)
networks (Goodwin & Grix, 2011). In the first one, governments make
Conclusion: The Role of Sport Policies and Governmental Support... 305
use of their hierarchical position or their natural authority as the highest

policy-making level in a country in order to impose rules and regulations
on sport organisations. For instance, in Flanders (Belgium) a decree exists
that stipulates the rights and obligations of organisations that would like
to be recognised as sport federations. Thus, in this case the hierarchy
principles are used to implement the sport policy. In a market-based sys-
tem, such as exists in Denmark, sport federations compete for funding by
showing that they are best placed to execute the sport policy. Although
hierarchy and markets are considered to be clearly distinct mechanisms,
in practice the two models have large similarities because in either case the
government provides funding in return for sport policy implementation
efforts and governments set the rules. The third type of system adopts a
very different stance. In this system sport (con)federations are partners
in developing and implementing sport policy. In the Netherlands, we see
this more collaborative governance model. The federations in this system
take part in policy making; but mostly this system is accompanied by
either a law clearly stipulating the federations’ responsibilities or a subsi-
dising system with obligations attached to it.
Given the fact that in all countries government interferes, to some
extent, in the working of sport federations, these federations are stuck
between meeting the expectations of the governments and governmental
policy priorities at the one hand, and their members, i.e. the sport clubs
they represent, on the other hand. In his pioneering article, Houlihan
(1997) described the levels of involvement of public authorities in the
sport policy-making process. Authors such as Camy, Clijsen, Madella,
and Pilkington (2004); Henry (2013); Petry, Steinbach, and Tokarski
(2004) and Sobry (2011) elaborated on this and presented types and con-
tinuums of governmental involvement in grassroots sport. Others have
done this more particularly in the case of elite sport (e.g., De Bosscher,
De Knop, & van Bottenburg, 2009). However, in none of these studies
was the role of sport federations a central topic for analysis, and nor was
there a focus on the specific relationship between government and fed-
erations. It is clear that federations are loaded with a large responsibility
in elite and grassroots sports, but who is in charge to steer and support
these federations? Who is helping the federations to develop the neces-
sary organisational capacity to execute their tasks? In the next part, the
concept of organisational capacity is linked to the call for the profession-

alisation of sport federations, before going into more detail into a com-
parative analysis of how each of the countries is able or not to develop the
necessary capacity by the support of the respective governments.
2 Professionalisation and Organisational

Capacity
Sport federations operate in a changing world and face new challenges
(Nagel, Ibsen, & Scheerder, 2016; Nagel, Schlesinger, Bayle, & Giauque,
2015). However, in most countries, changes on the level of the federa-
tions are rather limited. There are challenges mentioned related to reduced
governmental funding (e.g., Finland), or an increased emphasis is placed
on elite sport success (e.g., Canada), or there seems to be increased policy
attention for sport participation rates (e.g., England); but these changes
are rarely related to evolutions in society, such as new media or ageing
populations. For the 13 countries included in this book, rather minor but
no radical structural changes in the sport systems or in policy priorities
are observed. The available governmental budgets and the tightening of
these budgets, in particular, clearly impacts the working of sport federa-
tions. Governmental funding involves restrictions, objectives and obliga-
tions. This pushes federations towards professionalisation in the sense of
‘organisational rationalisation, efficiency and business-like management’
(Nagel et al., 2015). Nagel et al. (2015) further argue that there are sev-
eral forms of professionalisation, namely professionalisation of activities,
of staff and of structures and processes.
The concept of professionalisation is closely related to the concept of
organisational capacity that has also been studied in the context of non-
profit organisations and sport organisations, but rarely at the level of sport
federations. Capacity refers to the organisations’ abilities to acquire the
necessary means, such as financial and/or human resources, to accomplish
their mission. Literature on capacity in sport organisations is grounded
in the non-profit literature on organisational effectiveness (Misener
& Doherty, 2009). Several authors have discussed the development of
(organisational) capacity of community sports organisations, sports clubs

and other non-profit sport organisations, in order to be able to fulfil their
role concerning sport development goals (Balduck, Lucidarme, Marlier,
& Willem, 2015; Green, 2008). Although different typologies of organ-
isational capacity exist, a commonly used typology is that offered in Hall
et al. (2003) with the following five organisational capacity dimensions:
(1) human resources; (2) finances; (3) relationships and networks; (4)
infrastructure and processes; and (5) planning and development. The
organisational capacity approach is grounded in the resource dependency
idea, namely that organisations need resources to fulfil their mission
(Wicker & Breuer, 2011). Others have attached a somewhat different
meaning to the organisational capacity concept, such as Amis, Slack, and
Hinings (2004), who studied organisational capacity regarding changes in
Canadian National Olympic sport federations. In this study, the sense of
urgency to change the federations was created by governmental demands
for medals and later budget cuts. Girginov and Hills (2008) also studied
the readiness of UK sport federations related to leveraging the London
Olympics. However, they use the concept of organisational capabil-
ity, which refers more to the process dynamics in the organisations, for
instance to innovate or change; while organisational capacity is domi-
nantly used in the literature to indicate the possession of resources or hav-
ing the ability to achieve a specific mission (Vincent, 2008).
Clearly, governments have an impact on the organisational capac-
ity of sport federations because, through the objectives imposed on
the federations, governments implicitly influence the federations’ mis-
sion and determine the organisation capacity required by sport federa-
tions. Governmental impact can go further than imposing objectives.
Governments can, for instance, provide staff to work in the federations,
as is the case in France. Another example is the co-optation of govern-
mental officials as board or commission members in federations, as is
the case in Flanders (Belgium) for federations’ elite sport commissions.
Through such activities governments are influencing the human resources
and management capacities of the federations. However, governments are
also funding the federations and, in doing so, provide part of the financial
capacity of the federations. Therefore, it is of interest to consider how
governments influence the organisational capacity of sport federations,
and, more precisely whether they are helping to develop this capacity, or
merely require high levels of capacity through goal setting, or both. In
his comparative study on national sport systems, Henry (2013), whose
study is based on the earlier work of Camy et al. (2004), mentioned
that organisational capacity development is highest in the so-called ‘social
configuration type’. As discussed in the introductory chapter, this type,
in which only the Netherlands are categorised, is characterised by a high
decentralisation and by a strong collaboration between government,
commercial and non-profit sport organisations in order to achieve long-
term policy goals.
3 Cross-Country Comparison
of the Capacity of Federations
As expected, all of the countries included in this book have a public sport
policy. Hence, it is no surprise that all of the governments of these coun-
tries execute some impact on the federations’ mission, because federa-
tions are to be considered as key players in the execution of the sport
policy. Having a sport policy without making any impact on the sport
organisations in the country would be rather in vain.
The impact of governments on the federations’ tasks and mission ranges
from there being hardly any interventions (Denmark and Switzerland)
or rather limited interventions (Germany), to the establishment of clear
objectives linked to the part of the funding of the federations coming
from governments (Australia, Canada, England, Finland, Flanders/
Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Spain), to (strict) gov-
ernment imposed missions and plans (Lithuania). The first group of
countries, with hardly any or rather limited interventions by the govern-
ment on the federations’ mission, have a more decentralised sport policy
in which the national sport agencies have little impact on the system of
sport organisations. However, not all countries with a decentralised sport
policy system are characterised by limited governmental interventions
(e.g. Belgium, the UK). Decentralised sport policy in this sense if refer-
ring to a system in which local governments or several different organisa-
tions have decision-making power in developing the sport policy, and it
opposites a system in which the sport-policy is clearly developed by one

main governmental agency. This is not necessarily linked to the absence
or presence of a federal political system.
The largest group of countries consists, therefore, of countries in which
the government intervenes in and has an impact on the mission and
objectives of the federations mainly by providing funding in return for
reaching certain targets. In doing so, governments try to achieve their
sport policy goals. Sport federations are thus in a dependency relationship
with governments. Consequently, one might expect to see an almost lin-
ear relationship between the percentages of dependency of federations on
government funding and the impact of governments on the federations’
mission. Interestingly, such a relationship is not found, although those
decentralised countries with a more decentralised sport policy have lower
percentages of dependency on funding, such as Denmark, with on average
a 38 per cent dependency on government funding, while countries with
a greater degree of government control of federations show percentages of
around 50 per cent and even up to 70 per cent. For instance, in England,
some federations depend upon government funding for up to 70 per cent
of their funds. However, Finland, which also applies a performance con-
trol system—although not a particularly strict one—only has an average
of 25 per cent of the dependency of federations on government funding,
while France, which has a strict command-and-control system, has an
average of 46 per cent for Olympic sports but only 18 per cent for non-
Olympic sports. However, there is a wide degree of variation in terms of
how strict the objectives and plans imposed by governmental agencies are
controlled, and what sanctions are imposed on federations when the objec-
tives are not met. Control is very strict and detailed in countries such as
Australia, Canada, England, Flanders (Belgium), France, the Netherlands
and Spain. Hence, not only the financial dependency but also the rigour
of controlling and sanctioning is determining to what extent governments
have an impact on federations’ missions and objectives.
Another interesting finding is that for some countries funding and con-
trolling are enforced by laws or decrees (e.g., Flanders/Belgium, France,
Slovenia and Switzerland), while legislation is not necessary at all in other
countries for similar intervention (e.g., Australia, Denmark, England and
the Netherlands). In countries which operate a decentralised sport policy,
especially in Denmark and Germany, there is a lot of funding for grass-

roots sport obtained from local governments either directly or through
funded projects. This local funding seems to be less tied in to strict rules,
plans and objectives. Nevertheless, it needs to be underlined that local
sport priorities or project goals can also have a significant influence on
federations’ missions.
Hence, governments need federations in order to execute their sport
policy and in most countries federations feel the pressure to cope with
the sport policy and to adapt to the plans and objectives imposed by
governments. In this respect the following question could be posed: to
what extent do governments provide and/or give support in developing
the capacity of the federations to meet their missions that are shaped by
national sport policies?
The first and foremost support is found in the area of financial sup-
port, which can lead in some countries and for some federations, espe-
cially in Olympic sports, to a substantial dependency of federations on
government funding (cf. supra). Although most federations depend for
less than 50 per cent on government funding, governments are neverthe-
less the stakeholders with most of the impact, relatively more than the
financial stake governments have in the federations’ budgets. The finan-
cial capacity of federations is apart from government money obtained
through licensing, sponsoring and membership fees, which, of course,
vary a lot per sport and per country. Although financial means allow for
obtaining other forms of capacity, such as human resources, and might
thus suffice as support, governments might influence the other forms
of capacity more directly. The question arises whether governments
provide support to federations to improve their management capacity
allowing these federations to be more professional by employing paid
and qualified staff, and having professional processes and activities. Such
support can be generated by means of training and courses or counsel-
ling and management tools developed to support the federations. This
part is far less clear and seems to be neglected: either the importance
or possibility to support federations in this area is unknown, or it is of
such minor impact compared to the funding that it is not mentioned or
is not even seen as a way of supporting federations. Only in Australia,
Canada, England, Flanders (Belgium) and Germany was such support
significant. In Germany, this was in the form of the leadership academy,

whereas in Australia and Flanders (Belgium) courses and tools are devel-
oped. In Canada and England, tools are provided to help federations
plan and monitor their working. Confederations and national Olympic
committees are providing management advice in the Netherlands and
Slovenia, while in Finland private consultants are hired when a lack of
management capacity is inhibiting the functioning of federations. Only
in France, however, does the government provide human resources to the
federations by having governmental officials (mainly sport technical staff)
in the federations.
In most countries, sport confederations provide (management) sup-
port to their member federations and in some countries, the sport confed-
eration even directly support the sport clubs in their professionalisation
process. This is the case, for example, in Flanders (Belgium) where the
sport confederation provides training and individual consulting advice to
sports clubs related to a range of management issues. However, manage-
ment support by the confederations is not considered to be an important
task or important source for the management capacity of the federations.
In some countries, such as Denmark, confederations are more focused
on assisting in implementing sport policy issues. Hence, we see a con-
tinuum in the role of sport confederations with at the one end an exten-
sion of the governmental agent for sport and assisting in developing and
implementing the sport policy, and at the other end a kind of union
representing/defending the interest of the federations against govern-
mental decisions/pressure. Most confederations are somewhere on this
continuum, but none seem to be at the very extreme ends.
Infrastructure is another organisational capacity that can be provided
by governments. Sport infrastructure is mainly provided by local govern-
ments. In Germany and Switzerland, sport infrastructure is either sport
club owned or privately financed next to local publicly funded sport infra-
structure. Relational capacity seems also to be a neglected field, although
federations in relation to their clubs and other actors in the sport policy
system need to collaborate intensively. The strongly decentralised struc-
ture in Germany is accompanied with relational capacity which allows for
coordination among the different actors. In Canada, a large number of
different organisations, each having its role in the sport system, requires
intensive coordination which can be considered as a task for the govern-

ment. In Australia and the Netherlands, a less dispersed system is found,
but nevertheless government clearly takes a co-ordinating role helping
federations in their relational capacity. In the Netherlands, we can even
consider the sport system to be an example of a co-governance model. In
Australia, co-governance principles are also applied, although in this case
the government adopts a more dominant role by imposing stricter and
more challenging objectives towards federations.
In Fig. 1, we display the level of support in the capacity building of
federations by making use of a pyramidal structure representation, in
which funding is seen as the most basic support, and support to the full
range of organisational capacity dimensions is placed at the top of the
pyramid. Denmark, Finland, Lithuania, Spain and Switzerland can be
situated at the bottom of the pyramid since these are countries where
governmental support was limited to mere funding. Countries such as
Canada, England, Flanders (Belgium), Germany and Slovenia are to
be positioned at the level of funding with attached control, but also
with tools and programmes helping federations to meet the objectives.
Counselling and staff to help federations are found in the sport policy
model of France. Counselling accompanied with a co-ordinating role of
the government is available in the Australian sport policy system, while
the system in the Netherlands appears to support almost the full range of
organisational capability dimensions.
Fig. 1 Levels of support in the organisational capacity of sport federations

Having sufficient capacity to succeed in the mission is one thing, but

being able to adapt to changes, to innovate and to evolve is at least as
important. Government dependency can make a federation rigid and
less able to change. For instance, in France, federations are legally inde-
pendent but perceive a great deal of pressure from the government. In
Canada and the Netherlands, changes occur through the collaboration
between government and the federations, or through governmental
coercion (Australia) that set new strict rules and objectives. In the more
decentralised and liberal sport policy models, changes are more market-
driven, such as in Finland, Germany and Switzerland. However, in most
cases, when evolutions in the sport systems are observed, these evolutions
are leading towards increased governmental impact, such as in Australia
and England, by stricter objectives and closer monitoring and measuring
of these objectives.
In Fig. 2, dependency of government is put on the vertical axis, while
having sufficient capacity is related to the horizontal axis. It should be
noted that this is a static model that simplifies reality. Several federa-
High dependency on
governmental support
Flanders (Belgium),
France, Lithuania, The Netherlands
Australia,
Slovenia, Spain
Canada,
England
(UK)
Low capacity High capacity
Denmark
Finland Germany
Switzerland
Low dependency on
governmental support
Fig. 2 Organisational capacity of federations vs dependence on governmen-

tal support
tions of one country might be in different quadrants and countries might

evolve from one quadrant towards another through time. Nonetheless,
this model might be of help to obtain insight into the combination of
the two dimensions of dependency and organisational capacity. Having
sufficient organisational capacity refers to all of the elements of organ-
isational capacity of the federations on average in a country regardless of
whether the capacity is obtained through governmental support or from
other sources. For instance, Swiss federations might be financially more
independent but, of course, could still be very professional, and there-
fore may score high on organisational capacity. The combination of high
dependency but low capacity of sport federations is found in a number of
countries, e.g. Flanders (Belgium), France, Lithuania, Slovenia and Spain.
It should be underlined that in the above comparison, the focus is
on grassroots sports. In some countries, the situation is different quite
considerably between elite sport and grassroots sport (for instance, in
Denmark, Flanders (Belgium), Germany and Slovenia). Whether elite
sport forms a totally different policy system, or is strongly intertwined
with grassroots sports, seems to be related to the dominance of elite sport
in some countries. Elite sport systems seem to be dominant in England,
France, Lithuania, Spain and Switzerland. In countries where elite and
grassroots are developed into two different sport systems, more attention
seems to go to Sport for All and less of a risk of cross-subsidising elite
sport with Sport for All money exists.
4 Reflections on Government—Federations
Relationships
In the literature, there is a tradition of comparative studies in the area of
sport policy systems. The first one of these dates from 1978 (Houlihan,
2012). Since then many followed. Our approach, however, takes another
stance, namely to consider the government–sport federations relation-
ship. It also differs in terms of having a stronger focus on grassroots sports
compared to other comparative studies that focus on comparing elite
sport systems.
There is a clear diversity regarding sport policy systems. However, the

major structure is similar, namely governmental involvement, one or more
sport confederation(s), national, regional and local sport federations support-
ing sports clubs, and municipalities and cities also supporting sports clubs.
Thus, there is clearly a dominant sport policy framework and it is a structure
that has also been adopted by Eastern European states. Nonetheless, within
this standard framework, forms of variation are observed, especially with
regard to the (power) relationships, regulations, roles and responsibilities of
these actors. Hence, as Petry et al. (2004) have already stated, there is no one
uniform sport system among the Western European countries.
Based on our comparative analysis, there is no uniform model, nor
is there an ideal model or sport system. Different systems range from
more centralised to more decentralised, and none is more preferable or
superior to one another. However, in some countries the system is more
coherent. For instance, in Germany and Switzerland, a more decentral-
ised and liberal model is applied that allows federations to professionalise
independently. In this case, we can see a form of subsidiarity in which
sport policy is developed and implemented on lower governmental levels.
Or as regards to the Netherlands where a large governmental impact is at
stake, but is clearly accompanied with large support in capacity building.
However, combinations of large dependency without the full range of
support in capacity building is more questionable. If governments make
federations dependent and impose their policy, one could wonder whether
those governments are also partly responsible for the capacity building in
the federations. In situations with low dependency but with federations
lacking sufficient capacity, more government interventions might help,
providing these interventions are offering a full range of support. For the
five countries in the higher left corner of Fig. 2, governmental sport agen-
cies should consider whether they are supportive enough towards their
sport federations. Governments in those countries provide financial sup-
port and one could argue that this kind of support is including all other
forms as federations can use the financial resources to buy whatever other
resources or capacities that are necessary. However, resource dependency
on government funding gives power to the government, and often more
power than the percentage of financial resources coming from the govern-
ment would legitimate, as is the case in France. Hence, unbalanced power
might increase governmental influence to a much higher level and result

in dependency of federations also in how they develop the other types of
capacity. Furthermore, governments often take a coordinating or even a
leading role in a network of sport actors (Houlihan & Lindsey, 2008).
Some sport systems can even be considered as networks of numerous sport
actors interacting to deliver Sport for All and elite sport policy. This is the
case in Canada. Hence, such collaborative governance setting, with a clear
coordinating role for the government, results in expectations towards the
government in terms of developing the capacity of the federations or in
co-managing sport organisations. However, although many governments
intend to evolve towards a co-governance system (Groeneveld, 2009),
most have not yet reached that stadium and are more in an agency rela-
tionship with the (con)federations. In the latter situation, a mix of coer-
cion, markets (competitive subsidising) and collaboration is used, but
with the latter being less dominantly present than under the previous
two mechanisms. Where such clear agency relationship is present, e.g., in
France and Lithuania, this results in a combination with high dependency
on government but low capacity development.
When comparing capacity development and governance dependency
with the dimensions of the model of Henry (2013) clear similarities can
be seen. Those countries having low capacity, high dependency and being
based more on a principal–agency relationship are labelled in Henry’s
model as bureaucratic configurations. While Denmark and Germany, con-
sidered as having more capacity building but less dependency, are labelled
as missionary configurations, which, according to Henry (2013), are also
more innovative. The Dutch sport system is considered as less innova-
tive and more stable in the model of Henry, while we might expect the
Netherlands to have the capabilities to change even with high government
impact. Dependency might indeed inhibit change if the governmental
partner is not in favour of the change or is not giving any incentive towards
change and innovation. In the case of high dependency, change must come
from the government through changes in policy objectives, as happens
in Flanders (Belgium) and France. Federations’ success depends, among
other things, on the strategic capability of the board of directors of federa-
tions (Ferkins & Shilbury, 2012), but governments do not support fed-
erations in constructing and developing competent boards. However, such
boards might be able to drive strategic changes following new demands and
opportunities in a changing environment. Sport federations are moving
towards increased professionalisation under pressure from their funders,
resulting in changing mission statements, targets and organisational struc-
tures (Houlihan & Green, 2008; Sam, 2009). In this manner governmental
funding has reporting and accountability requirements attached to ensure
the efficient use of government funding which also causes greater admin-
istrative ‘red tape’ (Thibault & Babiak, 2005). This can inhibit change. It
is interesting to note that federations seem to be rather willing to accept
a kind of disciplining behaviour, as has also already been observed in the
study of Green and Houlihan (2006) on athletics federations in Australia
and the UK. As already mentioned, the impact of governments is large,
larger than the impact of other stakeholders and relatively large compared
to the financial stake of governments in federations’ budgets.
Four out of the 13 countries included in the present book have already
been studied by Bergsgard, Houlihan, Mangset, Rommetvedt, and
Nodland (2007), namely Canada, England, Germany and Denmark.
While the study of Bergsgard and colleagues was published only seven
years ago, clear changes since that time are all too apparent. As can be
noted from the detailed country chapters, several changes have occurred
in recent years, e.g., in Canada and England. More precisely, sport policy
makers are experimenting with new approaches to increase medal chances
or to make the system more efficient. Canada, for instance, evolved dur-
ing the recent decade to a more centralised system, while England has put
increased emphasis on grassroots sports in creating a Sport for All legacy
in the post-London 2012 period. Sport policy systems are pattern depen-
dent with institutionalised policy preferences (Bergsgard et al., 2007).
Those patterns consist of complex interorganisational resource depen-
dencies among sport administrations, sport (con)federations, voluntary
sports clubs and commercial sport providers. The relationships between
governments and federations are also path dependent, historically devel-
oped, shaped and modified, but rarely subject to disruptive changes
(Houlihan, 2012). The forces of changes that Bergsgard et al. (2007)
classified as related to globalisation, commercialisation, governmentali-
sation and politicisation, cause evolutions in the path-dependent sport
systems. In our study, governmentalisation, or increased governmental
involvement in sport, is present in most of the countries and seems

to dominate the relationship between governments and federations.
Bergsgard et al. (2007) close their comparative analysis with, among oth-
ers, the conclusion that sport policy systems converge towards each other,
especially in the elite part of the sport systems (De Bosscher et al., 2009),
but also in the Sport for All aspect. This is a conclusion that we could
draw as well for all of the thirteen countries included in our study.
There are some limitations in our study that need to be mentioned.
One is the fact that federations in one country are seen as one group with
similar characteristics, while there might be in fact be huge differences
depending on the sports discipline. Another limitation is that we were
unable to assess which country has the best overall sport system. Sport
participation rates might give some indication of how well a specific
sport system performs, but these figures are influenced by many other
factors, such as sociocultural and socioeconomic determinants. It would
be misleading, of course, to say that the country with the highest sport
participation rate is also the country with the best sport policy system.
The chapters describe facts about the sport systems, but behind these
facts there is a web of interactions, powers, dependencies and norms at
play that result in a more or less functional sport system. The complexity
of the interactions in the systems are not fully discussed or revealed. This
would demand a more profound study per country. Such a study could
adopt criteria to score sport systems, as occurs in the SPLISS model (De
Bosscher, Shibli, van Bottenburg, De Knop, & Truyens, 2010). In con-
clusion, huge cultural differences and differences in policy systems, even
within the Western world, make any international comparison somewhat
risky because any sport system is both culturally and contextually bound.
References
Amis, J., Slack, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2004). Strategic change and the role of
interests, power, and organizational capacity. Journal of Sport Management,
18(2), 158–198.
Balduck, A. L., Lucidarme, S., Marlier, M., & Willem, A. (2015). Organizational
capacity and organizational ambition in nonprofit and voluntary sports
clubs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit

Organizations, 26(5), 2023–2043.
Bergsgard, N. A., Houlihan, B., Mangset, P., Rommetvedt, H., & Nodland,
S. I. (2007). Sport policy. A comparative analysis of stability and change. Oxford:
Elsevier/Butterworth Heinemann.
Brookes, S., & Wiggan, J. (2009). Reflecting the public value of sport. A game
of two halves? Public Management Review, 11(4), 401–420.
Camy, J., Clijsen, L., Madella, A., & Pilkington, A. (2004). Improving in the
field of sport in Europe through vocational training (VOCASPORT Project).
Brussels: European Commission/DG Education & Culture.
De Bosscher, V., De Knop, P., & van Bottenburg, M. (2009). An analysis of
homogeneity and heterogeneity of elite sports systems in six nations.
International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 10(2), 111–131.
De Bosscher, V., Shibli, S., van Bottenburg, M., De Knop, P., & Truyens,
J. (2010). Developing a method for comparing the elite sport systems and
policies of nations. A mixed research methods approach. Journal of Sport
Management, 24(5), 567–600.
Ferkins, L., & Shilbury, D. (2012). Good boards are strategic. What does that
mean for sport governance? Journal of Sport Management, 26(1), 67–80.
Girginov, V., & Hills, L. (2008). A sustainable sports legacy. Creating a link
between the London Olympics and sports participation. The International
Journal of the History of Sport, 25(14), 2091–2116.
Goodwin, M., & Grix, J. (2011). Bringing structures back in. The ‘governance
narrative’, the ‘decentred approach’ and ‘asymmetrical network governance’
in the education and sport policy communities. Public Administration, 89(2),
537–556.
Green, M. (2008). Non-governmental organisations in sports development. In
G. Girginov (Ed.), Management of sports development. Oxford: Butterworth
& Heinmann.
political priorities. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Green, M., & Houlihan, B. (2006). Governmentality, modernization, and the
“disciplining” of national sporting organizations: Athletics in Australia and
the United Kingdom. Sociology of Sport Journal, 23(1), 47–71.
Groeneveld, M. (2009). European sport governance, citizens, and the state:
Finding a (co-) productive balance for the twenty-first century. Public
Hall, M. H., Andrukow, A., Barr, C., Brock, K., de Wit, M., Embuldeniya, D.,
& Vaillancourt, Y. (2003). The capacity to serve: A qualitative study of the
challenges facing Canada’s nonprofit and voluntary organizations. Toronto:

Canadian Centre for Philanthropy.
Hallmann, K., & Petry, K. (Eds.). (2013). Comparative sport development:
Systems, participation and public policy (Sports Economics, Management &
Policy). Heidelberg: Springer.
Henry, I. (Ed.). (2013). Transnational and comparative research in sport:
Globalisation, governance and sport policy. London: Routledge.
Routledge.
Houlihan, B. (2012). Sport policy convergence: A framework for analysis.
European Sport Management Quarterly, 12(2), 111–135.
Houlihan, B., & Lindsey, I. (2008). Networks and partnerships in sports devel-
opment. In V. Girginov (Ed.), Management of sports development
(pp. 225–241). Oxford: Elsevier/Butterworth Heinemann.
Misener, K., & Doherty, A. (2009). A case study of organizational capacity in
nonprofit community sport. Journal of Sport Management, 23(4), 457–482.
Nagel, S., Ibsen, B., & Scheerder, J. (Eds.) (2016). Sport organisations in
Europe. Changes and challenges. European Journal for Sport & Society (Special
Issue) 13(1).
Nagel, S., Schlesinger, T., Bayle, E., & Giauque, D. (2015). Professionalisation
of sport federations: A multi-level framework for analysing forms, causes and
consequences. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(4), 407–433.
Petry, K., Steinbach, D., & Tokarski, W. (2004). Sport systems in the countries
of the European Union: Similarities and differences. European Journal for
Sport & Society, 1(1), 15–21.
Sam, M. P. (2009). The public management of sport. Public Management Review,
11(4), 499–514.
Sobry, C. (Ed.). (2011). Sports governance in the world: A socio-historic approach
(Sport Social Studies; 3 Volumes). Paris: Le Manuscrit.
Thibault, L., & Babiak, K. (2005). Organizational changes in Canada’s sport
system: Toward an athlete-centred approach. European Sport Management
Quarterly, 5(2), 105–132.
Vincent, L. (2008). Differentiating competence, capability and capacity.
Innovating Perspectives, 16(3), 1–2.
Wicker, P., & Breuer, C. (2011). Scarcity of resources in German non-profit
sport clubs. Sport Management Review, 14, 188–201.
Index1
A Amateur sport system, Canada, 68,

ABCD Commission, 46, 49 69
Act on equality between women and Americanisation, 67–8
men (1986), 123 Amis, J., 307
Act on the Use of Proceeds from Anglo-American, 14, 20, 66, 285
Lotteries and Betting Anglo-Saxon model, 13
Games, 126 Annual Sport Performance Review
Act to Promote Physical Activity and (ASPR), 34
Sport, 75, 76 Anti-Doping Denmark, 97
agent, 11–13, 30, 34, 42, 47, 50, Army Act 1874, 265
53–7, 59, 60, 142, 146, ASC. See Australian Sports
150, 162, 167, 171, 174, Commission (ASC)
218, 247, 250, 253, 259, Association of the Heads of
270, 271, 279, 311 Lithuanian Municipal
AHLSEC. See Association of the Sports Divisions
Heads of the Lithuanian (AHLMSD), 188
Sports Education Centres Association of the Heads of the
(AHLSEC) Lithuanian Sports
1
Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to foot notes.

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-60222-0
322 Index
Education Centres Act 1989, 26, 31

(AHLSEC), 189 expenditure, 34
Athlete Assistance Program, 78 Sporting Schools Program, 28
athleticism, 285 Australian Sports Foundation (ASF),
Australia 25, 27
country profile, 20–1 Australian University Sport (AUS),
facts and descriptives of, 20 28
financial framework support Australia’s Winning Edge
governance and management 2012–2022, 33
support, 36–7 autonomous communities, 249,
national support, 33–5 257–9
regional and municipal (local)
support, 35–6
governmental sport actors, 24–8 B
legislative framework, 31 Bähr, H., 287
levels of government, 21 Barnes, M., 73
national support, 33–5 basic funding, 128, 158, 170, 171
non-governmental sport actors, basic grant, 102, 103
28–30 Basic Law, 158, 158n1
organisation of sport Bayle, E., 143, 152
steering, 30–3 Bedecki, T., 72
structure, 24–30 Beijing Olympic Games 2008, 78
support, 33–7 Belgian Olympic and Interfederal
policy framework, 31–3 Committee (BOIC), 48, 49
population report, 23 Belgium
sport in, 22–5 country profile, 42–3
Australian Commonwealth Games facts and descriptives of, 43
Association (ACGA), 29 financial framework support,
Australian Institute of Sport (AIS), 56–8
26–7 governance and management
Australian national sport sector, 22 support, 58–9
Australian Olympic Committee governmental actors, 47–8
(AOC), 29 intermediate actors, 49–50
Australian Paralympic Committee legislative framework, 50–3
(APC), 29 non-governmental actors, 48–9
Australian Sports Anti-Doping organisation of sport, 41
Authority (ASADA), 25, 27 steering, 50–5
Australian Sports Commission structure, 45–50
(ASC), 25–6 support, 55–9
Index
323
parliamentary democracy, 42–3 CAS. See Confederations of

policy framework, 53–5 Australian Sport (CAS)
sport in, 43–6 Central Council of Physical
Bergsgard, N. A., 70, 72, 73, 81, 82, Recreation (CCPR), 293
317, 318 Centre of Operational Management
Bloomfield, John, 30 for Sport Technical
Breuer, C., 159–61, 172 Executives (CGOCTS), 152
budget law, 169–70 Chappelet, J.-L., 2, 265, 271, 273
Buffet tax, 144 Čingienė, V., 183
bureaucratic configuration, 7, 143, Clijsen, L., 305
151, 171, 172, 174, 190, COC. See Canadian Olympic
196, 230, 252, 259, 316 Committee (COC)
Code of Sport, France, 143, 144
co-governance, 11–13, 59, 162, 164,
C 169, 173, 230, 232, 312, 316
Camy, J., 6–8, 190, 252, 305, 308 co-governance relationship, 13, 59,
Canada 162, 164, 173
Amateur sport in, 68, 69 colonialism, 67
colonialism, 67 commercial sport organisations, 2
country profile, 66–7 committee for distributing municipal
facts and descriptives of, 66 subsidies, 98
federal government, 70, 71, 75 Committee of Australian Sport and
Federal Government Policy, 77, 78 Recreation Officials
in international sport events, 69 (CASRO), 26
organisation of sport Community Amateur Sports Club
steering, 74–7 (CASC), 290, 294, 295
structure, 72–4 Competition Act, 294
support, 77–81 Competitive Sports Program,
public funds, 77 Germany, 168
sport in, 65–71 Concept of the Federal Council for a
Canada’s British Commonwealth Sports Policy in Switzerland
heritage, 67 (CCFPSS), 267
Canadian Olympic Committee Confederations of Australian Sport
(COC), 78, 79 (CAS), 30, 37
Canadian Policy Against Doping in conflict of interest, 55
Sport, 77 conservative-corporatist welfare
Canadian Sport for Life, 71, 76 regime, 13
Canadian Sport Policy, 71, 73–7, 79, continental welfare model, 13
83 France, 136
324 Index
co-production, 169 support, 100–6

Corporate Tax Act 2010, 295 semi-governmental institutions,
Cousens, L., 73 97–8
sport clubs in, 91
sport in, 91, 92, 94, 101
D Department of Canadian Heritage,
Danish Federation of Company 71, 75
Sport (DFIF), 96 Department of Culture, Media and
Danish Foundation for Culture and Sport (DCMS), 289, 290,
Sports Facilities’ mission, 97 295, 299
Danish Gymnastic and Sports Department of Physical Education
Associations (DGI), 95 and Sports (DPES),
Danish Institute for Sports Studies, Lithuania, 185, 195
97 Department of Sport and Recreation
Danish Olympic Committee, 95 (SDSR), 27
Danish sport club, 96 dependency, 8, 80, 83, 92, 143, 148,
Danish sport system, 89, 93, 97, 151, 307, 309, 310, 313–16
100, 105–6 DFIF. See Danish Federation of
De Bosscher, V., 81 Company Sport (DFIF)
decentralised sport policy, 308, 309 Doherty, A., 74
decision-making power, 308 Dutch culture, 203, 204
Denmark Dutch political economy, 213, 216
country profile, 90 Dutch sport system, 316
facts and descriptives of, 90 Dynamo project, 58
financial framework support,
100–3, 105
elite vs. grassroots sport, 105–6 E
municipal support, 104–5 Eastern European model, 14
state support, 104 elite sport, 3, 5, 8, 12, 25, 27, 33, 37,
governance and management 47–9, 54, 56, 58, 82, 93, 95,
support, 106 97, 99, 100, 105–7, 116,
governmental sport actors, 93–5 117, 121, 125, 126, 128,
grants for public fund, 103 130, 132, 145, 146, 148,
intermediate sport actors, 97–8 149, 157–9, 162, 167, 168,
non-governmental sport actors, 170, 171, 174, 189, 193,
95–6 195, 201, 202, 207, 208,
organisation of sport, 91–3 211, 213, 214, 218, 249,
steering, 98–100 263, 267–73, 276–80, 288,
structure, 93–8 290, 291, 304–7, 314, 316
Index
325
elite sport vs. grassroots sport, 105–6, Federal Law to Encourage Sport and
195 Physical Activity (LESp),
Emrich, E., 170 272
England Federal Ministry of the Interior
country profile, 284 (BMI), Germany, 163–4,
facts and descriptives of, 285 166
financial framework support, Federal Office for Sport (OFSPO),
297–8 267–9
governance and management Federal Policy for Hosting
support, 299 International Sport Events,
governmental structures, 290–1 77
intermediate structures, 291–2 federations relationship, 314–18
legislative framework, 294–6 Feiler, S., 161
non-governmental structures, Finance Foundation for Horse
292–4 Racing, 98
organisation of sport, 287–9 Finland
steering, 294–7 budget of the ministry of
structure, 289–94 education and culture for
support, 297–9 sport, 128
policy framework, 296–7 country profile, 114–15
sport in, 285–7 facts and figures of, 115
Enterprise Act 2002, 294 financial framework support,
entrepreneurial configuration, 7, 31, 129–30
174, 252 municipal support, 129
Equality Act (2004), 123 state support, 127–8
Esping-Andersen, G., 13 governance and management
European Football Championships support, 130
2008, 273 governmental sport actors,
European sport model, 13 119–20
Exercise Act, 122, 123 intermediate sport actors, 122
Expert Council for Sport, 237 legislative framework, 123–5
non-governmental sport actors,
121–2
F organisation of sport
Falkner, G., 287 steering, 122–6
Federal Government Policy, Canada, structure, 119–22
77, 78 support, 126–30
Federal Institute of Sport Sciences, 164 policy framework, 125–6
326 Index
public sport sector in, 119 non-governmental actors, 141–2

sport clubs in, 113, 118 organisation of sport
sports in, 115–18 steering, 142–6
Finnish Olympic Committee, 116, structure, 138–42
121 support, 146–9
Finnish sport NGOs, 124 policy framework, 145–6
Finnish Sports Federation (SLU), sport in, 137–9
116 Franks, C. E. S., 72
Finnish sport system, 113 French community, 42, 43
Finnish Tax Act, 124 French Football Federation (FFF),
Fitness and Amateur Sport Act, 70, 152
75 French Olympic and Sport
Flemish community, 42, 43 Committee (CNOSF), 141
Flemish Department of Culture, The Future of Sport in Australia
Youth Sports & Media, 47 (Crawford), 32, 37
Flemish Minister of Sports, 51
Flemish Sport Confederation (VSF),
49, 50, 53, 58, 59 G
Flemish sport federation, 50 Gambling Act, 295
Flemish sport policy, 48 German Football Association, 165
Flemish Trainers School (VTS), 50, German Olympic Sports
58 Confederation (DOSB),
fragmented administration of public 157, 160, 162, 165, 167,
policy, 9, 31, 47, 74, 143, 171, 173
151, 229, 253 German Sports Association (DSB),
France 160
country profile, 136–7 Germany
cross-national comparisons, 151 country profile, 158
facts and descriptive statistics of, facts and descriptives of, 159
137 federal budget for national sport
financial framework support, federations, 170–2
146–9 financial framework support,
governance and management 169–72
support, 149–50 regional and local level, 172–3
governmental actors, 138–41 state level, 172
gross domestic product (GDP), 136 governance and management
intermediate actors, 142 support, 173
legislative framework, 143–5 governmental actors, 166–7
Ministry of Sports, 142, 143, 146, national level, 163–4
147, 152, 153 regional and local level, 164–5
Index
327
legislative framework, 168 Groeneveld, M., 9, 11, 12, 162, 169

national budget for sport in Grundgesetz, 168
general, 169–70
non-governmental actors, 165–7
organisation of sport H
steering, 167–9 Hallmann, K., 4, 303
structure, 162–7 Hall, M. H., 307
support, 169–73 Harvey, J., 72, 75
sport in, 158–61 Henry, I., 6–9, 31, 59, 142, 143,
sport policy framework, 169 151, 167, 172, 240, 271,
Girginov, V., 307 296, 305, 308, 316
Global Physical Activity high-level sport, 121, 127, 139, 140,
Questionnaire (GPAQ), 248, 293
184 High Sport Council (CSD), 248
good governance, 52, 56, 58, 130, Hills, L., 307
169, 260 Hinings, C. R., 307
Goodwin, M., 12 horizontal subsidiarity principle, 2,
governmentalisation, 2, 247, 258, 42, 54
317 The Hosting Program, 78, 79
governmental sport actors Houlihan, B., 7–9, 47, 59, 70, 74,
Australia, 24–8 81, 142, 143, 151, 167,
Belgium, 47–8 229, 252, 253, 287, 297,
Denmark, 93–5 305, 317
Finland, 119–20 Hoye, R., 22, 80
France, 138–41
Germany, 163–7
Lithuania, 185–6 I
Slovenia, 226–7 imperfect agent behaviour, 11, 55,
Spain, 247–9 57, 60
Switzerland, 266–9 information asymmetry, 11, 55, 171
government-subsidised project, 58 Institutional Act on Financial
grassroots sport, 5, 48, 97, 105, 130, Legislation (LOLF), 145
132, 145, 157, 160, 166, intermediate sport actors
168, 172, 188, 195, 218, Belgium, 49–50
236, 255, 258, 290, 292, Denmark, 97–8
295, 296, 298, 303–5, 310, Finland, 122
314, 317 France, 142
vs. elite sport, 105–6, 195 Lithuania, 188–9
Green, M., 81, 82, 317 Slovenia, 228
Grix, J., 12 Spain, 251–2
328 Index
Switzerland, 270–1 local level, 193–4

International Olympic Committee national level, 192–3
(IOC), 141, 153 governance and management
support, 195
governmental sport actors, 185–6
J intermediate sport actors, 188–9
Jackson, S. J., 12 legislative framework, 189–90
John Rawls’ theory of justice, 131 national sport federations, 194
Jurak, G., 229 non-governmental sport actors,
186–8
organisation of sport
K steering, 189–91
Keech, M., 286 structure, 184–9
Kikulis, L. M., 82 support, 191–5
Ko, L., 271 policy framework, 190–1
Krajicek, Richard, 206 sport in, 180–4
Lithuanian Basketball Federation,
194
L Lithuanian National Olympic
Länder, 160n2, 164–6, 168, 172 Committee (LNOC), 186,
Landessportbünde, 172 187, 191, 194, 195
Laskienė, S., 183 Lithuanian Olympic Sport Centre
Law on Physical Education and (LOSC), 186
Sport, 187, 189–91, 193 Lithuanian Sports Congress, 181
Law on Physical Education and Lithuanian Union of Sport
Sport Promotion Fund, 190 Federations (LUSF), 186–8,
Law on Sport, 231 191, 195
Leadership Academy, 173 Loi Avice, 143, 144
Leisure Act, 106 Loi Buffet, 144
liberal type, 13 London Olympics, 78, 307
Licensing Act 2003, 294 Long-Term Athlete Development
Lindsey, I., 287 Model, 71, 76, 81
Lithuania Lotteries Act, 125
country profile, 180
facts and descriptive statistics of,
181 M
financial framework support, Macintosh, D., 72
191–2, 194 MacLean, J., 73
elite vs. grassroots sport, 195 Madella, A., 305
Index
329
major role of central government, 9, National Olympic Committee and

151 Sport Confederation of
Mangset, P., 317 Denmark, 95
mediterranean model, 14 National Physical Education and
minimal/no government Sport Council, 188
involvement, 9 National Physical Fitness Act 1943,
Ministry of CRM, Netherlands, 205n5 75
Ministry of Sports, France, 142, 143, National Programme of Sport (NPS),
146, 147, 152, 153 221, 225–8, 230, 232, 233,
missionary configuration, 7, 143, 235, 239
151, 162, 167, 252, 271, National Sport and Active Recreation
272, 316 Policy Framework
Mrkonjic, M., 265, 271–3 (NSARPF), 32, 37
National Sport Development
Strategy 2011–2020,
N Lithuania, 181
Nagel, S., 306 National Sport Organisations
National Centre for the (NSOs), 22, 23, 26–30, 35,
Development of Sport 71, 73, 77, 82
(CNDS), France, 140, 144, National Sports Act 1990, 253–4
145, 147 National Sports Council, 120
National Elite Sports Council National Sports Organisations for
(NESC), 27 people with disability
National Finnish Olympic (NSOD), 28, 35
Committee, 116 National Technical Advisors, 146
National French Olympic and Sport National Technical Direction
Committee, 144 (DTN), 150
national governing bodies (NGBs), National Technical Directors, 145–6,
283, 285, 288, 290, 291, 149
293, 296, 298 neoliberalism, 131
National Institute System Netherlands
Intergovernmental country profile, 202–5
Agreement (NISIA), 32 facts and descriptives of, 205
National Lottery Act of 1993 and financial framework support,
1998, 295 214–15
National Olympic Committee governance and management-
(NOC), 8, 141, 153, 160, support, 215–16
174, 239, 269, 311 legislative framework, 210–12
330 Index
organisation of sport Nordic welfare state model, 131

steering, 210–13 Norkus, S., 182
structure, 208–10 North Atlantic Treaty Organization
support, 214–16 (NATO), 222
policy framework, 212–13 NPS. See National Programme of
primary education, 210n9 Sport (NPS)
secondary education, 210n9 NSOD. See National Sports
sport in, 205–8, 217 Organisations for people
New Public Management, 109, 296 with disability (NSOD)
Nicholson, M., 22, 80 NSOs. See national sport
NOC. See national Olympic organisations (NSOs)
committee (NOC)
NOC*NSF, 211–16
Nodland, S. I., 317 O
non-European sport models, 14 Office of Sport, 25
non-governmental organisations Olympic Committee of Slovenia and
(NGOs), 8, 12, 124, 132, the Association of Sports
167, 188, 235, 236, 252, Federations (OCS-ASF),
253 225, 227–9, 232, 237–9
non-governmental sport actors Olympic Games, 171, 174, 213n11
Australia, 28–30 Olympic Plan 2028, 206
Belgium, 48–9 Olympic Sports Association, 251
Denmark, 95–6 organisational capacity, 306–8
Finland, 121–2 of federations vs. dependence on
France, 141–2 governmental support,
Germany, 165–7 313–14
Lithuania, 186–8 of sport federations, 308–14
Slovenia, 227–8 organisational effectiveness, 306
Spain, 249–51 Organization for Economic
Switzerland, 269–70 Cooperation and
non-profit sport organisations, 76, Development (OECD), 223
80, 81, 83, 307, 308 Own the Podium (OTP), 79, 81
non-specific sport legislation
Finland, 123–4
Germany, 168 P
Lithuania, 189 Participation and Sustainable Sports
Slovenia, 230–1 division, 27
Spain, 254 path dependence theory, 8, 91
Nordic model, 13, 90 Pavletič Samardžija, P., 229
Index
331
Pawlowski, T., 159–60 Republic of Lithuania Strategy on

performance-based grant, 102, 103 Physical Education and
Personal Income Tax Act, 231 Sport, 181
Petry, K., 4, 303, 305, 315 resource dependency, 83, 307, 315
Physical Education and Sport resource dependence theory, 80, 83,
Promotion Fund, 186 307, 315
Pierdzioch, C., 170 Rhineland countries, 143, 151
Pilkington, A., 305 Rhineland model, 42–3
post-communist welfare type, 14 Rommetvedt, H., 317
principal, 11, 30, 34, 42, 50, 53–5, Ross, S., 11
57, 59, 60, 142, 167, 171, rudimentary welfare type, 14
188, 191, 192, 195, 249, Rullang, C., 170
271, 292
principal–agent (PA) approach, 11,
250, 259 S
principal–agent model, 11, 42, 55 Sam, M. P., 12
principal–agent relationship, 11, 42, Scandinavian model, 13, 90
50, 54, 55, 59, 146, 150, 279 SDSR. See Department of Sport and
principal–agent theory, 270–1 Recreation (SDSR)
professionalisation, 59, 141, 272, 277, Self-government Act, 232
278, 280, 306–8, 311, 317 shared responsibility, 9, 59, 60, 143,
professional leagues, 251 208, 253
project-based grant, 103 Slack, T., 307
project funding, 102, 158, 171, 172, Slovenia
174 allocation of revenues from
Public Welfare Act of 1994, 210 gambling services to sport,
231
country profile, 222–3
Q facts about, 222
quasi-autonomous non- financial framework support,
governmental organisation, 233–6
8, 252 governance and management
quango, 8, 9, 252, 290 support, 236
degree of governmental
participation, 236–7
R by OCS-ASF, 237–8
rational choice theory, 11 by public financing and public
regional sport federations, 250 services, 238–9
Regional Technical Advisors, 146 governmental actors, 226–7
332 Index
intermediate actors, 228 policy framework, 254–5

legislative framework, 230–2 sport in, 245–6
non-governmental actors, 227–8 Spanish Constitution of 1978, 244,
organisation of sport, 224–5 247, 258
steering, 228–33 Spanish National Olympic
structure, 225–8 Committee, 249
support, 233–9 Spanish Olympic and Paralympic
policy framework, 232–3 Committee, 254
sport in, 223–4, 229 Spanish sport federations, 249
tax legislation, 231–2 specific sport legislation
Smith, A. C. T., 80 Finland, 124–5
Sobry, C., 305 Germany, 168
social configuration, 7, 59, 143, 151, Lithuania, 189–90
209, 218, 221–40, 252, 308 Slovenia, 231–2
social democratic type of welfare Spain, 253–4
regime, 13 Spitzenverbände, 166, 167, 172
social economic model, France, 136 SPLISS model, 318
social origins theory, 91 Sport and Recreation Alliance (SRA),
Society Act, 230 293
Spain Sport Canada, 71–4, 77, 78
country profile, 244–5 contributions to sport since 2005,
facts and descriptive data for, 245 79
financial framework support, fund, 79
255–6 leaders, 75
national support, 256–7 policies and year(s) of adoption/
regional and municipal revision, 76
support, 257–8 Sport Canada’s Sport Funding and
governance and management Accountability Framework
support, 258 (SFAF), 80
governmental sport actors, 247–9 sport clubs
intermediate sport actors, 251–2 Danish, 96
legislative framework, 253–4 Denmark, 91
non-governmental sport actors, England, 293–4
249–51 Finland, 113, 118
organisation of sport, 246–7 Spain, 251
steering, 252–5 Sport Confederation of Denmark, 95
structure, 247–52 Sport Event Denmark, 97
support, 255–8 Sport Flanders, 47, 58
Index
333
“Sport for All”, 3, 12, 48, 53, 58, 82, Switzerland

93, 95, 105–8, 116, 130, country profile, 264
132, 139, 140, 168, cross-national comparisons, 279
187–90, 193, 195, 225, evolution/perspectives, 280
235, 238, 249, 270, 273, facts and descriptives of, 264
280, 289, 303, 314, 316–18 financial framework support,
Sport for All Association (SfAA), 276–7
116 local level, 274–5
Sports Act, 119, 125, 126, 129–31, lottery, 275–6
255, 256, 270 national level, 273–4
Sport Technical Advisors, 145, governance and management
148–50, 152 support, 278
SSOs. See State Sports Organisations governmental actors, 266–9
(SSOs) intermediate actors, 270–1
State and Territory Institutes and legislative framework, 271–2
Academies of Sport (SIS/ non-governmental actors,
SAS), 27 269–70
State or Territory Minister for Sport organisation of sport
and Recreation (STMSR), steering, 271–3
27 structure, 266–71
State Secretariat for Sports, France, support, 273–9
138–9 performance measures, 278–9
State Sports Organisations (SSOs), policy framework, 272–3
23, 29 sport in, 265–7
Steinbach, D., 305 Sydney Games of 2000, 206
Stewart, B., 80 Szymanski, S., 1
subsidiarity, 2, 42, 43, 48, 49, 53,
54, 157–74, 270, 315
Swedish Central Sports Federation T
(SFI), 115, 121 Tamulaitienė, R., 182
Swiss Federal Institute of Sports tax legislation, Slovenia, 231–2
Magglingen (HEFSM), Team Denmark organisation, 97
268 Tobacco Sponsorship of National
Swiss Olympic, 263, 269–72, 275–8, Sport Organizations, 77
280 Tokarski, W., 305
Swiss Olympic Committee, 263, Treib, O., 287
269, 272 Typology of European Sport
Swiss ski federation, 276 Systems, 179–80
334 Index
V W
VALO (Valtakunnallinen liikunta-ja Whole Sport Plans (WSP),
urheiluorganisaatio), 116, 290, 291
117, 121, 128, 132 Working Together for Australian
Value-Added Tax Act, 124 Sport, 32–3
Valvasor, Janez Vajkard, 223 World Anti-Doping Agency,
Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic 27, 77
Winter Games 2010, 71
VAT Act, 231
Venue Management Trusts, 27 Y
VOCASPORT typology, 162, 271, youth sport, 47, 54, 56, 116, 130,
272, 279 139, 149, 274, 287, 292

Sport Policy Systems and Sport Federations: A Cross-National Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sport Policy Systems and Sport Federations: A Cross-National Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sport Policy Systems and

Sport Policy Systems

ISBN 978-1-137-60221-3 ISBN 978-1-137-60222-0 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016958881

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

Cover image © RTimages / Alamy Stock Photo

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

Does It Take Two to Tango? The Position and Power of National

Australia: Evolution and Motivators of National Sport Policy 19

Belgium: Flanders — Sport Federations

Canada: An Evolving Sport System 65

Denmark: The Dissenting Sport System in Europe 89

Finland: From Steering to the Evaluation of Effectiveness 113

France: Organisation of Sport and Policy Towards Sport

Germany: Autonomy, Partnership and Subsidiarity 157

Lithuania: The Organisation and Governance of Sport 179

The Netherlands: How the Interplay Between Federations

Slovenia: Towards a Social Configuration

Spain: Putting the Pieces of the Sport System in

Switzerland: The Organisation of Sport and Policy Towards Sport

UK: England — National Governing Bodies of Sport

Conclusion: The Role of Sport Policies and Governmental

Jeroen Scheerder (PhD) is Associate Professor of Sport Policy and Sport

Baillet Latour-Jacques Rogge. She is head of the Sport Management Research

Emmanuel Bayle is currently Professor in Sport Management at the Institute

Christoph Breuer is vice-president for resources and planning of the German

Paralympic Games (vols. 1 & 2), (2012–2013), Sport Management Cultures

Tobias Nowy is a Researcher, Lecturer and PhD candidate at the Institute of

Fig. 1 Comparative framework for each country chapter

Table 1 Crossing of the typologies by Henry

Table 3 Total budget of the Ministry of Education and

Since the origin of modern sport in the eighteenth to nineteenth ­century

J. Scheerder (*) • E. Claes

© The Author(s) 2017 1

most of the twentieth century non-profit sport associations have almost

involvement to achieve ‘Sport for All’ or to increase national identity through

Profile of the country Steering Chapter conclusion

• General • Legislative framework • Cross-national comparison

Fig. 1 Comparative framework for each country chapter throughout the

sport-related characteristics of the respective country. This first section

systems in the 13 countries through an organisational capacity lens and

2 Exploring Cross-National Differences

A second explanation for the presence of cross-national differences can

Social Decentralisation, public sector as Missionary

Social actors Voluntary sector

Bureaucratic Centralisation, public sector as Entrepreneurial

Fig. 2 Types of national sport systems

configuration is common in federated states, like Australia, Belgium and

Table 1 Crossing of the typologies by Henry (2009) and Houlihan (1997)

possible to completely adopt a specific policy program from another coun-

low continuum high

influence, steering, involvement, …

Fig. 3 Possible relationships between sport federations, confederations and

sport confederation disposes. Groeneveld’s (2009: 243) statement on the

relations and co-involvement mechanisms are related to the particular sport

as being representative of the rudimentary welfare type or Mediterranean

Groeneveld, M. (2009). European sport governance, citizens and the state.

© The Author(s) 2017 19

Importantly, the national policies for sporting excellence (Australia’s

Table 1 Facts and descriptives of Australia

Based on the liberal democratic tradition, there are three levels of

Australia: Evolution and Motivators of National Sport Policy 19

Canada: An Evolving Sport System 65

Denmark: The Dissenting Sport System in Europe 89

Finland: From Steering to the Evaluation of Effectiveness 113

Germany: Autonomy, Partnership and Subsidiarity 157

Lithuania: The Organisation and Governance of Sport 179

Fig. 1 Comparative framework for each country chapter

Table 1 Crossing of the typologies by Henry

Table 3 Total budget of the Ministry of Education and

Since the origin of modern sport in the eighteenth to nineteenth century

2 Exploring Cross-National Differences

Governmental Sport Actors

Non-Governmental Sport Actors

Australian sports organisations and sports clubs, many being not-for-

2009) and, as such, is considered the ‘principal’ according to Principal-

Governance and Management Support

Governance and Management Support