Sports Policy Factors Leading to International Sporting Success (PDF)

Sports Policy Factors Leading to International Sporting Success  Veerle De Bosscher, Jerry Bingham. Simon Shibli, Maarten van Bottenburg, Paul De Knop Sports Policy Factors Leading to International Sporting Success An International Comparative Study  British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Veerle De Bosscher, Jerry Bingham, Simon Shibli, Maarten van Bottenburg, Paul De Knop Sports Policy factors Leading to International Sporting Success Oxford: Meyer & Meyer Sport (UK) Ltd., 2007 (Sport, Culture & Society; Vol. 8) ISBN 978-1-84126-228-4 All rights reserved, especially the right to copy and distribute, including the translation rights. No part of this work may be reproduced – including by photocopy, microfilm or any other means – processed, stored electronically, copied or distributed in any form whatsoever without the written permission of the publisher. © 2007 by Meyer & Meyer Sport (UK) Ltd., Adelaide, Auckland, Budapest, Graz, Indianapolis, Johannesburg, New York, Olten (CH), Oxford, Singapore, Toronto Member of the World Sport Publishers' Association (WSPA) www.w-s-p-a.org Printed and bound: FINIDR, s. r. o., ˘Cesky´ T˘e˘sín ISBN 978-1-84126-228-4 E-Mail: [email protected] The SPLISS Consortium came together early in 2003 to compare and analyse sport structures, policy and performance in three nations – Belgium (Flanders), Netherlands and the UK. Aware that increasing sums were being spent on high performance sport across the world, we were concerned that there was no model for comparing the efficiency and effectiveness of such investments. The study, which subsequently broadened out to include Canada, Italy, Norway and Belgium (Wallony), could not have been completed without an extraordinary amount of assistance from a wide variety of individuals and institutions. Athletes, coaches and performance directors in different nations provided information on their personal circumstances and filled in lengthy questionnaires. Many other policy makers, high performance coordinators, and sports officials also gave freely of their time and provided valuable insights into their policies and programmes. We are most appreciative of all their help. Our greatest thanks go to the dedicated researchers who joined this study from the other participating nations: David Legg (Canada); Berit Skirstad and Torkild Veraas (Norway); Alberto Madella and Lorenzo Di Bello (Italy) and Luc van de Putte and Thierry Zinzen (Wallony). This book is aimed at sports professionals, academics and politicians seeking a better understanding of the factors that lead to international sporting success. We hope that readers will understand the complexity of this research and we invite them to share their comments with us – especially concerning the further development of this study. The SPLISS Consortium, September 2006 The Consortium comprises: Belgium (Flanders): Veerle De Bosscher & Paul De Knop, assisted by Sophie Daniëls Netherlands: Maarten van Bottenburg, assisted by Bas Rijnen United Kingdom: Jerry Bingham & Simon Shibli 5 PREFACE PREFACE  Simon Shibli, Sheffield Hallam University - [email protected] Simon Shibli is a Director of the Sport Industry Research Centre (SIRC) at Sheffield Hallam University, England. Simon is a graduate in Physical Education, Sport Science and Recreation Management from Loughborough University and also a qualified management accountant (ACMA). The SIRC team provide research and consultancy services to a range of clients such as national agencies, national and international governing bodies of sport and local authorities. SIRC has been involved in elite sport related work since 1997 and with UK Sport is one of the founding members of the SPLISS consortium. The Netherlands Maarten van Bottenburg, Mulier Institute – University of Utrecht [email protected] Maarten van Bottenburg studied sociology at the University of Utrecht and Amsterdam in the Netherlands. In 1994 he obtained his Ph.D. in the social sciences with a thesis on the differential popularisation of sports. Since 2002, he has been the research director of W.J.H. Mulier Institute – Centre for Research on Sports in Society, a joint venture of the University of Amsterdam, University of Groningen, Tilburg University, and Utrecht University. In 2004, he was appointed professor of sociology of sport at Utrecht University and professor of sport business at Fontys University of Applied Sciences. Maarten has published several books and reports in the field of the sociology of sport and sports management. Canada David Legg, Department of Physical Education and Recreation Mount Royal College, Canada - [email protected] David Legg B.P.E. (McMaster), M.H.K. (Windsor), Ph.D. (Alberta) is the coordinator the Bachelor of Applied Business and Entrepreneurship – Sport and Recreation Applied Degree program at Mount Royal College in Calgary, Canada. As a volunteer David is currently the Director of Finance for the Canadian Paralympic Committee and Technical Officer for America’s Paralympic Committee. 7 RESEARCH TEAM BIOGRAPHIES RESEARCH TEAM BIOGRAPHIES Flanders (Belgium) Veerle de Bosscher, Sports Policies and Management – Vrije Universiteit Brussel – [email protected] Veerle de Bosscher conducted her Ph.D. on this international comparative study. She is a research assistant at the faculty of Physical Education of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel Belgium, in the department of Sports Policies and Management (SBMA). She graduated in Physical Education (1994) and has subsequently completed two Master’s degrees: one in sports management and one in training/coaching. Veerle lectures on courses related to sports policies and sports management at the VUB. Paul de Knop, Sports Policies and Management – Vrije Universiteit Brussel - [email protected] Paul De Knop has a Ph.D. in Physical Education at the Faculty of Physical Education of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. He graduated in leisure studies at the same university and achieved a Master’s degree in Sports Sociology and Sports Management from the University of Leicester (UK). He is dean of the Faculty of Physical Education of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, advisor to the Flemish minister of Sport, chairman of the board of BLOSO (the Flemish Sport Administrative Body) and also chairman of the RAGO (Council of the Community Education). Paul’s teaching includes areas of sport management, sport sociology and sport policy. United Kingdom Jerry Bingham, UK Sport - [email protected] Jerry Bingham joined UK Sport when it was established in January 1997 after working for seven years in the former GB Sports Council’s Central Policy Unit, where he played a substantial role in the campaign for a National Lottery. Jerry manages UK Sport’s research and ethics programmes, seeking to ensure that policy decisions are based on sound evidence. Major projects in which Jerry has been involved in recent years include a study of the sports development impact of the 2002 Commonwealth Games and the establishment of the Value of Sport Monitor, an online monitoring service of published research evidence on the contribution of sport to a range of social issues. One important new initiative is a longitudinal study of the values and attitudes of talented young athletes in the run-up to London 2012. Jerry has a background in local government and, in the early nineties, worked as a freelance sports reporter on the Independent on Sunday. 6 RESEARCH TEAM BIOGRAPHIES  CONTENTS Chapter 1: Elite sports policies: An international comparative perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 1.1. Rationale and problem definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 1.2. Establishment and organisation of the research project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 1.3. Funding of the research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 1.4. Objectives of the research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 1.5. Report structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Chapter 2: Theoretical model of factors determining international sporting success . . . . . . . . . .17 2.1. Classification of factors leading to international sporting success . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Chapter 3: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 3.2. Research protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 3.3. Methodological limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 3.4. The profile of the sample of athletes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 3.5. The profile of the sample of coaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 3.6. The profile of the sample of Performance Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 3.7. The representativeness of the samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 3.8. Summary Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Chapter 4: Measuring the success of nations in elite sport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 4.2 The nature of the summer Olympic Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 4.3 Evidence of increasing competition? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 4.4 Measuring performance in the Olympic Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 4.5 Developing market share - the world sporting index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 4.6 Regression analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 4.7 The Winter Olympic Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 4.8 Alternative measures of performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 4.9 Measuring the financial efficiency of success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 4.10 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 Chapter 5: A Comparative analysis of elite sports systems in the six sample nations . . . . . . . . . .75 5.1 Pillar 1: Financial support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 5.1.1 Concept and definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 5.1.2 Key findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 Italy Alberto Madella, University of Firenze - [email protected] Alberto Madella was awarded his Ph.D. in the Methodology of Social Sciences at the University of Catania, where he also graduated in Political Sciences. He is Lecturer at the University of Florence, the University of San Marino and at University Institute of Motor Science (IUSM) in Rome. Alberto’s research areas are in sport sociology and sport management. He has served as general secretary of the European Association for Sport Management (EASM) and is Vice-president of the European Network of Sports Sciences, Education and Employment (ENSSEE). Furthermore he is responsible for the coaches’ curricula design for the Italian NOC. Norway Berit Skirstad Norwegian School of Sport Sciences - [email protected] Berit Skirstad is Associate Professor at the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences in Oslo within the Section for Sport, Culture and Society. She is responsible for Sport Management studies. Furthermore, Berit is the president of the European Association for Sport Management (EASM) Wallony (Belgium) Luc van de Putte, Brussels European Sport Management Centre - Solvay Business School - Université Libre de Bruxelles - [email protected] Thierry Zintz, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) - [email protected] Thierry Zintz has a Ph.D. in Physical Education at the Institute of Physical Education of the Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium. He is in charge of the „ETHIAS - Communauté française Chair in Management of Sport Organisations“ at the Institute of Physical Education of the Université catholique de Louvain, Vice- president of the Belgian Olympic and Interfederal Committee , Deputy-secretary general of the European Observatory of Sport and Employment (EOSE) and also member of the Advisory Council of Sports (advising the Minister of Sport of the Communauté française de Belgique).Thierry’s teaching includes areas of sport management and sport policy. 9 8 RESEARCH TEAM BIOGRAPHIES CONTENTS  11 CONTENTS 5.2 Pillar 2: Integrated approach to policy development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 5.2.1 Concept and definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 5.2.2 Key findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 5.3 Pillar 3: Participation in sport (organised and unorganised) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 5.3.1 Concept and definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 5.3.2 Key findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 5.4 Pillar 4: Talent identification and development system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 5.4.1 Concept and definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 5.4.2 Key findings: Talent identification and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 5.5 Pillar 5: Athletic and post career support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98 5.5.1 Key findings: The career of an elite athlete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 5.6 Pillar 6: Training facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106 5.6.1 Concept and definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 5.6.2 Key findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 5.7 Pillar 7: Coaching provision and coach development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110 5.7.1 Concept and definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 5.7.2 Key findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 5.8 Pillar 8: International competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114 5.8.1 Concept and definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115 5.8.2 Key findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115 5.9 Pillar 9: Scientific research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118 5.9.1 Concept and definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119 5.9.2 Key findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119 Photo & Illustration Credits: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176 Chapter 6: Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122 6.1 The global context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122 6.2 Performance in sport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124 6.3 Performance against the nine pillars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125 6.4 Key conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 Reference List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135 APPENDIX 1: RESPONSES BY NATION AND BY SPORT FOR ATHLETES, COACHES AND COORDINATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140 APPENDIX 2: THE METHODOLOGY USED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCORING SYSTEM: A CASE STUDY OF ONE PILLAR . . . . . . . . . .146 APPENDIX 3: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON SPORTS POLICY AND STRUCTURES IN THE PARTICIPATING NATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152 APPENDIX 4: TOTAL NATIONAL EXPENDITURE ON SPORT (2003) . . . . . . . . . . .167 APPENDIX 5: TOTAL NATIONAL EXPENDITURE ON ELITE SPORT (2003) . . . . .168 APPENDIX 6: FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR NATIONAL GOVERNING BODIES (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169 APPENDIX 7: FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR ATHLETES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170 APPENDIX 8: RADAR GRAPHS FOR (other) SAMPLE NATIONS BASED ON TABLE 6.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171 10 CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Athletes’ response rate by nation in descending order of number of respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Table 3.2: Athlete profiles in alphabetical order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Table 3.3: Coaches’ response rate by nation in descending order of number of respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Table 3.4: Coaches’ profile in alphabetical order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Table 3.5: Performance Directors’ profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Table 3.6: The representativeness of the samples in alphabetical order . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Table 3.7: Data summary in alphabetical order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Table 4.1: Medals won by former Soviet Union (USSR) nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Table 4.2: Olympic Games - Boxing Qualification Quotas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 Table 4.3: Excerpt from Athens 2004 medal table (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Table 4.4: Excerpt from Athens 2004 medal table (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Table 4.5: (Modified): Excerpt from Athens 2004 medal table (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Table 4.6: Great Britain’s standardised performance using market share . . . . . . . . . . . .51 Table 4.7: Relative rankings of sample nations 1988 - 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Table 4.8: Resources available to the sample nations and performance diagnosis . . . . .54 Table 4.9: Conflicting measures of performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Table 4.10: Change in performance 2000 - 2004 by measure type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Table 4.11: UK Sport Sporting Index applied to tennis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Table 4.12: The top 10 nations in the World Index 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Table 4.13: The sample nations 2000 - 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 Table 4.14: The relative performance of sample nations by index type . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 Table 4.15: UK Sport Sporting Index v Canadian Equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Table 4.16: Results of the regression analysis base on population and GDP / capita . . . .63 Table 4.17: Relative rankings of sample nations 1992-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 Table 4.18: Funding and medals won by UK Sport funded Olympic Sports . . . . . . . . . .69 Table 4.19: Table 4.18 applied to Flanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 Table 4.20: Cost of medal points won by sport (UK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 Table 4.21: The efficiency of investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 Table 5.1: Characteristics of elite sport and study systems in secondary education in the sample nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 Table 5.2: Number of world top 8 and top 3 athletes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 Table 6.1: Relative performance of nations in international sport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124 Table 6.2: The key to pillar rating charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125 Table 6.3: SPLISS evaluation of policy factors (Nations ordered by assessed ranking in summer Olympic sports) . . . . . . .126 Table 6.4: Assessment by athletes, coaches and Performance Directors . . . . . . . . . . . .127  Chapter 1 Elite sports policies: An international comparative perspective 1.1 Rationale and problem definition Over the last few decades the power struggle between nations to win medals in major international competitions has intensified. This has led to national sports organisations and governments throughout the world spending increasing sums of money on elite sport. In their quest for international success in a globalizing world, the elite sports systems of leading nations have become increasingly homogeneous. More than ever before, they are based around a single model of elite sports development with only slight variations (Oakley and Green 2001a, 2001b; Clumpner 1994; Krüger 1989). The fundamental principle of what Oakley and Green (2001b op. cit) describe as ‘a global sporting arms race’is that international sporting success can be produced by investing strategically in elite sport. Several nations have indeed shown that accelerated funding in elite sport can lead to an increase of medals won at the Olympics. Hogan and Norton (2000) even found a linear relationship between money spent and total medals won by Australia since the 1980s. Nevertheless, in spite of increasing competition and the homogenisation of elite sports systems, the optimum strategy for delivering international success is still unclear. There is no model for comparing, and increasing, the efficiency and effectiveness of elite sport investment and management systems. This makes it difficult for sports managers and policy makers to prioritise and to make the right choices in elite sports policy. The lack of an empirically-grounded, coherent theory on the factors determining international sporting success lies at the root of our research project. In the longer term, the main goal of this project is to increase our knowledge about the optimum strategy for delivering international success and the key performance indicators that demonstrate that an efficient and effective management of sporting excellence is in place. To start with, however, we have carried out an experimental pilot study in six sample nations to find out whether the data needed are available and comparable. Using the data we have collected, we present what might be learnt from theoretical, methodological and sports policy perspectives. 13 ELITE SPORTS POLICIES LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Model showing the relationship between factors determining individual and national success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Figure 2.2: SPLISS analytical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Figure 4.1: Elite athlete production as a process model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Figure 4.2: The number of nations taking part in the Olympic Games 1896 - 2004 . . . . . .37 Figure 4.3: The number of athletes taking part in the Olympic Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Figure 4.4: The number of sports contested at the Olympic Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Figure 4.5: The growth in the number of events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Figure 4.6: The number and proportion of events contested by women athletes . . . . . . . . .39 Figure 4.7: The number of nations winning medals in the Olympic Games . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Figure 4.8: Correlation between NOCs taking part and NOCs winning at least one medal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Figure 4.9: Great Britain in the Summer Olympic Games 1948 - 2004 - Total Medals . . .48 Figure 4.10: The Netherlands in the Summer Olympic Games 1948 - 2004 -Total Medals .49 Figure 4.11: Sample nations in the Summer Olympic Games 1948 - 2004 - Total Points . .50 Figure 4.12: SPLISS project partner nations 1948 - 2004 - Market Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 Figure 4.13: SPLISS project other nations 1948 - 2004 - Market Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Figure 4.14: SPLISS project all sample nations 1988-2004 – Market Share. . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Figure 4.15: Market Share for the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Figure 4.16: SPLISS sample nations market share in Winter Olympics 1992-2006 . . . . . . .64 Figure 4.17: Italy v Great Britain in the Olympic medal table 1948 - 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 Figure 5.1: Percentage of athletes, national governing bodies and coaches indicating that sufficient support is offered to talented young athletes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 Figure 5.2: Income from sport activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103 Figure 5.3: The proportion of athletes rating quality and availability of training facilities satisfactory/good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109 Figure 5.4: Satisfaction on participation in international competitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116 Figure 6.1: Change in expenditure on elite sport from 1999 – 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122 Figure 6.2: Change in market share between Sydney 2000 and Athens 2004 . . . . . . . . . .123 Figure 6.3: Radar graph for the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128 Figure 6.4: Radar graph for Flanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129 Radar graphs for Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Canada and Wallony - appendix Comparative analysis (traffic lights) and list of criteria Pillar 1: Financial support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 Pillar 2: Integrated approach to policy development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 Pillar 3: Sport participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 Pillar 4: Talent identification and development system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 Pillar 5: Athletic and post athletic career support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98 Pillar 6: Training facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106 Pillar 7: Coaching provision and coach development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110 Pillar 8: International competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114 Pillar 9: Scientific research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118 12 CONTENTS  • Norway: a research group led by Berit Skirstad, working with Torkild Veraas (a Master’s student) from the Norwegian University of Sport and Physical Education in Oslo. • Canada: a research group coordinated by David Legg from the Department of Physical Education and Recreation Mount Royal College in Calgary. • Italy: a research group led by Alberto Madella from the University of Firenze, working with Lorenzo Di Bello (Masters student at the IUSM, University of Rome). • In Belgium, the research was split into two parts1. The research for the French and German speaking community, Wallony, was conducted by Luc van de Putte from the Brussels European Sport Management Centre and Solvay Business School. Additionally, information was gathered by Thierry Zintz from the department of physical education and physiotherapy from the Catholic university in Louvain La Neuve (UCL). Researchers from a number of other nations (Australia, France, Germany, Greece, Japan, Portugal, Switzerland, Spain and Sweden) demonstrated a keen interest in joining the SPLISS project, but did not participate in this pilot stage, primarily due to a lack of resources. 1.3 Funding of the research The financial constraints formed the greatest barrier to participation by other nations. There was plenty of interest, but in a number of nations the work done was largely dependent on the personal willingness and dedication of the researchers. In Norway the research was carried out as part of a Master’s thesis at the Norwegian University of Sport and Physical Education. There was further assistance from Olympiatoppen who supplied general information on the athletes. Olympiatoppen also provided information about the elite sports policy and assisted with the circulation of questionnaires. Italy obtained logistical support from the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI), via the Scuola dello Sport (an educational establishment for coaches), for gathering the data and the work of the secretariat. The research was carried out as part of a Master’s thesis at the University of Rome. Other participating research groups obtained funding for their part of the study in their own nation. In the United Kingdom the research project was financed by UK Sport; in the Netherlands by Netherlands’ Olympic Committee*Netherlands’ Sports Federation (NOC*NSF) and the Ministry of Health, Welfare & Sports (VWS); in Belgium by the Flemish Minister for Sports, the Minister for Sports for Wallony and the Belgian Olympic and Interfederal Committee (BOIC); and in Canada by Sport Canada (a part of the Canadian Federal government within the Ministry of Cultural Affairs). In this initial phase of the project, no funding from international organisations was acquired. The costs of coordination and management were met mainly by the Vrije Universiteit Brussel as part of PhD funding, and by the other members of the consortium. 15 ELITE SPORTS POLICIES 1.2 Establishment and organisation of the research project At the end of 2002, a consortium of research groups from three nations initiated an international comparison of elite sports policy. Each of the research groups had already started a project of this kind in their home nation. • In 1998, research on the elite sports climate had been conducted in the Netherlands, with the express intention of repeating this research every four years and using it as the basis for a potential international comparative survey. The research project was coordinated by Maarten van Bottenburg from the W.J.H. Mulier Institute, a centre for research on sports in society related to the universities of Utrecht, Tilburg, Amsterdam and Groningen. • In the United Kingdom, an international elite sports index was constructed and a research project started, looking at how five European nations (France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) produced medal-winning elites capable of success in major international events. The research project was coordinated by Jerry Bingham from UK Sport and Chris Gratton and Simon Shibli from the Sport Industry Research Centre at Sheffield Hallam University. • In Belgium (the Flemish part) a research project examining international success in tennis was started as part of a PhD study at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. This international benchmark research focused on just one sport, namely tennis. Tennis experts from 21 different nations filled in a questionnaire on the policy factors that have the most significant bearing on international success in tennis. Furthermore data on tennis policies from 48 nations was collated in order to relate policy variables to actual performance in elite international tennis events and 15 tennis experts were subject to an interview on tennis policies in their nations. A method was devised to determine the relative success of nations, ensuring that socio-economic variables were taken into account. This research was led by Veerle De Bosscher and Paul De Knop from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Department of Sports Policy and Management - SBMA. The objectives of the three research projects in these nations were very similar, though each one had their own specific focus and approach. In order to establish common ground, the first tasks of the research group were: to create an analytical framework for making cross-national comparisons in elite sport policy; establish the appropriate methodology; contact research groups from other nations; and to draft a research proposal. The common purpose of this project was reflected in the name “SPLISS”, which stands for Sports Policy factors Leading to International Sporting Success. When the Belgian (Flemish), Dutch and English researchers began to disseminate the findings from their research, research groups from other nations expressed an interest in, and were invited to join, the research consortium. Ultimately, the pilot study is based on the three original partner nations and an additional three sample nations as detailed below. 14 CHAPTER 1 1 In Belgium the Flemish community (Flanders) and the French/German speaking community (Wallony) have separate sport policies at each level, from local to national. Apart from the Olympic Committee (BOIC), whose main task is to select athletes for the Olympic Games, there is no national policy or structure for sport. Therefore Flanders and Wallony have participated in this research as if they were two distinct nations. Brussels was included in both surveys according to the affiliation of the federations.  Chapter 2: Theoretical model of factors determining international sporting success 2.1 Classification of factors leading to international sporting success This pilot study was structured on the basis of a comprehensive literature review (See De Bosscher, De Knop & Van Bottenburg and Shibli, 2006). This literature review showed that there is a range of widely accepted factors which determine success in elite sport. To classify these factors, three levels were distinguished: the individual athletes and their close environment (micro-level), sports policies and politics (meso-level) and the social and cultural context people live in (macro-level). Figure 2.1: Model showing the relationship between factors determining individual and national success At the micro-level we find those factors that influence the success of individual athletes, from genetic qualities to their immediate environment such as parents, friends, and coaches. At this level, some factors can be controlled (such as training techniques, tactics, psychological and medical support), whereas others, such as genetic make up, cannot be controlled. The macro- level contains factors like economic welfare, population size, geographic and climatic variation, etc. Several studies demonstrated that elite sports success is largely determined by macro level factors (Ball, 1972; Bernard & Busse, 2000; Grimes, Kelly & Rubin, 1974; Hoffmann, Ging & Ramasamy, 2001; Kiviaho & Mäkelä, 1978; Levine, 1974; Shaw & Pooley, 1976; Stamm & Lamprecht, 2001; Van Bottenburg, 2000; De Bosscher, De Knop & Heyndels, 2003a & b). However, a common characteristic of these factors is that they are largely outside the control of policy makers and political systems. 17 FACTORS DETERMINING INTERNATIONAL SPORTING SUCCESS 1.4 Objectives of the research The objectives of the research programme were fourfold: 1. To compare and analyse data on sport structures, elite sports policy, the elite sports climate and the international sporting performance of the sample nations. 2. To conduct preliminary benchmarking of the sport policy factors leading to international sporting success. 3. To improve our theoretical understanding and methodological approach with respect to the identification of these key policy factors. 4. To inform policy makers and researchers from other nations about the SPLISS project to broaden the number of participating nations in this international comparative research project in the future. 1.5 Report structure This research report provides an international comparison of six nations: Belgium (Flanders and Wallony), Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom, and is structured as follows. Following this introductory chapter, we present in chapter two a classification of factors leading to international sporting success based on a comprehensive literature review, resulting in the identification of nine key sport policy factors, or “pillars”. This is followed by a discussion of our research methodology and its limitations in chapter three. In the fourth chapter, we examine various performance measurement methods, resulting in the presentation of an elite sport index based on ‘market share’analysis. The purpose of this index is to be able to evaluate and compare the success of different nations objectively. In the fifth chapter, we present, compare and discuss data collected for the six sample nations on the nine identified pillars, namely: 1. financial support; 2. integrated approach to policy development; 3. participation in sport; 4. talent identification and development systems; 5. athletic and post career support; 6. training facilities; 7. coaching provision and coach development; 8. international competition; and 9. scientific research. Criteria have been developed to compare and assess the data of the six sample nations. This in turn has led to the production of an ‘at a glance’comparative analysis of each nation against each pillar. Where good practice has been identified it is highlighted and where nations have performed relatively poorly we have sought to offer explanations. The sixth and final chapter contains our conclusions which seek to explore the relationship between our assessment of the relative success of the sample nations and our analysis of their respective sports policy frameworks. 16 CHAPTER 1  international sports success when it is published. Recent research in the field of elite sport policies has been published by Green and Houlihan (2004 & 2005). They explored the process of elite sport policy change in three sports (swimming, athletics and yachting) and three nations (Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia). This study looks for similarities among the nations and offers in-depth analysis in four areas of elite sport policy: (1) development of elite level facilities, (2) emergence of ‘full-time’ athletes, (3) developments in coaching, sports science and sports medicine and (4) competition opportunities for elite level athletes. The authors concluded that: “despite all three countries being characterised as ‘least centralised States’, where we would expect to find considerable checks and balances to a dominant ‘state presence’in a particular policy sector, federal/central governments in Australia, Canada and the U.K. have exerted considerable influence in promoting and shaping the values, organisation and activities of elite sport advocacy coalitions” (2005p 143). A key characteristic of these studies is their search for similarities and differences among nations’ elite sport systems. Although the underlying idea is to explain why some nations perform better than others, they do not provide pre-requisites for international success. This is the aim in the second type of study, of which there are only a few (Clumpner, 1994; Larose & Haggerty, 1996; Oakley & Green, 2001b). Larose and Haggerty (1996) used the innovative method of Ragin (1987) (Qualitative Comparative Analysis – QCA) to examine factors that contribute to international success. The authors found nine categories of important factors thought to determine success and presented these to fifteen Canadian experts, who concluded that a single model of factors leading to success does not exist. There was certainly no model that would cover all countries, nor one that would cover all sports. Clumpner (1994) used Broom’s (1991) work as a foundation and suggested three major factors responsible for international success: (1) financial support for training centres and personnel, (2) an ongoing integrated Olympic Sport system and (3) athletic talent. Clumpner expands on these by identifying a range of other factors, including at the meso-level: time for training, well trained full-time coaches, sports medicine back up, international competition, early spotting of talent, access for all, a good communication network and an unbroken line up through the system. 19 FACTORS DETERMINING INTERNATIONAL SPORTING SUCCESS A consensus is building among researchers that macro level factors such as population and GDP are becoming less good predictors of nations’ performance in elite sport than they have been historically. The principal reason for this view is that as nations become strategic in the way in which they produce elite athletes, they rely less on uncontrollable variables and more on the variables which are widely regarded as being the components of an elite sports development ‘system’ as argued by Oakley and Green (2001b). Australia is a good example of a nation which has recently been able to improve its performance in elite sport dramatically with (in relative terms) a modest increase in population. However, macro-level determinants still account for approximately 50% of Olympic success (Stamm and Lamprecht, 2001; De Bosscher et al., 2003a). The middle level is called the meso-level. These factors are fully or partially determined by sports policies and politics. Elite athletes will have a greater chance of success, depending on the effectiveness of policy and the investment made in elite sport. In between the meso and the macro levels, there are other factors like media coverage, national sports traditions and anti-doping culture, that can determine success, but where policy only has an indirect influence in the longer term. Within this classification, a further distinction can be made between factors that influence the personal success of an individual athlete and factors that influence the overall sporting success of a nation. This research focuses on the success of different nations. Taking into account all the various factors that determine elite sports success, those at the meso-level are the only ones that can be influenced and changed. Surprisingly however, only a few studies have focused on organisational factors at this level. National sports organisations worldwide spend large sums of money in the quest for superior sport performance, although relatively little is known of the reason why some nations excel in specific sporting events. As it is our aim to create a framework containing a categorisation of policy areas that should be compared as drivers of international sporting success, an overview of literature at the meso level is provided. These studies can be classified into three types, which are reviewed in turn. The first type of studies are those focusing on a description of the organisational context of nations. Most of these surveys do not really compare the sports policies but rather simply describe them. In this way, plenty of research has been done on various aspects of developments in the former communist states (see for example Broom, 1986; Buggel, 1986; Riordan, 1989 & 1991; Sedlacek, Matousek, Holcek et al., 1994; Semotiuk, 1990). The former Eastern bloc countries have undoubtedly played an important role in the current developments of elite sport. As Houlihan (1997) notes, “countries like Australia and Canada have both adopted policies of elite squad development which are very close to the Soviet model in a number of key respects…” (1997, p6). This phenomenon can be illustrated by a general globalization process in sport. In this respect Oakley and Green (2001b) compared elite sport development systems in five countries: Australia, Canada, France, Spain and the United Kingdom. They discovered an increasing tendency to develop common strategies in those countries. However there is room for diversity and increasing variation (Green and Oakley, 2001). Digel (2001) compared the system of talent detection and talent development in China, Russia, United States, Italy and France. At the same time as the SPLISS project, a large scale research project on elite sports systems in eight countries was being undertaken in Germany by Helmut Digel et al. (2003 & 2004). The countries are: China, Russia, Italy, United States, United Kingdom & Northern Ireland, France, Austria and Germany. Although different in focus to the SPLISS project, Digel’s study may provide further insights into how elite sport structures operate in relation to 18 CHAPTER 2  Based on the previous research reviewed above, De Bosscher et al. (2006) concluded that the factors leading to success which are influenced by policy can be distilled down to nine key factors. These nine factors along with the notions of ‘Input’, ‘Throughput’ and ‘Output’ form the basis of the SPLISS analytical framework and are discussed according to these themes below. Inputs and outputs are clear. They can be expressed in quantitative or qualitative terms, and are, therefore, relatively easy to measure. Throughput refers to the efficiency of sports policies, that is, the optimum way that inputs can be managed to produce the required outputs. ‘Throughput’ is more difficult to measure and often will have to be assessed using indirect rather than direct means. Input Pillar 1 Financial support Financial resources are measures of input, because countries that invest more in (elite) sport are able, in theory, to create more opportunities for athletes to train under ideal circumstances. As such, Pillar 1 is an effectiveness indicator of the input stage. Although a relationship between expenditure on elite sport and success (output) can only rarely be found in literature, there are many examples of countries that have performed better after increasing their investment in elite sport. This often happened after failure at important international events. As Chalip (1995) points out, these events ‘focus’ the attention of policy makers on proposals designed to improve performance in elite sport. Throughput Pillar 2 Integrated approach to policy development The amount of resource devoted to elite sport is important, but it is the organisation and structure of sport in a particular country and its relationship to society that enables efficient use of these resources to further the chances of elite sporting success (SIRC, 2002). There is no consensus or preference regarding the necessity for centralisation or a high level of government intervention in elite sports policies (Houlihan, 1997). As Clumpner (1994) notes, it is more important to have a good communication system and clear task descriptions. Furthermore, Oakley and Green (2001b) indicate the importance of simplicity of administration through common sporting and political boundaries as another important item. Pillar 3 Participation in sport Although the relationship between sport for all and elite sport is often inconclusive, most top athletes originate from grass roots participation. Van Bottenburg (2003) found a significant correlation between mass participation and medals won during the Olympic Games (Barcelona and Sydney) especially when sport was ‘intensive and competitive’. Similarly, at a sport specific level, a high correlation was found between the number of tennis players and international success in 40 nations (De Bosscher & De Knop, 2002). On the other hand, there are some contra- examples, like Australia’s success in diving and cycling, two sports with a low participation base (Elphinson, 2004). We can state that a broad base of sport participation is not always a condition for success, but it may influence success to a large extent because it provides a supply of young talent and the opportunity for training and competing at various levels of ability. 21 FACTORS DETERMINING INTERNATIONAL SPORTING SUCCESS Finally, Oakley and Green (2001b) identified ten items that could be regarded as uniform in the countries mentioned above, namely: 1. A clear understanding about the role of the different agencies involved and an effective communication network which maintains the system; 2. Simplicity of administration through common sporting and political boundaries; 3. An effective system for the statistical identification and monitoring of the progress of t...