SPORTSMAGAZINES.NET Network

"Sport for all" is an expression with a diffuse and disproportionate reach. We know that Baron Pierre de Coubertin, founder of the Modern Olympic Games, when he "coined" the term, intended to refer to the importance of thousands of individuals being able to participate in sports, which is why he simultaneously considered his idea an utopia. After all, when we talk about everyone, we must include not only Olympic athletes, but also non-Olympic athletes, amateur athletes, aspiring athletes, non-athletes, children, the elderly, the disabled, and so on; as well as those averse to physical activity. In the last century, much movement has been generated in this direction, and "it is possible to assume that over the years, sport has become a constant part of the lives of millions of individuals" (1), since today one in six inhabitants of the Earth practices some type of physical activity or sport (1).

The Baron's ideas bore fruit and the emergence of the so-called "Sport for All Movement" constituted one of the most effective manifestations of Physical Education and sport in the 20th century; and since it was suggested even before the Second World War or more clearly formatted in a Norwegian movement of the 60s (2) it spread throughout the world through various public, private or non-governmental initiatives and manifestations, constituting a universal phenomenon.

In 1968, at a meeting in Bruges, the Council of Europe adopted the idea of ​​the right to sport for all, laying the foundations for a democratic approach to modern sporting activities, whereby everyone, regardless of age, color, or ability, would have the opportunity to participate; and in 1975, in Brussels, the European Sports Charter was approved by the 1st Conference of European Ministers responsible for Sport (3,4,5). UNESCO would later endorse the movement.

" The first meaning that the Sport for All Movement received was that of the democratization of physical activity/sports practice. Sport for All contrasted with Performance Sport, which was intended for talents and people with certain body types. The purposes of this first meaning of Sport for All were fulfilled when the UNESCO International Charter for Physical Education and Sport (1979) established the Right of all people to physical activities and sports practices. It was in this first meaning that Sport for All spread among developed and underdeveloped countries." (2)

The rapid growth of this movement directly reflects the characteristics of sport itself, one of the most popular sociopolitical and economic activities in the world. Sport appeals to human emotions, "it inspires individuals, public officials, and communities" (6), evoking emotion, happiness, pride, and prestige in athletes, teams, and fans.

It is necessary to accept that Sport for All (SFA) is increasingly proving to be a pressing need for humanity. The population's unhealthy behavior is directly linked to the nations public health spending. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends daily moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity, as developed countries in North America and Europe, as well as emerging economies such as China, are facing widespread obesity among their citizens, especially among children (7). At the same time, the growing elderly population (in 2015, the global population of individuals aged 65 and over was 617 million) is another concern, as "older adults need support to participate in sports clubs, which can promote their physical activity and health" (8). Ways to encourage older adults to participate in physical activity need to be explored, as this "can reduce the decline in physical function that occurs with aging" (8).

Participation in physical activities can improve the physical, mental, and socio-emotional health of people of any age, with a high level of social acceptance. Most importantly, it generates the same level of satisfaction as those who participate in competitive sports. One study (9) showed that participants who did not set a sports performance goal (participating in physical activity for leisure, pleasure, or fun) experienced a similar level of satisfaction as athletes focused on a sports goal. In other words, although the motivations are different, the result is positive. In fact, Afsanepurak et al. (10) demonstrated that the main intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for participation in SFA programs, among others, include social energy, physical conditioning, entertainment, and the drive to compete. Thus, it is possible to infer that promoting sports/physical activity for all can be successful, as it can meet the non-necessarily competitive aspirations of participants.

According to the International Workers and Amateurs in Sports Confederation, a Vienna-based organization that brings together sports organizations across Europe, the SFA concept encourages physical activity for people of all ages, genders, abilities, and backgrounds (11). Their goal through SFA activities is to improve the health and well-being of the entire community and provide opportunities for athletic development for its members, even amateurs. Several organizations support SFA initiatives in various ways, such as the WHO, UNESCO, World Athletics, Laureus, Good Sports, Agence Française de Développement, and others. All offer accessible study materials on the subject through their official communication networks.

In short, investing in facilitating access to sports and physical activity is on the Agenda of relevant organizations, as it brings benefits to society as a whole and to countries' finances through savings on healthcare costs. The SFA format may prove to be a ready-made formula for developing initiatives to encourage sports and physical activity with predictable success. However, this implementation will depend on overcoming several critical steps, such as education, adaptation to public policies, funding for implementation, and sustainability assessment, among others.

The first obstacle to SFA comes from the development of individuals within society. Although school-based physical education has been identified as a critical public health tool for increasing physical activity among young people, this unfortunately, it isn't always the case. A study conducted in California found that physical activity in elementary schools is minimal and may contribute little to students' overall health (12). This research corroborates WHO statistics (2022), which show that 80% of adolescents do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. It becomes more difficult for an SFA program to encourage people to engage in physical activity if they haven't received this training at a young age.

The second critical point in implementing SFA concerns raising awareness among political authorities about the relevance of the projects. Some (13) believe that it is necessary to scientifically demonstrate the relevant effect of the perceived value of sport in predicting well-being, through evidence, for sports public policy managers/authorities and for managers of physical activity and sports development programs. This observation is important because the greater the belief among managers and the public in the benefits of physical activity, the greater the chance of an SFA project succeeding and attracting supporters.

However, here we encounter a new area of ​​questioning that clashes with the balance between providing sport for all and/or focusing on competition, where the SFA encounters barriers because other conventions, such as competitive sport, dominate sports organizations. Elite sport attracts media attention, significant public attention, and consequently, votes for politicians who allocate funds to these events. Mass sports or long-term initiatives do not bring high-visibility gold medals in record time, so they are not a priority for politicians (7). A Scandinavian study (14) found that state sports subsidies traditionally go to monopolistic organizations. The article discusses the limitations of achieving the SFA through established institutional arrangements and suggests that a proposal is needed to challenge these hegemonic structures and their institutional relationships.

Despite these findings that competitive sports could receive more attention and funding from public officials, let's focus on a critical issue for sports as a whole: the finding that overall investment in sports or physical activity tends to be compromised by the potentially poor image of the legacies left behind by major events. This is another lump in the SFA's throat: the legacy of mega-sporting events. The hope that holding these events, such as the Olympics or Paralympics, can leave a positive social legacy by increasing sports participation and physical activity would be a great help in promoting SFA initiatives. It is suggested that "the holding of mega-events can positively influence sports participation (6)" and respond to general health problems in society. However, "to achieve these legacies, the design, delivery, and promotion of the mega-event must involve multi-level strategies in policies, programs, activities, interventions, facilities, environments" (15), etc. Tracey J. Dickson et al. emphasize that to achieve real and sustainable results, macro policies need to be operationalized concurrently with local and regional (micro) planning and actions in what can be called a mutual or co-leveraging scenario (15), and only in this way will the legacies of sport mega-events lead to hopes for the SFA.

Unfortunately, these mega-events often lack adequate sustainability planning and are ultimately concluded, leaving an uncertain future. For this reason, concluding this section, it is important to recall the issues of sustainability and accessibility, which we will not call direct problems for SFA projects, but which must be seriously addressed by any SFA initiative. Although the projects are not necessarily sporting events, they can also focus on or be guided by this type of activity, and any investment supported by sustainability/accessibility has a greater chance of success in the medium and long term, causing a low impact on the cultural, social, and environmental aspects of the location where it is implemented. Sports initiatives, as well as the organizations involved—whether supporters, sponsors, or the government itself—have an excellent opportunity to influence the lifestyles of thousands of people by setting standards and relying on sustainability/accessibility strategies that consider ecological, social, and economic aspects (6), which will ultimately generate greater adoption of SFA projects.

With the aim of suggesting - based on case analysis (comparative method) - ways to implement sports promotion programs for the general population, we studied their genesis, based on the history of initiatives in some countries (scientific research aimed at studying these projects is scarce) and we applied the content discussed in the previous topics in order to understand how SFA programs are designed.

Separating SFA initiatives from sporting events

Let's start from the premise that sport—generally speaking—falls short of its ultimate goal, which is high performance, since it stems from a primary human activity, such as walking, hunting, fishing, fighting, and so on. In other words, in its progeny, sport was a utilitarian, survival-based, and vital physical activity for human beings. It is important to note that the intention of the first SFAs was to offer sports guidance, enabling participants to acquire skills and competencies in sport (17). Therefore, separating the concepts of sport and physical activity (18) is not mere rhetoric, but helps to understand the breadth of physical activities, even though they are not sports per se. And, at the same time, it is important to understand how one stimulates the other: Sport is responsible for the popularization of physical activity, which in turn stimulates sports development.

Structuring SFA projects

SFA initiatives (as well as sporting events) depend on financing, conduction, and management basically from three types of entities, namely, international organizations (a), governmental bodies (b), non-governmental organizations (c), and sports organizations (d); presented below:

• a) International organizations are entities such as the UN, UNESCO, Laureus Sport for Good, AFD and others that help with their own funds to promote SFA programs within countries and it is possible to present projects to these entities requesting funding;
• b) Municipal, state, or federal governments develop strategies to promote sports and physical activity for the population, using public funds from the regular budget; some revenue is generated through public lottery companies;
• c) Sports governing bodies such as leagues, federations, and confederations that manage one or more sports disciplines in a country and distribute public funds to regional and local sports clubs to finance specific sports activities are also paid to implement mass sports policies and retain a portion of the public funding for their own administrative purposes;
• d) Sports entities include local and regional sports clubs and community centers. Regional and local sports clubs are the backbone of the European sports movement (7), for example, as their role is to implement sports-for-all policies by running concrete sports programs in loco.

This is a fairly concise overview, which varies slightly from country to country, but in short, it presents the full range of entities operating SFA programs. We could also comment on a fourth type of organization that organizes sporting events, less focused on SFA and generally for-profit (e); and finally, on the fairly common work-sharing arrangements among the various types of organizations (b, c, and occasionally e) where they develop a multi-managed project (f).

Practical and historical examples, such as suggestions for implementing SFA

The first example will be from the country considered a pioneer of the Sport for All Movement in the 1960s (1,2), Norway. The format chosen by Per Hauge Moe, the sports director who took over the SFA project at the time, was a campaign, a concept that combines advertising and mass media to attract the largest possible number of people to SFA events. The campaign promoted the idea that sports activities should be accessible to everyone, even non-athletes. Physical activity was being democratized with a sense of social inclusion (2). This model became established and spread throughout the world. There are reports that similar programs were being held in Asian countries in the same decade. In South Korea, for example, the National Sports Promotion Plan (18) is already in its fifth generation of SFA policy, initiated in 1962. This can be classified as an "f" format, as our research designation suggests. Multilateral efforts have been made to increase participation rates through maintenance and expansion of facilities, assignment of instructors, and dissemination of programs. The "f" format typically achieves high project adherence rates due to the administrative centralization required to manage actions involving bodies at various levels of the sports hierarchy. However, in China, beginning in 1995 with the enactment of the Sports Law, SFA policy implementation has been decentralized, with local governments gaining the authority to create their own rules for managing sports and organizing events, while simultaneously supporting popular national sports.

Returning to centralized management, we can also cite the SFA projects that took place in South American dictatorships in the 1970s, particularly in Brazil. Brazil's first SFA campaign emerged in 1973, fueled by the country's success in the 1970 World Cup. Although it carried subliminal messages related to militarism, it ultimately contributed to the expansion of physical activity in schools in the years that followed. The project, like that in Korea, was part of a larger national plan, the National Physical Education and Sports Plan, under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Federal Government. "Its main objectives were to improve the physical fitness of the population, raise the level of sports in all areas, and intensify its practice among the masses" (19). Extensive logistics were used to implement the project, including the Brazilian Youth and Adult Literacy Movement (MOBRAL), the media (TV Globo), and the private sector. It was a well-structured program dividing sports practice into three areas of activity: student (Physical Education), sports (training and competitions) and the third area that included open physical activities, not necessarily sports, aimed at all layers of the population without distinction.

When citing the Brazilian campaign of the 1970s, an important element in the implementation of SFA sports organizations already emerges at that time: the role of the volunteer. It is well known that funding for grassroots and mass-market projects, and even major sporting events, does not always obtain all the resources it truly requires, and volunteering is essential. Perhaps without this element, even an Olympics would fail. A document from a 1977 Brazilian SFA campaign described the volunteer desired at that time:

" The sports volunteer is the real agent of the campaign, whether as a city hall employee (not necessarily a specialist in sports and recreational activities, but above all possessing a personality focused on promotions and organizing crowds), or as a member of an affiliated entity of any type, or as a simple citizen interested in working for sports..." (19)

We can affirm that it was thanks to the support of volunteers that significant SFA programs evolved and are sustained. In Greece, in the late 1970s and especially in the 1980s, programs were organized primarily by committees of volunteers or civil servants appointed by the local municipality (20). Thus, we will analyze the structure of the first Greek SFA programs, responsible for increasing the population's sports participation from 3.6% in 1984 to 7% in 1988 (20), emphasizing that these programs focused on sport, not recreation. The projects were implemented by the Ministry of Culture through its General Secretariat of Sports, where sports management experts designed the foundations of the SFA program. They were called "Sport for All," "Exercise for All," "Mass Public Sports," or "Mass Sports." Subsequently, local organization could fall to city halls, community organizations, schools, and others, who were responsible for hiring a significant number of activity leaders, purchasing equipment, organizing formal paperwork (such as reports, applications, budgets, filing, and payroll), promoting activities, and arranging space for programs at the local level. What we'll see is that volunteering helps lower costs, which could become a significant constraint for holding events that bring together large numbers of participants. Despite the significant importance of volunteering, a shift in this direction occurred in Greece, and SFA initiatives are now mostly operated by approximately 70% volunteers (7), who are generally not specialized professionals, which ultimately compromises the quality of the programs.

Another significant point is that the SFA needs to focus on quantity and massification. A crucial point of SFA projects concerns the collectivization of the ideal. Take the example of Cyprus, which began its "sports for all" saga in the late 1960s, and like so many other nations, focused on the notion of sport, not necessarily physical activity. This approach is important because it engenders the first steps toward a non-individualized program, since sports activity involves participation in organized teams. In other words, when we talk about SFA, the goal must be mass, targeting communities and groups. Today, Cyprus understands that "it is important for governments to promote sports and physical activity not only for individuals but also for communities," and continues... "In Cyprus, the long history of the Sports for All program laid the foundation for what sport is today and ensures that sport is accessible to all citizens." (17). In 2007, the Cyprus SFA consisted of a variety of mini-programs aimed at specific groups: "Physical Exercise", "Children's Swimming", "Education", "Women and Men", "Elderly", "People with Special Needs".

However, targeting specific programs often requires decentralizing the management of SFA projects, and for this reason, it is more common today to find initiatives managed separately by governmental or non-governmental agencies, or sports entities specializing in physical and health-related sports and activities (b, c, or d, separately). In Germany, for example, 16 states are responsible for promoting mass sports, while the federal government supports and finances only elite competitive sports; resulting in fully decentralized SFA initiatives, led by public sports agencies, non-profit sports clubs, or local sports clubs (7).

In England, the system is also fully decentralized, but it has struggled due to low central government investment. Local authorities are responsible for all SFA initiatives, as well as for financing, providing, and maintaining sports and recreation services such as parks, public swimming pools, and indoor sports facilities. These entities end up relying on private sector support, but also on outsourcing services. A study cited (7) reported that only half of the authorities had dedicated SFA staff; and about a third did not even have an SFA unit. SFA programs, although decentralized, seem to require relatively centralized government oversight or support, as they are not initiatives that generate financial or political returns. "Managing collaborations between different sports organizations, therefore, remains a critical issue for mass sports policy in England (7)". In Scotland, which has a similar sports administration, a way has been found to resolve this issue, as the central governing body, Sport Scotland, has regional offices, with the explicit mission of bridging the gap with local councils through a strategic forum at local authority level.

The current focus of SFA

Currently, many SFA programs focus on providing humanitarian assistance to socially disadvantaged populations. In France, this issue is relevant to authorities, and the government itself is responsible for managing programs that ensure equitable access to sports activities through public policies that affect millions of people. The French organization Alda Europe, for example, structured at levels "a" and "b," organizes a project called "Sports 4 All" to encourage social inclusion and diversity in sports:

" The project's main objective is to promote and strengthen diversity and inclusion by providing equal opportunities for young people to access sports, especially those experiencing social vulnerability and educational poverty. Furthermore, the project's specific priority is to promote education through sports. (21)

The study (1) already cited by Prof. Lamartine Pereira Da Costa, focusing on SFA initiatives in more than 30 countries, found that the migration from the national to the local, from the public to the individual, from leisure to health and from target groups to non-participants is becoming increasingly clear.

However, this approach does not negate the previous one, and in most respects, it complements it. In fact, these are adaptations that deserve to be considered in SFA project implementation strategies, regardless of the management approach, whether "a," "b," "c," "d," "e," or "f."

Finally, and as a suggestion for curiosity's sake, the table illustrates a basic organizational chart for SFA projects.

---

Table. Summary outline of the organizational chart for the SFA project.

---

Summarizing, physical activity, although considered—in the form of sport—a social right by the UN (10) and recognized as a human need, is likely to be relegated to secondary importance by the vast majority of the world's population. For this reason, initiatives are needed to remove people from a sedentary lifestyle, among which SFA programs stand out. "They have generated a synthesis that is represented by the association of leisure and health with access to sport" (22), and their implementation is highly complex. For this reason, we have developed this outline for a general strategy for implementing sports programs for all.

Our research, in short, clarifies that unhealthy and sedentary behavior among the population is directly linked to nations' public health spending levels, and something needs to be done. Investing in facilitating access to physical activity benefits society as a whole by generating savings for national and international health systems. One solution to this problem could be the implementation of SFA programs, a ready-made formula for sports/physical activity incentive movements with a significant likelihood of success, provided that certain challenges are overcome, such as investing in school-based Physical Education; raising awareness among political authorities about the relevance of these projects; overcoming prejudice against mass sports versus Olympic (high-performance) sports by developing proposals that challenge the hegemonic structures of sports; and addressing issues related to sustainability and accessibility.

Based on this understanding, the implementation strategy is based on case studies to compare the history of the initiative in selected countries chronologically and evaluate the implementation formats of SFA programs, understanding their management and financing structures, which we divide into six different types: (a) international organizations, (b) government agencies, (c) non-governmental organizations, (d) sports organizations, (e) private for-profit entities, and (f) multi-management organizations. The practical examples cover countries worldwide over several decades, revealing the historical relevance of the programs from the 1940s to the present day. A detailed study of each case suggested here will allow us to outline a possible strategic action based on a comparative methodology.

---

Article Statistics

 

---

Apoio

---