LIST OF PANELS

Background

Starting from the post WW2 “rebirth” of the London Olympic Games in 1948 (IOC, 2024), the link between sport and public policy has been evolving fast, having nowadays, most of the countries in the world, with specific Sport Acts (Dowling et al., 2018). Since the new millennium, public sector is having an always increasing direct and/or indirect involvement in the provision of sport (Houlihan & Green, 2007).

Regarding the direct involvement, public institutions definitively ought to be proactive, in sustaining local communities, by encouraging engagement through sport activities, thus related in favouring physical activities for health, and social interactions for inclusion and wellbeing (COM, 2007). The direct involvement of public and hybrid organizations in promoting active recreation through sport, can contribute to the improvement of citizen’s health (including those with disabilities and the elderlies); to the creation of safe, sustainable, and resilient communities; and in improving youngsters’ education. It can be useful in addressing social and economic inequalities within different localities (Skinner et al., 2008).

The indirect involvement of governments in sport, sees them engaged in assuring proper implementation of sport events, dealing with several responsibilities, including safety, security, and collaboration on the construction of facilities for events. These deal also with aspects related to social, economic, and environmental sustainability, being all these factors linked to the general theme of the legacy of big sport events, especially international ones, such as Olympic Games (Thomson et al., 2019). Moreover, grassroot sport could be considered as a lever for public policy to support citizens’ relationships and their quality of life. For example, according to the Council of Europe (2006), sport is the largest voluntary non-governmental organisational activity throughout Europe, with more volunteers than any other activity.

The relationship between Governments and Sport National Governing Bodies (SNGBs) may influence how sport sector is governed (De Dycker 2019) and how sport policy is designed and implemented, thus affecting the creation of public value through sport. Moreover, SNGBs face trade-off between the promotion of sport-for-all and the achievement of high-performance results in elite sport competitions (De Bock et al., 2022).

General Objectives

While these aspects have increasing studied by academics of sport sciences and of health sciences, investigation by public policy researchers is not systematic yet. Thus, several themes – design and implementation of sport policy, creation of public value by sport policy, measurement of sport policy through public value, sustainability – should be studied by public policy researchers.

This is why we decided to propose this panel, with specific, but not exclusive, themes below (in the Call for Papers).

Scientific relevance

The panel’s scientific relevance can be found not only among these aspects above mentioned but especially in creating, through the debate within the panel’s participants, direct engagement of public policy academics, in both theoretical development and in addressing normative and practical issues of sport policy in relation to healthcare, diversity, inclusion, and public value.

This panel will seek both theoretical and empirical contributions that tackle the issues connected with Sport Policy, in its all-different facets.

Recommended topics include, but are not limited to, the followings:

・The different aspects concerning the design and implementation of sport policy
・The major actors involved in designing and implementing contemporary sport policy and their interactions
・Social/societal and/or economic objectives and outcomes of sport policy
・ESG issues in implementing Big/Mega Sport Events
・Policies for planning sport facilities for both grassroots and professional sports
・Opportunities and issues related to the design and implementation of Mega Sport Events (MSEs)
・How sport policy can add “public and social value” to the civil society and to the community
・How sport policy can be linked to other policy areas to create more sustainable communities and community well-being/healthy living
・Sport and the resolution of social and/or community issues and equality and inclusion through sport
・Active ageing through sport and physical activities as healthcare policy (not only as sport policy)
・Sport initiatives as support of urban regeneration policies
・Sport policy as gender/ethnicity equality and/or diversity/inclusion policy
・Sport policy as a critical area in satisfying some of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
 

References

COM (2007), White Paper on Sport, European Commission. Available at the link: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52007DC0391 (last accessed: Sept 2024).

Council of Europe (2006), Feasibility Study on the Proposed Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport: Background Document: MSL-IM17 (2006) 1

De Bock, T., Scheerder, J., Theeboom, M. et al. (2022), "Stuck between medals and participation: an institutional theory perspective on why sport federations struggle to reach Sport-for-All goals". BMC Public Health, 22, 1891 (2022). doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14230-5

de Dycker, S. (2019), "Good governance in Sport: comparative law aspects", The International Sports Law Journal, 19(1-2), pp. 116-128. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-019-00153-8

Dowling, M., Leopkey, B., & Smith, L. (2018), "Governance in Sport: A Scoping Review", Journal of Sport Management, 32(5), 438-451. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2018-0032

Houlihan, B., & Green, M. (Eds.) (2007), Comparative Elite Sport Development (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080554426

IOC (2024), Olympic Games London 1948, International Olympic Committee. Available at the link https://olympics.com/en/olympic-games/london-1948 (last accessed: Oct 2024).

Skinner, J., Zakus, D. H., & Cowell, J. (2008), "Development through Sport: Building Social Capital in Disadvantaged Communities", Sport Management Review, 11(3), 253–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3523(08)70112-8

Thomson, A., Cuskelly, G., Toohey, K., Kennelly, M., Burton, P., Fredline, L. (2019,) "Sport event legacy: A systematic quantitative review of literature", Sport Management Review, 22(3), pp. 295–321. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.011