Why do governments invest in elite sport? (United Kingdom)
The competition among nations in elite sport has dramatically escalated leading subsequently to tremendous investments in the sector in order to target success. While this rivalry is increasing with an increase in the demand for top positions, the supply of medals remains approximately constant (De Bosscher et al, 2018). As a result, the competing countries are allocating immense sums of money for elite sport’s expenditure to maintain their remarkable sportive stature, and obtain multi dimensional benefits (IBID). Some analysts criticised this approach proclaiming that it is imbued with political contextualisation, and several political motives are backing up its execution.
The aim of this essay is to discuss the political reasons that urge governments and states at a global level to invest heavily in elite sport.
Traditionally, the olympic scene witnessed various illustrations of political interference. Elite sport represented an appropriate platform for governments to enhance international stature and to get more global visibility. For example, during the cold war, the rivalry between the United States (US) and the Sovient Union (USSR) translated into a matter of superiority. The loss of 1956 olympics rendered the US adopt investment strategies that resulted in a top nation rank position in 1964 participation. This illustrated a reflection of the country’s power and ability to achieve development (Lucretia, 2017). Contemporarily, this political impetus to invest in elite sport is embodied in the significant role that sport plays to demonstrate supremacy and excellence over other nations in terms of political, social and economic welfare. In other words, its success reflects all the components that enhance the international profile of a country (Müller et al, 2007). It is an indication of the nation’s value and capability to be recognised as a better example for other nations. Achieving success in elite sport is an emphasis on the national identity which leads to more connectedness of the nation, resulting in a feeling of pride, unity and joy (Seippel, 2017). The “One nation, One team, One dream” slogan accompanying the German National Team for FIFA 2014 World Cup for example shows the intention to unify and bring the nation together. Besides this, from a political perspective it is additionally a demonstration of the efficiency in governmental policies’ setting and a utilitarian method to improve the practice of public administration in many aspects such as public governance or social change. Notably, The number of Olympic and Paralympic medals won by a country is the projection of certain effective policies. For instance, the New Public Management strategies and the ‘No compromise’ funding strategy adopted by UK sport in 2006, have resulted in greater efficiency in terms of NGBs management and olympics accomplishments (Bostock, 2013). The analysis of Rio 2016 olympics illustrates the pre-designed success of this approach as the UK surpassed China to finish second on the table winning 67 medals in 18 sports in total (BBC, 2016).
Additionally, the introduction of the notion of “Soft Power” helped in dramatically explaining how the political entities are directly or indirectly engaging in sportive practices for political purposes. The definition of “Soft Power” is framed as the ability to obtain the needed outcomes through attraction rather than coercion (Nye, 2017, p,2). Therefore, governments invest in elite sport to reinforce “Soft Power” policies in order to build a positive global reputation and to boost international recognition and foreign relations. Consequently the dimension of elite sport represents a crucial focal element to communicate globally the country’s shared values for the purpose of attracting others and to ultimately transform it into an advantageous leadership’s position and power’s possession.
Despite being perceived as a limited and non effective source of power in meeting the expectations, It is still a plausible mechanism to intensify foreign affairs management by relying on attracting rather than threatening (Lee et al, 2013). Investing in hosting mega events for instance is considered an expedient arena for executing soft power approaches as well as international public relationships and diplomacy. In addition, one of the prime motives of bidding for organising global events is to reap further socio-economic, socio-cultural and political benefits. They are effective ways to improve the local economy by creating more job opportunities and coaching is an example, or to enhance the touristic image of the country through the broad media broadcasting (Malfas et al, 2004). Internationally, politicians associate themselves with mega-events to improve their political portrayals. Some of them exploit those hefty investments in a way intertwined with the ideology of populism. To clarify with an example, Vladimir Putin invested approximately £39.2m to host a unique winter olympics in 2014 despite the severe criticisms. The event was implicitly political to shift the attention on the Russian government’s transgressions such as invading Ukraine (CS, p.2).
Equally important, governments use the trickle-down or demonstration effect as a reason for investing in elite sport. Its success and the high performances of athletes as role models will highly inspire people to participate in sport and physical activity, stimulating eventually a mass participation which is predominantly a part of the governmental schemes (De Bosscher et al, 2013). This approach is unsustainable and still limited due to the lack of the evidence of its automatic occurrence. It is effective for those who are already engaged and its impacts demonstrate little encouragement for participation’s initiators (IBID). Generally, elite sport success will result in a wide range of role models impacting young talents to pursue professional accomplishments in future. This pattern will be an efficient continuous development of athletes leading to firstly more availability of promising future champions and professional athletes who will potentially maintain global and domestic sportive success (Grix et al, 2011). Furthermore, elite sport plays an unequivocal role in increasing participation to ultimately help in curbing anti-social behaviours. It is used by governments to promote social-cohesion as it has the power to encourage diversity and inclusion in society. The participation of females or paralympic athletes will be reproduced in society. This might represent an effective approach to urge equality and diminish any pattern of racism facilitating the accomplishment of the governments’ objectives (Sport England; 2016). Simultaneously, the potential increased participation resulting from elite sport investments will lead to a healthier nation reducing the burden on the medical system by minimising the risk of detriment diseases (IBID).
To sum up, politics and elite sports share mutual impacts. Effective governance and investment’s strategies will lead to sport’s success which eventually will be translated into a higher international recognition for the country. From a political stance, elite sport is an opportunity to demonstrate power, excellence and dominance as its success reflects a high international profile of the state. It shows important levels of efficiency in policies’ setting and emphasises on the national identity and values. Importantly, elite sport is a unique platform to execute ‘Soft Power’ to attract other nations and reinforce international affairs’ management through being an ideal example, rather than threatening. Politicians predominantly associate themselves with mega-events to enhance their portrayals and reputation as these events have international exposure and contribute to multiple positive outcomes for the host country, namely economical, social and cultural ones. Governments likewise use events to increase participation among the population and to curb anti-social behaviours leading ultimately to a better public health.
References:
BBC, (2016) Team GB Beat China In Medal Table. [online] BBC Sport. Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/37085511> [Accessed 12 January 2021].
Bostock, J. (2013) The Consequences Of ‘No Compromise’: Funding Elite Sport In The UK. [online] University of Derby. Available: <https://derby.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10545/621259/Bostock_2013_Elite_sport_funding_in_the_UK_accepted_manuscript.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y> [Accessed 5 January 2021].
De Bosscher, V. Shibli, S. and Weber, A. (2018) “Is prioritisation of funding in elite sport effective? An analysis of the investment strategies in 16 countries”, European Sport Management Quarterly, [online] 19(2), pp.221-243. Available: <https://www.easm.net/download/easm_essential_sport_management_collection/sport_funding_and_finance/Is-prioritisation-of-funding-in-elite-sport-effective-An-analysis-of-the-investment-strategies-in-16-countries.pdf> [Accessed 13 December 2020].
De Bosscher, V. So tiriadou, P. and Bottenburg, M. (2013) “Scrutinizing the sport pyramid metaphor: an examination of the relationship between elite success and mass participation in Flanders” , International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, [online] Available: <https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/57329/91705_1.pdf > [Accessed 4 January 2021].
Grix, J. Carmichael, F. (2011) “Why do governments invest in elite sport? A polemic”, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, [online] 4(1), pp.73-90. Available: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232899247_Why_do_governments_invest_in_elite_sport_A_polemic> [Accessed 3 January 2021].
Lee, D. Grix, J. (2013) “Soft Power, Sports Mega-Events and Emerging States: The Lure of the Politics of Attraction”, Global Society, [online] 27(4), pp.521 –536. Available: <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13600826.2013.827632> [Accessed 29 December 2020].
Lucretia, C. (2017) “Olympic Games in Time of Cold War”, [online] Available: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321812052_Olympic_Games_in_Time_of_Cold_War> [Accessed 27 December 2020].
Malfas, M. Theodoraki, E. and Houlihan, B. (2004) “Impacts of the Olympic Games as mega-events”, Municipal Engineer, [online] 157(3), pp.209-220. Available: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245409296_Impacts_of_the_Olympic_Games_as_Mega-Events> [Accessed 9 January 2021].
Müller, E. Dimitriou, M. and Sattlecker, G. (2007) “The Relationship between Sport and Politics in the Case of the EU-Sanctions against Austria 2000”, International Journal of the History of Sport, [online] pp.255-268. Available: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242340080_The_Relationship_between_Sport_and_Politics_in_the_Case_of_the_EU-Sanctions_against_Austria_2000> [Accessed 29 December 2020].
Nye, J. (2017) “Soft power: the origins and political progress of a concept”, PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS, [online] 3(1). Available: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315367357_Soft_power_the_origins_and_political_progress_of_a_concept> [Accessed 13 January 2021].
Seippel, Ø. (2017) “Sports and Nationalism in a Globalized World”, International Journal of Sociology, [online] 47(1), p.Seippel. Available: <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00207659.2017.1264835?needAccess=true> [Accessed 14 January 2021].
Sport England (2016) Sport England: Towards An Active Nation. [online] London: Sport England. Available: <https://sportengland-production-files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/sport-england-towards-an-active-nation.pdf> [Accessed 8 January 2021].