In my previous article, I discussed
about the role of the State in promoting sports in a country. In this article,
my focus will be on the initiatives made by the governments of different
countries in order to promote sports.
There
are several arrangements by which a state can fund, develop and deliver sports
facilities and programmes. At one extreme, the state can maintain a distance from
sports by claiming that sport is a private matter and it should be governed by
either the volunteers or by the private organizations. This was the primary feature of the Australian
sports till 1970 (Stewart et. al., 2004). The national government of the USA
maintained a distance from sports and relied on the market and the schools and
universities for funding the development of sports. At another extreme, the
states deliver the sports agenda by setting up sports facilities around the
country and also by funding their operations. This approach was implemented in
most of the communist countries during 1970s and 1980s. In the old Soviet Union
(USSR), a national sports programme was introduced in the school curricula and
sport schools were established to select and nurture sports talents at the
young age. Moreover, sports, that had a para-military inclination, were
practiced in factories. Cuba had a similar sports development programme where
the state provided sports experience to the whole community, both for
‘sports-for-all participants’ and ‘Olympic Athletes’. In Cuba, like other
communist countries, success in sport is not treated like a mere sports
victory, but also a ‘psychological, patriotic and revolutionary’ success
(Riordan, 1978).
Over
the last two decades, the world has changed significantly due to globalization.
Revolution in telecommunication industry, accompanied by the gradual
integration of economies across the world, has made a radical change in the
pattern of production and consumption in all industries, ranging from oil,
coal, motor vehicles, electronics to tourism, arts and sports. In fact, sport is one sector which has been
impacted immensely due to the effects of globalization. As a result, the mega
sports events, like the Olympic Games, Soccer World Cup, Cricket World Cup and
Grand Slam Tennis Tournaments enjoy global coverage, while the popularity of
the local leagues and competitions are also increasing day-by-day.
Globalization
has created a highly competitive sporting environment at the international
stage where hundreds of nations compete to establish their supremacy by
defeating others. However, in reality, only a few nations share the centre
stage. This success can be attributed to the wealth distributed for the
development of sports. During the last 30 years of international sports competitions,
a number of nations decided to invest resources for the promotion and development
of sport as sport is treated as an effective tool to gain international
recognition. The old Soviet Union (USSR) and German Democratic Republic (GDR)
allocated considerable amount of national resources to sports during 1970s and
1980s in order to produce elite athletes regularly in different disciplines.
Their successes at the international arena of sports demonstrated that the
state- regulated and managed Olympic Development programmes were effective in
producing elite athletes. In 1970s and early 1980s, the GDR with a population
of less than 20 million, surprised the world by dominating the medal tallies of
the Olympic Games. In the 1976 Montreal Games, it secured the third place in
the total medal tally by winning 90 medals.
Australia
is always considered to be a sport loving nation where sport is considered to
be an instrument to achieve pride, national identity and recognition at the
international stage. Between the time period of 1945 (end of the Second World
War) and 1972 (the election of a reformist government), Australians were
extremely successful at the international arena of sports, producing talents of
international repute in the disciplines of swimming, tennis, rugby, cricket and
cycling. However, the government support, in achieving this excellence, was
minimal. While the local governments provided the playing fields and indoors
facilities, the national government neither provided much support to the
governing bodies of sports nor extended any financial support for the
construction of sports venues. It only contributed to the Olympic and the
Commonwealth Games teams in every two years and provided grants to the state
governments to run fitness councils. In brief, it can be said that the sport
was left to run its own affairs.
This
situation changed in 1970s with the emergence of two significant forces. The
first force was the election of a reformist government which had the mandate to
change the social condition of Australia. Unlike the previous conservative
government, this reformist government first set up a Ministry of Sports and
started funding various programmes with the objectives of increasing the number
of community leisure centres across Australia and assisting the national sports
bodies to improve their operation.
Second, the failure of the Olympic Games team to win gold medals in the
Montreal in 1976 shocked the entire nation, due to which the government decided
to intervene directly to the sports development process. This marked the
introduction of state support for the development of sports in Australia.
The
Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) was established in 1981 and it became a
successful training centre for the elite athletes. The Australian Sports
Commission was set up in 1984 with the objective of managing and implementing
the funding initiatives of the national government. The contributions of these
two organizations to the development of Australian sports are immense. A
considerable increase in the sports budget of the national government could be
observed during this time space. These funds had been used both for enhancing
the sporting facilities of Australia and also for expanding the operations of
the governing bodies of sports. At the same time, a change took place in the
values and culture of Australian sports due to increasing commercialization
which could be attributed to the increasing involvement of the private sector.
With the support from the state and gradual involvement of the market force,
the sporting activities gradually became more professional which created many
career opportunities for the players, administrators and coaches.
The
support, provided by the current Australian government, is multidimensional.
However, they want to strike a balance between elite sports development and
community sports participation. This multidimensional approach can be divided
into four strategic, but interdependent steps. First, it aims at developing an
effective national sports infrastructure. Programmes have already been
introduced to improve coaching standards, the management qualities of the
officials, the day-to-day operation of the national sports bodies and also to
expand the capacity of the Australian sports. Second, it encourages the
participation of public in the sporting activities through the facilities
available in the sports clubs. Special attention is given to women, children,
people with disabilities etc. Third, it aims at improving the performance of
the Australian athletes at the international arena of sports. In this area,
programmes are directed to support the national sporting bodies to select and
nurture talents, expanding the Australian Institute of Sport’s scholarship
programmes, providing sports science support and assisting athletes in managing
their career. Finally, it provides an environment of fair play with a focus on
the areas of drug control, eliminating discrimination on the basis of colour
etc.
Therefore,
from the above discussion, it may be said that the state plays a crucial role
in the development of sports in a country. In my next article, I shall focus on
India and discuss about some of the state initiatives for the promotion of
sports in the country.
