THE INSTITUTIONAL ORIGIN OF AN INTERNATIONAL COALITION IN FAVOR OF THE RIGHT TO SPORT

A ORIGEM INSTITUCIONAL DE UMA COALIZÃO INTERNACIONAL EM FAVOR DO DIREITO AO ESPORTE

ABSTRACT

We aimed do analyze the configuration of the relationships established among intergovernmental/transnational organizations that have been ahead for institutionalizing the idea of the right to sport from 1968 to 1978. We used analysis of documents under the theoretical perspective of the Advocacy Coalition Framework. It was seen that the organizations started a coalition to defend a belief system regarding the idea of the right to sport. However, such a movement was not contrary to the elite sport. It can be concluded that the institutional construction process of the idea of the right to sport in an international context occurred in a nonconflicting way with a partnership of actions, despite a certain difference of beliefs.

Keywords:
Sport for all; Public policies; Advocacy Coalition Framework

RESUMO

Objetivamos analisar a configuração das relações estabelecidas entre organizações intergovernamentais/transnacionais que estiveram à frente da institucionalização da ideia de direito ao esporte entre 1968 e 1978. Pautamo-nos na análise de documentos sob a perspectiva teórica do Advocacy Coalition Framework. Identificamos que as organizações formaram uma coalizão de defesa de um sistema de crenças relativo à ideia de direito ao esporte. Contudo, tal movimento não era contrário ao esporte de elite. Concluímos que o processo de construção institucional da ideia de direito ao esporte em âmbito internacional ocorreu de maneira pouco conflituosa, havendo parceria de ações, apesar de certa diferença de crenças.

Palavras-chave:
Esporte para todos; Políticas públicas; Advocacy Coalition Framework

Introduction

Even that in a very broad perspective, it is possible to understand that the history of sport on an international level (not necessarily in an identical way in all countries) has essentially undergone three periods: state abstention, with sport being developed within the environment associative, including the birth of modern Olympism; the nationalist competition through the elite sport, with disputes between liberal and dirigists countries, the first ones with openness to professionalism and mercantilization and the latter with great state intervention and training of athletes within a public sports system; and the re-signification of the sport, in which it was sought to understand it, parallel to the elite sport, as a practice of permanent education accessible to all^1-3.

The idea of the right to sport and of sport for all that composes the third period, more specifically, is contemporary with the ideas of social welfare of the 20st century^3-5. However, until such an idea gained body in an international institutional way, the sport still presented the configurations of the second period, influenced and even guided by the competitive and selective logic of elite sport^1,3,4. Olympic values of fair play, inter-personal communion and amateurism had been deprecated and replaced by mercantilism and political-ideological uses to demonstrate ethnic superiority or political-economic regimes (sport chauvinism) and a search for victory at any cost^1,3.

These factors also influenced school physical education, which started to be understood and used in various contexts mainly from the middle of the 20th century as a space for sport massification as well as for selecting talents for elite sports^1,6. According to Seurin⁶ and Solar Cubillas³, the excessive sportivization of school physical education, respecting codes of competition and selection would have generated distrust and dissatisfaction of the school community regarding the role of physical education in formal education. Loland and Ommundsen⁷ illustrate this scenario in the Norwegian context, the cradle of the Welfare State and the Sport for All Movement (political platform for popularization / democratization of physical activities). In that context, in the year of 1974, a public school reform was carried out aiming restrictions on the use of competitive sport in the scope of physical education.

In addition to the sportivization of physical school education and the question of the political-ideological uses that hindered the diffusion of the educational values of the Olympism, the society became more and more automated because of growing industrialization crescent since the 19th century, becoming, in a general way, increasingly more sedentary. There was almost no thought of physical activities/exercises for citizens, only for elite sport athletes or those considered as future elite athletes.

Beginning in the 1960s, the right to sport obtained an institutional body, mainly in Europe^3,4,8. In response to the deviant uses of elite sport and its influence on school physical education, humanist reactions were registered within the academic and political realms in the form of manifests, recommendations and charters issued by international organizations, which attempted to guide states and society in the pursuit of physical activities policies². Accompanying the social welfare policies that gone been diffused and improved in that period, such reactions also sought to generate a better quality of life for the population².

In addition to the Sport for All Movement itself, the main examples are the 1968 Declaration on Sport⁹ by the International Council of Sport and Physical Education, the 1970 Physical Education World Manifesto¹⁰ by the Fédération Internationale d'Education Physique, the 1976 European Sport for All Charter¹¹ by the Council of Europe and the 1978 International Charter of Physical Education and Sport¹² by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The documents themselves present the purposes of resumption of the educational character of the sport in substitution of its uses considered deviant; of review of school physical education within formal education and particularly of the sport within school physical education; and of diffusion of the physical activity aiming the combat to the sedentary lifestyle.

However, possible relations between the documents, between the institutions responsible for them and between them and the Movement for Sport for All are still not very clear. Similarly, their relationships dialogical or dialectical, friendly or conflictual with the international institutions responsible for the elite sport are not clear either. Rare are also the studies that sought to understand such relationships, and Coca², Boulongne⁴ and Solar Cubillas³ are just some authors that permeate this subject, albeit in a peripheral way.

Considering this gap, we aimed at contributing to the search to understand how the idea of the right to sport was institutionalized, expanded and became related to the sport elite. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the configuration of the relationships among the intergovernmental/transnational organizations that advocated for the institutionalization of the idea of the right to sport from 1968 to 1978.

Methodology and theoretical reference of analysis

This article is based on the analysis of some documents under the theoretical perspective of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). The ACF operationalization demands the selection of a subsystem (a set of political actors involved in a given problem) and a locus (in the sense of geographic space) from which to be studied¹³ .

In the context of sport, we identified the use of ACF in the articles by Green and Houlihan¹⁴ that analyzed the process of changes in elite swimming and athletics policies in Canada and the United Kingdom; Houlihan and Green¹⁵ that examined changes in school sports and physical education policies in England and Wales between the years of 1991 and 2006; Green¹⁶ that sought to assess the broader sociopolitical and historical context for sports policy priorities, especially regarding elite sport, in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom; Bueno¹⁷ that analyzed the prioritization process of policies aimed at the development of elite sport in relation to other sports dimensions (educational and participation sports) in Brazil; Skille¹⁸ that aimed to develop a theoretical framework to analyze the implementation of sports policies in Norway, considering that at the most basic level (local) sport is conducted by voluntary sports clubs; Chen¹⁹ that analyzed the development of a policy of elite sport in Taiwan within the political context. The main focus of the articles that have used the ACF to understand sports policies is on elite sport, reinforcing the existence of a gap in relation to the knowledge about the institutionalization of the right to sport.

We defined the subsystem as the one related to sport policies internationally, which does not mean studying the design of sport policies in terms of covering what happens internally in each State. To be able to study an object with such a scope, there is a well-defined starting point that may contribute to the mapping of the subsystem important actors, that is, the emergence of documents in defense of the right to sport since the 1960s.

These documents, cited by Tubino¹, Coca² and Solar Cubillas³, are those already mentioned: Declaration on Sport (1968), Physical Education World Manifesto (1970), European Sport for All Charter (1976) and International Charter of Physical Education and Sport (1978). Taking these into account, the present study analyzed the documents from 1968 to 1978. The Declaration on Sport is the first international document to foresee the right to sport, whereas the International Charter of Physical Education and Sport would have synthesized and ratified the other documents and stimulated the constitutionalization of the right to sport in several countries¹. More recent versions and documents deal with the unfolding of the four documents analyzed, which contain the institutional genesis of the idea of the right to sport lies.

A qualitative comparison of the content of each document was not carried out. Therefore, if there was some kind of intellectual influence of one over another that was not expressly mentioned in the counterpart, it was not identified. The website of each institution was also reviewed in order to understand its purposes, history and especially its partners.

Considering that the literature^1,2,3,6, as well as the cited documents themselves point to a framework of hegemony of the elite sport until the decade of 1968, including in the scope of State action, ACF is adopted here to contribute for the identification of institutions, movements and reasons for an emergence of a different approach to the sport and its policies. That is, the ACF can contribute to identify and perhaps even justify the reason why emerged an alternative belief system, concerned with the right to sport and consequently with the sports practice of all people, when there was already a system of beliefs related with the elite sport. Briefly, the ACF can help us to understand why a new social and political view of sport arose when there was already a well-established view.

Objectively, using the ACF made it possible to identify the existence of coalitions at the international level, which are divided by belief systems related to the relationship between sport and public power. The ACF is based on four premises^13,17, which are all used here:

• [1] Considering a time frame of a decade or more. We are considering a period of 10 years in our study.

• [2] Understanding that the subsystem concept is the most useful for identifying changes in public policy. This study aims to determine how and why an alternative proposal was developed and diffused in the face of an international conception about sport politics that was already rooted internationally (the political-ideological use of elite sport).

• [3] Subsystems have broad and intergovernmental in nature. This is because they encompass a plurality of interdependent political actors and problems that can not usually be solved by a single path and do not always go by themselves. Sports relations with leisure, tourism, education, health, etc. are examples. In our research we try to map who are the institutional actors, in the form of intergovernmental/transnational organizations, and how they think the relationship between sport and public power. It is important to clarify that intergovernmental and transnational organizations are those that act internationally, but the former have States from among their members and the latter do not.

• [4] Public policies are understood as belief systems. The belief systems, which overlap with interest systems, involve values, perceptions, and causal assumptions that are shared by a group of political actors, which is referred to as a ‘coalition’.

Beliefs range from a deep core (involving general and ontological normative assumptions about human nature), to a political nucleus (involving the positioning of the subsystem itself), to secondary beliefs (beliefs related to conceptions of specific issues). The deeper the belief is the less chance is of it being modified. Due to the generalist nature that must be adopted by an international/transnational policy, which cannot predict the specificities of each state, it is understood that the documents subscribe deep and core political beliefs.

The ACF structuring too takes into account the influence of variables that are exogenous to the subsystem (relatively stable parameters, such as the distribution of natural resources, social structure and fundamental sociocultural values, and dynamic external events, such as changes in socioeconomic conditions, changes in public opinion and the impacts generated by changes in other subsystems), which directly affect the resources available for policy making, coalition formation and positioning, decision making, and power.

Considering the debates among the coalitions, the so-called ‘mediators’ (bureaucrats, parliamentarians, judges, citizens through voting, etc.) have the role of either maintaining or reducing conflict. This process, which represents the very structure of the ACF belief system, is referred to as ‘policy-oriented learning’. As far as sport is concerned, coalitions compete on issues such as elite sport, sport for all, physical activity and school health and sport²⁰.

Results and discussion

Although history demonstrates that there has been supremacy of events related to elite sport throughout the 20th century, it seems logical to believe that counter-hegemonic movements, which were made official by the Declaration on Sport, gained strength due to a coalition organization that would culminate in broader institutionalization.

There were some exogenous factors that were central to establishing positions and democratic politics regarding sport, such as the expansion of the status of social welfare, the increase in the automation in society and the consequent sedentarism of individuals due to industrialization, the end of the Second World War, and the constitution of the United Nations in 1945 and the Council of Europe in 1949. Such events eventually led to general changes both in the relatively stable parameters worldwide (changes in social structure and fundamental sociocultural values, for example) and in external dynamic events (changes in socioeconomic conditions and public opinion, for example).

Another important exogenous factor to be identified was the publication of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948, which would support general changes in public policies, especially those related to social welfare. The subsystem of sport policies would also have impacts (under the perspective of the ACF; the impact of public policies of other systems on the specific system analyzed is a dynamic external event). The International Charter of Physical Education and Sport, for example, in its preamble, is expressly based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the sense that ‘all individuals are entitled to all the rights and freedom established therein’ in order to proclaim sport and education universal fundamental rights.

In addition to the mentioned exogenous factors and other possible, the internal configuration of the subsystem of sport policies at the international level cannot be ignored as a central element of the emergence of beliefs that questioned sport chauvinism and mercantilization, which were both stimulated by a growing process of sport spectacularization and the use of school physical education as the basis of the sport pyramid model^1,6,9,7. Such facts would have been contributory reasons because sport and school physical education would have their social legitimacy questioned^1,3,6,7.

The sum between exogenous factors and the contradictory configuration of the subsystem of sports policies would be a preponderant factor for a group of political and academic actors above all, mainly to rethink and position themselves institutionally in a counter-hegemonic way against the political subsystem, defending a sport for all, regardless the formal structure (federated sport) of elite sport⁴. The international documents, therefore, do not have only institutional political weight, but also academic/scientific weight.

Figure 1 shows the relations that each document expressly mentions establish with the other documents or to the institutions that created them, giving rise to the first relationships that showed evidence of a coalition concerning the idea of the right to sport. It should be considered that the how much older the document is, lower be the chances of mentioning the other documents. In the specific case of the International Charter of Physical Education and Sport, which was the last document investigated, the document that initially proposed it was also considered for analysis²¹.

Figure 1
Relations established by each document with the organizations in the base of the institutionalization of the idea of the right to sport

The most important document that shows the relationships among all the documents is the initial proposal of the International Charter of Physical Education and Sport²¹. This document recommended that the International Charter that would be built take into account the Declaration on Sport, the Physical Education World Manifesto, the European Sport for All Charter and either the Olympic Charter, the Fair Play Declaration and the Charter for Recreation, documents that did not provide for the right to sport. This fact confirms the assertion that the International Charter of Physical Education and Sport would have synthesized and ratified the other documents, as pointed by Tubino¹.

The European Sport for All Charter makes no mention of other documents or institutions, but it is unlikely that the Council of Europe was unaware of them; it seems more likely that the lack of references to any counterparts is an attempt at demarcation of territory. This is because the two most relevant documents (Declaration on Sport and Physical Education World Manifesto) had been published by transnational organizations that not have ministers of state among their memberships, enjoying less social prestige. The European countries would have been particularly influenced by the European Sport for All Charter, whereas with the International Charter of Physical Education and Sport, the idea of the right to sport would have been widely diffused²².

Sport for All, as an organized Movement, was not mentioned in any document. This suggests that, although there are possibilities of mutual influence, such a movement developed in parallel with the institutionalization of the right to sport in the documents. In addition, in their websites, the institutions responsible for such documents list some partners, which are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2
Relations established by each organization in the base of the institutionalization of the idea of the right to sport with the others

The extent and/or depth of the relationship between each institution are not necessarily explained in the particular virtual environment. Whereas it is impossible to say how much an institution that is not mentioned in a document contributed to its creation, it is possible to identify the existence of a coalition. When considering the 12 possible connections in Figure 2, it can be seen that 06 (50%) are existing, representing partnerships. In Figure 1, out of the 16 possible connections, 09 (56.25%) are existing ones.

It is worth clarifying that we are considering with the connections between documents or organizations as possible or existing relations between them. We adopted as total of possible connections the sum of the relations that each document or organization could have with the others. In the figures are represented by the total of small rectangles in relation to each large rectangle. Existing connections are those expressly pointed out by a document or by an institution on your site. In the figures they are represented by the webs between the rectangles. Whenever a possible relation does not exist, there is also no web between the rectangles and it is expressly informed that the document or organization does not mention the other organization. The percentage of existing connections is always calculated in relation to the total of possible connections.

By tracing an intersection between Figures 1 and 2, it can be seen that practically all the institutions have or had a relationship with each other, or at least, they have taken into account similar documents at some point to create their own ideas. At the same time, in addition to the institutions that had published some of the international documents analyzed, others are mentioned on the sites as partners; among them, the International Olympic Committee, the Association for International Sport for All, the International Federation of Sports Medicine and the International Paralympic Committee should be highlighted, as shown in Figure 3. No other international organization was mentioned as a partner by more than one of all those consulted.

Figure 3
Relations established by each organization in the base of the institutionalization of the idea of the right to sport with other important partner organizations

It is identified in Figure 03 that among the 16 possible connections, 10 (62,5%) existing connections are indicated., which demonstrates that organizations in the base of the idea of the right to sport effectively seek partnerships not only among themselves but also with other organizations with diverse profiles.

The International Olympic Committee can be considered the main organization regarding the development and diffusion of the sport in a world-wide context, oriented eminently (although not exclusively) to the elite sport; The Association for International Sport for All is one of the main, if not the main organization related to the development and diffusion of sport for all, that is, of the knowledge and policies aimed at practice and access to physical exercise by the population; the International Federation of Sports Medicine is an organization dedicated to the scientific study and development of sport and related sciences.

This scenario provides a first indication that organizations in the base of the idea of the right to sport do not act in isolation, but instead seek to broaden their performance and reach by cooperating with other diverse organizations. These organizations also mention partnerships between themselves and with organizations in the base of the idea of the right to sport, as can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4
Relations established by each partner organization among themselves and with the organizations in the base of the institutionalization of the idea of right to sport

In Figure 4, it is verified that among the 28 possible connections, 13 (46.4%) are identified. Adding the Figures 3 and 4 it is identified that, out of the 44 possible connections, 23 (52,3%) are found. Adding the data of all the Figures, we identified that of the 72 possible connections, 38 (52.8%) are existents, which reinforce the coalition condition. Although the relationships identified on the sites were not necessarily already existing at the time the document was being created (1968 to 1978), the linearity of the number of relationships identified in Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 shows a stable existence of the coalition over time.

The figures show International Council of Sport, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and Physical Education and International Olympic Committee as the institutions that are most related to the others. At the same time, the Declaration on Sport is not only the first international document to proclaim the right to sport, but it is also the one that is most mentioned by its counterparts. This can be explained by International Council of Sport and Physical Education's own proposal to appear as the world's leading network for sport development and physical education³¹.

Even if ministers of state participated in the genesis of the European Sport for All Charter and the International Charter of Physical Education and Sport, and these documents were published by intergovernmental organizations whose activities goes beyond the sphere of sport so that they have a greater legitimacy, International Council of Sport and Physical Education and the Declaration on Sport appear to be important references and cannot be forgotten when discussing the sense of democratization in the origin of sport policies. Due to the intersections mentioned above, the Declaration on Sport can even be considered the most important among the documents analyzed, and International Council of Sport and Physical Education can be considered the most important institution in defense of the right to sport.

The identification of a coalition led by International Council of Sport and Physical Education (with or without its intention to do so), which involves intergovernmental/transnational organizations (as well as the states and national nongovernmental organizations), suggests the existence of a belief system focused on both sports/physical activities development and the valorization of physical education in society. This system would be above the possible interests mentioned by Melo³² to use sport by the United Nations system to propagate the capitalist order and maintain the domination of the central states over the peripheral states. According to the ACF, when developing public policies, belief systems overlap systems of interests.

It should be pointed out that this does not mean that the International Council of Sport and Physical Education and the coalition itself do not act to some extent when considering elite sport. At this point, the main peculiarity of the subsystem of sports policies at the international level during the period studied was identified: there were two coalitions which are referred to as pro-sport for all and pro-elite sport. Pro-sport for all would be formed, above all, by institutions that have common goals in relation to the right to engage in sport and that seek to create documents related to it together with partners who think about sport in this sense, both internationally and nationally. Pro-elite sport would essentially consist of the institutions that embrace the private sport system, that is, the International Olympic Committee, the international sport federations and the continental and national representatives of each. But although there are coalitions with distinct belief systems, they are not exactly antagonistic. They advocate for different beliefs, but instead of trying to subvert the other, they seek to associate themselves so that both approaches are put into practice in the form of policies.

Under this point of view, the pro-sport for all coalition was not necessarily against elite sport. The specialization of elite sport was what seemed to bother the pro-sport for all coalition as well as its deviant uses, its insertion into school physical education, and the absence of physical activity policies for the entire population. For this coalition, the success of elite sport should be the consequence and not the cause of a public policy. The deep core of its belief, thus, would be directed to the education, socialization and democratization of and by sport practice¹⁷ .

Considering the pro-elite sport coalition, there was no opposition to the idea of the right to sport; however, although the International Olympic Committee recognizes sport for all and even has a specialized committee to address it, ‘[...] its plans are geometrically similar to those of the elite sport’ (p. 193)⁴. Therefore, for this coalition, elite sport would be the driving force behind the development of sport in other contexts, either based on the pyramidal model or as a spectacle that would attract the population to practice in the so-called ‘imitation effect’ (an effect that is questioned by the pro-sport for all coalition). The deep core of its belief would still be rooted in the ideas of competition, overcoming and record¹⁷ , which are interesting ‘values’ to be explored by the political and media environment. In terms of deep beliefs, the pro-sport for all coalition would be more in line with social gains, whereas the pro-elite sport coalition would seek more political and economic profits.

In spite of the fact that they had different beliefs, however, each coalition did not deny the belief of the other; in addition, they sought to associate in some way with their ‘rival’. For example, in the context of the United Kingdom in the 1970s, the sport for all campaign ‘disguised the underlying tension between the social point of view of sport development (development through sport) and the perception of the sport development as a synonym of talent identification and elite sport development (sport development)’ (p. 22)³³. Such a campaign was justified by the possible benefits of social welfare through sport (for all); however, at the same time, it had been permeated by political interests/interventions that somehow ended up by associating such a campaign with plans for sport development, which were mainly related to elite sport^33,34.

In the case of international institutions and documents concerning the idea of the right to sport, it seems that, like in the United Kingdom, they sought an association of their ideals with the already established pro-elite sport coalition. To do so, they searched to establish a partnership with the International Olympic Committee (the main institution of the pro-elite sport coalition), which would lend a kind of legitimation, power and global recognition of this entity inside and outside of the subsystem through consolidation.

The diffusion of sport for all represented the development of an Olympic counter-society, which did not mean the end of either the sport elite or ‘Olympic society’. The Olympic counter-society was beneficial to the International Olympic Committee itself since their partnership could result in education about Olympism being inserted in both the education systems and the sport movement as a whole⁴.

Therefore, the pro-elite sport coalition, in turn, perhaps by also recognizing the space progressively won by the pro-sport for all coalition, began to present concerns and actions regarding the right to sport. The Tripartite Declaration of the International Olympic Committee in 1978, which recognized sport for all², is an example of this. Subsequent cases, such as the participation and sponsorship of pro-sport for all events, the insertion of the right to sport in the Olympic Charter from 1996³⁵, and the closer relationship with the United Nations, are other examples²⁸.

In this sense, considering the ACF, it is possible to conceive that an institution supports specific aspects of more than one coalition without this being contradictory¹⁷ . Thus, although each of the coalitions studied herein is based on a distinct belief system, it does not necessarily mean that they are absolutely antagonistic. In the specific case under analysis, this is not either a pro-elite sport coalition or an anti-ES coalition, for example. Houlihan and Green¹⁵ identified a similar status quo (of distinct belief systems, but still without antagonism) in the context of policies for the development of school sports and school physical education in England and Wales.

On the whole, however, regardless of the greater or lesser representativeness of each institution and how much they differ or agree, it was possible to perceive that the institutionalization of the idea of the right to sport generated legitimacy at the international level, which stimulated its insertion in the constitution and/or legislation of several countries^1,3. It should be highlighted that none of the pro-sport for all documents have legal status; nevertheless, the content of their ideas, which represents a belief system, has finally entered a number of national states.

It should be clear that the institutionalization of the right to sport in the legal system of several states, however, does not automatically mean its exercise or guarantee in the form of public policies. The international idea needs to be imported, interpreted and combined or adjusted to the institutional configuration of the state (which institutions, whether public or private, are responsible for the elaboration, implementation, financing, etc. of policies) before being implemented. The same is even more emphatically true in the relationship between central politics and the politics of local contexts^18,36. We add to this process of institutional adjustment the necessary adjustments as regards belief systems and the participation of specific agents, although they are not necessarily organized within a stable coalition¹⁵ .

Final considerations

At the international level, during the period from 1968 to 1978, there were differences regarding the belief systems of the pro-sport for all and pro-elite sport coalitions; however, there was an approximation of actions at the same time.

It seems that within the process of policy-oriented learning, the pro-sport for all coalition's perception of the problems (specialization, commercialization and political-ideological uses of elite sport) as well as the policy proposals (as international documents) to solve them did not generate adverse effects on the pro-elite sport coalition, even because the former did not deny the legitimacy of elite sport at any time. On the contrary, in order to increase its power and acquire political support to strengthen and legitimize its proposals, the pro-sport for all coalition sought support from the International Olympic Committee itself, the main actor of the pro-elite sport coalition. This shows the pro-elite sport hegemony, a low degree of conflict within the subsystem, and a small need for and participation by mediators.

The lack of a deeper analysis of the content of each document is a limitation of our article. This type of analysis appears to be a possibility for further studies in order to generate a broader understanding of the origin and content of the idea of the right to sport.

Acknowledgments:

For the financial support of CAPES-DS scholarship, doctoral level.

References

• ¹
  Tubino MJG. Os impactos do fenômeno do esporte na sociedade contemporânea. In: Moreira WW, Simões R, editores. Fenômeno esportivo no início de um novo milênio. Piracicaba: Editora UNIMEP; 2000, p. 247-253.
• ²
  Coca S. El hombre deportivo - una teoría sobre el deporte. Madrid: Alianza Editorial; 1993.
• ³
  Solar Cubillas LV. El "deporte para todos", cuestión de Estado. El deporte para todos en Europa y en España (I) 1/2. Rev Esp Educ Fís Dep 2015;209(LXVII):65-91.
• ⁴
  Boulongne YP. Pierre de Coubertin, humanisme et pédagogie: Dix leçons sur l'OIympisme. Lausanne: CIO; 1999.
• ⁵
  Heinemann K. Sport and the welfare state in Europe. Europ J Sport Sci 2005;5(4):181-188. Doi: 10.1080/17461390500344347
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390500344347
• ⁶
  Seurin P. Educação física e desportos: Cooperação ou conflito? Em Aberto 1982;1(5):7-11.
• ⁷
  Loland S, Ommundsen Y. Values and ideologies of Norwegian children's sport as perceived by the general population. Europ Phys Educ Rev 1996;2(2):133-142.
• ⁸
  Bergsgard NA, Houlihan B, Mangset P, Nødland SI, Rommetvedt H. Sport policy: A comparative analysis of stability and change. Oxford: Elsevier; 2007.
• ⁹
  International Council of Sport and Physical Education. Declaration on sport. Paris: International Council of Sport and Physical Education; 1968.
• ¹⁰
  Fédération Internationale d'education Physique. Physical Education World Manifesto 1970. FIEP Bul 2007-2008;77(1):35-40.
• ¹¹
  Council of Europe [Internet]. Resolution (76) 41 - On the principles for a policy of sport for all [accessed in 12 dec 2017]. Strasbourg: Committee of Ministers; 1976. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/16804c9dbb
• ¹²
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. International Charter of Physical Education and Sport. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; 1978.
• ¹³
  Sabatier P, Weible C. The Advocacy Coalition Framework - Innovations and Clarifications. In: Sabatier P, editor. Theories of the Policy Process. Cambridge: Westview Press; 2007, p. 189-220.
• ¹⁴
  Green M, Houlihan B. Advocacy coalitions and elite sport policy change in Canada and the United Kingdom. Int Rev Soc Sport 2004;39(4):387-403. Doi: 10.1177/1012690204049066
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690204049066
• ¹⁵
  Houlihan B, Green M. The changing status of school sport and physical education: explaining policy change. Sport Edu Soc 2006;11(1):73-92. Doi: 10.1080/13573320500453495
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13573320500453495
• ¹⁶
  Green M. Olympic glory or grassroots development?: Sport policy priorities in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, 1960 - 2006. Int J Hist Sport 2007;24(7):921-953. Doi: 10.1080/09523360701311810
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09523360701311810
• ¹⁷
  Bueno L. Políticas públicas do esporte no Brasil: razões para o predomínio do alto rendimento. [Tese de Doutorado em Administração Pública]. São Paulo: Fundação Getúlio Vargas. Escola de Administração de Empresas; 2008.
• ¹⁸
  Skille E. Understanding sport clubs as sport policy implementers. Int Rev Soc Sport 2008;43(2):181-200. Doi: 10.1177/1012690208096035
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690208096035
• ¹⁹
  Chen SH. An analysis on the development of elite sports policy in Taiwan: An institutional and Advocacy Coalition Framework perspective [PhD tesis in Philosophy]. Loughborough: Loughborough University; 2015.
• ²⁰
  Houlihan B, Rommetvedt H. Comparing sport policies in economically developed countries. In: ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops - Workshop 16, Sport, Politics and Public Policy, 2006. Congress Proceedings...Nicosia, Cyprus: ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops; 2006, p. 1-26.
• ²¹
  Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura. Propuestas del director general relativas a la elaboración de una carta internacional de la educación física y el deporte. Paris: Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura; 1977.
• ²²
  Kidd B, Donnelly P. Human rights in sports. Int Rev Soc Sport 2000;35(2):131-148.
• ²³
  Council of Europe [Internet]. Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS) [accessed in 12 dec 2017]. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/sport/epas/
  » https://www.coe.int/en/web/sport/epas
• ²⁴
  FIEP Brasil [Internet]. O que é a FIEP? [accessed in 12 dec 2017]. Available at: http://www.fiepbrasil.org/historia/o-que-e-a-fiep/
  » http://www.fiepbrasil.org/historia/o-que-e-a-fiep
• ²⁵
  International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education [Internet]. ICSSPE [accessed in 12 dec 2017]. Available at: http://www.icsspe.org/
  » http://www.icsspe.org
• ²⁶
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [Internet]. Physical Education and Sport [accessed in 12 dec 2017]. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/physical-education-and-sport/
  » http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/physical-education-and-sport
• ²⁷
  International Federation of Sports Medicine [Internet]. FIMS [accessed in 12 dec 2017]. Available at: http://www.fims.org/
  » http://www.fims.org
• ²⁸
  International Olympic Committee [Internet]. IOC [accessed in 12 dec 2017]. Available at: https://www.olympic.org/
  » https://www.olympic.org
• ²⁹
  International Paralympic Committee [Intenet]. IPC [accessed in 12 dec 2017]. Available at: https://www.paralympic.org/
  » https://www.paralympic.org
• ³⁰
  The Association for International Sport for All [Internet]. TAFISA [accessed in 12 dec 2017] Available at: http://www.tafisa.org/
  » http://www.tafisa.org
• ³¹
  Haag H, Keskinen K, Talbot M. Diretório da ciência desportiva. 6. ed. Juiz de Fora: NGIME/UFJF; 2016.
• ³²
  Melo MP. Os primórdios do esporte no sistema ONU: I MINEPS (1976) e Carta Internacional de Educação Física (1978). Educación Física y Ciencia 2015;17(1):1-11.
• ³³
  Houlihan B, White A. The politics of sports development: Development of sport or development through sport? London: Routledge; 2002.
• ³⁴
  Green M. From 'Sport for all' to not about 'sport' at all?: Interrogating sport policy interventions in the United Kingdom. Europ Sport Man Quarterly 2006;6(3):217-238. Doi: 10.1080/16184740601094936
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/16184740601094936
• ³⁵
  International Olympic Committee. Olympic Charter. Lausanne: International Olympic Committee; 1996.
• ³⁶
  Skille E. Community and sport in Norway: Between state sport policy and local sport clubs. Int J Sport Polic Polit 2015;7(4):505-518. Doi: 10.1080/19406940.2014.940998
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2014.940998

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  15 June 2020
• Date of issue
  2020

History

• Received
  11 Dec 2018
• Reviewed
  01 Aug 2019
• Accepted
  10 Dec 2019