Rethinking sport for development

It is easy to conclude that ‘sport for all’ is an automatic panacea for social issues, especially those that are nauseating and vexatious. Sport for Development (SfD) has gained momentum since 2003, when the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted key resolutions of the UN Inter-Agency Task Force for Sport for Development and Peace, established in 2002. SfD draws upon the popular appeal across socio-economic demographics of sport as a possible social transformational tool. However, achieving consistent short-, medium-, and long-term sustainable social outcomes is rooted in wider historical social and economic factors that must also be addressed for sport to produce desired results.

It is critical to differentiate between the development of sport and sport for development. The former focuses on the strategic pathway development of athletes’ skills through qualified coaches and the best infrastructure and technology. In other words, it focuses on developing elite athletes who can perform efficiently among the best in the world and win national accolades, especially for countries in the Global South. The key actors are NSOs, Olympic Committees, national and international federations or associations, and, in the Global South, especially among more developing countries, the government.

Sport for Development, on the other hand, utilizes sport to achieve non-sport outcomes such as wider societal, educational, and health goals, such as addressing youth at-risk issues and raising protection against noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. The key actors are NGOs, social workers, psychologists, and also the government.

Failure to appreciate and differentiate between the two will result in unrealistic expectations. Organizing a sporting event for cricket, football, netball, basketball, or track and field does not automatically build character or serve as a permanent distraction from disruptive social behavior. There must be simultaneous improvements in the socio-economic ecosystems of communities for sport to be fairly assessed as a means for social change.

<Some key socio-economic improvements involve

Improvements in sporting infrastructure that will be used by community members for its purpose. During the NAR regime, basketball courts were constructed throughout the country, but in some communities the rings were taken down, and the courts were used for windball (tennis ball) cricket and/or small-goal football. In hindsight, the important lesson is to empower communities by allowing them a say in the decision-making.

Combine sports training with educational support, management seminars, internships, and financial and managerial literacy. The famous proverb is “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime,” may materialize.

It is critical in the 21st century that all human beings are included. Historical, cultural, financial, and structural barriers must be intentionally removed so that all marginalized groups, including persons with disabilities and women, are able to participate openly and freely.

In the 21st century, the demands of modernity can be stressful even to the most privileged, let alone young people who may be experiencing socio-economic hardships. Therefore, any sport program implemented must include access to important social services such as health personnel, psychologists, social workers, and sport lawyers who can address issues of safeguarding and human rights issues.

A key ingredient for the sustainability of SfD programs is secured funding and compliance with strict governance policies. In many developing countries such as Trinidad and Tobago, since these programs are profit-driven, there is heavy reliance on the government to provide financial support. Such support must be subjected to the same governance principles and monitoring and evaluation. This may be more theoretically valid than realistic, as government funding can also become politicized.

Another ingredient that is sometimes, unfortunately, taken for granted is the absence of the appropriate human resources in the delivery of the programs. This point is not about qualifications but rather a lack of understanding of the wider socio-economic context that shapes participants’ real-world lived experiences.

From the above, it can be deduced that organizing a small-goal event, or a basketball competition, or a badminton tournament will not necessarily achieve its intended social goals if the project is not holistic in design and implementation. And even if this conditionality is met, for sport to have any reasonable, sustained desired effects, wider socio-economic improvement must materialize.

Editor’s note: The views expressed in the preceding article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of any organization in which he is a stakeholder.