In recent years, the subsidiarity principle has been underlined in Sport-for-All policies in countries such as Germany, Austria and Belgium. According to this organising principle, issues need to be handled by the lowest possible political and administrative level, and as close to the citizens as possible. The 2007 decree concerning Sport-for-All policies at the local level in Flanders (Belgium) clearly referred to this. It emphasised the decentralisation of the Sport for All policy, and highlighted the regulatory and coordinating role of local sports authorities. As a consequence, they may face conflicting roles of being coordinator, regulator and provider of mass sport at the local level. In this paper, a mixed-method approach is used to give a closer insight in the role perceptions of local sports authorities in Flanders, and their position towards private sport providers. The results show that local sports authorities consider the coordination and regulation of mass sport in their municipality as their primary task. Yet, it appears that private sport providers also perceive competition from local sports authorities. Moreover, a considerable number of the local sports authorities believe they can combine the roles of provider and coordinator. As there appears to be considerable goal ambiguity, it is necessary for local sports authorities to formulate clear goals. Referring to the principle of subsidiarity, it is argued that sports authorities should only intervene when (non-)profit sport providers are not able to achieve the desirable outcomes with regard to sport and the welfare agenda.
LINK
Despite several decades of Sport for All policies, opportunities for sports participation are still unequally divided, with certain socially disadvantaged groups having less access to sports. To reduce this gap, structural efforts are needed. A question that arises is what role nonprofit sports clubs can fulfill in this matter. In this study, first, it is explored how nonprofit sports clubs perceive their role and responsibility towards socially disadvantaged groups and how they act on it. Second, it is investigated which factors predict the presence or absence of efforts from nonprofit sports clubs for lowering barriers. For this second question, we focus on people living in poverty. Data are based on a survey among 580 nonprofit sports clubs throughout Flanders (Belgium). The findings indicate that the human resources capacity of the club is not the main barrier. It is argued that local sports authorities and sports federations have an important part to play in supporting and encouraging sports clubs in terms of social inclusionary policies, for example by instilling awareness.
LINK
This paper explores inter-organisational relationships, in terms of cooperation, between three main types of sport providers at the local level: voluntary sport clubs, for-profit fitness and health clubs, and local sports authorities. Both withinand cross-sector cooperation are analysed and related to organisational characteristics as well as the perceived competition from other sport providers. Data are obtained from three quantitative panel surveys: the Flemish Sport Club Panel 2009, the Flemish Fitness Panel 2009, and the Flemish Local Sports Authorities Panel 2010. The results show that sport providers influence and are influenced by other sport providers in their environment. The three selected groups of sport providers differ with regard to the occurrence and the nature of the cooperation. Local sports authorities (i.e., public sector) are found to be the most cooperative sport provider. Evidence is provided for the use of cooperation as a strategy to meet competitive challenges.
LINK
