Targets for Athlete Performance and the Sport System

International Trends in Sport System Development
Globalization has been described as an increase in the free flow of information, goods,
capital, and people across borders that have been precipitated by the liberalization of trade and
advances in technology, telecommunications and finance. The result has been a more competitive
global market place and a situation in which nations are forced to compete for foreign investment
needed to increase capital stock, support growth, and raise living standards. To attract foreign
investment, nations must put on what has been described as the one size fits all (or made in the
USA) “golden straightjacket” (Friedman, 2001), which is a metaphor for behaviour that will attract
foreign investment (i.e. establish private sector as the economic engine, tight monetary and fiscal
policy, stabilize prices, reduce bureaucracy, liberalize trade, strengthen intellectual property rights,
establish and enforce rule of law, deregulate markets, privatize public industries etc.). Therefore,
globalization has been suggested as one explanation for the recent trend evidenced in many nations
in which there has been a political shift to the right, and a convergence in policy among political
parties. That is, there is an increasing lack of diversity, and some would suggest even choice, in the
public policy platforms put forward by political parties. The policies put forward are consistent
with the objective of attracting foreign investment and improving a nation’s standard of living.
Research examining international sport systems demonstrates similar trends of convergence
in the approach to developing elite athletes, resulting in a homogeneous elite sport development
model. That is, there is a growing trend towards similarity in national elite development strategies
and the use of sport institute networks in particular (Oakley & Green, 2001). A comparison of
eight nations (USA, Russia, China, Italy, France, Australia, Germany, UK) on several factors or
elements of the sport system is presented in Table 1 below (Digel, 2002).
Table 1: A comparison of elite sport systems on several factors (adapted from Digel, 2002)
Factor
Ideological
preconditions
Setting of priorities
Olympic tradition
Organization of athletes
Staff structure
Facility management
Financial structures
Talent identification and
sport promotion
Competition system
structure
Training environment
structure
Organizational structure
Reward systems
Sport Systems Compared
In the USA the athlete is seen to control his/her own destiny;
in all other nations, the state is seen to control outcomes.
All 8 nations strongly promote Olympic sports.
All 8 nations have strong tradition of participation.
Hierarchical structure in all 8 nations.
Tendency toward professionalism in all nations
High performance facilities tend to be specialized and
centralized in all 8 nations.
Mixed finance income structure in all 8 nations
All 8 nations try to identify talent.
Extensive regional and national competition programs exist in
all 8 nations.
All 8 nations operate using centralized control.
Department for competitive sport in the German Sports
confederation; CONI in Italy; NOC, which controls Olympic
selection in USA, is not controlled by government.
Australia has specific rewards for coaches.
Athlete Performance and Sport System Targets, Evaluation, and Investment Page 12