See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/46681518

A Conceptual Framework for Analysing Sports Policy Factors Leading to

International Sporting Success

Article  in  European Sport Management Quarterly · June 2006

DOI: 10.1080/16184740600955087 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

442 9,702

4 authors, including:

Veerle De Bosscher Maarten Van Bottenburg

Vrije Universiteit Brussel Utrecht University
154 PUBLICATIONS   3,272 CITATIONS    227 PUBLICATIONS   2,799 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Simon Shibli
Sheffield Hallam University
109 PUBLICATIONS   2,928 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

the trajectory of top 10, top 100, top 200, top 300 professional tennis players View project

WHY DO NATIONS INVEST IN ELITE SPORT? THE MESSI MODEL: mapping the elite sport societal impact. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maarten Van Bottenburg on 19 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Running head:

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSING SPORTS POLICY FACTORS

LEADING TO INTERNATIONAL SPORTING SUCCESS

Veerle De Bosscher (1), Paul De Knop(1), Maarten van Bottenburg(2) ), Simon Shibli(3)

(1)
Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium)
(2)
Mulier Institute (the Netherlands)
(3)
Sport Industry Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University (England)

Date of submission: 31/05/2006

European Sport Management Quarterly - forthcoming

Correspondence address:

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Faculty LK, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium

Tel: **32 2 629 27 72/ **32 2 629 27 45

Fax: **32 2 629 28 99

E-mail : [email protected]

[email protected]/ [email protected]/ [email protected]

 1

Running head:

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSING SPORTS POLICY FACTORS

LEADING TO INTERNATIONAL SPORTING SUCCESS

Date of submission: 31/05/2006

European Sport Management Quarterly

 2

ABSTRACT

Although an increasing number of nations invest large amounts of money in sport in order

to compete against other nations, there is no clear evidence that demonstrates how sports

policies can influence international sporting success. This paper provides an overview of

important determinants that can lead to nations enjoying international sporting success. The

literature reveals that more than 50% of the determinants of success are macro-level variables

which are beyond the control of politicians. The meso-level contains factors which can be

influenced by sports policies. An empirically founded theory on the policy factors that

determine elite sporting success has not yet been developed. In this paper a conceptual

framework will be presented that can be used for making trans national comparisons of elite

sports policies. Nine policy areas, or ‘pillars’ that are thought to have an important influence

on international sporting success are logically derived from the literature.

Key words: (top-level) sports policies – international sporting success – international

comparison - benchmark
 3

Competition between nations has always been a feature of the Olympic Games. Medal-

counting has been used by politicians and the media to compare international success despite

the International Olympic Committee's protestation that the Olympic medal table is not an

order of merit. As a consequence of the continuous escalating standards in international

sport, competition has become a competition between ‘systems’ (Heinila, 1982). The success

of an athlete or team depends increasingly on the performance capacity of the national system

and its effectiveness in using all relevant resources for the benefit of elite sport. Some

nations, such as the former communist states of Eastern Europe, were very successful in

international sports as a result of making high level investment in overall national sport

systems. Some nations do not have this option as they are compelled by more basic needs,

and others simply establish different priorities. Various studies have tried to explain

differences in the Olympic success of nations by using socio-economic determinants such as

wealth, population, land mass and politics. However, these factors are out of the control of

sports policies in the short term. By contrast, there are only a few references in the literature

concerning the efficiency and effectiveness of (elite) sports policies and investments. This is

no doubt, in part, due to the difficulty of measuring these effects objectively. Governments

and their agencies invest large sums of money in elite sport to compete against other nations

and to achieve improved performance in sport. However, it is not known precisely how

sports policies can influence improved sporting performance. This in turn makes it

particularly difficult for politicians to select the right priorities for their sports policy.

Although many attempts have been made to explain why certain countries are more

successful than others, the relationship between policies and success is not clear. In this

regard, a comprehensive model on sports policy factors leading to international sporting

success has not yet been developed. As a first step in addressing this information deficiency,

this paper serves two functions. First, a comprehensive literature review of the determinants
 4

that are important contributors for international sporting success is provided. Second, as a

logical extension of the literature review, we propose a conceptual model of the determinants

of success in elite sport policy by clustering measurable criteria into a few policy areas that

can be compared on a trans national basis.

I. CLASSIFICATION OF FACTORS LEADING TO INTERNATIONAL SUCCESS IN

TOP-LEVEL SPORTS

There is a range of factors that lead to international sporting success. Classifying these

factors is a complicated task. Performances in top-level sports are a combination of genetic

qualities and the environmental and physical circumstances in which people live (Seppänen,

1981). Genetic qualities can explain differences between men and women, between young

people and old people, between tall people and small people and even between races. They

cannot however explain why Norwegians are more active skiers than Italians and why

African-Americans perform better in athletics than people from Nigeria or Mozambique.

With these points in mind, we classify below factors determining top-level success in sports

into three levels (see figure 1):

1) MACRO-level: the social and cultural context in which people live: economic

welfare, population, geographic and climatic variation, degree of urbanisation,

political system, and cultural system.

2) MESO-level: sports policies and politics. This is the level where well-considered

sports policies may influence long-term performance.

3) MICRO-level: the individual athletes (genetic qualities) and their close

environment (e.g. parents, friends, coaches). At the micro-level some factors can be

controlled (such as training techniques or tactics) and others cannot be controlled

(such as genetics).
 5

----------------------------------

INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE

-----------------------------------

In this study only the overall success of nations will be analysed, not the individual success of

athletes. Therefore, we now proceed with an analysis of factors at macro-level and meso-

level and to a lesser extent factors that can be controlled by sports policies at micro-level.

Inevitably these three levels interact and no factor can be totally isolated from the social and

cultural contexts within nations. Consequently, there is an overlap between the meso-level

and the macro-level. This grey zone between the meso and macro levels is termed by the

Sport Industry Research Centre as the environment of the sport system as a resource of world-

class performance in sport (SIRC, 2002). This includes, amongst other factors: the role of the

education system; the private sector as a partner in sport; the elite sports culture and the

tradition of certain sports in a country; the mass media as promoter of interest in sport; and

the audience as a sounding board for world class performances. These factors potentially

have a huge effect on elite sport development. However, as they cannot be influenced

directly by sports policies, they are not further discussed in this paper.

II. FACTORS LEADING TO INTERNATIONAL SPORTING SUCCESS: THE

MACRO-LEVEL

Factors determining international success have been discussed in many studies on the

Olympic Games. Predictions and evaluations of performance in the Olympic Games were

largely based on macro-level factors . Some studies tried to find an economic explanation for
 6

success, while others took a more sociological approach. Data at the macro-level is readily

available in the public domain and this is perhaps why there are so many studies in this field.

By contrast, at the meso-level data is often not readily available and is difficult to quantify.

This makes it particularly difficult to analyse and compare sport policies. Consequently,

studies at the meso-level are relatively scarce.

Table 1 below gives an overview of the main studies conducted at the macro-level. The

table shows for each study which independent variables were correlated to success and in

which events. Most studies use simple correlations or regression analysis. During the last

decade, some authors have tried to improve the methodology of these studies (see for

example Baimbridge, 1998; Bernard & Busse, 2000; De Bosscher, De Knop & Heyndels,

2003 a & b; De Koning & Olieman, 1996; Den Butter & Van der Tak, 1995; Johnson & Ali,

2002; Tcha & Perchin, 2003).

--------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

---------------------------------

The assumption underlying macro-level studies is that there is an equal distribution of

sporting talent throughout the world. Every nation has equal opportunities to produce

competitive elite athletes (Grimes, Kelly & Rubin, 1974; Levine, 1974; Kiviaho & Mäkelä,

1978; Morton, 2002). Many studies exclude the distribution of talent argument and highlight

the impact of two independent macro-economic variables: the Gross National Product (per

capita) of a nation and its population (Bernard & Busse, 2000; De Bosscher, De Knop &

Heyndels, 2003 a & b; Jokl, 1964; Johnson & Ali, 2002; Kiviaho & Mäkelä, 1978; Levine,

1974; Morton, 2002; Novikov & Maximenko, 1972; Suen, 1992; Van Bottenburg, 2000).

These two variables consistently explain over 50% of the total variance of international

sporting success. Less consensus exists on the influence of other factors such as land mass,
 7

the political system, the religion, the degree of urbanisation, and cultural factors. Johnson

and Ali (2002) undertook the same analysis on the macro variables with the number of

athletes participating in the Olympics instead of medals won. From this, they concluded that

these macro variables explain the number of participants just as much as the number of

medals won. Shaw and Pooley (1976) discovered that economic factors are more important

determinants of sporting success in developing nations (they suggest 94%) than in Western

nations (64%) and socialist nations (32%). According to Bernard and Busse (2002) and

Stamm and Lamprecht (2000 & 2001) the importance of factors at the macro-level has

decreased during the last two decades. In the latter study for example, the authors found they

could explain 57% of international sporting success using macro-level factors in the period

1964-1980; whereas, they could only explain 45% of sporting success using these factors post

1980. Nevertheless, the impact of these macro-level factors on elite sporting success remains

high. None of these macro-level variables can be influenced by sports policies in the short

term, nonetheless they should be taken into account when international comparisons are

made. In this respect De Bosscher, De Knop and Heyndels (2003 a & b) demonstrate a

method to measure the relative success of nations by controlling for these macro-economic

determinants.

Despite the consistency with which the rich and populous countries dominate the Olympic

medal tables, there is a constant need for their governments to ensure the continued

availability of the basic resource, namely athletes (Green & Houlihan, 2005). This leads

logically to closer investigation of the meso-level in the following section.

 8

III. FACTORS LEADING TO INTERNATIONAL SPORTING SUCCESS: THE MESO-

LEVEL

Factors at the meso-level are fully or partially determined by sports policies and politics.

All things being equal, elite athletes will have a greater chance of success subject to the

effectiveness of policy and investment decisions made in elite sport. Taking into account all

the various factors that determine elite sports success, meso-level factors are the only ones

that can be influenced and changed. Surprisingly, however, only a few studies have focused

on organisational factors at this level (Eising, 1996; Stamm & Lamprecht, 2000 & 2001; van

Bottenburg, 2000). National sports organisations worldwide spend large sums of money in

the quest for superior sport performance, although little is known about the reasons why some

nations excel in specific sporting events. As it is our aim to create a framework containing a

categorisation of policy areas that should be compared as drivers of international sporting

success, we provide below an overview of literature at the meso-level. These studies can be

classified into three broad types. In addition to reviewing these meso-level studies, Flemish

athletes, coaches and performing directors working for federations have been surveyed in

order to involve primary stakeholders in elite sport in the determination of the policy areas.

These results are compared to similar research studies conducted in other nations.

The first type of study is those focusing on a description or comparison of the

organisational context of nations. A key characteristic of these studies is their search for

similarities and differences among nations’ elite sport systems. In this regard considerable

research has been conducted on various aspects of practice in the former communist states

(see for example Broom, 1986 & 1991; Buggel, 1986; Douyin, 1988; Krüger, 1984; Riordan,

1989 & 1991; Sedlacek, Matousek, Holcek et al., 1994; Semotiuk, 1990). Common

characteristics of these elite sport systems were found by these authors to be:

1. recognition of physical education and sport within constitutional law

 9

2. early talent spotting through schools

3. high training frequency imbedded in the school system

4. training and qualification systems of professional coaches

5. financial support programmes

6. high priority of applied scientific research

7. a network of sports medicine

The former Eastern bloc countries have undoubtedly played an important role in the current

developments of elite sport. As Houlihan (1997) notes, “countries like Australia and Canada

have both adopted policies of elite squad development which are very close to the Soviet

model in a number of key respects…” (1997, p6). This phenomenon can be illustrated by a

general globalisation process identified by Oakley and Green (2001) who analysed elite sport

development systems in five nations: Australia, Canada, France, Spain and the United

Kingdom. Their key finding was the discovery of an increasing tendency to develop common

sporting strategies in those nations. However, despite the broad homogeneity of sport

strategies, there is room for diversity and increasing variation (Green and Oakley, 2001).

Digel (2001) compared the system of talent detection and talent development in China,

Russia, United States, Italy and France. Currently, a large scale research project on elite

sports systems in eight countries is being finalised in Germany by Helmut Digel et al. (2003

& 2004). The countries are: China, Russia, Italy, United States, United Kingdom & Northern

Ireland, France, Austria and Germany. Digel et al's study is likely to provide interesting new

insights into how elite sport structures operate in relation to international sporting success.

Pioneering research in the field of elite sport policies was recently published by Green and

Houlihan (2005). They explored the process of elite sport policy change in three sports

(swimming, athletics and yachting) and three nations (Canada, the United Kingdom and

Australia). They used the Advocacy Coalition Framework1 (ACF) as a tool for understanding
 10

the rise in the political priority given to elite sport. Although different in focus from this

paper, the Green and Houlihan (op. cit.) study looks for similarities among the nations and

offers in depth analysis in four areas of elite sport policy: (1) development of elite level

facilities, (2) emergence of ‘full-time’ athletes, (3) developments in coaching, sports science

and sports medicine and (4) competition opportunities for elite level athletes.

Only a few studies give an overview of pre-requisites for international success (Clumpner,

1994; Larose & Haggerty, 1996; Oakley & Green, 2001). This second type of study makes

use of the previous research on sport systems to define the key factors factors required to

achieve international sporting success. Larose and Haggerty (1996) found nine categories of

important factors thought to determine success and presented these to fifteen Canadian

experts, who concluded that a single model of factors leading to success does not exist. There

was certainly no model that would cover all nations, nor one that would cover all sports.

Clumpner (1994) used Broom’s (1991) work as a foundation and suggested three major

factors responsible for international success: (1) financial support for training centres and

personnel, (2) an ongoing integrated Olympic sport system and (3) athletic talent. He goes on

to expand these three major factors with subsidiary factors which can be found at micro level

(motivated athletes), macro level (large diverse population) and meso level: time for training,

well trained full-time coaches, sports medicine back up, international competition, early

spotting of talent, access for all, a good communication network and an unbroken line up

through the system.

Finally, Oakley and Green (2001) identified ten items that could be regarded as uniform

in the nations mentioned above, namely:

1. A clear understanding about the role of the different agencies involved and an

effective communication network which maintains the system;

2. Simplicity of administration through common sporting and political boundaries;

 11

3. An effective system for the statistical identification and monitoring of the progress of

talented and elite athletes;

4. Provision of sports services to create an excellence culture in which all members of

the team (athletes, coaches, managers, scientists) can interact with one another in a

formal and informal way;

5. Well structured competitive programmes with ongoing international exposure;

6. Well developed and specific facilities with priority access for elite athletes;

7. The targeting of resources on a relatively small number of sports through identifying

those that have a real chance of success at world level;

8. Comprehensive planning for each sports needs;

9. A recognition that developing excellence has costs, with appropriate funding for

infrastructure and people; and

10. Lifestyle support and preparation for life after sport.

These three studies (Larose & Haggerty 1996, Clumpner 1994; Oakley & Green 2001)

provide a basis for the creation of a universal model of factors explaining international

sporting success. However, none of these authors has worked up this information into a

theoretical model with coherent factors put into operational criteria that can be empirically

tested. According to Oakley and Green (2001) “further research is required to better

understand ‘how’ and ‘why’ this tendency occurs” (2001, p 100). Nevertheless, they

recognise that this is complicated and that a long-term study is required. This latter point is

one of the main characteristics of Green and Houlihan’s study (2005) as they analysed policy

changes over more than 10 years.

The one crucial element missing in all of the previous attempts to model sport policy

influences on success has been the involvement of athletes and coaches, as the key

stakeholders responsible for delivering success for their nation. This third type of study is
 12

situated at the micro-level. Although they focus on personal genetic qualities, they give

interesting information on some of the main responsibilities of sports policies in an athlete's

pathway to reaching the top. It is also less complex to question athletes and coaches than it is

to compare nations at the meso-level. A number of surveys attempt to understand factors that

influence the individual success of athletes, both positively and negatively (Conzelmann &

Nagel, 2003; De Bosscher & De Knop, 2003 & 2004; Duffy, Lyons, Moran et al., 2001;

Gibbons, McConnel, Forster et al., 2003; Greenleaf Gould & Diefen, 2001; Nys, De Knop &

De Bosscher, 2002; Unierzyski, Wielinski & Zhanel, 2003; Van Bottenburg, 2000; Van

Bottenburg, Roques & Smit, 2004). As stated by Chelladurai (1987) and Chelladurai and

Chang (2000), one should focus on the group for whose benefit an organisation primarily

exists. This approach, known as the multiple-constituency model of the effectiveness of

organisations, endorses measures based on the preferences and values of internal and external

organisational participants (Papadimitriou, 2001). As a sound theory on sports policy factors

leading to international sporting success has not yet been devised, the opportunity was taken

to use a broader but related Flemish study on the elite sport climate2 to identify the

determinants of success according to the main stakeholders in elite sport. In total 140

Flemish athletes, 119 coaches and 26 performance directors from federations were asked to

state the five most important internal and external factors that have had the greatest influence

on the personal success of athletes. An inductive analysis led to the identification of ten

areas, of which eight can be categorised as sport policy areas (De Bosscher & De Knop,

2004). The results were broadly comparable with two similar micro-level studies in other

nations, also using open-ended questions to identify what athletes themselves considered to

be the determinants of success. In Gibbons et al. (2003), 760 US Olympic athletes were

surveyed and in Duffy et. al. (2001) the research was based on the views of 207 Irish

athletes. These latter two studies, both developed from a micro-level perspective, did not
 13

distinguish internal from external factors. The results of these three studies are presented in

Table 2.

------------------------

INSERT TABLE 2

-------------------------

In all of the studies cited in Table 2, the common theme is that the most important and

necessary condition for success is the personal dedication and motivation of the athlete.

Other consistently cited factors which can be categorised as 'an athlete's personal

environment' include variables such as parents, partner and coach. At the meso-level, the

quality of coaching exceeded all other factors in terms of its importance. The perceived

importance of financial support, structural support and training opportunities, training

facilities and competition appears in all studies. Therefore, from a policy perspective, support

should be provided to maximise the influence of favourable personal factors. Studies at

micro-level are therefore also interesting, because there can be a knock-on effect at the meso-

level.

In summary, this literature review at the meso-level from different authors and different

perspectives makes it likely that a range of factors have contributed to the elite sporting

success of nations and individual athletes. However, none of these studies gives an overview

in such a way that the variables are clearly defined and measurable for use in trans national

comparisons. This is the purpose of the next part of the paper. We do not claim to be

exhaustive in this overview, nonetheless our main aim is to condense in one place the many,

unrelated sources reviewed. This in turn may prevent researchers in the future from having to

'reinvent the wheel' when attempting to identify the factors which lead to international

sporting success.
 14

IV. A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSING SPORTS POLICY FACTORS

LEADING TO INTERNATIONAL SPORTING SUCCESS

On the basis of (1) the existing literature and secondary sources on elite sport systems, (2)

a few studies on the determinants of success at policy level and (3) prerequisites for success

according to athletes and coaches as main stakeholders in elite sport, it is possible to cluster

all sources into a few policy areas that have an important influence on international sporting

success. Table 3 below provides an overview of criteria mentioned in these studies from

different authors and different perspectives. Nine clusters of policy areas or ‘pillars’ can be

identified, each containing several sub-criteria that should be compared on a trans national

basis in order to explain why nations excel in elite sport.

------------------------

INSERT TABLE 3

-------------------------

When we go into greater depth on these nine policy areas, we can see that pillars three, four

and five are a logical progression. The sequence starts when an athlete is introduced to a

certain sport (initiation phase – pillar 3). If the athlete is subsequently identified as ‘talented’

he or she may receive special attention during the talent development phase (pillar 4). For

those who remain in the system, some may finally reach the top and start to perform at

international level (perfection phase – pillar 5). This career path has the form of a pyramid

because many athletes drop out during these stages (pillars 3,4, and 5) and only few reach the

very top (De Smedt, 2001). Although this pyramid theory is often criticised as some talents

are not selected from a sport's participant base, and we acknowledge there are exceptions,

most athletes tend to find their roots in sport for all. This is presented graphically Figure 2

below. The three phases of athlete development as defined by Bloom (1985) are similar in

sports, arts and science. Wylleman, De Knop & Sillen (1998) add a fourth stage, the
 15

discontinuation phase, which is reached when the athletic career comes to an end. These

transitions in the sporting career of an athlete are often accompanied by psychological, social

and academic transitions all taking place at different times (Wylleman & Lavallee, 2003).

The cumulative effect of these transitions often creates tensions for athletes and therefore

strong support structures are required to develop an optimal micro climate in which the

athlete can develop effectively (De Smedt, 2001). The athlete has a central place in elite

sport development and all the other pillars focus on what is best for the athlete’s

development. The key question to answer is:

“How should elite sports policies function so that elite athletes can train and perform

in optimal circumstances at each stage of their careers, with access to good facilities,

surrounded by high quality coaches and medical and paramedical support?”

---------------------------------

INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE

----------------------------------

Financial resources, as reflected in pillar 1 and an integrated approach to policy

development (pillar 2) are necessary conditions for the development of sport and athletic

careers within a given sport. The financial and human resources (pillar 1) are the inputs of

sport policy. Nations that invest more in (elite) sport can create more opportunities for

athletes to train under ideal circumstances. There are many examples of nations that have

improved sporting performance after increasing investment in elite sports. This has occurred

often after failure at important international events. As Chalip (1995) points out, these events

focus policy makers' attention on proposals towards improved elite sports plans. Having the

means may enhance the chances of success but it certainly does not guarantee it. The

processes behind policy, or the throughput, refers to the efficiency of sports policies, that is,
 16

the optimum way that inputs can be managed to produce the required outputs. Thus a strong

organisational structure is necessary. This is reflected in the second pillar, the umbrella of the

model. There is no consensus or preference for the necessity of centralisation or high

government intervention in elite sport policies (Houlihan, 1997). Nonetheless, a coordination

of elite sport initiatives is necessary. As Clumpner (1994) notes a good communication

system and clear task descriptions are more important than the precise nature of the delivery

vehicle. Furthermore, Oakley and Green (2001b) indicate the importance of simplicity of

administration through common sporting and political boundaries as another important item.

Investments in four other pillars in the throughput stage are essential for the development

of elite athletes: training facilities (pillar 6), the provision and development of coaches (pillar

7), national and international competition structures (pillar 8), and, scientific research and

sports medicine support (pillar 9). As stated in the literature review in Table 3, pillars 6, 7

and 8 require special attention both at the development level (sport for all) and the elite level

as noted in Green and Houlihan’s (2005) research. Sufficient facilities of high quality,

sufficient qualified coaches at club level and a good national competition structure will allow

young talents to become skilled in their sport, to train and compete at their own level and to

develop their skills in the period before or during the time they are identified as being

talented. Once athletes perform at a higher level and train regularly, there is a need for more

specialised equipment and facilities with appropriate accessibility, coaches with expertise and

knowledge at the elite level, and sufficient opportunities for athletes to participate in

international competition. In addition, many authors noted that the staging of international

sporting events (pillar 8) has a positive effect on the success of the host nation (see among

others Bernard & Busse, 2001; Clarke, 2002; Johnson & Ali, 2002; Kuper & Sterken, 2003).

Therefore a proactive approach to hosting international sports events can also be regarded as

a factor which influences international sporting success. Applied research and a network of
 17

sports medicine (pillar 9) are crucial factors for nations who want to outperform others, as

pointed out by Shibli (2003) who suggests that as competition for success increases the 'price'

of such success rises.

Pillar 1 is an indicator of the input, pillars 2-9 are indicators of throughput. As revealed in

the effectiveness literature, in a multidimensional approach, criteria should be measured at

each stage of the input, throughput and output cycle (Chelladurai, 2001). Outputs in elite

sport can be clearly defined, for example, the number of medals won during the Olympic

Games or other events, top six or eight places, the relative success or even the number of

participants qualifying to take part.

The model generally shows that the development of more athletes with medal winning

capabilities (outcome) requires an holistic approach to elite sport. Elite athletes are

increasingly the product of a long-term strategic planning process. It is a rule of thumb that

8-10 years and 10,000 training hours are necessary to become an expert in either music or

sports (Bloom, 1985; Grimbel, 1976; Starkes, 2000). Nations might not increase their

chances of success by investing in a few pillars, rather they need to find the most suitable

blend of all pillars for their specific circumstances. As stated by Marcel Sturkenboom,

Director of the Dutch National Sport Federation and Olympic Committee (NOC*NSF):

“If you have the ingredients, you still don’t have a good recipe; how you bring the

ingredients together is what counts”

Finally, as is also stated in the literature review in Table 3, some less controllable

variables are also important indicators for success. This is the environment within which elite

sport exists and includes issues such as sponsorships, media portrayal of sport, the tradition of

sport in a nation, the tradition of success, sport culture generally and elite sport culture

specifically. These issues can only be impacted on by sport policies to a limited extent and

therefore do not belong to the meso-level of our classification.

 18

VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

It was the aim of this paper to present a composite performance model of sports policy

factors that are important for international success. Literature in this area is scarce

particularly when it comes to the creation of a model regarding elite sports policies, yet

paradoxically many governments seem to have a considerable interest in trying to outperform

rival nations. Much research has been conducted on the elite sport systems in successful

nations, but little is known on the relationship between systems and success. In this paper we

have proposed a model that categorises the literature into nine pillars of important policy

determinants. Financial inputs (pillar 1) are important, but it is the way the resources are used

via the throughput (pillars 2-9) that might lead to increased production of athletes with medal

winning capability. The model is characterised by a focus on the athlete as a central

stakeholder in elite sport systems. Each pillar can be operationalised into clearly defined,

measurable criteria, based on the overview shown in table 3.

Although this pillar framework aims to give an overview of main sports policy areas that

are important for international success, its function is not deterministic: rather it aims to

identify pivotal issues and to generate crucial questions in a benchmark study of elite sport

systems. It can be assumed that all the conditions identified in the literature review outlined

above can be classified under one of the nine pillars. In an increasingly competitive

environment, nations may develop innovative strategies and thus our proposed model may be

subject to change over time. Furthermore it needs to be tested applied empirically rather than

just in theory. This is the subject of the subsequent research project, SPLISS, that has been

established recently. “SPLISS” stands for “Sport Policy Factors Leading to International

Sporting Success”. In this large-scale study, elite sports policies and the elite sports climate

in different countries will be compared at national level (SPLISS, 2004). The nine pillar

model is used as a basic framework. The study aims to improve knowledge about the sports
 19

policy determinants that are important for international success. The end result may be an

improved insight into how to operationalise the criteria for trans national comparisons,

especially for the throughput stages of the model. Whereas inputs and outputs can be

measured relatively easily in quantitative or qualitative terms, throughput is more difficult to

measure and often indirect methods will have to be used. Therefore some throughputs may

remain analysed at a descriptive level only. This is also the reason why in the SPLISS study,

athletes, coaches and performance directors in six nations have been involved, as they are the

primary stakeholders who can evaluate validly the throughputs in each pillar. This research

strategy is, as acknowledged in the effectiveness literature, essential in order to fill in the

‘gap’ between observed and perceived quality. However, researchers and policy makers must

be aware that uncertainties over the relationship between policies and international sporting

success will always remain. The reason for this is that it is impossible to set up an experiment

trying to explain a causal correlation of one factor leading to success whilst other factors are

controlled. Furthermore, it is difficult to demonstrate the relationship between success and

sports policies statistically due to a lack of reliable data on the one hand, and data that can not

be quantified on the other hand. This makes statistical analysis particularly difficult to

undertake.

So far, six nations are involved in the SPLISS research: Belgium, the Netherlands, the

United Kingdom, Canada, Norway and Italy. These are all Western capitalist and democratic

cultures. It is quite conceivable that this framework will need adjustment before it can be

used meaningfully in nations with different cultures and different sport systems, such as

developing countries, the United States and China. It is impossible to create one single model

for explaining international success. A system leading to success in one nation may be

doomed to fail in another. Therefore it needs to be emphasised that the combination of the

nine pillars may be specific to a given nation’s context and that different systems may all be
 20

successful. This view is partly driven by the fact that sport is a reflection of the cultural

system in which people live (Lüschen, 1970). There are plenty of inexplicable variables,

which we all believe are important but no-one can explain why. Social phenomena such as

sport cannot be understood without a clear understanding of culture (Heineman, 1998).

Australia’s passion for sport may be a stronger explanation for success than any other

variable. The Dutch are more achievement oriented, more inclined to long-term thinking,

better planners, less likely to avoid uncertain situations and find it easier to run risks than

Flemish people (Van Praet, Rooms, De Bosscher et al., 2005). These characteristics are

embedded in a culture and may, to a large, but unquantifiable extent, explain why the

Netherlands is more successful in sport than Flanders. Consequently, comparing nations is a

complex process. Indeed, much discussion has taken place as to whether nations are

appropriate units for comparison. However, given the complexity of the problem of

identifying factors that affect international sporting success and the current lack of data

available, trans national comparison seems to be the only way to do this. We could refer to

the view cited by Hofstede (1998) that every comparison of values and norms between

nations is, in a way, a comparison between apples and oranges. It is important to find a

common language for those factors that can be compared. “Popular wisdom deems that one

cannot compare apples with oranges. But what do we mean by ‘compare’? Scientifically

speaking, apples and oranges come under the general category of ‘fruits’ and can be

compared on many criteria, such as availability, price, colour, vitamin content or keeping

quality. Comparing apples with oranges, cross-cultural psychologist Harry Triandis once

said, is okay as long as we possess a fruitology, a theory of fruits” (1998, p16).

A consensus is building among researchers that macro level factors such as population

and GDP are becoming less accurate predictors of nations' performance in elite sport than

they have been historically (Stamm and Lamprecht, 2001). The principal reason for this view
 21

is that as nations become strategic in the way in which they produce elite athletes, they rely

less on uncontrollable variables. Australia is a good example of a nation which has recently

been able to improve its performance in elite sport dramatically with (in relative terms) a

modest increase in population. However, macro-level determinants still account for more

than 50% of Olympic success and this may be even higher in developing countries (De

Bosscher et al., 2003). Taking into account all the various factors that determine elite sports

success, those at the meso-level are the only ones that can be influenced and changed by

policies. More nations are adopting strategic approaches towards the development of elite

athletes (Shibli & Bingham, 2005). As stated by Oakley and Green (2001) as sporting

systems are moving increasingly towards uniformity globally, it will become harder for

nations to win more medals with a static level of investment. Therefore in international

sporting competition, standing still could mean going backwards if those nations taking a

strategic approach develop a competitive advantage over those nations that do not plan for

success (SIRC, 2002). It is clear that, for nations to be successful in the future, much more

emphasis will need to be made on planning for success in a comprehensive manner.

 22

REFERENCES

Baimbridge, M. (1998). Outcome uncertainty in sporting competition: the Olympic Games

1896-1996. Applied Economics Letters, 5, 161-164.

Ball, D.W. (1972). Olympic games competition. Structural correlates of national success.

International Journal of Comparative sociology, 13 (3-4), 186-200.

Balmer, N.J., Nevill, A.M., Williams, A.M. (2001). Home advantage in the Winter Olympics

(1908-1998). Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 129-139.

Bernard, A.B., & Busse, M.R. (2000). Who wins the Olympic Games: Economic

development and medal totals. Retrieved October 20, 2000, from: http://papers.ssrn.com.

Bloom, B.S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Balantine.

Broom, E.F. (1986). Funding the development of the Olympic athletes: a comparison of

programs in Selected Western and socialist countries. Proceedings of the third

International Seminar on comparative physical education and sport (pp. 21-24).

Champaign: Human kinetics.

Broom, E.F. (1991) Lifestyles of Aspiring High Performance Athletes: a comparison of

national models. Journal of Comparative Physical Education and Sport, 8 (2), 24-54

Buggel, E. (1986). The development of Sport in the German Democratic Republic: 1950-

1985. Proceedings of the third International Seminar on comparative physical education

and sport (pp. 37-53). Champaign: Human kinetics.

Chalip (1995). Policy Analysis in Sport Management, Journal of Sport Management, 9, 1-13.

Chelladurai, P. (2001). Managing organisations. For sport & physical activity. A system

perspective. Scotsdale: Holcomb Hathaway publishers.

Chelladurai, P., Chang, K. (2000) Targets and standards of quality in sport services. Sport

Management Review, 3,1-22.

 23

Clarke, S.R. (2002). Home advantage in the Olympic Games. Retreived November 27,

2003, from http://www.swo,/edu.au/sport/olympics/HAOlympicgames.pdf. Swinnburn,

University of Technology.

Clumpner, R.A. (1994). 21ste century success in international competition. In R. Wilcox

(Ed.), Sport in the global village (pp.298-303). Morgantown, WV: FIT.

Colwell, J. (1981). Socio-cultural determinants of Olympic success. In J. Segrave and D.

D. (Eds.), The Olympic Games in transition, (pp. 242-261). Champaign: Human

kinetics publishers.

Colwell, J. (1982). Quantity or quality: non-linear relationships between extent of

involvement and international sporting success. In A.O. Dunleavy, A.W. Miracle, and

C.R. Rees (Eds.), Studies in the Sociology of Sport, (pp. 101-118). Christian University

Press: Fort Worth.

Condon, E.M., Golden, B.L.,& Wasil, E.A. (1999). Predicting the success of nations at the

Summer Olympics using neural networks. Computers & operations Research, 26,1243-

1265.

Conzelmann, A., Gabler, H., & Nagel, S. (2001). Hochleistungssport: Persönlicher Gewinn

oder Verlust? Lebensläufe von Olympioniken. Tübingen: Attempto.

Conzelmann, A., & Nagel, S. (2003). Professional careers of the German Olympic athletes.

International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 38, 259-280.

Crespo, M., Miley, D.,& Couraud, F. (2001). An overall vision of player development. In

M. Crespo, M. Reid, & D. Miley (Eds). Tennis Player Development, (pp.13-18).

London: ITF LTd.

Crespo, M., Raid, M., Miley, D.,& Atienza, F. (2002). The relationship between

professional tournament structure on the national level and success in men's professional

tennis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 6 (1), 3-15.

 24

De Bosscher, V., De Knop, P. (2003). The influence of sports policies on international

success: An international comparative study. In IOC (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th World

Sport for All Congress. ‘Sport for All and Elite Sport: rivals or partners? (pp.31).

Ahrnem (Netherlands): International Olympic Committee.

De Bosscher, V., De Knop, P. (2004). De prestatiebepalende factoren van topsport volgens

atleten, coaches en topsportcoördinatoren. [Sports policy factors leading to international

sporting success: the opinion of athletes, coaches and performance directors in Flanders.]

Internal report for the Flemish Ministry of Sport, Belgium, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

De Bosscher, V., De Knop, P., Heyndels, B.(2003a). Comparing relative sporting success

among countries: create equal opportunities in sport. Journal for Comparative Physical

Education and Sport, 3 (3), 109-120.

De Bosscher, V., De Knop, P., Heyndels, B.(2003b). Comparing tennis success among

countries. International sport studies, 1, 49-69.

De Bosscher V., De Knop P., van Bottenburg, M., Leblicq S. (2004). Why the Netherlands

are successful and Belgium is not? A comparison of the elite sports climate and policies.

Proceedings of the 12th Congress of the European Association for Sport Management (pp.

239-241), Belgium, Ghent.

De Knop, P, De Bosscher, V., & Leblicq, S. (2004). Topsportklimaat in Vlaanderen [elite

sports climate in Flanders]. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Den Butter, F.A.G., & Van der Tak, C.M. (1995). Olympic medals as an indicator of social

welfare. Social Indicators Research, 35, 27-37.

De Koning, J.,& Olieman, R. (1996). Twijfel over medaille-euforie. [Doubts about medal

euphoria] Economische Statistische Berichten, 2, 813 – 815.

De Smedt, E. (2001). Atletenmanagement [Management of athletes]. Paper presented at

Vleckho business school, Brussels, Belgium, May.
 25

Digel, H. (2001). Talentsuche und talentfoerderung im internationalen vergleich [Talent

detection and talent development in international comparison] Leistungssport, 31 (4), 72-

78.

Digel, H., Burk, V. & Sloboda, H. (2003). Hochleistungssport in Großbritannien und

Nordirland. Weilheim/Teck: Bräuer.

Digel, H., Miao, J. & Utz, A. (2003): Hochleistungssport in China. Weilheim/Teck: Bräuer.

Digel, H. & Kruse, A. (2004): Hochleistungssport in Australien. Weilheim/Teck: Bräuer.

Digel, H. & Barra, M. (2004): Hochleistungssport in Italien. Weilheim/Teck: Bräuer.

Douyin, X. (1988). A comparative study on the competitive sports training systems in

different countries. Journal of Comparative Physical Education and Sport, 2, 3-12.

Duffy, P., Lyons, D., Moran, A., Warrington, G., & Macmanus, C. (2001). Factors

promoting and inhibiting the success of high performance players and athletes in Ireland.

Retrieved 20 January 2002 from:

http://www.nctc.ul.ie/press/pubs/Success%20Factors%20STUDY.doc. National coaching

& Training Centre: Ireland.

Eising, M. (1996). Internationale succesverschillen in de topsport. Înternational differences

in success in elite sport]. Unpublished masters thesis Sociology, university of

Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Gärtner, M (1989). Socialist countries 'sporting success before perestroika-and after?’

International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 24, 4, 283-297.

Gibbons, T., McConnel, A., Forster, T., Riewald, ST., Peterson, K. (2003). Reflections on

success: US Olympians describe the Success Factors and obstacles that most influenced

their Olympic development. Report phase II from United States Olympic Committee

(USOC).
 26

Gillis, J., (1980). Olympic success and national religious orientation. Review of Sport and

Leisure, 5, 1-20.

Green, M., Houlihan, B. (2004). Advocacy coalitions and elite sport policy change in

Canada and the United Kingdom. International Review for the Sociology of sport, 39 (4),

387-403.

Green, M., Houlihan, B. (2005). Elite sport development. Policy learning and political

priorities. London and New York: Routledge.

Green, M., Oakley, B. (2001). Elite sport development systems and playing to win:

uniformity and diversity in international approaches. Leisure studies, 20, 247-267.

Greenleaf, C., Gould, D., & Diefen, K. (2001). Factors influencing Olympic performance

with Atlanta and Nagano US Olympians. Journal of applied sport psychology, 13, 154-

184.

Grimbel, B. (1976). Possibilities and problems in sports talent detection research.

Leistungssport, 6, 159-167.

Grimes, A., Kelly, W., & Rubin, P. (1974). A socio-economic model of national Olympic

performance. Social science quarterly, 55, 777-783.

Heinemann, K. (1998). Sports clubs in various European countries. Series club of Cologne.

Stuttgart: Hofmann Verlag.

Heinilä, K. (1982). The totalisation process in international sport. Toward a theory of the

totalization of competition in top-level sport. Sportwissenschaft, 3, 235-253.

Hoffmann, R., Ging, L.C., & Ramasamy, B. (2001). Public policy and Olympic success.

Retrieved May, 8, 2001, from http://www.unim.nottingham.ac.uk/dbm/papers/2001-

02.pdf. Research Paper Series, University of Nottingham, Malaysia.

Hoffmann, R., Ging, L.C., Ramasamy, B. (2002). The siocio-economic determinants of

international soccer performance. Journal of Applied Economics, 5 (2), 253-272.

 27

Hofstede, G. (1998). A Case for comparing apples with oranges: International differences in

values. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 39, 1, 16-31.

Houlihan, B. (1997). Sport, Policy and Politics. A comparative analysis. London and New

York: Routledge.

Ibrahim, H. (1969). Olympic achievement and social differentiation. California:

Unpublished Masters Thesis, Whittier College, USA

Johnson, K.N., & Ali, A. (2002). A tale of two seasons: participation and medal counts at

the summer and winter Olympic Games. Retrieved February 15, 2003, from

http://www.wellesley.edu/economics/wkpapers/wellwp_0010.pdf. USA: Wellesley

college, Massachusetts.

Jokl, E, Karvonen, M., Kihlberg, J., Koskela, A., Noro, L (1956). Sports in the cultural

patern of the world. Helsinki: institute of occupational health.

Jokl, E. (1964). health, wealth, and athletics In E. Simin (Eds.), International research in

sport and physical education (pp. 218-222). Springfield: Thomas.

Kiviaho, P., & Mäkelä, P (1978). Olympic Success: a sum of non-material and material

factors. International Review of Sport sociology, 2, 5-17.

Kuper, G.H. and E. Sterken (2003), Olympic Participation and Performance Since 1896.

Research Report, No. 03C19, Graduate School/Research Institute Systems, Organisations

and Management, University of Groningen. Retrieved September, 2003, from

http://som.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/reports/themeC/2003/03C19

Kruger, A. (1984). To Moscow and back: international status of comparative research in

regard to physical activity outside of schools. Proceedings of the 4th international seminar

on comparative physical education and sport ( pp213-227). Malente-Kiel, West Germany.

Larose, K., & Haggerty, T.R. (1996). Factors associated with national Olympic success: an

exploratory study. Non published Masters thesis, Universiteit Brunswick, Canada.

 28

Levine, N. (1974). Why do countries win olympic medals – some structural correlates of

olympic games succes. Sociology and Social Research, 58, 4, 353-360.

Lüschen, G. (1970) The cross-cultural analysis of sport and games. Illinois Champaign III:

Stipes publishing company.

Morton, R.H. (2002). Who won the Sydney 2000 Olympics? An allometric approach. The

Statistician, 51, 147-155.

Nevill, A.M., Holder, R.L., Bardsley, A., Calvert, H., Jones, S. (1997). Journal of Sports

Sciences, 15, 437-443

Novikov, A.D, & Maximenko, A.M. (1972). The influence of selected socio-economic

factors on the level of sports achievements in the various countries. International Review

of Sport sociology, 7, 22-44.

Nys, K., De Knop,P., & De Bosscher (2002). Prestatiebepalende factoren in topsport [Factors

determining international success in elite sports]. Unpublished Masters thesis, Vrije

Universiteit Brussel, Belgium.

Oakley B., & Green, M. (2001). The production of Olympic champions: international

perspectives on elite sport development system. European Journal for Sport Management,

8, 83 – 105.

Papadimitriou D. (2001). An exploratory examination of the prime beneficiary approach of

organisational effectiveness: the case of elite athletes of Olympic and non-Olympic

Sports. European Journal of Sport Management, special issue, 63-82.

Riordan, J. (1989). Soviet Sport and Perestroika. Journal of Comparative physical Education

and Sport, 6, 2; 7-18.

Riordan, J. (1991). Sport, politics and communism. Manchester: Manchester University

Press.
 29

Sedlacek, J., Matousek, R., Holcek, R., Moravec, R. (1994). The influence of the political

changes on the high performance sport organisation in Czechoslovakia. In R. Wilcox

(Ed.), Sport in the global village (pp 341-347). Fitness Information Technology Inc:

Morgantown, WV.

Semotiuk, D. (1990) East Bloc Athletics in the Glasnost Era. Journal of Comparative

Physical Education and Sport, 9 (1), 26-29.

Seppänen, P. (1970). The role of competitive sports in different societies. Proceedings of the

7de world congress sociology (pp. 101-116). Varna, Portugal .

Seppänen, P. (1981). Olympic success: a cross-cultural perspective. In G.R.F. Lüschen,

G.H. Sage (Eds.), Handbook of social science of sport (pp. 101-116). Illinois: Stipes

publishing company, Champaign III.

Shaw, S., & Pooley, J. (1976). National success at the Olympics: an explanation. In C.

Lessard, JP Massicotte & E. Leduc (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international Seminar:

history of Physical Education and Sport (pp. 1-27). Trois Rivieres, Quebec.

Shibli, S. (2003). Analysing performance at the Olympic Games: Beyond the final medal

table. Paper presented at the 11th Congress of the European Association for Sport

Management, Stockholm, Sweden.

Shibli, S., & Bingham, J. (2005). An evaluation of medal-based measures of performance in

the Summer Olympic Games. Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the European

Association for Sport Management (pp. 246-247), England, Newcastle.

SIRC (2002). European sporting success. A study of the development of medal winning

elites in five European countries. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.

SPLISS (2004). Sports Policy Factors Leading to International Sporting Success. Retrieved

June, 2004, from

 30

http://www.vub.ac.be/infovoor/onderzoekers/research/res_search_person.php. Vrije

Universiteit Brussel, Belgium.

Stamm, H., & Lamprecht, M. (2000). Der Schweizer Spitzensport im internationalen

Vergleich. Eine empirische Analyse der Olympischen Spiele, 1964-1998. GSF-schriften

sportwissenschaften. Zürich: Studendruckerei Uni Zürich.

Stamm, H., & Lamprecht, M. (2001). Sydney 2000, the best games ever? World Sport and

Relationships of Structural Dependency. Summary of a paper presented at the 1st World

Congress of the Sociology of Sport, Seoul, Korea. Retrieved March, 2002, from

http://www.lssfb.ch/download/ISSA_Seoul.pdf.

Starkes, J. (2000). The road to expertise: is practice the only determinant? International

Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 4, 431-451.

Sturkenboom, M. & Vervoorn, C. (1998). Diagram of the multidisciplinary support staff in

top sports. Paper presented at NOC*NSF symposium, Ahrnem, the Netherlands.

Suen, W. (1992). Men, money and medals: an econometric analysis of the Olympic Games.

Discussion Paper from the University of Hong Kong.

Suen, W. (1994). (Olympic) Games and economic behaviour. Working paper, University of

Hong Kong. Retrieved May 25, 2006, from http://www.econ.cuhk.edu.hk/~wcsuen

Tcha, M, Perchin, V. (2003). Reconsidering performance at the summer Olympics and

revealed Comparative advantage. Journal of Sports economics, 4 (3), 216-239.

Unierzyski, P., Wielinski, D., Zhanel, J. (2003). Searching for reasons for success and

failure in the careers of young tennis players – a study of two individual cases. In M.

Crespo, D. Miley & M. Reid (Eds.) Proceedings of the ITF worldwide coaches

symposium, (pp. 138). Villamoura (Portugal): ITF.

van Bottenburg, M. (2000). Het topsportklimaat in Nederland [The elite sports climate in the

Netherlands]. ’s Hertogenbosch: Diopter-Janssens en van Bottenburg bv.

 31

van Bottenburg, M., Roques, C., Smit, S. (2004). Ontwikkelingen in het topsportklimaat in

Nederland (1998-2002). [Developments in the elite sports climate in the Netherlands

(1998-200)]. Niewegein: Arko Sports Media.

van den Berg, M. (2001). The support structure for top sports: perspectives from national

team sport coaches. Unpublished Thesis for the European University Diploma of Sport

Management. Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Van Praet, L., Rooms, A., De Bosscher, V., De Knop, P. (2005). Sport en topsportcultuur:

een exploratieve studie van Vlaanderen en Nederland. [Sports- and elite sports culture:

an explorative study on Flanders and the Netherlands] Non published masters thesis.,

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium.

Wells, H.J.C. (1991). Developing sporting excellence in Hong Kong. Journal of Comparative

Physical Education and Sport, 1, 28-34.

Wylleman, P., De Knop, P., & Sillen, D. (1998). Former Olympic athletes’ perceptions of

retirement from high-level sport. Paper presented at the 28th Congress of the International

Association of Applied Psychology, San Francisco, United States, August.

Wylleman, P., & Lavallee, D. (2003). A developmental perspective on transitions faced by

athletes. In M. Weiss (Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan

perspective. Morgantown, WV: FIT.

 32

Author’s notes

Veerle de Bosscher works at the department of Sports Policy and Management (faculty of

Physical Education) in the Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Belgium. She graduated in Physical

Education and earned a Masters degree (GGS) in sports management in Brussels and also in

training/coaching in Leuven. She is currently studying for a Ph.D. on “Sports Policy factors

Leading to International Sporting Success”. Through these studies, she is coordinating an

international comparative study (SPLISS), together with United Kingdom and the

Netherlands. She is involved in courses on sports policies and sports management and her

research interests are in sport- and elite sport systems, international comparisons, youth and

sport, sport management, and quality in sport.

Paul De Knop has a Ph.D. in Physical Education from the Faculty of Physical Education of

Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Belgium. He graduated in leisure studies from the same

university and earned a Master Degree in Sports Sociology and Sports Management from the

University of Leicester (UK). He is a full time professor at the VUB and dean of the faculty

of Physical Education. He is Chairman of the board of BLOSO (Flemish sports

administrative body) since 1999, Chairman of the RAGO (Council of the Community

Education of Flanders) since 2002, and deputy chief of cabinet to the Flemish minister of

Sport since 2004. Furthermore, he is co-ordinator of a “Top Level Sport and Studies” –

program at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and project manager of two sport centres. His

areas of teaching include sport, leisure and physical education from a socio-pedagogical

perspective. Research interests are: youth and sport, sport and ethnic minorities, sport and

tourism, sport management, quality in sport and sport policy.

 33

Maarten van Bottenburg studied sociology at the University of Utrecht and Amsterdam in the

Netherlands. In 1994 he obtained his doctorate in the social sciences cum laude with a thesis

on the differential popularisation of sports. Since 2002, he has been research director of

W.J.H. Mulier Institute – Centre for Research on Sports in Society, a joint venture of the

University of Amsterdam, Tilburg University, and Utrecht University. In 2004, he was

appointed professor of sport studies at Utrecht University and professor of sport business at

Fontys University of Professional Education. Van Bottenburg published several books and

reports in the field of the sociology of sport and sports management. In his most recent study,

he analysed trends in and key drivers of sport participation in the European Union.

Simon Shibli is a graduate in Physical Education, Sport Science and Recreation Management

from Loughborough University. Subsequently he became a CIMA qualified management

accountant. His areas of research interest are the finance and economics of the sport and

leisure industries. His recent work has been focused on five key areas:

• The evaluation of major sport and cultural events;

• Athlete development systems and performance measurement in elite sport;

• Participation data in sport and other cultural pursuits;

• The evaluation of community based sport programmes; and

• Monitoring the performance of local authority sport and leisure facilities via the Sport

England National Benchmarking Service

Simon has a long track record of conducting monitoring and evaluation exercises for UK

Sport, Sport England, national governing bodies, local authorities, Regional Development

Agencies and private sector clients. He has a detailed knowledge of major sport and cultural
 34

events and has been involved in their evaluation since 1997. Since 2002 he has collaborated

with the other authors of this paper on the SPLISS project He is a regular presenter at major

sport and leisure conferences and has also had numerous articles published in peer reviewed

journals.
 35

Footnotes

1
the advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) was defined as “… people from a variety of

positions (elected and agency officials, interest group leaders, researchers) who (1) share a

particular belief system – i.e. set of basic values, causal assumptions and problem

perceptions- and who (2) show a non-trivial degree of coordination over time (Sabatier and

Jenkins-Smith, 1999: 138)”, cited by Green and Houlihan (2004: 389). A key feature of the

ACF is its focus on the policy process as a whole over ‘periods of a decade or more’.

2
What is meant by the term 'elite sports climate' is defined by Van Bottenburg (2000) as:

“The social and organisational environment that provides the circumstances in which athletes

can develop into elite sports athletes and can continue to achieve at the highest levels in their

branch of sport.” (2000, p. 24)

3
Flanders is the Northern, Dutch speaking part of Belgium
 36

Table 1: Overview of important studies on the factors leading to international success: macro-

level

Author Independent variable Event

Jokl, Karvonen, Transcultural analysis: geographic origin, population, climatic zone, OG, Helsinki 1952
Kihlberg, Koskela nourishment, demographic characteristics and economic system
& Noro 1956
Jokl, 1964 Socio-economic factors: OG, Helsinki 1952 and Rome 1960
- mortality
- wealth (GNP per capita)
Ibrahim, 1969 - health Not known
(cited by Colwell, - economic factors
1981) - social factors
Seppänen, 1970 & - religious orientation: Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Islamic 1896-1968: summer Games
1981 - socialism versus Protestant, mixed, Protestant/Catholic and Catholic 1942 – 1968: winter and summer
Games
Ball, Correlation of 55 national indicators with success, divided into OG: Tokyo 1964
1972 demographic, ecological, economic and political factors
Novikov & Socio-economic variables: OG: Tokyo 1964 and Mexico 1988
Maximenko, - wealth (GNP per capita)
1972 - calorific consumption
- average life expectancy
- percentage of illiterate competitors
- percentage from urban background
- population of country
political system: compares communist and capitalist countries
Levine, 15 variables used: OG: Munich 1972
1974 - demographic variables (population, urbanisation, area)
- economic variables (GDP, GDP per capita, industrialised and
socialist countries)
- resources (percentage literacy, percentage of completion of primary
and secondary education, higher education students, expenditure on
education, newspaper circulation)
Grimes, Kelly & - population OG: Munich 1972
Rubin, 1974 - GNP (as indicator of nutrition, possibilities of training and salaries
of professional athletes)
- Political system: communism (as indicator of systematic
recruitment, training, subsidising of athletes)
Shaw & Pooley - military expenditures OG: Munich 1972
1976 - wealth (GDP)
- number of Olympic sports in schools
Kiviaho & Material factors: OG: Tokyo 1964
Mäkelä, - demographic (population and population density)
1978 - social (health care)
- economic development (GNP per capita)
non-material factors:
- economic/political system (socialist economy)
- religion (personal asceticism)
Gillis, 1980 - wealth (GNP per capita) All summer Games: 1896 - 1976
- religion before and after war (Protestant, Catholic,
Protestant/Catholic, Muslim, Orthodox, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish
Colwell, 1981 - economic dimension OG: Montreal 1976
- political dimension
- social dimension
Colwell, 1982 - “Extent of involvement” – number of events OG: Montreal 1976
Gärtner, 1989 - wealth (GDP and GDP per capita) OG: Sapporo, 1972, Munich, 1972,
- population Innsbruck,1976, Montreal, 1976,
- political system: socialist countries versus Western cultures Calgary, 1988)
Success in tennis and football
Suen, 1992 - population (devided by sum of total population of all nations) OG time series 1952-1988
- GDP (devided by sum of total GDP of all nations)
- Communist nations excluded
 37

Suen, 1994 - population OG Barcelona 1992

- GDP
- Communist nations (dummy variable)
- Continental influences
Den Butter & Van - population OG: Seoul, 1988 and Barcelona,
der Tak, 1995 - standard of living: GDP and GDP per capita, Human Development 1992
index, Quality of life index
- political system: communism
De Koning & - population OG: Atlanta, 1996
Olieman - wealth: income per capita
1996 - political system: communism
- female participation rate
Nevill, Holder, Logarithmic regression analysis Tennis and Golf, world rankings
Bardsley, 1997 - home nations and away nations 1993
Compares the regression lines for ‘home’ and ‘away’ using a standard
analysis of variance mtehod
Baimbridge - number of competitors per event and per nation OG: 1896-1996
1998 - political controversies: capitalist, communist and developing nations
- trend: ratio of medal winning to participating nations over the
Olympics 100 year history
Condon, Golden 17 variables: area, population, population growth rate, birth and death OG: Atlanta 1996
& Wasil, 1999 rate, infant mortality, life expectancy, number of airports, length of
rail track, length of (un)paved highways, GNP, GNP per capita, value
of exported and imported goods, electricity production and
consumption per capita
Bernard & Busse - population OG: Atlanta 1996
2000 - wealth: GDP and GDP per capita Time Series summer Games, 1960 -
- host country 1996
boycotts OG 1980 and 1984, success in the past, political system:
communism
Van Bottenburg - wealth: GNP OG: 2 summer Games: Barcelona
2000 - population 1992 and Atlanta 1996, 2 winter
- degree of urbanisation Games: Lillehammer 1994 and
- area Nagano 1998
Stamm & - economic development: GDP per capita All summer and winter Games
Lamprecht 2000 - social development: secondary enrolment 1964 - 2000
& 2001 - political development: extent of political and civil liberties
- population size (general demographic conditions and prominence of
talent)
- degree of institutionalisation of elite sports: year, duration of IOC
membership
- political system: effect of authoritarian model of sport promotion
(socialism)
Hoffmann, Ging - climatic circumstances: temperature, humidity and climate OG: Sydney 2000
& Ramasamy, - wealth: (GNP per capita)
2001 - population
- political system: current/previously socialist government
- host nations
Balmer, Nevill, Non-parametric statistics: (1) Wilcoxon signed-rank test, (2) OG: Winter Games, 1908-1998
Williams, 2001 Kruskal-Wallis test and (3) regression analysis (parametric):
lineair, quadratic and exponential
- home advantage: medals or points won by a hosting nations
(home) compared with the medals or points won by the same
nations when visiting other Olympic Games (away)
- only nations who have ever hosted the Games
Hoffmann, Ging - population Football: World ranking points in
& Ramasamy, - wealth (GDP per capita) FIFA/Coca Cola 2001
2002 - cultural influences:
- host nations for the world cup football (since 1930)
- Romanic speaking countries – Latin (dummy)
- Geographical setting: average annual temperature of 14 degrees
Celsius in capital cities
Johnson & Ali, - wealth (GDP per capita) All Games 1952 – 2000 (26 editions)
2002 - population
- host country and neighbouring countries
- climatic conditions
 38

- political system: communism, military, monarchy, other

- time trend
Morton, 2002 - population OG: Sydney 2000
- GDP
Kuper en Sterken, - wealth (GDP per capita) All Games from 1896 (24 editions)
2003 - population
- host country
- political system and national culture
- media (television)
Tcha & Perchin, Patterns of specialising in sports by using the revealed comparative OG: Seoul 1988, Barcelona 1992 and
2003 advantage (RCA), in line with neoclassical trade models (swimming, Atlanta 1996
athletics, weight games, ball games, gymnastics and other)
- economic variables: GNP per capita, GNP and population
- natural environment (land mass, coast length, altitude, temperature)
- Dummy variables for African and Asian countries and former
socialist countries
De Bosscher, De - wealth (GDP per capita) OG: Sydney (2000)
Knop & Heyndels, - population
2003 a&b - degree of urbanisation
- area
- religion
OG: Olympic Games
 39

Table 2: Main factors of success according to elite athletes in three nations (Ireland, USA,
Flanders**), using an open ended question.

Ireland USA Flanders3

Duffy at al. (2001) Gibbons et al. (2003) De Knop et al. (2004)
N=207 N = 760 N=140
*Relative % *Relative % *Relative %
1 personal/internal factors 37,2 dedication & persistence 58,1 personal motivation & 97,1
persistence
2 social support 36,2 support family and friends 52,0 personal environment (parents, 83,6
peers)
3 coaching 31,4 excellent coaches 49,4 expertise and quality of coaches 61,4
4 support system / financial 20,7 love of sport 27,1 club level quality & atmosphere 35,0
support & structures
5 training and competition 20,7 excellent training programs & 22,3 financial support 25,7
facilities
6 facilities 9,6 natural talent 21,9 support systems in athlete’s 12,9
career development
7 specialist advice 8,7 competitiveness 15,0 international competition 8,6
8 role models 2,4 focus: how much could they 13,0 training facilities 7,1
focus on training
9 / work ethic 11,6 social appreciation for sport 6,0

10 / financial support 11,5 media and sponsors 1,4

*the percentages represent the proportion of athletes who have mentioned each item
**There are slight differences in the Flemish methodology where “internal factors” (at the micro-
level) were gathered separately from “external factors”. This explains the higher percentage of the
micro-level factors.
 1

Table 3: a literature overview of success determinants at the meso-level, clustered in nine policy areas

Item Reference Factor

Broom, 1986 & 1991; Buggel, 1986; Riordan,

1989 & 1991; Sedlacek, Matousek, Holcek et al.,
1994; Semotiuk, 1990
Financial support programmes for athletes: lifestyle support, funding,
Duffy, Lyons, Moran et al., 2001 ; Gibbons, Mc
grants and sponsorship; financial independence
connel, Forster et al., 2003
De Bosscher & De Knop, 2004; De Knop, De
Bosscher & Leblicq, 2004; De Bosscher, De Pillar 1
Knop, van Bottenburg et al., 2004. financial support

Financial support for training centres and personnel Clumpner, 1994

Financial support for NGBs: overall sport budget and elite sport budget
De Bosscher & De Knop, 2002 & 2004
in the National Governing Body (NGB)
Funding over a 4 year period with defined targets in mind Wells, 1991

Elite sport priorities Pilar 2

Oakley & Green, 2001 and Green & Oakley, Integrated
- recognition that developing excellence has costs, with appropriate
2001 approach to
funding for infrastructure and people
Larose & Haggerty, 1996 policy
- emphasis on high-performance sport in a country
development
Clumpner, 1994
Targeting of resources on a relatively small number of sports through
Oakley & Green, 2001 and Green & Oakley,
identifying those that have a real chance of success at world level;
2001
prioritisation of Olympic sports
Wells, 1991

An ongoing integrated support system: Clumpner, 1994

 2

- a coordinated sport system and coordination of elite sport initiatives Duffy, Lyons, Moran et al., 2001
- an unbroken line up through the system De Bosscher & De Knop, 2002 & 2004; De
- a communication network which maintains the system Knop, De Bosscher & Leblicq, 2004; De
- good communication/relationship with National Governing bodies Bosscher, De Knop, van Bottenburg et al., 2004.
(NGBs) and clubs Wells, 1991
- a clear understanding about the role of the different agencies involved Oakley & Green, 2001 and Green & Oakley,
- comprehensive planning for the needs of each sport 2001

Oakley & Green, 2001 and Green & Oakley,

Simplicity of administration through common sporting and political
2001
boundaries
Wells, 1991
Development of National Governing Bodies (NGBs):
- professionalisation in NGBs Krüger, 1984
- rational systems of long-term planning in sports, continuity Duffy, Lyons, Moran et al., 2001 ;
- administration, organisation, information, interest from NGBs De Bosscher & De Knop, 2002
- good cooperation of NGBs with regional departments and clubs
Gibbons, McConnel, Forster et al., 2003
Structural support from NGBs and Olympic Committee
Greenleaf, Gould, Diefen, 2001

Initiation/foundation level Broom, 1986; Buggel, 1986; Riordan, 1989 &

1991; Sedlacek, Matousek, Holcek et al., 1994;
- recognition of physical education and sport as a constitutional law;
Semotiuk, 1990
sport in schools, sport in curriculum
De Bosscher & De Knop, 2002
- access to sport for all
Clumpner, 1994 Pillar 3
- accessibility of multiple sport programmes and facilities for children Gibbons, McConnel, Forster et al., 2003 Sport
participation
Duffy, Lyons, Moran et al., 2001 ; Broom 1991
Participation/club level
De Bosscher & De Knop, 2002 & 2004
- introduction to sport at a young age and not specialising too early –
Nys, De Bosscher, De Knop, 2002; De Knop, De
age of entry in sport
Bosscher & Leblicq, 2004; De Bosscher, De
- club structure, quality in sports clubs
Knop, van Bottenburg et al., 2004.
 3

- quality and level of club training

- special attention for young talents at club level
Talent identification Broom, 1986; Buggel, 1986; De Knop, De
- early talent spotting through schools (as typical in former communist Bosscher & Leblicq, 2004; De Bosscher, De
nations) Knop, van Bottenburg et al., 2004; Riordan, 1989
- early talent spotting (with care that burn out and drop out do not & 1991; Sedlacek, Matousek, Holcek et al., 1994;
occur) - age of talent identification Semotiuk, 1990
- an effective system for the statistical identification and monitoring of Clumpner, 1994; Broom, 1991
the progress of talented and elite athletes Oakley & Green, 2001; Green & Oakley, 2001;
Pillar 4
Talent development: Talent
- high frequency training within the school system (as typical in former identification
communist nations) Broom, 1986 & 1991; Buggel, 1986; Riordan, and development
- programmes combining sport with education/work 1989 & 1991; Sedlacek, Matousek, Holcek et al., system
- training: 1994; Semotiuk, 1990.
- sufficient training opportunities at a high level Douyin, 1988;
- training camps at club level and with the national squad Nys, De Bosscher, De Knop, 2002
- specialised training, long-term and systematic from childhood De Bosscher & De Knop, 2002
to adulthood
- training and competition support during talent development
- multidimensional support of young athletes/ staffing
Green and Houlihan, 2005
Duffy, Lyons, Moran et al., 2001 ; Van
Bottenburg, 2000 Pillar 5
Lifestyle (financial) support for athletes
Krüger, 1984; Wells, 1991
- emergence of ‘full-time’ athletes Athletic and post
Oakley & Green, 2001 and Green & Oakley,
- amount of money earned, rewards career support
2001; De Knop, De Bosscher & Leblicq, 2004;
De Bosscher, De Knop, van Bottenburg et al.,
2004.
 4

Multidisciplinary support staff and specialist advice from sports Sturkenboom & Vervoorn, 1998, cited by van den
science and sports medicine: Berg, 2001; Duffy, Lyons, Moran et al., 2001 ;
Oakley & Green, 2001 and Green & Oakley,
- (para)medical, exercise physiological, material and environment,
2001
social psychological, nutrition and media training;
Nys, De Bosscher, De Knop, 2002; De Bosscher
- lifestyle management, time management, career development;
& De Knop, 2002 & 2004; Greenleaf, Gould,
- preparation for life after sport; Diefen, 2001; Conzelman,& Nagel, 2003;

Training opportunities:
- intense training (fulltime) and with athletes of similar/higher
standard; Duffy, Lyons, Moran et al., 2001; Broom, 1991 ;
Gibbons, McConnel, Forster et al., 2003; Van
- sufficient training camps
Bottenburg, 2000
- providing athletic talent with the necessary time to train - easy access
Clumpner, 1994;
to sport at college (US)
Douyin, 1988;
- specialised training systems and training methods, long-term and the Krüger, 1984;
application of optimal training loads (principles of periodisation, Nys, De Bosscher, De Knop, 2002; De Bosscher
interval training, endurance training,…) & De Knop, 2002 & 2004
- multidisciplinary training: technical, tactical and physical training;

Green and Houlihan, 2005

Development of elite sport facilities Oakley & Green, 2001 and Green & Oakley,
- well developed and specific facilities with priority access for elite 2001;
athletes Gibbons, McConnel, Forster et al., 2003
- existence of adequate facilities for use by elite athletes Larose & Haggerty, 1996;
- create centres of sporting excellence on a regional basis Wells, 1991; Krüger, 1984; Pillar 6
Training
- equipment prior for elite sport De Bosscher & De Knop, 2002 & 2004;
facilities
- development of a national training centre Clumpner, 1994; Duffy, Lyons, Moran et al.,
- accessibility, availability and quality of training facilities; distance to 2001 ; Nys, De Bosscher, De Knop, 2002; De
training facilities and technical support Knop, De Bosscher & Leblicq, 2004 ; De
Bosscher, De Knop, van Bottenburg et al., 2004.
Development of sport for all facilities De Bosscher & De Knop, 2002; Duffy, Lyons,
 5

- Number of sport for all facilities Moran et al., 2001;

Nys, De Bosscher, De Knop, 2002; van
Bottenburg, 2003
Coaching expertise in high-performance sport
- quantity and quality of coaches: level and number of experts available Larose & Haggerty, 1996
- knowledgeable coaches, dedication; Broom, 1986; Buggel, 1986; Riordan, 1989 &
1991; Sedlacek, Matousek, Holcek et al., 1994;
- good athlete-coach relations
Semotiuk, 1990;
- training and qualification systems for elite coaches - sufficient career
Clumpner, 1994; Green & Houlihan, 2005
development opportunities at the elite level
Duffy, Lyons, Moran et al., 2001 ; Wells, 1991;
- professional coaches (as typical in former communist nations) Krüger, 1984; Nys, De Bosscher, De Knop, 2002
- set up a coaching commission to develop an accreditation system & 2004; Greenleaf, Gould, Diefen, 2001; De
- coaching expertise in NGB and regional departments for the Knop, De Bosscher & Leblicq, 2004; De
provision of selection training Pillar 7
Bosscher, De Knop, van Bottenburg et al., 2004.
Coaching
provision and
Larose & Haggerty, 1996 coach
Coaching expertise in developmental sport Gibbons, Mc connel, Forster et al., 2003 development
- quantity and quality of youth coaches to avoid athletes’ burn out: Greenleaf, Gould, Diefen, 2001
sufficient dedicated, committed, knowledgeable, motivating coaches De Bosscher & De Knop, 2002 & 2004 ; Bloom,
at all levels - qualified coaches 1985; De Knop, De Bosscher & Leblicq, 2004;
- training and qualification systems - coaches education De Bosscher, De Knop, van Bottenburg et al.,
2004.
Clumpner, 1994
Coaching provision
Duffy, Lyons, Moran et al., 2001 ; De Bosscher
- provision of full time coaches (with a low athlete to coach ratio)
& De Knop, 2002 & 2004 ; Green & Houlihan,
- coaching support structure
2005
Organisation of international events in own nation Bernard & Busse, 2000; Clarke, 2002; Johnson & Pillar 8
Ali, 2002; Kuper & Sterken, 2003 National and
international
Participation in international competition Green and Houlihan, 2005;
 6

- sufficient international competition opportunities for elite level Clumpner, 1994 competitions
athletes Duffy, Lyons, Moran et al., 2001 ; Gibbons, Mc
- competition support (financial) connel, Forster et al., 2003 ; Van Bottenburg,
2000; Nys, De Bosscher, De Knop, 2002; De
Knop, De Bosscher & Leblicq, 2004; De
Bosscher, De Knop, van Bottenburg et al., 2004.

Participation in national competition

Larose & Haggerty, 1996
- access to high quality competition in own nation
Crespo, Raid, Miley et al., 2002; Crespo, Miley,
- professional tournament structure (tennis); well structured
& Atienza, 2002; Oakley & Green, 2001 and
competitive programmes
Green & Oakley, 2001
- opportunities to participate in competition at each level: club level, Van Bottenburg, 2000; Nys, De Bosscher, De
provincial, national and international level Knop, 2002
Developments in coaching, sports science and sports medicine
- high priority to applied scientific research
- information on sports science and medical support:
- sport science: monitoring and testing, psychological advice, Broom, 1986; Buggel, 1986; Riordan, 1989 &
nutritional advice, carding scheme 1991; Sedlacek, Matousek, Holcek et al., 1994;
Pillar 9
- sport medicine: physiotherapy, kinesiologist Semotiuk, 1990;
Scientific
- a network of sports medicine - medical support Green and Houlihan, 2005; Clumpner, 1994;
research and
- develop a research programme linked to the objectives stated: use of Krüger, 1984 Duffy, Lyons, Moran et al., 2001;
sports medicine
scientific methods to seek talent; scientific organisation of training Larose & Haggerty, 1996
support
programmes; applied research geared to specific sports; the Wells, 1991
development of techniques in particular sports and the perfection of De Bosscher & De Knop, 2002 & 2004
sporting equipment and facilities
- communication towards coaches of scientific research results

Environment of
Media & sponsorship Nys, De Bosscher, De Knop, 2002; Van elite sport
- Quality of media attention Bottenburg, 2000
 7

- Quantity of media attention

Sport culture and elite sports culture
Larose & Haggerty, 1996
- a nation's tradition in a particular sport
Kruger, 1984; Van Bottenburg, 2000
- the social position of sport outside the schools
Spreading and development of sport around the world – increasing
Krüger, 1984
competition
 1

Figure 1: Model showing the relationship between factors determining individual and national
success (De Bosscher & De Knop, 2003)

National success
Environment of
sport systems
Macro-level Factors that can not be
influenced
Factors easily
Meso-level influenced by sports
policies

Individual success
Micro-level

Athlete

Personal
Environment

National success
Policies/politics Factors easily
influenced by sports
policies
Social/cultural Factors that can not
context be influenced
 2

Figure 2: the 9 pillars of sports policy factors influencing international success

OUTPUT
Elite sport Environment Media
& Sponsoring OUTCOME
Pillar 5
INPUT
Athletic &
National governing bodies

Pillar 9 post-Career Support

Scientific research

Pillar 8
(Inter)national competition
THROUGHPUT
Pillar 7
Pillar 4
Coaching provision & coach
development Talent identification &
Pillar 6 -development system
Training facilities

Pillar 3
INPUT

Foundation &
participation
Pillar 1 INPUT
Financial support
Pillar 2
Integrated approach to policy development

View publication stats