Sport Policy, Politics, and Ethics - Term Paper Example

SPORT POLICY, POLITICS AND ETHICS of The significance of sport nationally and internationally cannot be overemphasized. National governments and international community has recognized the important role that sports play in nurturing talents, promoting trade, fostering international cooperation and overcoming prejudice among other benefits. As a result, more sporting activities are organized at national, regional, and international levels. Olympics, World Cup, Commonwealth games, international-acclaimed marathons such as London Marathon are some of the major and global sporting activities taking place in the world at varying intervals (Bodin and Sempé, 2011, p. 44). Due to the importance of sport and benefits accruing from it, there are policies that have been developed at country, regional, and international level to provide framework in which sporting activities can take place. Policies are aimed at enhancing physical activity and participation in sport. However, it should be noted that policies of sport are highly influenced by sporting dynamics and shifting instruments and priorities of respective governments. Policy for sport is also aimed at promoting the interests of sport at local, sub-regional, regional, and international levels. Besides, development of sport policy has been informed by the realization that sport can be used as a means of delivering a wide range of policy aspirations such as local economic viability and health improvement among others (Bloyce and Smith, 2009, p. 101). Implementation of policy by for sport by governments is faced with various challenges and barriers. Implementation of sport policy is often faced with barriers and challenges just like are the case with implementation of policy in other respects. One of the main challenges is declining participation among the population in sport. Studies show that participation in sport has been declining significantly in most countries despite its importance (Bodin and Sempé, 2011, p. 60). Particularly, it has been noted that the participation of those aged over 15 years has dropped dramatically in recent years. Experts argue that this challenge in implementation of sport policy can be attributed to the fact that physical activities in the population has been declining especially after children have attained 12 years of age. The increased number of population suffering from obesity and overweight is a proof that physical activity has been declining. In addition, implementation of policy for sport has been faced with various barriers to access; that is, there are barriers that reduce or prevent individuals from participating in sports. The barriers identified include: economic, cultural, linguistic, and social (Cambridge Policy Consultants, 2009, p. 37). Also, certain group of people such as Aboriginal peoples, visible minorities, people with disability, and girls and women continue to be under-represented in the sport system of many countries thereby impeding the implementation of policy for sport by those countries. Language has been identified as another barrier to implementation of sport policy at national level especially in francophones states (Bloyce and Smith, 2009, p. 85). Additionally, the implementation of policy for sport is faced with the challenge of accessibility and availability of sport facilities. Governments have been willing to implement sport policy, but in most cases they are unable to do so because of lack of sport facilities. It is agreeable that indeed developing and maintaining sport facilities is costly, and this is what portends a challenge to the governments when it comes to the implementation of sport policy. In some cases, sport facilities may be available but inaccessible. As was noted in South Africa in the run up to the World Cup, a country may have facilities but larger density of it may be concentrated in some areas and completely lacking or inadequate in others (Bodin and Sempé, 2011, p. 55). As a result, majority of the public may not be able to access them, thereby unable to engage in sport activities. Barriers to participation also arise in the form of lack or insufficient supportive human infrastructure for sports. Most governments have not invested adequately in supportive human infrastructure, a situation which has compromised effective implementation of policy for sport (Cambridge Policy Consultants, 2009, p. 42). Moreover, implementation of policy for sports by governments is faced with the challenge of lack of evidence regarding the impact of sport in context of development. Whereas most governments appreciate the positive impact of sport, very few have gone further to back up this assertion with concrete evidence. Consequently, policy makers have failed to make numerous instruments to further develop sport to higher levels. Similarly, there is no coherence among all sport stakeholders regarding promoting sport. As a product, companies, organizations, and countries exploit the currency of sport in a very shallow manner. Another challenge is that governments do not constantly generate significant momentum around sport (Bloyce and Smith, 2009, p. 76). It is usual to see that after high-profile sport events such as the World Cup, governments and other stakeholders in the sport industry tend to lose the momentum to attaining sport policy objectives, only to regain such momentum in the next high-profile event. Furthermore, rigid formal structures in sport have been a barrier to implementation of sport policy by the governments. In as much as the governments are trying to implement policy for sport, they often fail to address some of the rigid structures within the same policy or outside it but are still intertwined with the implementation of the policy. Rigid formal structures have proven unhelpful and have hampered governments’ efforts to improve on the quality of the sport projects. This rigidity is mostly in the communication aspect of sport projects and involvement of some or all actors in policy implementation (Bodin and Sempé, 2011, p. 57). The government is facing challenges and barriers in the implementation of policy for London 2012. Just like is the case with most of the governments across the world in respect to implementation of policy for sport, the Britain’s government is faced with the challenge of declining participation among the population in sport. Woodhouse (2010) says that the House of Commons were cognizant of this challenge as they focused on the question of whether the London 2012 Olympics would secure its legacy in mass sports participation. Since declining participation in sport had been identified as a main challenge facing London Olympics in 2012, the Government in June 2008 had published a Legacy Action Plan. One of the legacy promises was to make the UK world-leading nation in sporting. To achieve this, it was agreed that there should be a commitment to help a minimum of two million people or more to be active by 2012. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been in the fore front in getting people to get more active through sport. The Department of Health has also been instrumental in delivering more people by coordinating health-related activities (Bloyce and Smith, 2009, p. 83). The government has realized that the best way of addressing this challenge is to increase participation in sport by individuals who are less likely to engage in it rather than simply raising the general participation level. Another challenge that the government is facing in regard to the London 20122 is that of lack of evidence on the impact of the anticipated games. Research on the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games has indicated that it had no measurable impact concerning the rates of immediate post-Games participation particularly on sports club membership. Therefore, the government has a responsibility to show that the indeed the Games would have direct benefit in terms of a lasting participation increase. According to Cambridge Policy Consultants (2009, p. 34), observe that the UK government is faced with the challenge of insufficient supportive human infrastructure for sports. In particular, there is inadequate housing in London which might affect the accommodation situation in the city. In addition, there is a challenge of affordability; affordability support levels including the local residents may be relatively higher thereby affecting the accommodation situation during London 2012. Finally, the government is facing the challenge of ensuring parity in accessing work-based training opportunities for the whites and the minority ethnic young and black people (Bodin and Sempé, 2011, p. 106). Sport, ethics, and policy making are inextricably linked; their relationship is that an action or lack of it in one of them has a direct or indirect effect on the other. In other words, these three aspects cannot be separated and that consideration of one should always pay attention to the impacts on others. The XII Olympic Congress in Copenhagen 2009 recommendations regarding the Olympic movement in society stated that: “The legitimacy and autonomy of the Olympic Movement depend on upholding the highest standards of ethical behaviour and good governance.” (Extract of Recommendation 41). This recommendation is extended to include all those who are involved in the Olympic movement and it goes further to suggest that a code of ethics should be adopted and implemented based on the rules and principles of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Code of Ethics (International Olympics Committee, 2009, p. 83). The IOC Code of Ethics was adopted in order to enhance ethical conduct at each level of the preparation of the games and the participation in all types of sports during the games. Generally, ethical conduct in sport entails rigorous struggle against violence, abuse, harassment, and doping, as well as promotion of the health and safety of participating athletes and the spectators. Additionally, it involves promotion of transparency and procedural fairness in decision making. Governments and organizers of various sporting activities expect that highest ethical standards be adhered to in the games. This expectation is a reflection of the demand for integrity in governance. Adherence to highest ethical standards and principles is critical in promoting particular interests in the games and in ensuring that there is enhanced public acceptance (International Olympics Committee, 2009, p. 88). Development, sporting competition and legacy aspects of the Olympics Games are governed by specific provisions in the IOC Codes of Ethics. IOC Code of Ethics advocates for dignity as its core ethic. Therefore, development within the Olympism context should be in line with this provision; that is, the dignity of individuals should be safeguarded. Within the same provision for dignity, the Code of Ethics demands that development should be done equitably and that there should be no discrimination on whichever basis. Also relating to development is the provision on integrity whereby the IOC Code of Ethics demands that the Olympic parties or their representatives should not solicit, offer, or accept, directly or indirectly, any form of commission r remuneration, or service of whichever form which is connected to the Olympic Games organization (International Olympics Committee, 2009, p. 83). Related to the development aspect is the integrity provision that requires that the Olympics Parties should use diligence and due care in fulfilling their mission. This implies that they should not act in ways that could tarnish the Olympic Movement’s reputation. Development also involves resources; IOC Code of Ethics dictates that the Olympic parties’ Olympic resources should only be used for Olympic purposes. In addition it requires that the income and expenditure used by these parties should be recorded in their accounts according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Being central to any sport, sporting competition may be faced with central issues in ethics of sport. Events such as London 2012 can be faced with ethical issues which may compromise the process and outcome of the games. The IOC Code of Ethics is alive to such possibilities and has made provisions of preventing them from arising, or at least reduces their possibility of arising (International Olympics Committee, 2009, p. 83). The first ethical issue which may arise is discrimination where participants may be discriminated against on the basis of religion, marital status, gender, race, and ethnic origin. Such discrimination may give a group added advantage towards performing better in a competition at the expense of others. It is against this background that the IOC Code of Ethics has put a provision that disallows discrimination of whatever kind in the Olympics games. The second ethical issue that may arise is that of doping where a participant may use certain substances in order to enhance his or her performance thereby giving him or her undue advantage over the others. The IOC Code of Ethics has considered such and has invoked the provisions against doping as provided for under the World Anti-Doping Code (International Olympics Committee, 2009, p. 85). Another ethical issue that may arise in respect to sporting competition is harassment of participants through forms such as sexual, professional, or physical thus limiting one’s ability to effectively compete in the completion. The other issue is in respect to promotion of betting which might infringe the fair play principles by influencing the outcome of competition in a way that is against the ethics of sports (International Olympics Committee, 2009, p. 85). Woodhouse (2010) argue that legacy is the key objective of any hosting country to a major sporting event such as London Olympics 2012. He says that this assertion can be supported by among others, House of Commons drafting of Legacy action Plan in 2008. He further notes that each government seek to use a major sport event to enhance its political and economic status in the world. For example, the UK seeks to use London 2012 as a means of making it a world-leading sporting nation. In a bid to attain their respective legacy, governments employ certain strategies that have short and long term positive effects on a country. That notwithstanding, there are ethical issues that may arise in respect to legacy that a country desires in the aftermath of hosting a major games event. One of the key ethical issue that may arise in this respect is care; it is expected that the hosting country should be empathetic and compassionate which may not be the case as the visitors may consider the country as insensitive, cruel, or mean based on their respective cultural orientation (Bodin and Sempé, 2011, p. 69). In a bid to focus on the legacy after the London 2012, the House of Commons made some promises. Whereas this is good, it can rise ethical issues, namely that of reliability or promise-keeping. The citizens and actually the whole world are waiting to see if the UK can live up to its promises or not. The questions in many people’s mind are whether the UK government will honour its commitments and word, and whether it will be dependable. Based on the IOC ethical framework and the ethical theory, most of the decisions that have been made in respect to major events such as London 2012 adhere to ethics of sport. Ethical theory demands that each action should be classified as to whether it is right or wrong. Such events are organized based on what the organizers consider good. In addition, specific decisions are made based on IOC Codes of Ethics. The Olympic parties operate within the IOC Code of Ethics framework and are expected to ensure respect of the Code and undertake to respect the ethical principles. These principles are: dignity, resources, implementation, and confidentiality, as well as the relations with states, integrity, and candidatures (International Olympics Committee, 2009, p. 84). The specific decisions made should be such that it is for the best interests of all the Olympic parties and the safeguards the integrity of the Olympic Games. Any action that is or is deemed to be compromising the integrity of the Games is punished based on its gravity. Also, the ethics seek to level the playing field to ensure that each participant has an equal chance of participating and winning in the sporting competitions involved. This is achieved by ensuring that the competitors follow similar rules and are provided with equal ability to compete. Bibliography Bloyce, D and Smith, A, 2009, Sports, Policy, and Development, Taylor & Francis. Bodin, D., & Sempé, G, 2011, Ethics and sport in Europe. Strasbourg, Council of Europe. Cambridge Policy Consultants, 2009, London 2012 Olympic Games: Scoping the Analytical and Legacy Issues for Communities and Local Government, Available at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/regeneration/pdf/1327818.pdf (Accessed: 21 May, 2012). International Olympics Committee, 2009, Ethics, Available: http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/Code-Ethique-2009-WebEN.pdf (Accessed: 21 May, 2012). Woodhouse, J, 2010, Olympics: A Sporting Legacy? Available: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/key_issues/Key%20Issues%202012%20Olympics%20a%20sporting%20legacy.pdf (Accessed: 21 May, 2012). Read More