From ‘passive custodian’ to ‘active advocate’: tracing the emergence and sport-internal transformative effects of sport policy advocacy

Abstract

Organised sport has become a legitimate interest group, with potential influence in wider policy-making circles. Building on a distinction between because-of motives and in-order-to motives, the purpose of this study is to analyse why sport organisations conduct advocacy while offering an assessment of the sport-internal transformative effects of advocacy activities. The analysis is based on interviews with 46 elected and staff representatives of Swedish Regional Sport Federations, and it shows (1) that a perceived de-institutionalization of organised sport's monopolistic position in Sweden underpins the imperative to conduct advocacy, and (2) that the overarching goal-oriented purpose of advocacy is to further sport organisations' role as advocates in future policy processes. This indicates that sport organisations are transitioning from a 'passive custodian' to an 'active advocate' role in relation to the government. We propose that this latter role may include a professionalisation of advocacy activities, and that advocacy, therefore, may accentuate internal tensions related to the trade-off between efficiency and democracy, create a need for sport-internal advocacy, and undermine future advocacy claims and/or access to policy processes.

Professionalization and its consequences: how active advocacy may undermine democracy

“…This means that for RSFs, the division of authority between paid staff and elected officials can be understood with reference to Kikulis et al's (1992) Boardroom design archetype, implying that constitutionally as well as culturally, RSFs have historically been 'controlled by volunteer executives that direct the policies and resources of the organization' (p. 358). As will become clear in the ensuing analysis, the professionalized advocacy team that is intentionally constructed by RSFs to be effective in their newly emerged organization-level Active Advocate role toward government agencies (Stenling & Sam, 2019) involves a trade-off that unintentionally undermines the previously fundamental role of elected officials as the governors of Swedish sport.…”

“…This finding provides a transition to our second RQ, which asked how the unintended consequences of this trade-off precipitate a cross-level diffusion of professionalization. Notably, Stenling and Sam (2019) showed how sport's changing institutional environment underpinned the emergence of a professionalized organization-level role (as an Active Advocate). Stenling and Sam's (2019) findings, in tandem with the analysis presented here, indicate how professionalization may 'ripple' through institutional roles at different levels, from the organization-level Active Advocate role to the intra-organization level roles of the professional advocacy team, and on to yet another intra-organization level role: that of the board.…”

“…Notably, Stenling and Sam (2019) showed how sport's changing institutional environment underpinned the emergence of a professionalized organization-level role (as an Active Advocate). Stenling and Sam's (2019) findings, in tandem with the analysis presented here, indicate how professionalization may 'ripple' through institutional roles at different levels, from the organization-level Active Advocate role to the intra-organization level roles of the professional advocacy team, and on to yet another intra-organization level role: that of the board. Specifically, we show that an unintended consequence of intentionally constructing a professionalized advocacy team is an erosion of the value of boards, as evidenced by oftrepeated interview statements questioning boards' 'raison d'être' in light of their weak role in this important activity (see statements by the Chairs of RSF 3 and 9).…”

“…The first is to develop sport activities in the approximately 20,000 sport clubs that are all federated under one of the 19 RSFs. The secondand increasingly important (c.f., Stenling & Sam, 2017, 2019)task is prescribed by the Active Advocate role, and it implies the representation of sport vis-à-vis non-sport actors, primarily the Swedish national, regional, and local governments that are the main resource providers to Swedish voluntary sport. The RSFs vary in size, but have an average 8.5 employees (SISU Idrottsutbildarna, 2010).…”

“…The empirical context for this analytical venture is the public policy advocacy increasingly carried out by non-profit sport organizations. From a theoretical standpoint, we view the emergence of advocacy activities as a manifestation of a transformation of the interorganizational institution that structures the sport-government relationship, a transformation that involves the emergence of the organization-level rolethe Active Advocate (Stenling & Sam, 2019) enacted particularly by the umbrella organizations of nonprofit sport. Taking this as our point of departure, we explore how the formation of the 'advocacy team'comprising the various roles that conduct advocacyimpacts the intra-organizational level institution that structures the relative authority between paid professionals and elected officials (e.g.…”