The politics of sport funding in Brazil: a multiple streams analysis

Abstract

Since the earliest State interventions in sports, the Brazilian State has assumed the role of overseeing and financing the nation's organised sport systems. The significant relationship between the State and sport, established over decades, contributed to sport being influenced by the country's political agenda, influencing the implementation of sport funding policies. In order to understand more about how this relationship developed, this article applies the multiple streams theory of policy change to examine the Brazilian high-performance sport policy domain. Policy analysis and media analysis are combined to examine the ways in which the political context, problem framing and policy solutions were brought together by a range of policy entrepreneurs. The study examines how the Brazilian Olympic Committee (BOC) lobby effort acted to expand investment possibilities, and how policymakers acted swiftly to seize the window of opportunity and implement policies that stimulated Brazilian preparation for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2016. The article suggests that while other countries have also developed policies for elite sport to boost Olympic preparation, Brazilian policy decisions and changes were tardy, in some cases fleeting, and only expanded existing policies that had weaknesses in resource distribution criteria.

Analysis of sports policy in Papua in the formation of the Papuan contingent at the XX National Sports Week (PON)

“…Soft Power strategies foster a genuine love for sports among citizens, contrasting with coercive measures of hard power. Fiscal policies, exemplified by China's investment in the 2008 Beijing Olympics (Wei et al, 2010), and Brazil's funding for the 2016 Rio Olympics (Camargo et al, 2020), yield positive outcomes, aligning with formulated policies. Additionally, South Korea's sports policy focuses on governmental involvement, sports administration, funding structures, and the role of non-profit and commercial sectors, underscoring the multifaceted approach to sports governance (Won & Hong, 2014).…”

“…Soft Power strategies foster a sense of national pride and affinity towards sports, in contrast to coercive measures associated with hard power systems. Notably, fiscal policies, exemplified by China's investment in the 2008 Beijing Olympics and Brazil's initiatives for the 2016 Rio Olympics, have yielded positive outcomes in line with formulated policies (Wei et al, 2010;Camargo et al, 2020). Furthermore, Won & Hong, (2014) outlined South Korea's sports policy focus on governmental involvement, administrative structures, funding, and the roles of non-profit and commercial sectors.…”

A Systematic Review of the Development of Sport Policy Research (2000–2020)

“…Sotiriadou and Brouwers identified that Australia is facing stronger connections between community sport and elite sport [50]. Camargo, Piggin, and Mezzadri stated that there is a lack of long-term planning in Brazilian elite sport through the lens of scrutinizing the funding policy in preparation for hosting the Olympic Games [48]. Another body of research (n = 3) focuses on the field of physical education and examines the reasons leading to failure [57], as well as significant influences [54] in the formulation process.…”

Integration between women’s and men’s football clubs: a comparison between Brazil, China and Italy

“…For example, Zheng (2017) considered the MSF to analyse elite swimming development in China, while Peng et al (2019) studied the football reform implemented in China in 2015. In Brazil, Camargo et al (2020) applied the MSF to the field of elite sport policies, while Machado and colleagues (2017) investigated the formulation and organisation of the policy for educational sport through the framework.…”