(Editor’s Note: The following is adapted from B. David Ridpath’s new book Alternative Models of Sports Development in America: Solutions to a Crisis in Education and Public Health, published in January by Ohio University Press. Ridpath is an associate professor and the Kahandas Nandola Professor of Sport Business at Ohio University in the College of Business and Department of Sports Administration. Ridpath was named a Fulbright Scholar in 2015 and also serves as adjunct professor at the University of Bayreuth in Germany. He has several published scholarly and media articles to his credit and is a national authority on intercollegiate athletics and college sport reform. To secure the book, visit http://ohioswallow.com/book/Alternative+Models+of+Sports+Development+in+America)
The former president of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio Samaranch, once placed sports and sports development among the most important social phenomena of the twentieth century. He added that “sport has confirmed itself as a means of education, source of health and improved quality of life, an element of recreation and leisure occupation, first-rate entertainment, [and] factor of social communication” (quoted in Thoma and Chalip 1996, xi).
As a researcher of sports, as well as a lifelong participant and fan, I wholeheartedly agree with the pronouncements of de Coubertin and Samaranch. However, we also have to recognize that sports delivery and sports development are changing and, like anything else, need to evolve to keep up with shifts in the industry and with the current time. How we are to understand the ways in which sports affect our lives, positively or negatively, and how we are to manage the future of sports and sports development in a rapidly changing world?
Two of the most popular and widespread sports development models are the European club model and the American education-based model. Sports in European countries are largely organized through nonprofit, mainly local and grassroots clubs. This is in sharp contrast with most sports development in the United States, as its typical participants are either primary or secondary school athletes, along with those competing in college- and university-based sports. Comparing and contrasting the European and American models, we can begin to ascertain whether other models might be developed in conjunction with or separate from our current way of governing sports.
My argument starts from a baseline belief that the current education-based model in the United States does not work and must be changed. Frankly, we should no longer entertain any debate that is grounded in saving that system. Instead, we must recognize and admit that we have a problem; only then can this society fully address the need for reform. I am not here to advocate killing off education-based sports in America. Educationally housed sports can certainly be part of new approaches toward the evolution of sports governance and sports delivery in America. However, the stress on our education system with regard to sports participation and finance must be relieved, and soon.
As a nation, the United States must address the situation before it deteriorates beyond repair. If we want to continue to provide and enhance plentiful opportunities for as many people as possible in a wide variety of organized sports and recreational pursuits, preserving educational primacy along with improving public health, then we simply must change how we do sports in this country. If we want to continue to develop elite athletes at local, regional, and national levels—in many sports, not just football and men’s basketball—who will excel at home and abroad, then we must change. The United States seems to be stuck in the past on this. Meanwhile, for its citizens, opportunities for better health and the personal growth that can be gained from sports are vanishing.
My book Alternative Models of Sports Development in America: Solutions to a Crisis in Education and Public Health examines four potential and dramatic alternatives to the current model, including consideration of adopting portions of the sports club systems prevalent in Western and Eastern
European countries, with a focus on Germany and the Netherlands. I spent fifteen months in Europe conducting research for this project as a Fulbright teaching and research scholar at the University of Bayreuth, Germany, in 2014—15. The research consisted of immersing myself in the system via empirical research, site visits, interviews, and focus groups to learn as much as possible about the European sports model and to ascertain if a similar model could be developed in part or in whole in the United States. Since most European sports club systems are similar, I made the choice to focus on Germany and the Netherlands, as they were the two countries I spent the most time in during my research sabbatical.
The book also focuses on other potential models for elite, mass-participation, and recreational sports development in the United States. As sports choices decrease in a funding-challenged
American educational system, and recreational opportunities outside that system become more expensive, it is increasingly apparent that more sports opportunities need to be developed outside the educational system for competitive, mass-participation, and general recreational exercise. The United States is not only suffering from an education funding crisis, made worse by its way of too frequently prioritizing sports over education. It is also suffering under the strain of its citizens becoming primarily sports spectators while maintaining very unhealthy and mostly inactive lifestyles, in turn impacting health care and the federal and state budgets devoted to it.
Where would the money and infrastructure come from for a dramatic shift in sports development in America? It’s a fair question, but one with realistic and measurable answers. This book covers the potential positive impact that an extreme paradigm shift, including a shift to models such as the ones being proposed, can have on public health in the United States. Any reorganization of how we do sports in the United States must take into account the overall health benefits to the population, not just competitive and commercial benefits. Other countries are outdoing America in offering widespread options in sports, whether it be for mass participation or elite development.
Many scholars agree that opportunities in the United States are dwindling and that we should learn from countries like Germany, with its “Sports for All” movement, or Canada, where the government is promoting physical activity to enhance all of its citizens’ well-being. Sports clubs around the world are supported in several ways, including through government subsidies (via taxes), membership dues, revenue from ticket sales and ancillary businesses, sponsorships, and donations.
Some countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, also draw on lottery and gambling proceeds to help fund their sports club systems.
As a country we can actually save money by promoting and achieving better public health through increased access to and participation in sports. This means paying it forward and focusing on prevention, with benefits more on the back end, but it is critical for everyone to have skin in the game, including the government. A tax subsidy could be something the public gets behind, if it can reduce overall health-care costs and save money in the long run. Combining this with entrepreneurial spirit, public and private partnerships, and good old American ingenuity and creativity, we can enable and sustain the funding and infrastructure for newer, more accessible models of sports development and delivery.
