You are on page 1of 26

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296635285

De Bosscher - spliss-conference
Dataset March 2016

CITATIONS

READS

55

4 authors, including:
Veerle De Bosscher
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
82 PUBLICATIONS 424 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Veerle De Bosscher


Retrieved on: 20 October 2016

veerle.de.bosscher@vub.ac.be

DO SPORT SYSTEMS MATTER?


An international comparison of
elite sport policies in 15 nations
Veerle De Bosscher, Simon Shibli, Hans Westerbeek,
Maarten van Bottenburg

INTRODUCTION
Increasing global sporting arms race (Oakley & Green,
2001; De Bosscher et al., 2008)
Competition increases, because nations invest more
strategically in elite sport
Diminishing return on investment

Emerging research interest in comparing elite elite


sport policies over the past decade; e.g. books:

Green & Houlihan, 2005


Digel et al. (2006)
Bergsgard et al. (2007)
Houlihan & Green (2008)
De Bosscher et al. (2008) SPLISS 1.0
Andersen & Ronglan (2012)
De Bosscher et al. (2015) SPLISS 2.0

PURPOSE
Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of elite
sport policies at the national level
Analytical relationships between policy (inputthroughput) and success parameters (outputs)
Measurement: to objectify the comparison of
a large amount of data

Do systems matter?

www.SPLISS.net
8,5% population
10% wealth (GDP)
22% success summer sports;
37% winter sports
26% of the Olympians 2012

Asia
11. South Korea
12. Japan
America
14. Canada
15. Brazil

EUROPE
1. Belgium (Flanders & Wallonia)
2. Denmark
3. Estonia
4. Finland
5. France
6. The Netherlands
7. Northern Ireland (GBR)
8. Portugal
9. Spain
10. Switzerland

13. Australia
Oceania

A COLLABORATION OF
15 nations, 53 researchers,
33 policy organisations
3142 elite athletes, 1376
coaches, 241 federations

Consortium group

KEYPOINTS of SPLISS methodology

1) Theoretical model: inputsthroughputs-outputs


2) Involvement of key stakeholders
(athletes, coaches, performance directors)
in the policy evaluation
3) Mixed methods: quantitative
measurement + qualitative evaluation

Pillar 5: excellence

Elite sport Environment Media


& Sponsoring

Post career

National governing bodies

Pillar 9

Improved climate

Scientific research&
innovation

Athletic career support

Pillar 8
(Inter)national competition

Pillar 4: performance

Pillar 7

Talent development

Coaching provision & coach


development
Pillar 6

Talent identification system

Training facilities

Organized sport (clubs)


Non organised sport and physical education in schools

Pillar 3: initiation

Foundation &
participation

INPUT

De Bosscher et al.,
2006

INPUT (funding)
9 pillars
96 CSF, 750 sub-factors, at
the INPUT-THROUGHPUT
levels

THROUGHPUT
(processes)

OUTPUT
(success)

CSF

Sub-factors

Pillar 1
Pillar 2
Pillar 3
Pillar 4
Pillar 5
Pillar 6
Pillar 7
Pillar 8
Pillar 9

8
18
10
12
7
9
16
7
9

9
119
31
169
122
84
100
51
65

TOTAL

96

750

MIXED METHODS RESEARCH

QUALITATIVE
(+QUAN)
Overall sport policy inventory

212 questions (3186 pages)


96 KSF 750 subfactors
Note: EST (only P1); KOR (1,2,5,6,9)

QUANTITATIVE
Objective + perceived
Elite Sport Climate survey
- 3142 elite athletes
- 1376 elite coaches
- 241 performance directors
Note: excl. France

Olympic sports
Able bodied sport
National policy level
Collected by a local researcher

QUANTITATIVE + QUALITATIVE
ANALYSIS
- Composit indicators
- Content analysis

measure to understand

Composite Indicators

RESULTS

Do systems work?
Spearmans rank correlations of total Pillar scores and Success

rs
summer

sig

rs
Winter

sig

Pillar 1 (financial support)

0,909** 0,000

0,588*

0,039

16

Pillar 2 (structure)

0,720** 0,004

0,685** 0,007

14

Pillar 3 (participation)

0,049

0,873

0,267

0,377

13

Pillar 4 (talent ID/develp.)

-0,148

0,707

-0,454

0,118

13

Pillar 5 (athlete support)

0,483

0,080

0,318

0,267

14

Pillar 6 (training facilities)

0,704** 0,005

0,354

0,214

14

Pillar 7 (coaches)

0,606*

0,028

0,779** 0,002

13

Pillar 8 (intl. competition)

0,577*

0,039

0,271

0,370

13

Pillar 9 (science & innovat)

0,71**

0,004

0,784** 0,001

14

AVERAGE
MAX

P1, financial support


100%

P9, research and


innovation

90%
80%
70%

P2, structure and


organisation

60%
50%
40%

P8, (inter)national
competition

30%

P3, sport
participation

20%
10%
0%

P7, Coach
development and
provision

P6, training facilities

P4, Talent ID and TD

P5, (post)athletic
career support

AVERAGE

AUSTRALIA

Successful summer
sport nations

MAX

P1, financial support


100%

P9, research and


innovation

90%
80%
70%

P2, structure and


organisation

60%
50%
40%

P8, (inter)national
competition

30%

P3, sport
participation

20%
10%
0%

P7, Coach
development and
provision

P6, training facilities

P4, Talent ID and TD

P5, (post)athletic
career support

AVERAGE

AUSTRALIA JAPAN

Successful summer
sport nations

MAX

P1, financial support


100%

P9, research and


innovation

90%
80%
70%

P2, structure and


organisation

60%
50%
40%

P8, (inter)national
competition

30%

P3, sport
participation

20%
10%
0%

P7, Coach
development and
provision

P6, training facilities

P4, Talent ID and TD

P5, (post)athletic
career support

AVERAGE

AUSTRALIA JAPAN

FRANCE

Successful summer
sport nations

MAX

P1, financial support


100%

P9, research and


innovation

90%
80%
70%

P2, structure and


organisation

60%
50%
40%

P8, (inter)national
competition

30%

P3, sport
participation

20%
10%
0%

P7, Coach
development and
provision

P6, training facilities

P4, Talent ID and TD

P5, (post)athletic
career support

AVERAGE

CANADA

Successful winter
sport nations

MAX
P1, financial
support
90%

P9, research and


innovation

80%

70%

P2, structure and


organisation

60%
50%
40%
30%

P8, (inter)national
competition

20%
10%

P3, sport
participation

0%

P7, Coach
development and
provision

P4, Talent ID and


TD

P6, training
facilities

P5, (post)athletic
career support

AVERAGE

CANADA NETHERLANDS

Successful winter
sport nations

MAX
P1, financial
support
90%

P9, research and


innovation

80%

70%

P2, structure and


organisation

60%
50%
40%
30%

P8, (inter)national
competition

20%
10%

P3, sport
participation

0%

P7, Coach
development and
provision

P4, Talent ID and


TD

P6, training
facilities

P5, (post)athletic
career support

AVERAGE

CANADA NETHERLANDS S-KOREA

MAX

Successful winter
sport nations

P1, financial
support
90%

P9, research and


innovation

80%

70%

P2, structure and


organisation

60%
50%
40%
30%

P8, (inter)national
competition

20%
10%

P3, sport
participation

0%

P7, Coach
development and
provision

P4, Talent ID and


TD

P6, training
facilities

P5, (post)athletic
career support

LARGE VERSUS SMALL COUNTRIES & BUDGETS


P1, financial
support
90%

P9, research and


innovation

80%
70%

P2, structure and


organisation

60%
50%
40%

CAN

30%

P8,
(inter)national
competition

10%
0%

JAP

AUS

P3, sport
participation

20%

P7, Coach
development and
provision

P4, Talent ID and


TD

P6, training
facilities

P5, (post)athletic
career support

LARGE VERSUS SMALL COUNTRIES & BUDGETS


P1, financial
support
90%

smaller
countries can gain a competitive
advantage in
P9, research and
P2, structure and
organisation
differentinnovation
(less expensive(?) pillars, that
require long-term
development
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

P8,
(inter)national
competition

P3, sport
participation

20%
10%
0%

P7, Coach
development and
provision

P4, Talent ID and


TD

P6, training
facilities

P5, (post)athletic
career support

NED

DEN

SUI

CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSION
Do systems matter?
Yes they can contribute to performance
no generic blueprint - no sets of Pillars, Critical
Success Factors or recognised best practices that can
be transferred into any national context with the
guarantee of delivering success.
broad consensus on the ingredients that go into the
elite success recipe but countries combine
ingredients in their own unique ways.
benchlearn: seek best principles of efficient and
effective elite sport policies rather than best practice
(De Bosscher et al., 2015)

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
SPLISS analysis (80% qualitative& descriptive)
Mixed methods
CIs are useful to facilitate pattern recognition
summarise complex, multi-dimensional data into
easily understood formats
are not an isolated measurement; they are rather a
supportive and tangible way of understanding elite
sport policies in relation to sporting success,
their use needs to be combined with descriptive and
qualitative explanations.

veerle.de.bosscher@vub.ac.be

THANK YOU!
Veerle De Bosscher, Simon Shibli, Hans Westerbeek,
Maarten van Bottenburg