Abstract
This study examines the representations conveyed by sports practitioners and the ideologies that govern sports institutions in three European countries. Sports organizations seem to construct identitary references for practitioners through the values they convey and the forms of sociability that they develop. This international study compares the practices and representations of sport based on a questionnaire sent to a sample of practitioners in Cardiff, Great Britain; Nice, France; and Pitesti, Romania. The findings indicate some differences. In Great Britain, sports practices remain imbued with educational values, in line with the ideals that were at the origin of the sporting movement. In France, sports practices seem more rooted in an orthodoxy promoted by community supervision. In Romania, sport remains attached to a therapeutic vocation and social mobility in connection with the communist past.
Introduction
According to the Olympic Charter, sport is a universal ‘human right’ that can be used to promote universal social values such as the ‘harmonious development of humankind’, ‘peace’ and ‘human dignity’ (International Olympic Committee [IOC], 2015, p. 13). Through the lenses of such international organizations and the global media, sport—and its values and practices—is thus often constructed as universally shared, rather than as locally or nationally specific (Arnaud & Riordan, 1998). This study challenges this universal view of sport by demonstrating the different significations and values attributed to sport in three European countries. The investigation is theoretically grounded in the concept of social institutionalization (Perrot, 2005), which suggests divergent meanings of sport according to the institutional, historical and ideological context. Sports participants give meaning to their activity through values, representations, rules and social habits developed and transmitted differently by culturally situated institutions within national political entities. Our analysis focuses on the effects of this socialization. Data were collected through a questionnaire on the representations of sport and sporting values in three European countries: Great Britain, France and Romania. The analysis seeks to identify national characteristics and compare country profiles in terms of sports participants’ representations of sport and its values.
Theoretical Framework
Sports Ideology
The universal representation of sport is frequently linked with the Olympic ideal developed by Pierre de Coubertin and based on generally accepted universal values (IOC, 2015). The IOC constructed sports competition as a celebration of universalism, suggesting that competing against an opponent is a value common to all cultures. Sport and competition are therefore viewed by the IOC as intrinsic dimensions of ‘human nature’ that have undergone a phenomenon of naturalization as if they contained deep anthropological characteristics. Sport is thus universal because it suits fundamental human needs, and in this sense, it would seem to possess transhistorical and transcultural values. Yet, it is a social and ideological construct that has been built by sports institutions and deeply interiorized as a representation by many populations (Fodimbi, 1999). The ethnocentrism and power relations behind the concept of universal values and the colonial exportation of sport have also been examined (Guest & Andrew, 2009), although ‘Western’ countries or ‘European’ sports models and values have at times been grouped together as homogeneous. Indeed, Fodimbi (1999) underlines the ideological and cultural porosity of sport, suggesting that it is only what a given society wants it to be. Sport from this perspective thus reflects the social and political context in which it was built and is evolving. Its organization and values mix with the society that developed it. One consequence is that the development of sports institutions in different countries, including within Europe (Dietschy, 2011), has in fact stemmed from—and led to—distinct processes of socialization, shaping differing values and moral standards (Coupland, 1993). Caillat (1992) highlights the ideological, political, philosophical and religious construction of sport. He recalls that the modern and heuristic conception of sport is not a transhistorical phenomenon at all. He defines sport as ‘a competitive and institutionalized physical activity that is historically and structurally linked to industrial society’ (Caillat, 1992, p. 38). Augustin (1999) extends this idea by pointing out that sport as a project based on equality and performance represents an ideal society for many. Finally, this context of socialization seems to be very powerful since sports participants are unaware of it: they believe they are merely enjoying themselves but they are in fact learning complex political representations at the same time: ‘within this context, the contents of socialization are subtly interiorized’ (Vieille-Marchiset, 2001, p. 118). Through the critical theory of sport, some authors (Brohm, 1976; Elias & Dunning, 1994; Escriva & Vaugrand, 1996) underline the perfect congruence among sports functioning, values and capitalism. Referring to record-setting, Brohm (1976, p. 143) states: ‘It is the very ideological symbol of a capitalistic and bureaucratic State society that is completely oriented towards output and productivity.’
Social Institutionalization
Socialization is a lifelong process in which individuals learn the norms, customs and ideologies important to the culture in which they live through interactions with others and social institutions (Templin, Richards, & McCloy, 2014). It is thus a process by which individuals acquire the language, social skills and values that will ensure they conform to the norms and roles required for integration into a group or community (Clausen, 1968). This process affects one’s conception of the world, and in the world of sport, for example, understanding the (inter)actions within a sports organization requires incorporating the systems of representations and values conveyed by its actors (Gasparini, 2003). Sports participants therefore adopt behaviours and patterns following the system of values developed locally and historically within their sport and its institutions. A ‘system of values’ refers to the sets of concepts, ideas and values which make up one’s reality (Graves, 1967). Sports participants incorporate specific sports-related sets of social norms (language and expected behaviours during practice, competitions, celebrations and so on). The time spent together and the cultivation of ‘team spirit’ likely play a key role in facilitating the incorporation of shared behaviours and the socialization process in general. More precisely, sports socialization is based on normative, functional and submissive values. It is mainly oriented towards task specialization and technical learning in order to ensure efficiency in a particular context fixed by sports rules (Shield et Bredemeds, 2001). Therefore, although speeches and the official ideology about sport are very positive in terms of morality (as developed further on), what is learnt in the field about performance often leads to a decrease in morality (Long, 2015). This directly raises questions about the learning of moral values, social responsibility and citizenship through sports practice (Long & Pantaléon, 2014; Long, Pantaléon, & Bruant, 2008).
Yet sports socialization also includes the learning of positive social values. In fact, beyond the efficient behaviours required for acceptable performance in the field, the sports movement insists on the overall virtues of sport. For example, Olympism spreads values of friendship, respect and excellence (Premat, 2009). Visions of sport emphasizing positive values and hope confer a positive status on its actors. In every European country, sports administrations, federations and governing bodies, coaches, physical education teachers, the media, sponsors and other intermediate groups of actors all celebrate these representations that have come to be associated with sport. Among the positive representations or ideologies of sport are their ‘intrinsic’ ability to improve physical ability, social integration, ‘proper’ education and psychological development (Duret, 2012). Another representation exalts the value of personal effort and individual triumph. ‘The crowds envy the winners, who seem to be fully responsible for what they have done and for what they are in their struggle to exist. This representation of the value of personal effort has led to a new view of sport as a symbol of individual emancipation’ (Chifflet, 2000, p. 26). It is also at the heart of the contemporary ‘universal’ sporting culture. Sports figures like David Beckham in Great Britain, Zinedine Zidane in France and Nadia Comaneci in Romania thus became heroes through widespread media coverage and broad social popularity. They embody social success and home-country values, as pointed out by other scholars (Boli, 2008; Defrance, 2011). David Beckham embodies ‘fair play’ in Great Britain; Zinedine Zidane, ‘social integration’ in France; and Nadia Comaneci, the ‘rigour’ of Romania.
Sporting Values
In this context of the internationalization of sport, this study explores the interstices of national differences in representations of sporting values in Europe. Values will herein be viewed as ‘the importance, worth, or usefulness of something’. 1 Values represent central aspects of social interactions and their structures, dynamics and meanings. They are at the origin of laws, rules, conventions and customs, influencing not only individuals’ attitudes and behaviours but also group relations (Brée, 1994). Schwartz postulated a theory that describes 10 basic human values that are distinguished by their motivational goals (Schwartz, 2012).
The circular structure makes it possible to distinguish four higher order values: openness to change, conservation, self-enhancement and self-transcendence. Pairs of these categories oppose each other along two dimensions: conservation versus openness and self-enhancement versus self-transcendence (Schwartz, 1992). Alternative value groupings have been suggested by Schwartz (2006) as well: they combine openness and self-enhancement into personal focus, and conservation and self-transcendence into social focus. Another grouping combines openness and self-transcendence into growth, and conservation and self-enhancement into self-protection (Figure 1).
Given the findings of previous typological studies based on the Schwartz Portrait Values, we expected that sport would not represent a universal value type across the three European countries. Using the Schwartz Portrait Values, Inglehart and Welzel (2010) classified world cultures across two axes. The first axis ranges from traditional to secular-rational values. Traditional values emphasize the importance of family, religion and authority, whereas secular-rational values attribute greater importance to science and bureaucracy. The second axis ranges from values of survival to those of self-expression. Survival values emphasize economic and physical security and are associated with low levels of trust and tolerance. On the other end of the scale, values of self-expression emphasize well-being, quality of life and civic participation. In our study, we will focus on the cartographic projection of the results of the three countries selected for the study: Great Britain, France and Romania. These countries are situated in different quadrilles and clusters, indicating significant differences in shared values.
Problem and Hypothesis
According to the model of Inglehart and Welzel, sport is influenced by the specific political, cultural and historical background of the country in which it is found. On this basis, we hypothesized that sporting values would be linked to self-expression in Great Britain, whereas they would represent secular values in France and would be more traditional in Romania. We determined whether the position of each of the three countries in the European Social Survey was correlated with the content of the values that the populations of these countries attributed to sport. To test this hypothesis, we developed an exploratory questionnaire that was distributed to participants from the three selected countries.
Methods
The sporting values were measured with an adaptation of the Schwartz Portrait Values Questionnaire (Schwartz, 1992, 2006).
The Questionnaire
The questionnaire was constructed to find relations among several groups of values (Figure 1). The independent variable was the country of origin: Great Britain, France or Romania, and concerned the social distribution of the population: age, sex, educational level and investment in sport. The four motivational domains, extracted from the Schwartz Value Survey, were the dependent variables. We thus manipulated four areas of values: openness to change, self-affirmation, continuity and overcoming personal limits. The questions were adapted to assess the landmark values linked to sport through the use of an expert group composed of academics and sports professionals.
Contingency between Expressed Values and Country of Belonging
The first set of values explored in the questionnaire (openness to change) refers to three values: autonomy, stimulation and hedonism (questions 10, 12, 14 and 16). Autonomy is the independence in thinking, acting, choosing, creating and exploring sports. It is a vital need to control and master interactions with other participants. Stimulation is the enthusiasm, variety, novelty and challenge of sport allowing one to maintain an optimal and positive level of activity. Hedonism is the pleasure and personal gratification arising from the satisfaction of the vital needs of a human being, particularly through sports practice.
The second set of values, self-affirmation, refers to two values: success and power (questions 2, 4, 7 and 9). Success is personal achievement with regard to the dominant cultural norms, obtained as one demonstrates abilities or conforms to standards that are socially recognized. Performing in sport allows one to achieve his/her goals and obtain social approbation. Power refers to prestigious status, control of resources and domination of others. In sport, the domination/submission dimension appears in every discipline.
The third set of values, continuity, includes three values: security, conformity and tradition (questions 1, 6, 8 and 11). Security refers to the importance attributed to safety, harmony and stability in society and to relations between groups and individuals. Security values in the sports context are related to individual performance and the collective needs of the team or club. Conformity moderates actions, choices, preferences and impulses according to social norms. When highly valued, conformity takes the form of the self-limitation of actions in sports interactions. Tradition refers to the commitment to—and the respect and acceptance of—customs and ideas encouraged by the cultural and sociopolitical context: in this case, within the federation, club and team.
The fourth set of values, overcoming personal limits, refers to kindness and universalism (questions 3, 5, 13, 15 and 17). Kindness refers to the preservation and improvement of people’s well-being when they practise sport. This may be more or less valued as important for team functioning and the individual need for affiliation. Universalism refers to understanding, esteem, tolerance and protection of the well-being of all. This set of values comes into play when individuals meet social or cultural groups outside of their own.
The questionnaire was tested on 10 individuals. Some of the questions were subsequently reformulated to improve clarity. The final questionnaire was translated into the three appropriate languages and then retranslated by bilingual researchers to verify meanings (Appendix).
Participants
The social characteristics of the participants were relatively homogeneous across the three countries in terms of age, sex and educational level. The study population was mixed (men: 57.3%, women: 42.7%), with an average age of 22 years. Nearly all participants had at least 10 years of expertise in sport and at least 2 years of undergraduate education. All were students in university schools of sport sciences, with equal concentrations in physical education and sports training, and sports management to a lesser extent. Their sports participation reflected the popularity of sport in Europe: football first (18.2%), followed by track and field (11.1%), gymnastics (9.4%), martial arts (8.3%), volleyball (7.6%), basketball (7.5%), rugby (6.9%), handball (6.5%), hockey (4.6%) and racket sports (4.6%). The survey participants were much engaged in sport, with 80.2 per cent belonging to a sports club and 79.2 per cent volunteering or coaching in their clubs. Most of their parents practised a sport (91.6%).
Data Collection
Students from the schools of sports sciences of three European universities were chosen as they were necessarily involved and socialized in various domains of sport. The universities were located in three midsized cities from each country: Cardiff in Great Britain, Nice in France and Pitesti in Romania. The active collaboration between the three universities for the distribution and completion of questionnaires resulted in a significant number of respondents, with a total of 661 usable forms out of the 800 distributed. One hundred thirty-six of the questionnaire responses were from Great Britain, 206 from France and 319 from Romania.
Data Analysis
The printed version of the questionnaire was completed simultaneously in person at the three universities. All responses were analysed in Nice using the 1996–2003 version of Sphinx Plus2 software.
The results were processed with a focus on the similarities and differences in the students’ sporting values and perceptions. We particularly sought to highlight the specific cultural characteristics of each country. In order to compare values, we obtained a significant Gaussian bell curve for each country as follows: answers that were lowest on the scale and closest to ‘not important’ were redefined as ‘not important’ or ‘somewhat important’, while answers that were highest on the scale and closest to ‘extremely important’ were redefined as ‘very important’ or ‘extremely important’. ‘Important’ was considered the mean. The data were processed with the chi-square (χ2) test to neutralize differences in the number of participants between countries and to verify the links between the expressed sporting values and the country that each respondent belonged to.
Results
The results are presented according to the sporting values for the three populations. The answers indicated the relationship between the guiding values expressed in the survey responses and the country of origin.
The table shows the average sporting values expressed by each country. We examined the most expressed values for each country and determined whether these contingencies were significant.
Preferred Sporting Values for British Participants
The British participants more highly valued social recognition, obedience and human relations than the other participant populations, as well as loyalty to a lesser extent. Although social integration was also among the most highly considered values, the difference with the other countries was not significant. In reference to Schwartz’s model, the preferred sporting values in Great Britain related to tradition and overcoming personal limits.
For the British, four values had a highly significant effect on the dependent variable:
One value had a significant effect: One value had no significant effect:
Preferred Sporting Values for French Participants
The French participants clearly preferred values such as tolerance, transcendence, sharing and pleasure compared with the other participants. The French participants had the highest association with equal opportunity, and the difference between Great Britain and Romania was not significant. In reference to Schwartz’s model, these results classified the representation of sport in France close to openness to change, suggesting that for French people, sport represents a kind of social ideal.
For the French, four values had a highly significant effect on the dependent variable:
One value had no significant effect:
Preferred Sports Values for Romanian Participants
The Romanians had the highest preference for values of victory, self-centring, performance, environment and health. These results positioned their representation of sport in the realm of self-affirmation. In other words, sport was associated with health-related, aesthetic and performance values.
For the Romanians, four values had a significant effect on the dependent variable:
Impacts of the Secondary Independent Variables on Value Priorities
Age, sex, educational level and investment in sport showed no significant differences between populations. No significant variations were observed, consistent with the findings for each country. No significant variation was observed in the respective results of each country. The only variable showing variation was nationality, supporting the hypothesis that national differences are at least in part related to the ways in which social institutionalization occurs through sport in each country.
Discussion and Interpretation of Divergences in Sporting Values
The results demonstrated that the representation of sport in Europe is not universal, but is instead linked to national culture and history.
In Great Britain, the dominant sporting values are linked with the dissemination of a sporting culture and the development of a national sporting elite. In France, the values focus on morality and social idealism. In Romania, they are focused on elitism and health. When these results were projected onto an orthonormal graph (Figure 5), they coincided with the placement of countries on Inglehart and Welzel’s world cultural map (Figure 1). Therefore, the results support the hypothesis that differences in values between countries can be explained by internalized social models linked to the cultural and social norms of each country.
The social history of each country in terms of its sports organization and culture plays a key role in the culture and values surrounding sport today.
In Great Britain, sport is closely associated with educational objectives. Sport has long been associated with morality, justice and respect for others and the rules, and these became the core values of ‘public schools’ (Magnan, 1981), which were expected to build students’ character and ethics. Today, physical activity still holds an important place in the national education system. Although currently 45 per cent of the British population participates in sport, only 10.9 per cent do so in clubs (Jones, Millward, & Buraino, 2011). At the Beijing Olympic Games, one-third of the British athletes winning medals came from the ‘public school’ system, which is a private system welcoming only 7 per cent of the British population. The long history of sport in Great Britain has also influenced the objectives of the British sporting movement: teaching, educating and training bodies and mind through sport (Elias & Dunning, 1994). Accordingly, it appears that physical activities are perceived not only as a field to invent values (e.g., self-governance, discipline, team spirit, self-sacrifice, fair play and the will to live), but also as a requirement to educate future leaders and promote the excellence of British culture around the world.
The current French sports model is the consequence of a sociopolitical construct as well. Imported from British public schools in the second half of the nineteenth century, the competitive sports model was first perceived by the French as a way to weaken the moral basis of traditional games. But this model failed at the very beginning of the twentieth century, when traditional sporting values (courtesy, fair play and so on.) were opposed to modern sporting values such as record-setting, performance and show. This has been embodied in the debate opposing amateurism and professionalism (Bruant, 1992; Vigarello, 2004). The structural construction of the modern sports movement began at the end of the Second World War and its legitimacy was based on the principle of public guardianship, with co-management between the state and federations. The French sporting heritage is thus different from that of other countries because of the semi-autonomy of its institutions. These institutions have major economic, cultural and social impact: 26 million people are sports practitioners (43% of the French population) and 15.7 million are club members (25% of the population), with 180,000 clubs linked to 110 sports federations (
In Romania, physical education is considered essential, as reflected by the emphasis on health-related issues, discipline and national roles. Romanian sport under communism was an extension of the state with the purpose of developing a mass sports culture and a sporting elite. Romania was marked by centralized politics, administration, medicine and science (Tomlinson & Young, 2011). When the communist government fell in 1989, investments were no longer available to develop sport for everybody, and thus the focus remained only on developing the elite sporting system. This cultural legacy is still apparent in some of the major sports programmes, which illustrate how the Romanian government expects to promote sports activity in a country that is still undergoing political, economic and identity transition (
Conclusion
This study is limited to three cities in three European territories (Great Britain, France and Romania). The results reflect the effects of local cultural specificities and demonstrate that sporting values differ along national lines. In Great Britain, the focus is on human development through sport; in France, sport is more hedonist and social; and in Romania, sport is linked to functionality, elitism and health.
These differences highlight potential challenges in trying to promote the development of a common sports promotion programme in Europe. The current study demonstrates the importance of identifying more precisely the political implications of sports development pathways, including the social meaning given to sport by specific populations. It is important for European policymakers to consider cultural differences for training professionals and promoting sport activities. The results also suggest the importance of training new generations of coaches, trainers and sports educators. Sports schools and programmes can play a significant role in preparing sports professionals to critically analyse problems and find solutions based on the values of their respective societies.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Virginie BRESSY DE GUAST, University of Nice Sophia-Antipolis.
Questionnaire
|
|
| Response Modalities: Not important, somewhat important, important and very important |
| 1. Be loyal to others |
| 2. Win against the opponent |
| 3. Give the same chance for all |
| 4. Getting financially rich |
| 5. Promote social integration |
| 6. Respect the authority of the hierarchy |
| 7. Being at the centre of activity |
| 8. Be a good citizen |
| 9. Achieve a performance |
| 10. Protecting the environment |
| 11. Being recognized by society |
| 12. Have a good health |
| 13. Being tolerant towards others |
| 14. Being able to surpass yourself |
| 15. Sharing with others |
| 16. Enjoy the activity |
| 17. Maintaining human relations |
|
|
| Modalities of answers in the form of free text or digital data |
| 18. What is your main sport practice? |
| 19. How many years have you been playing this sport? |
| 20. What is your level of practice? |
| 21. Do you participate in the organization of a club or an association? |
| 22. Do you consider yourself a ‘sportsman’? |
| 23. Are you a man or a woman? |
| 24. What is your age? |
| 25. What is your study level? |
| 26. You have several job opportunities. Which one do you prefer? |
| 27. What is the current (or past) profession of your father? |
| 28. What is the current (or past) profession of your mother? |
| 29. In your family, do you (did) have a sports person? |
| 30. In your family, do you (did) have a member of a club? |
| 31. Nationality (British, Romanian or French)? |