De Bosscher - Spliss-Conference

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
[email protected]
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

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
P5, (post)athletic
career support
AVERAGE
AUSTRALIA JAPAN
Successful summer
sport nations
MAX

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
P5, (post)athletic
career support
AVERAGE
AUSTRALIA JAPAN
FRANCE
Successful summer
sport nations
MAX

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
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.
[email protected]
THANK YOU!
Veerle De Bosscher, Simon Shibli, Hans Westerbeek,
Maarten van Bottenburg

De Bosscher - Spliss-Conference

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Bosscher - Spliss-Conference

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

Available from: Veerle De Bosscher

DO SPORT SYSTEMS MATTER?

Emerging research interest in comparing elite elite

Green & Houlihan, 2005

KEYPOINTS of SPLISS methodology

1) Theoretical model: inputsthroughputs-outputs

Elite sport Environment Media

National governing bodies

Athletic career support

Coaching provision & coach

Talent identification system

Organized sport (clubs)

MIXED METHODS RESEARCH

212 questions (3186 pages)

Pillar 1 (financial support)

Pillar 4 (talent ID/develp.)

Pillar 5 (athlete support)

Pillar 6 (training facilities)

Pillar 8 (intl. competition)

Pillar 9 (science & innovat)

P1, financial support

P9, research and

P2, structure and

P6, training facilities

P4, Talent ID and TD

P1, financial support

P9, research and

P2, structure and

P6, training facilities

P4, Talent ID and TD

P1, financial support

P9, research and

P2, structure and

P6, training facilities

P4, Talent ID and TD

P1, financial support

P9, research and

P2, structure and

P6, training facilities

P4, Talent ID and TD

P9, research and

P2, structure and

P4, Talent ID and

P9, research and

P2, structure and

P4, Talent ID and

CANADA NETHERLANDS S-KOREA

P9, research and

P2, structure and

P4, Talent ID and

LARGE VERSUS SMALL COUNTRIES & BUDGETS

P9, research and

P2, structure and

P4, Talent ID and

LARGE VERSUS SMALL COUNTRIES & BUDGETS

P4, Talent ID and

You might also like