ABSTRACT
One of the key concepts in relation to an understanding of the role of international organisations in sports policy is that of subsidiarity. It is a principle that is overtly adopted to legitimate policy intervention at the European level by the European Union (EU), but it is also applicable to the relationship between local, regional, national, and international/transnational bodies in both the public and third sectors. The principle of vertical subsidiarity requires that any policy that can be effectively pursued at a lower level (local, regional or national) should be dealt with at that lower level. Thus the delivery of policy at international level should be limited to those policy domains where effective intervention is only possible through international or transnational agreement and/or enforcement. Thus for example agreements on limits to fuel emissions and pollution are only effective if these have a trans-border dimension, since the impact of domestic pollution is not limited by national boundaries. Sport, however, might be said, particularly in its recreational form, to be a matter for local decision-making, and the provision of opportunities to participate are often the concern of local agencies, in particular local government. Competitive sport, particularly at the elite level, with national competitions and teams representing the nation, would appear to be more likely to be a matter of national policy (though not always a public sector or governmental concern). Relatively few aspects of policy, apart from issues such as regulation of the transnational flow and employment of players, would seem likely to be a concern of transnational policy bodies, whether governmental (e.g. the EU) or sporting (e.g. FIFA). In addition to vertical subsidiarity, the principle of horizontal subsidiarity implies that the
organs of the state (ministries, municipalities or quasi-autonomous governmental bodies) will only intervene in sporting affairs where there is evidence of market failure and the failure to achieve public or mixed welfare outcomes. Such would be the case if we consider the protection of young athletes from the pressures of commercial actors, sponsors or coaches (see Figure 20.1). Thus we might anticipate that intervention in sport, if it is likely to be a matter for governmental
bodies, would be at national, or sub-national level in terms of promoting sport for all, and that, at supra-national or international level, government involvement would be fairly limited. Indeed, as far as mass participation is concerned, even major international sporting bodies are less likely to be involved in matters pertaining to sport for all. There are, however, exceptions
to this rule and this chapter will address the ways in which intervention at the international level has targeted increasing or sustaining mass participation, albeit in a limited range of contexts. In this chapter we focus on a small number primarily of governmental and third sector
bodies that operate at the continental and the world level, and that have a significant role in promoting mass participation. These are, at the European level, the EU and the Council of Europe; and at the world level, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the United Nations, and International Federations. This is not to deny that there is considerable activity in other international/transnational groups in relation to sport. However, there is rather less engagement on the part of these bodies with the promotion of adult mass participation in sport. In dealing with our chosen organisations we wish to map out a critical description, identifying what is undertaken by these bodies in relation to promoting mass participation, in what ways such provision is made, for which purposes, and what evidence there is that such interventions are effective.
