The primary aim in this book was similar to the 2008 volume, which was, to build upon our knowledge and understanding of what has become known as "a global sporting arms race`` (De Bosscher et al., 2006; Oakley and Green, 2001; UK Sport, 2006). Over the past 17 years since the publication of the first edition power struggles between nations to win medals and trophies on the international stage have clearly intensified. Alongside this intensification of effort, a growing body of evidence has emerged that suggests governments and national sporting organisations throughout the world spend increasing sums of money in their quest for international (Olympic) success (De Bosscher et al., 2016). This body of research also points to the requirement for a systematic and strategic approach to elite athlete development if nations are to realise their international sporting ambitions. It is clear that most nations presented in this text have, or strive for, strong government intervention and support, substantial financial investment (governmental and/or Lottery funds), state-of-the-art elite-focused facilities, sophisticated coaching, sports science and sports medicine support, and a coherent competition calendar tailored to the requirements of elite performers - that is, the framework developed by Green and Houlihan (2005) used as a reference point in the 2008 original. Therefore, on the one hand, there is evidence to sustain the findings of Green and Houlihan (and others), which suggest that we are witnessing a trend towards homogeneity of the constituent parts that make up elite sport development systems. On the other hand, it is clear that some nations are either constrained or bound by historical, cultural and/or institutional specificity in the ways in which elite athletes are identified, developed, funded and supported. In the 2008 text, the question arose of whether there was room within the global homogeneity thesis for diversity among nations. First, it is clear that all countries bar the United States exhibit many of the dimensions identified by Green and Houlihan (2005), indicating apparent convergence. On this basis at least, then, there is a case to support the argument for convergence among most of the twenty countries. Houlihan and Green (2008) argued that a possible explanation of convergence stems from the `coincidence` of similar domestic problems arising from political and economic globalisation. That is, countries have to position themselves globally, not just in relation to immediate neighbours (or in the case of Brazil, China/South Korea/Japan, regionally) and, increasingly, countries also face pressures to compete for inward investment and markets on a global scale. The upshot is that countries face the domestic problem of creating and maintaining a regional/global profile at the same time as maintaining a distinct national identity. Hence, the paradox of using increasingly similar instruments to demonstrate national distinctiveness, for example, flags, anthems, success at the Olympic Games, including national sporting `heroes` brandishing medals and trophies on the winner's podium. Coupled with the use of similar `instruments` (cf. the `framework` above) to achieve elite sport success, the case for convergence looks strong. However, by lumping nations together in a `convergence` thesis we lose sight of two things: first, the different ways of reaching the same goal. For example, Norway may appear on the surface to fit into the broad category of a case with heavy government investment in elite sport. However, while this is true, the Norwegian government's arm's length approach to the development of sport, and the persistence of `social democratic` values within NIF/NOC, is very different to the UK's heavy government investment in sport, whereby it sets targets to be met and influences the development of specific sports. Second, by focusing on `convergence` we may miss some of the trends developing that are beyond the key components of the sports system, which are more difficult to measure.
© Copyright 2025 Comparative elite sport development. Systems, structures and public policy. Veröffentlicht von Routledge. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.