Peer-reviewed article
International sport policy meets national cultures: reinterpreting qualitative interview data to understand Safe Sport implementation
Eivind Asrum Skille, Per Øystein Hansen, Antonis Alexopoulos, Ruth Brazier, Juan Calmaestra et al. ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-sonnet-5-5This paper looks at why Safe Sport policies, which aim to prevent interpersonal violence in sport, are hard to put into practice in six Mediterranean European countries. It re-analyses earlier interviews with 60 people who educate and recruit coaches (10 per country). Using an institutional theory framework, it examines how patriarchy, a win-at-all-costs attitude and a culture of blindness and silence are sustained by the state, families and sport. The authors argue that change is needed in all three areas at roughly the same time.
Key points
- An earlier study of the same interviews identified three institutions that constrain Safe Sport implementation: patriarchy, a winning-at-all-costs attitude, and an orientation towards blindness and silence.
- The state's weak regulative role allows these institutions to keep functioning.
- Families socialise their members into accepting these institutions.
- Within sport, these institutions operate largely unchallenged.
- States need protection systems for people who report harm, families need to help children recognise and speak about unacceptable behaviour, and sport organisations need structures that support disclosure.
Limitations
The abstract describes a secondary analysis of interviews with coach educators and recruiters, so it does not include the views of children, athletes or parents. It does not test any intervention or measure whether Safe Sport policies reduce violence.
Abstract
With challenges related to interpersonal violence in sport as a backdrop, this paper examines how cultural institutions operate across societal contexts and what this means for Safe Sport implementation in six European Mediterranean countries: Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain. In an earlier study, interviews with individuals educating and recruiting coaches (n = 60, 10 from each country) and thematic analysis identified three institutions that constrain Safe Sport implementation: patriarchy, a winning (at-all-costs) attitude and an orientation towards blindness and silence. In this paper, we conduct a theory-driven secondary analysis of the same data, understanding institutions as three pillars(regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive) to examine how these institutions are carried and reproduced across three carriers of interrelated contexts: the state, the family and sport. The analysis demonstrates that the states’ weak regulative role allows these institutions to function, families socialise their members into accepting them and in sport they operate largely unchallenged. For Safe Sport implementation to progress, several carriers of institutions must change relatively simultaneously. States must provide not only laws but protection systems for those who report harm; families must socialise children to recognise and speak about unacceptable behaviour; and sport organisations need structures that support rather than penalise disclosure.