Rebecca O’Hanlon1, Chris Mackintosh2 and Holly Thorpe3
1 Division of Sport Exercise and Health, University of the West of Scotland, UK
2 Manchester Institute of Sport, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
3 School of Health, University of Waikato, New Zealand
Citation:
O’Hanlon, R., Mackintosh, C. & Thorpe, H. (2024). Navigating Neoliberalism: The Realities and Challenges of a Veteran Sport Programme in the UK. Journal of Sport for Development. Retrieved from https://jsfd.org/
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the influence of neoliberalism on the design, development, and delivery of a Sport for Development (SFD) programme in the United Kingdom and is the first to do so using an empirical case study globally focusing on military veterans. Drawing on an 18-month ethnography, this study reveals the neoliberal pressures faced by individuals working in SFD in relation to achieving programme aims, developing productive partnerships, and shaping delivery approach. We argue that the neoliberal context, within which this SFD programme is operating, limits the potential of such programmes to achieve their social justice objectives and the possible scope of their impact. Less attention should be placed on quantifiable measures and performance frameworks, and those working in SFD should challenge the neoliberal structures that limit their necessary and important work. We call for SFD programmes and staff to adopt alternative and sustainable approaches that allow them to address complex objectives, demonstrate this in participatory and innovative ways, and maintain productive partnerships. This paper offers an empirical example of the broader social forces limiting the potential of SFD for achieving their stated aims, and the novel policy challenges experienced by staff as they work to navigate neoliberal pressures and expectations.
INTRODUCTION
Since its introduction during the 1980’s, under Margaret Thatcher as Conservative Prime Minister, British society has been underpinned by a neoliberal ideological agenda (Dowling et al., 2023; Houlihan & Lindsey, 2013). Understood as a broad model with political, cultural, and economic implications, neoliberalism is not confined to the United Kingdom (UK) but has far reaching effects on governance and management structures (Bjarsholm & Norberg, 2021; Cleophas & Le Grange, 2020; John & McDonald, 2020). It has been recognised that some effects have significant implications for sport policy, public perceptions of sport, and the development of community sport (Houlihan & Lindsey, 2013; Rich et al., 2022). Scholars have argued that sport is both a reflection and driver of neoliberalism, embodying and embedding neoliberal ideas about individualism, competition, and market-oriented thinking, however this has largely been focused on the organised, competitive, and commercial nature of elite sport (Coakley, 2011; John & McDonald, 2020).
In many contexts around the world, Sport for Development (SFD) is required to operate within a neoliberal context, and this inevitably aligns these provisions to the neoliberal agenda, due to the need for funding, a supportive organisational structure and, for some SFD objectives, to develop programme participants as active and contributing citizens (Coakley, 2011; Doa & Chin, 2021; Ruck & Moustakas, 2023). Neoliberalism is woven into the social order and ultimately SFD is a domain where neoliberal agendas are at play, and can present additional layers of complexity and difficulty, which must be negotiated by leaders, staff and participants.
Drawing on the first ever 18-month ethnography of a SFD programme based in the UK, which uses sport as a tool to support veterans undertaking the military to civilian transition, this paper illustrates how the neoliberal context impacts upon and influences the design, development and delivery of SFD. This provides an original contribution to both the applied and theoretical understanding of SFD. While neoliberal influences on SFD have been considered in previous academic studies (Armstrong, 2004; Hayhurst et al., 2011; Thorpe & Rinehart, 2012), this research is the first to offer a managerial analysis of what neoliberalism means for the daily operation and implementation of SFD in a Global North context. The neoliberal partnership structures evident within this SFD work are also examined, with the aim to understand how they are navigated by those working in this field within daily operations. This research therefore increases understanding of neoliberal influences on SFD design, development, and delivery by identifying the realities and challenges faced by those working in the domain. This also responds to a call from McSweeney et al. (2020, p.4), within this journal, for further work that “unpacks the complexities, relations of power, and neoliberal structures of SFD” and uncovers “the way in which SFD programs, participants and organizations navigate, perpetuate, and/or resist a neoliberal ethos”.
The original empirical case study presented here reveals the neoliberal pressures faced by individuals working in SFD. We argue that, in managing the demands of the neoliberal context, focus is detracted from the core purpose of the SFD provision and, while this is concentrated at a local level, we contend that this has significant implications for the wider field of SFD. We consider the partnerships and collaborations that are formed both within the delivery organisation and across their external networks, and how these are shaped by neoliberal forces, as well as the overall delivery approach. This article concludes with a call to SFD funders and organisations to challenge and consider embracing alternative approaches to the existing and rigid neoliberal structures and frameworks.
Neoliberalism and Meritocracy
While neoliberalism is not uniform across any geographic region, it continues to persist globally and often underlies structural, institutional, and substantial changes (Kashwan et al., 2019). As a concept, neoliberalism can span several domains but also be difficult to pin down. Springer et al. (2016, p.2) define it as “the new political, economic and social arrangements within society that emphasise market relations, re-tasking the role of the state, and individual responsibility … [and] the extension of competitive markets into all areas of life”. A core pillar of neoliberal ideology is meritocracy, and that people will get what they deserve based on their efforts and personal achievements (Bettache et al., 2020; Verhaeghe, 2014). This need to identify and measure success has facilitated the development of neoliberal evaluation systems, focusing on quantitative and rigid measures of production, and individual contributions to it, where quality is determined by measurability (Verhaeghe, 2014). Verhaeghe (2014) critiques these systems, explaining that they can foster an atmosphere of frustration, fear, paranoia, and competition, as well as diminishing a sense of belonging or team building. In practice, this can create worry around job stability and a fixation on being able to demonstrate individual achievements and success.
Neoliberalism has been subjected to various critiques across the academic literature. It has been argued that neoliberalism as a concept is now ambiguous and often used, but poorly defined (Boas & Gans-Morse, 2009; Venugopal, 2015). Some academics contend that it is so assorted there is no use in applying the term, yet not doing so does not recognise its widespread influences (Birch & Mykhnenko, 2010; Boas & Gans-Morse, 2009; Ferguson, 2006; Kashwan et al., 2019). Neoliberalism has been described as a super-sized and omni-present model which fails to account for contextual variance, with cautions that it should not be understood as a singular set of ideas presented from a single source (Birch & Mykhnenko, 2010; Mudge, 2008; Plehwe et al., 2005; Venugopal, 2015). Neoliberalism has also been criticised for condoning social inequalities and legitimising the suffering of disadvantaged groups, in the attribution of social hierarchies to innate individual differences and acquired traits (Bettache et al., 2020). Meritocracy increases the extent to which inequalities are justified, with emphasis on competition and reward based on effort and success (Bettache et al., 2020). Despite these criticisms, it is evident that the neoliberal ideology has maintained, and influenced society in a variety of ways, suggesting that there are multiple neoliberalisms at work (Rose, 2022). In the context of this paper, neoliberalism is understood as a political ideology that has consequences for management thinking and practices, in which neoliberal ideas are implemented and realised through managerialism (Lynch & Grummell, 2018; Thompson, 2016).
SFD and Neoliberalism
This paper focuses on SFD, defined as “the intentional use of sport, physical activity and play to attain specific development objectives” (Sport for Development Peace International Working Group, 2009, p.305), and this is an area that, intersecting with neoliberalism, is shifting and continuing to present new knowledge and insight. Governments, namely in the UK and America, have increasingly reduced funds available to provisions that support basic human rights, both locally and abroad. This playing out of the neoliberal agenda, featuring the re-tasking of the state and the extension of competitive markets, creates spaces, previously occupied by government, for social justice oriented non-governmental and third sector organisations to now fill (Harvey, 2007; Thorpe & Rinehart, 2012). These organisations use sport as a vehicle to achieve social justice objectives and have proliferated within the field of SFD, to the extent that their position has become accepted and expected in the place of government involvement.
Yet, it has been argued by Weems et al. (2017) that the work of these organisations within SFD, at best provide a limited response to social issues and at worst create further inequalities, while their position is rationalised and intensified by neoliberal logic. It has been contested by scholars that, while these third sector and non-governmental organisations working in SFD largely have altruistic, philanthropic, and benevolent ambitions, many are now independent and profit making, promoting features of the pervading neoliberal ideology (Armstrong, 2004; Collison et al., 2019; Hayhurst et al., 2011; Thorpe & Rinehart, 2012). This move towards increasing professionalisation is not one of choice but necessity, as a strategy to navigate the competition for scarce resources and funding (Hayhurst et al., 2011; Thorpe & Rinehart, 2012). Armstrong (2004) describes how some of these organisations, while indulging in market-centred approaches, are more interested in signing sporting celebrities to promote their cause, rather than using sport to facilitate development. Ultimately, they set out to resist and transform the inequalities and injustices of society, but the marketisation of their work compromises the goals they can achieve (Hayhurst et al., 2011; Thorpe & Rinehart, 2012). Thorpe & Rinehart (2012) assert that the organisations with the best survival rates are those who adopt a more compromising stance and meet the development agendas of their funders. Thus, the original altruistic, philanthropic, and benevolent ambitions are compromised for the sake of surviving in a neoliberal society and market.
SFD plays an important role in developing connections, making partnerships, and linking stakeholders together, yet there are significant tensions evident in such relations (Hayhurst et al., 2011, Welty Peachey et al., 2018). Within SFD, organisations form partnerships and networks to mobilise resources, secure funding, assist programme implementation, and ultimately manage the uncertainties of neoliberal times (Burnett, 2009; Lindsey & Banda, 2011; Raw et al., 2021; Welty Peachey et al., 2018; Wilson & Hayhurst, 2009). These partnerships and networks are thought to address resource deficiency and instability, build capacity, provide beneficial opportunities to stakeholders, and, when underpinned by quality, effectiveness, and a consensus towards a collective goal, they can enable the achievement of benevolent ambitions (Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010; Hayhurst et al., 2011; Raw et al., 2021). Despite these advantages, problematic relationships exist, as they are difficult to form and maintain, and many fail (Hayhurst et al., 2011; Welty Peachey et al., 2018). This can be due to the pressure of funding applications, or the formation of partnerships in the spirit of competition, profit, and survival, rather than being focused on social justice objectives (Hayhurst et al., 2011). The competitive nature of SFD makes true collaboration difficult, but it is suggested that successful partnerships are possible when the collaborative process is continually nurtured (Welty Peachey et al., 2018; Wilson & Hayhurst, 2009).
The development of neoliberal evaluation systems, responding to the need to identify and measure success in a quantitative and rigid manner, has implications for SFD (Verhaeghe, 2014). Oatley & Harris (2021) explain that the role of monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) is to produce data that is measured against agreed outcomes, inform funders, and hold organisations accountable. Yet, there are significant challenges around producing data appropriate to the existing neoliberal evaluation systems that also captures the complexities of designing, implementing, and developing a social justice-oriented provision. The frameworks for MEL, privileged within the neoliberal agenda, focus on positivistic evidence and tracking changes, as opposed to facilitating evaluative thinking, examining impact, and incorporating practitioner knowledge (Hayhurst et al., 2021; Nicholls et al., 2011; Oatley & Harris, 2021). Hayhurst et al. (2021, p.195) describe this as “indicator culture”, where emphasis is placed on demonstrating accountability, proving impact, and presenting objective data that addresses performance indicators, acting as a measure of success. This approach fails to reflect local interest or need, and limits the involvement of stakeholders, potentially contributing to the problematic partnerships discussed previously (Harris & Adams, 2014). Ultimately, these neoliberal evaluation systems, and their application to SFD, receive criticism as they limit the existing evidence base and the potential impact of work in this field (Coalter, 2010; Kay, 2009; Oatley & Harris, 2021). Oatley & Harris (2021), among other scholars (Coalter, 2009; Harris, 2018; Henry & Ko, 2014; Spaaij et al., 2018), advocate for more participatory based approaches, challenging the existing neoliberal demands in terms of what evidence or knowledge is considered legitimate, how it can be obtained, who is asking for it, and how it meets the needs of all the stakeholders involved (Hayhurst et al., 2021; Oatley & Harris, 2021).
This paper draws on an empirical case study, that used sport as a tool to support veterans in their transition from the military, and offers a managerial analysis, to examine and illustrate the neoliberal pressures faced by individuals working in SFD to navigate partnerships and deliver this programme. Underpinned by a neoliberal partnership structure, in the absence of government involvement, we assert that the neoliberal context of delivery limits the programmes’ scope and impact, as well as its potential to make contributions to broader policy objectives. While this case study concentrates on these implications at a local level, we contend that this has significant implications for the field of SFD. We conclude with a call to funders and organisations to identify and challenge the workings of neoliberal forces and consider embracing alternative approaches to doing SFD work.
Sport Policy in the Context of the UK
Sport policy in the UK has been characterised by duality, in its ability to contribute to wider social objectives such as community development, health, and readdressing social divisions, yet it has occupied a contested space on the margins of government policy discourse (Hylton, 2013). Since the mid-1960’s, government has played a significant role in determining the direction of sport and this sustained interest began with the publication of the 1957 Wolfenden Report (Bloyce et al., 2008; Bloyce & Smith, 2010; Mackintosh, 2021; Wilson & Platts, 2018). Under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, as Conservative Prime Minister between 1970 and 1990, sport was a largely neglected and stagnant area of public policy (Houlihan & Lindsey, 2013). Thatcher framed any government involvement in sport within a broader neoliberal agenda, including the privatisation of publicly owned organisations, the introduction of private sector provision of local government services and the market-based management of services, and the encouragement of market competition (Houlihan & Lindsey, 2013; Wilson & Platts, 2018).
The economic processes of the 1980’s have consequences on how sport development and management operate today, including the encouragement of market competition and the increase in private sector delivery (Wilson & Platts, 2018). John Major, who succeeded Thatcher as Leader of the Conservative Party, had a different approach to sport, yet it continued to be in tune with Thatcher’s neoliberal ideology (Houlihan & Lindsey, 2013; Wilson & Platts, 2018). Following Major, New Labour came to power with a modernising reform agenda, “combining neo-liberalism with a commitment to ‘active government’” (Hall, 2007, p.119). Elite sport was prioritised and further legitimated following the success of the 2005 Olympic bid, triggering the modernisation of sport and Sport England. This was characterised by approaches to management that brought the worlds of sport development and management closer together, and shifted relationships with sporting bodies from ones based on trust to those based on the neoliberal requirements of contract and audit (Houlihan & Lindsey, 2013; Wilson & Platts, 2018). In a wider analysis of the four UK home nations, an increase in target setting culture and ‘reward and punish’ systems of goal focused regimes were evident, in addition to new patterns of partnership working in contractual areas of social outcome focused policy work, with a belief in the mantra of new public management (Dowling et al., 2023).
Case Study: The Vet Fit Programme
There is a long-standing evidence base outlining the benefits of engaging in regular sport and physical activity, relevant to social benefits (Mills et al., 2019), improvements to mental wellbeing (Conti & Ramos, 2018), and physical advantages (Lewis & Hennekens, 2016; Vogel et al., 2009). With a specific focus on military veterans, there is embryonic evidence that these benefits can be translated across to this target population group, with 15 studies published since 1996 relating to the use of sport and physical activity to support veterans across the military to civilian transition (O’Hanlon, 2021). Defining the transition has been contested in the military literature and examining this sits beyond the realms of this paper, however with the programme, the transition was understood as the time period and process of moving from the military to civilian life (Elnitsky et al., 2017). The sports programme at the focus of this study sought to build on this evidence base and was the first of its kind delivered in the UK. Running over a three-year period, this programme’s operation was longer compared to the short- and medium-term provisions that have been delivered previously in other international contexts.
For anonymity, in this paper the programme will be referred to as the Vet Fit Programme (VFP). The VFP supported military veterans to stay active during and after their transition into civilian life and was the first with this focus to be funded by a non-governmental, UK sport department. The programme attended to challenges related to mental health, social isolation, and addiction, and was managed and delivered by an Active Partnership (AP). There are currently 43 APs covering 48 counties in England, with a core purpose to create an active nation (Active Partnerships, 2023) through community engagement, building understanding, brokering partnerships and influencing policy and practice (Beacom et al., 2023; Harris & Phillips, 2019). APs were initially hosted by local authorities but have increasingly moved towards independent voluntary status, accessing funds from public and private streams to support their activities (Beacom et al., 2023). The VFP consisted of weekly sport and physical activity sessions delivered by sporting and community organisations, which the AP developed partnerships with. The weekly sessions included football, rugby, climbing, table-tennis, archery, yoga, and tai chi. The programme was open to male and female veterans of all ages, abilities, and branches of the military. Despite this, 82% of participants were male, resulting in some male only sessions, of which football was one. At the outset many sessions were veteran-only, with links into wider civilian communities, but over time they became more inclusive, facilitating the attendance of veterans and their families.
While attendance data was gathered, and offered some valuable insight, this evolved and shifted as the programme developed. Consequently, it was not possible to draw comparisons or undertake a full analysis, meaning the demographics and engagement figures of VFP participants could not be fully understood. As illustrated previously, MEL frameworks respond to the neoliberal need to identify and measure success in a quantitative and rigid manner (Oatley & Harris, 2021). Yet, this instance illustrates the challenges of producing this data within a complex and evolving programme, which resulted in an insufficient data set that was unable to tell the story of participation. Despite this neoliberal framework being a part of the VFP, this paper stands in contrast to this, drawing on qualitative data, to examine the neoliberal realities and challenges faced by those working in the VFP.
METHODOLOGY
Underpinned by social constructivism (Chilisa & Kawulich, 2012; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005), this research adopted an ethnographic approach to examine how a SFD programme supported the transition of veterans from the military into civilian life in the Northwest of England. Ethical approval was granted in May 2019 from the Manchester Metropolitan University Research Ethics Board. From this date, the ethnography spanned 18 months, during which time Author 1 was immersed in the VFP. This immersion encompassed the sport and physical activity sessions delivered on the programme, as well as organisational ethnography (Kitchen, 2017) where the researcher was embedded, as an observer, in the AP working environment. This paper focuses on the elements of organisational ethnography, encompassing the researchers’ immersion into office spaces, stakeholder meetings and other settings relevant to the design, organisation, and delivery of the programme. This was with the aim to observe and understand the realities and challenges of organising, developing, and delivering a SFD programme for military veterans. Broader findings of this project, that sit outside the realms of this paper, have been published elsewhere (O’Hanlon, 2021), as have researcher reflections on the ethnographic process, considering gender dimensions, the role and position of the researcher, and the influence of the researchers’ identity and experiences (O’Hanlon et al., 2023). The AP acted as a gatekeeper, providing full access to the programme and work environment. The ethnographic data consisted of over 250 hours of observations from the APs working environment, and 14 interviews with AP staff and stakeholders from partner organisations who supported programme delivery (Table 1). Participants were selected for interview using purposive sampling (Neuman, 2014), informed by the research aims and judgement of the ethnographer, who was immersed in the field. To protect the identities of participants, pseudonyms are used throughout. All participants provided both written and verbal informed consent prior to being involved in the study and were made aware at the outset how these results would be shared and disseminated.
Table 1 – Role Information of Interviewed Stakeholders
| Participant | Employment Sector | Job Title | Role within the Programme | Interview Format |
| Alex | Active Partnership | Senior Development Officer | Programme lead | 3 interviews; 2 in person and 1 online |
| Ben | Active Partnership | Development Manager | Responsible for securing initial funding, but no further involvement | 1 in person interview |
| Callum | Sport Development | Engagement Coach | Partner organisation who delivered one activity session on the programme | 1 in person interview |
| Daniel | Veteran Support | Operations Manager | Partner organisation who supported the recruitment of veterans into the programme | 1 in person interview |
| Emily | Veteran Support | Partnerships Manager | Partner organisation involved in securing initial funding, but limited further involvement | 1 in person interview |
| Fred | Sport Development | Community Development Manager | Partner organisation who organised multiple activity sessions on the programme | 1 online interview |
| Gareth | Sport Development | Project Leader & Coach | Partner organisation who delivered one activity session on the programme | 1 in person interview |
| Hannah | Sport Development | Community Development Manager | Partner organisation who delivered one activity session on the programme | 1 in person interview |
| Ian | Active Partnership | Senior Officer | Line manager of the programme, and became increasingly involved in the programme due to organisational change | 1 in person interview |
| Jessica | Active Partnership | Development Officer | Supported the daily running and delivery of the programme | 2 online interviews |
| Kate | Active Partnership | Development Officer | Supported the daily running and delivery of the programme, and responsible for the mental wellbeing programme objectives | 1 online interview |
Observations were handwritten in a field diary and typed up following fieldwork, while interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Dialogical narrative analysis (Frank, 2010) was used to make sense of the data, and this was an ongoing approach which occurred alongside data collection. Initially, an indwelling period (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994) was undertaken, becoming familiar with the data (Smith & Monforte, 2020). Themes, relationships between themes, conceptual comments and narratives were next identified and noted, using the qualitative analysis software NVivo. To develop this further, key moments (Sullivan, 2012) were identified relevant to the research aim, and noted in an Excel document. Analytical questioning then occurred to allow for detailed analysis, guided by questions proposed by Frank (2010, 2012) and extended by Smith and Monforte (2020). During the analysis and write up process, Authors 2 and 3 further supported the development of the research.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Internal Organisational Structures
Typically, APs are strategic organisations with a remit to develop insight, broker partnerships, and influence policy and practice (Dowling et al, 2023; Harris & Phillips, 2019; Mackintosh, 2021). Thus, their role in managing, developing, and delivering the VFP was a deviation from their usual work. Three AP staff were assigned to the VFP, overseen by a line manager who held a strategic responsibility as opposed to coordinating programme delivery. It was observed that the structures and hierarchies within the AP were influential to the VFP, and the staff assigned to it. There was a clear staff hierarchy, and it was observed that this created an atmosphere of fear, frustration and competition for a variety of reasons. This was first relevant to promotions:
It was announced that [2 staff members] had been promoted, but this was while others were still waiting to hear back about their promotions and pay rises. I also heard that [a staff member] wasn’t happy because [a promoted member of staff] now sits above them despite being less experienced, and that [another staff member] is annoyed because they are having to take on more work while a colleague is on maternity leave and is not getting a pay rise to reflect this. [A promoted staff member] said there is a lot of anger in the office so it is a bit uncomfortable, and they felt they couldn’t be happy about their promotion (Fieldwork Notes).
This observation demonstrates the frustration felt by some in the workplace, as well as the evident competition between staff to be recognised and rewarded for the level of work they are undertaking. The staff members referred to here include some of those working on the VFP, suggesting that these wider discussions pertaining to promotions and pay rises across the AP, not only impacted them, but also diverted attention away from their work on the VFP. It could be suggested that staff were more concerned with these conversations, rather than the core priorities of their work role. This is a helpful illustration of Verhaeghe’s (2014) criticism of neoliberalism, in which he suggests that neoliberal systems can foster an atmosphere of frustration, fear, paranoia and competition, diminish a sense of belonging, and encourage a fixation on being able to demonstrate individual achievements so it is appropriately rewarded. Similarly, Bettache et al. (2020) comment on meritocracy and the emphasis placed on competition and the distribution of rewards based on effort and success.
This need for staff to demonstrate their work, effort and success was felt within the AP and ultimately diverted attention away from core work objectives. For example, Kate, who worked on the VFP, explained that she: “… constantly felt against the clock being part time, and then six months in and not having anything tangible to show or measure …”. Her concerns here do not relate to meeting objectives relevant to the VFP or being on track with programme development, instead she is worried about not having “anything tangible to show or measure”. Leaning into both meritocracy and neoliberal evaluation systems, focus has been diverted from her responsibility to develop the mental wellbeing objectives of the programme, to concentrate on ensuring her work is being seen, reported and accounted for, so it can be rewarded. This reflects broader criticisms of neoliberal MEL frameworks, which focus on positivistic evidence, tracking change, and encourage an indicator culture (Hayhurst et al., 2021; Nicholls et al., 2011; Oatley & Harris, 2021), ultimately diverting attention from core SFD objectives.
The central aims of VFP were to address mental health, social isolation and addiction and, as complex issues that are tied to contextual factors and broader dynamic processes, these are difficult to quantify and measure (Mellsop & Wilson, 2006). Therefore, acknowledging the challenge of reporting the work required to address these complex objectives, it is ultimately stopped or put aside in favour of activities that can be easily reported and measured. This suggests that the core VFP aims are never fully achieved, but other work which can be more readily quantified is undertaken and rewarded. Connecting this to the field of SFD, this could have significant implications where development objectives are never fully tackled due to the overriding need to provide evidence and tangible measures for reward and success.
External Organization Structures
The neoliberal context of delivery also extended beyond the confines of the AP to influence the partnerships, collaborations, and wider structures they belonged to. The relationship between the AP and programme funder, Sport England, was highly influential and shaped the deliverers’ decision making. As the AP were the recipients of funding from Sport England, this influence followed a top-down approach, in which the AP were required to meet the demands asked of them. Not doing so, or challenging these demands, placed them at risk of losing funding or disrupting the working relationship. This was illustrated by Ian, the line manager overseeing the staff working on the VFP, who commented: “… Sport England asked us for a lot more participants than we’ve got, so although we’re not bound by that … I’d still like to see more people involved …”. It is evident here that Sport England had set the AP targets around participant numbers. The modernisation of Sport England encompassed the adoption of neoliberal techniques, including the creation of a performance management framework and development of robust reporting procedures (Harris & Houlihan, 2016; Houlihan & Green, 2009), to ensure and increase accountability across the sporting sector. Consequently, Sport England now imposes quantitative measurements of performance, programme quality, production, and impact. This requirement to meet participant numbers, as outlined by Ian, illustrates these neoliberal techniques and, while Ian claims that they are not bound to this figure, he still strives to meet it. This was echoed by Hannah, who worked for a partner organisation and contributed to the VFP:
I think it is difficult because when you apply for funding, you write down how many you expect, and the funder then bases your total money on how many and works out price per head, so you feel a little bit under pressure to hit those numbers.
These comments suggest that the rigid and quantitative measures imposed by Sport England place some degree of pressure on staff to ensure they are met, with the intention to maintain access to funding and a good relationship with the funder. This is also supported by comments from Alex, the Vet Fit Programme lead, who stresses the value of quantitative measures and outcomes: “… that’s really important to gain an audience for the bosses, for people who are looking to sponsor you or support you … people like insight, like the numbers …”.
Alex links the focus on quantitative measures with capturing the interest of bosses, sponsors, and advocates. This is an illustration of meritocracy influencing Alex’s work, where his attention is redirected away from core programme aims, as these are complex and unquantifiable, and focused on quantitative measures of production and quality which can be monitored and evaluated by Sport England (Verhaeghe, 2014). This connects to previous discussions on the internal structure of the AP and the many distractions that remove attention from the central aims of the VFP, relating to addiction, isolation, and mental health. Thus, the neoliberal context and its associated evaluation systems are enforced both internally and from above, via the APs relationship with the programme funder.
Despite Sport England’s requests for quantitative performance measures, their approach to overseeing the VFP was one they undertook from a distance. For both the AP and other partners involved, this was a surprise given the sum of money provided to fund the programme:
A Sport England representative is looking after the project, and they instantly managed expectations and made clear that they will not be on site, it will only be via phone. This is a real hands-off approach for quite a significant sum of money… (Fieldwork Notes).
This management of expectations by the Sport England representative, suggests that their understanding of the programme, and its impact, will be developed through their limited communications with the AP and the quantitative measures they receive. While this is deemed appropriate, it does raise questions if this level of information is enough to hold the AP accountable, as per the remit developed through the modernisation process, to ensure public funds are spent appropriately (Houlihan & Green, 2009). Given that the aims of the VFP centre on addressing mental health, social isolation, and addiction, it could also be argued that the lack of wider MEL processes, beyond quantitative measures, does not enable the funder to fully appreciate if these aims have been addressed. The focus on participation figures, as raised by Ian, does not appropriately capture or accurately reflect the VFPs aims, outcomes and impacts. Instead, the use of stories, participant quotes, and participatory approaches may be more suitable (Hayhurst et al., 2021; Oatley & Harris, 2021). This is an ongoing criticism of SFD that has been recognised to impact broader work in the field and its value (Coalter, 2010; Kay, 2009; Oatley & Harris, 2021), as well as contributing to problematic partnerships (Harris & Adams, 2014). Sport England’s removed stance, combined with their requirements for quantitative measures of production and quality, created a complex partnership for the AP to navigate. While the AP were able to maintain a good relationship with the funder, in meeting their neoliberal measures, this increased competition with other external organisations, working in the same area and vying for the same funds, resources and participants.
A requirement of receiving funds from Sport England was the development of partnerships to facilitate the VFP’s implementation. While intentions were well placed, ultimately these partnerships were complex, not always productive, and formed under the pressure of meeting funding requirements. This offers a practical example of the academic criticisms made of collaboration within SFD (Hayhurst et al., 2011; Welty Peachey et al., 2018). In the VFP there were different reasons for the complexities and issues encountered across the collaborations, yet neoliberal features continued to be a significant influence. Underpinned by meritocracy (Bettache et al., 2020), many of the of the smaller organisations that supported the AP in promoting, designing, and delivering the VFP, expected a return for their contributions. These were quantifiable returns they could put towards their own MEL processes, however this prompted conflicts and issues as Fred, a staff member from a partner organisation, explains:
People spend time on the funding application and don’t see any monetary return … that’s wrong because the time they spent on it should really have been with the reason of helping military veterans … if they went into it giving time up thinking they will get a couple of grand on the back of this and they didn’t, then that breeds the resentment.
Fred suggests that some organisations’ motivation to be involved in the VFP centred around what they would get in return, specifically funds that can be used to evidence their inputs, efforts and success. This is primarily driven by the wider neoliberal context of the programme, in which organisations are under pressure from funders, bosses and advocates to present clear measures of quality and production, employing meritocracy to underpin their actions (Bettache et al., 2020). Repercussions of this can have a significant detrimental impact, with organisations developing partnerships or becoming involved in initiatives to receive tangible reward, that they can report within their own MEL processes, as opposed to wanting to work together and share expertise to achieve a shared goal. When tangible rewards are not offered this can breed resentment and, as this example demonstrates, the primary purpose of supporting veterans is overlooked.
In addition to breeding resentment, these complex partnerships, particularly in SFD where resources are scarce, can also foster high levels of competition. Verhaeghe (2014) demonstrates this with a particular focus on workplaces, however this can also be mapped to the VFP, and the multiple partnerships involved. Given the niche area of the VFP, in that it was veteran focused and used sport as the tool for delivery, many partnerships were made with organisations who had a similar focus and objective. While this should encourage effective partnerships that are working towards a shared goal, in reality this was disrupted by competition for resources, funds, and programme participants. Alex explains: “… if someone else is doing something that you do, they see that as a threat, that you might get the funding that they want, and they are protecting themselves because they think they’re doing it the right way…”.
This demonstrates that having a shared goal was not something that connected organisations, but rather caused divisions. Instead of being recognised as potential partners, these organisations were seen as threats, challenging the notion put forward in the literature that, when underpinned by a consensus towards a collective goal, organisations are more likely to succeed in their benevolent ambitions (Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010; Hayhurst et al., 2011; Raw et al., 2021). Fred explores this further, to suggest that this threat and competition centres around the participants the programmes are wanting to work with:
… for people with very small budgets and very small staff, who are working hard to make an impact, then someone else comes in and, for want of a better word, takes away the people that they were working with, that breeds resentment quite quickly.
Fred works for a smaller organisation that is partnering with the AP on the VFP, and it could be argued that these comments are reflective of his own position. The AP’s introduction of the VFP, has seemingly taken away participants and funds from smaller provisions that were already working in this area. Given that military veterans are a limited and declining population group, based on Ministry of Defence statistics (2019), this is a small community within the wider population that they are competing to appeal to and engage with. This highlights and extends a current argument within the SFD literature that recognises these provisions as filling gaps in social services, traditionally provided by government and the public sector, helping participants survive amidst inequality rather than to challenging it (Eisenkraft Klein & Darnell, 2024; Hartman & Kwauk, 2011). Yet, this does not acknowledge the competition evident here when many of these services seek to fill the same service gap and the repercussions of a larger, possibly corporate backed, service (like the AP) entering this space and overshadowing the work of these smaller provisions.
From the perspective of the AP, Ben suggests that the partnerships are more one-sided, and these small organisations are using the AP to boost their own reporting figures:
They are accountable for the numbers of veterans they support and, from what I believe, if a veteran becomes a member that’s classified as supporting them and that’s what they’re funded on, that’s what their performance is based on. If they get members from [the Vet Fit Programme] that’s a benefit, but if they refer no one on to it and it doesn’t succeed, it doesn’t make a difference to them … it sometimes doesn’t seem like we’re working towards the same goal.
This brings to life the complexities that are intertwined with programme partnerships, again with neoliberal evaluation systems and meritocratic principles being highlighted (Bettache et al., 2020; Verhaeghe, 2014). Funding for these smaller organisations is seemingly distributed based on the number of membership registrations, which is equated to the provision of support, despite no evidence of this being provided. Therefore, while participation targets are being met, this suggests that there is no measurement or evaluation specific to the volume and quality of support being provided, and if this is effective or beneficial. It also suggests that these partner organisations have much to gain from this collaboration with the AP, in sharing participation figures and access to funds, but there is little accountability for them to input or contribute to the shared goal. This example illuminates some of the academic discussions around SFD partnerships, as this collaboration does appear to address resource deficiency, provide beneficial opportunities to stakeholders, and have a consensus towards a collective goal (Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010; Hayhurst et al., 2011; Raw et al., 2021). Yet, there is a sense that these partnerships are problematic, having been formed in the spirit of competition and under the pressure of funding applications (Hayhurst et al., 2011). The smaller organisations in this example appear to be using their partnership with the AP, and contributions to the VFP, as a means to survive, rather than collaborating over a core purpose.
Delivery Approach
A common thread of the discussions thus far has been the distractions of operating within a neoliberal context, which has drawn the attention of the AP and partner organisations away from the core purpose of the VFP. As well as being evident across the internal structures of the AP and their external partnerships, this also has a significant influence on the chosen delivery approach. It has been acknowledged that the aim of the VFP, to support veterans in the military to civilian transition with a focus on social isolation, mental health, and addiction, is challenging to evaluate and assess using the quantitative measures that are privileged in the neoliberal context (Hayhurst et al., 2021; Nicholls et al., 2011; Oatley & Harris, 2021). Kate highlights this, explaining that: “… the anecdotal evidence comes out … I think it’s very clear that there are strengths, and the connections are there, but it’s a tricky one in terms of cold, hard evidence …”.
This suggests that there was informal and anecdotal evidence of the VFP providing support to military veterans, relevant to the outlined aims. However, it is a challenge to present this as a quantifiable measure, which Kate describes as “cold, hard evidence”. This is supported by Mellsop & Wilson (2006) who outline that complex issues, such as mental health, social isolation and addiction, are tied to contextual factors and broader processes which are difficult to quantify and measure. As these concepts cannot be easily measured, they then become overlooked, aligning to Verhaeghe’s (2014, p.137) criticism of neoliberal society where “anything that can’t be measured doesn’t count”, ultimately adjusting the programmes’ delivery approach and focus. Instead of addressing challenges faced by veterans related to mental health, isolation, and addiction, the VFP was described by Alex, the programme lead, as “a social club and connector”, overlooking the more significant and complex challenges faced by veterans in their transition to civilian life. This focus shift was also observed in some of the APs internal communications:
An email was sent to all staff which provided an update on the progress of [the Vet Fit Programme] and outlined 2 new areas it will focus on. It is interesting as they seem to be different to those set out at the start of the programme, with attention being completely removed from mental health, social isolation, and addiction. Instead, they want to focus on developing and improving the delivery of physical activity for veterans and identify learnings that bring about long-term culture, behaviour and system change (Fieldwork Notes).
This instruction, shared across the organisation, implies that the focus of the programme has become less around veteran support, and more on the administration, management, and monitoring of the programme, to be able to demonstrate learnings and measurable impact. SFD uses sport and physical activity as a vehicle for development and social change (Coalter, 2010), and while this was the ambition at the outset of the VFP, this no longer appears to be a priority. Instead of focusing on the use of the VFP as a tool to support veterans undertaking the transition, and experiencing challenges related to mental health, social isolation and addiction, efforts are now concentrated on providing quantifiable measures of impact that are not directly relevant to these initial programme aims.
Firstly, attention was placed on the number of veterans attending the VFP sessions. Making connections to earlier discussions, this was a measure highlighted by Ian that had targets and requirements attached to it, as set by Sport England. However, this measure of attendance appears to ignore the levels of engagement and outcomes related to this. It was clear that the AP staff, working on the VFP, were willing to set aside the programmes’ objectives in favour of ensuring their attendance figures were as high as possible. This was justified by Alex:
… we’re quite passive in terms of the mental health stuff, even though that’s our core thing. We don’t go to people saying, we want you to come to this because we’re worried about you being socially isolated, because as soon as you start using language like that people think it’s for people who are broken or struggling, and that’s absolutely not what it’s about. We want it to feel like you just come to this as a veteran and there’s no judgement, you’re not waving a flag by doing that, other than I served and I want to do this session, and I’m going to enjoy it. If you get that benefit, people don’t need to know about it, you might choose to talk about it if you want, but you don’t have to. Every single aspect has been passive really.
Alex outlines the ‘passive’ approach to addressing the aims of the VFP which have since been embedded and championed. There is a belief that a direct approach to addressing mental health, social isolation, and addiction would impact on attendance levels and instigate judgement, with veterans being identified as broken or needing help. Instead, this passive approach relies on the assumption that sport and physical activity alone can achieve the desired developmental objectives, and does not consider features of SFD to maximise this (Coalter, 2010). This approach has been criticised in the SFD literature (Bailey & Harris, 2020; Oatley & Harris, 2021; Spaaij & Schaille, 2021), yet a passive approach was adopted in the VFP, with the focus shifting to recording attendance rather than assessing the quality of support provided. While this discussion does not seek to identify if this is the correct approach or not, it does illustrate that veteran attendance was prioritised ahead of achieving the outlined programme objectives. This is because attendance can simply be measured quantitatively, however improvements or changes in veteran mental health, social isolation and addiction are much more difficult to measure in this way and, doing so would ignore important contextual factors (Mellsop & Wilson, 2006). Thus, in a neoliberal society, where “anything that can’t be measured doesn’t count” (Verhaeghe, 2014, p. 137), reporting and demonstrating the quality of the VFP through quantitative measures becomes more of a priority than achieving programme aims. The focus becomes less on the programme and critical factors that contribute to effective veteran support, and more on the administration, management, and monitoring that demonstrates measurable impact and quality (Verhaeghe, 2014).
A second example of concentrated efforts to provide quantifiable measures of impact and success, relates to sourcing funds. While sourcing additional funds is often a necessary task within SFD due to limited finances and resources (Raw et al., 2021; Welty Peachey et al., 2018), in the VFP this was also used as a measure of success and contributed to the programme’s aims becoming increasingly blurred. Securing additional funds was recognised as a measure of the programme’s success and quality, as demonstrated in a conversation between Author 1 and Alex who:
…let me know that they were successful in the £70,000 funding bid which they’re going to use to add a mental health strand to the programme … He was really pleased and said that it was more work, but it is exciting (Fieldwork Notes).
This was an interesting conversation where the funding was viewed as a significant marker of the VFP’s success, and a measure that could be reported back to Sport England. Another interesting point raised here relates to the use of the money, in that it was being put towards a mental health strand. Alex recognises this requires additional work, despite it being a core aim of the programme from the outset. It could be argued that acquiring money specific to this cause, which is quantifiable and reportable, has brought this objective back into focus. The VFP also received additional funds to: “… deliver bespoke sessions for wounded, injured and sick veterans, on the behalf of a partner organisation, with the potential to use this as an income generation tool, totalling approximately £100k a year” (Fieldwork Notes).
Alex also mentioned that he had hosted:
… initial talks with [the Health and Social Care Partnership and Combined Authority] about making [the Vet Fit Programme] a public health model, and securing long term funding that way, so it would be a long-term programme, that would expand into different areas.
It is evident from these examples, that gaining income was another quantitative measure employed to validate the quality of the VFP. The demands of neoliberal MEL systems have already been highlighted, including the focus on quantitative production, the need for frequent evaluations in which production and growth is quantified, and the exclusion of that which cannot be measured (Mellsop & Wilson, 2006; Verhaeghe, 2014). Securing additional funding was prioritised, to build income and expand the scope of the VFP and, while this was a quantitative measure used to demonstrate success, quality, and value, it had limited connection to, or influence on, the aims of the programme. Overall, meeting the demands of neoliberal MEL systems were prioritised ahead of addressing the programme aims and meeting the needs of its beneficiaries. Likewise, the multiple sources of income were accompanied with varying requirements, which further exacerbates the different ambitions that are now evident within the programme. These factors steer attention away from core objectives, to achieve the multiple and varied aims which are requirements of the new funds, and ultimately none of these aims or ambitions are achieved, or evidenced, in a convincing or wholly successful manner.
CONCLUSION
This empirical case study is the first to examine and offer a managerial analysis of the neoliberal pressures faced by individuals working in SFD, in the context of a provision for military veterans. While this novel focus on a military context is both necessary and helpful, the implications of this study are further reaching, given the global influence of neoliberalism (Kashwan et al., 2019) and the important and now expected work of SFD organisations, in place of government involvement (Thorpe & Rinehart, 2012). The findings presented here offer novel and significant insights into what neoliberalism means for the operation and implementation of SFD in the Global North, demonstrating scope to influence and shape the field of SFD beyond the confines of military focused provisions. We argue that the neoliberal context, within which SFD is operating, is limiting the potential of programmes to achieve their social justice objectives, as well as restricting the scope of their impact.
Within this case study, neoliberal influences provided distractions that moved attention from programme aims and work roles, to instead focus on gathering quantifiable evidence and tangible measures that are demanded within neoliberal MEL frameworks (Hayhurst et al., 2021; Nicholls et al., 2011; Oatley & Harris, 2021). Consequently, work towards achieving programme objectives, relevant to the complex areas of mental health, addiction, and isolation, was stopped in favour of activities that were simpler to report and measure. These aims were overlooked in favour of a passive delivery approach, and meeting the neoliberal requirements surrounding programme administration, monitoring, and management. Accessing funds was also accompanied with neoliberal demands, as it was necessary to adhere to performance management frameworks that required measures of programme quality and impact. Yet arguably these did not appropriately capture or accurately reflect the complex programme aims (Hayhurst et al., 2021; Oatley & Harris, 2021). It is suggested that there needs to be a broader acceptance of alternative data forms, looking beyond quantifiable and measurable results, to place value on data gained via participatory research methods, ethnographies, narrative analysis and qualitative methods. These approaches may produce video, storytelling and community-led outputs, that offer rich and complex data, through which the processes occurring with programmes can be unpicked. A wider acceptance of this can ease the pressures faced by deliverers, allowing them to present their data in a format the aligns to their aims and objectives, rather than manipulating it into the measurable and quantifiable forms that are currently privileged.
The development of partnerships was necessary to access funds that facilitated programme implementation. These partnerships were complex and often driven by the receipt of tangible rewards, that organisations put towards their own MEL processes. Despite collaborating over shared aims and goals, the stakeholders were not united by this, but rather in competition for resources, funding, and participants. This challenges current consensus (Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010; Hayhurst et al., 2011; Raw et al., 2021), and suggests that the neoliberal context contributed to the development of problematic partnerships that were one-sided, lacked collective accountability, and overlooked shared goals. For productive partnerships to be developed, it is suggested that these need to be established in the early stages and throughout any programme, using community development methods to understand the landscape the programme is being delivered in and how the expertise and resources shared across the partnership can be appropriately utilised. Driven by the desire to receive funding, this step is often skipped and forged as a reaction, rather than being built out of understanding a shared or local need and mobilizing resources to meet this.
Responding to the call of McSweeney et al. (2020), this paper has provided valuable insight into the neoliberal structures underpinning SFD, and how organisations and individuals working in SFD navigate the complexities and challenges associated with this. The findings presented have notable applied implications for other SFD organisations, as well as those responsible for funding provisions and undertaking MEL processes. We call for those working in SFD to challenge and resist the neoliberal structures that limit their necessary and important work, and adopt alternative approaches that allow them to address complex objectives, demonstrating this in participatory and innovative ways, and maintaining productive and collaborative partnerships. Of course, we are not the first to do so. With a focus on MEL processes, Jeanes & Lindsey (2014) have previously advocated for a move away from collecting evidence towards an approach that prioritizes the development of understanding, as this is more likely to enhance practice and recognise the contributions of SFD in the broader development effort. Yet, we also acknowledge that these recommendations are dependent upon access to resources and funding, and therefore this must be adopted from the top down, beginning with those that are the gatekeepers of these valuable assets.
Conflicts of Interest
We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Funding
Funders were not involved in the study design, writing of the findings, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
REFERENCES
Active Partnerships. (2023). Active Partnerships National Organisation Strategy 2023-2027: Creating Momentum. https://smallpdf.com/file#s=835fbdb2-ff98-4246-86aa-27a04b9ff985
Armstrong, G. (2004). The Lords of Misrule: Football and the rights of the child in Liberia, West Africa. Sport in Society, 7(3), 473-502. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743043042000749
Bailey, A., & Harris, K. (2020). An autoethnographic study of realist knowledge translation within sport development. Managing Sport and Leisure, 26(1), 41-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2020.1766376
Beacom, A., Ziakas, V., & Trendafilova, S. (2023). Reframing physical activity in sport development: managing Active Partnerships’ strategic responses to policy change. Sport, Business and Management, 13(5), 509-529. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBM-12-2022-0110
Bettache, K., Chiu, C., & Beattie, P. (2020). The merciless mind in a dog-eat-dog society: neoliberalism and the indifference to social inequality. Current Opinion in Behavioural Sciences, (34), 217-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.06.002
Birch, K. & Mykhnenko, V. (2010). The Rise and Fall of Neoliberalism: The Collapse of an Economic Order? Zed Books.
Bjärsholm, D., & Norberg, J. R. (2021). Swedish Sport Policy in an Era of Neoliberalism: An Expression of Social Entrepreneurship? Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.715310
Bloyce, D., & Smith, A. (2010). Sport Policy and Development: An Introduction. Routledge.
Bloyce, D., Smith, A., Mead, R., & Morris, J. (2008). ‘Playing the Game (Plan)’: A Figurational Analysis of Organizational Change in Sports Development in England. European Sport Management Quarterly, 8(4), 359-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184740802461637
Boas, T. C. & Gans-Morse, J. (2009). Neoliberalism: From new liberal philosophy to anti-liberal slogan. Studies in Comparative International Development, 44(2), 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-009-9040-5
Burnett, C. (2009). Engaging sport-for-development for social impact in the South African context. Sport in Society, 12(9), 1192-1205. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430430903137852
Chilisa, B., & Kawulich, B. (2012). Selecting a research approach: paradigm, methodology and methods. In C. Wagner, B. Kawulich, & M. Garner (Eds.), Doing Social Research: A Global Context (pp.1-21). McGraw-Hill.
Cleophas, F. J., & Le Grange, L. (2020). A critique of neoliberalism in sport: Towards optimistic sport in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In S. Manik (Ed.), From High-risk Sports to Sports as High Risk, (pp 90-106). https://doi.org/10.29086/978-0-9869936-8-8/2020/AASBS05
Coakley, J. (2011). Ideology doesn’t just happen: Sports and neoliberalism. Revista da Associacon Latinoamericana de Estudios Sociocultrales del Deporto, 1(1), 67–84.
Coalter, F. (2009). Sport-in-development: Accountability or development? In R. Levermore, & A. Beacom (Eds.) Sport and International Development (pp 55-75). Palgrave Macmillan.
Coalter, F. (2010). Sport-for-development: Going beyond the boundary? Sport in Society, 13(9), 1374-1391. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2010.510675
Collison, H., Darnell, S. C., Giulianotti, R., & Howe, P. D. (2019). Routledge Handbook of Sport for Development and Peace. Routledge.
Conti, C.L., & Ramos, P.A., (2018). Depression and the benefits of physical activity. Science & Sports, 33(1). 56-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2017.10.005
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp.1-27). SAGE.
Doa, M. S. & Chin, J. (2021). The Americanization of sport for development and peace: Examining American SDP intern experiences. Journal of Sport for Development, 9(1), 32-47. https://jsfd.org/2021/02/01/the-americanization-of-sport-for-development-and-peace-examining-american-sdp-intern-experiences/
Dowling, M., Harris, S. & Mackintosh, C. (2023). Sport Policy Across the United Kingdom. Taylor & Francis.
Eisenkraft Klein, D. & Darnell, S. (2024). The significance of plus-development through sport: the practices and neoliberal politics of attracting participants to corporate sport-for-development. Community Development Journal, 59(1), 128-146. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsad001
Elnitsky, C. A., Fisher, M. P. & Blevins, C. L. (2017). Military service member and veteran reintegration: A conceptual analysis, unified definition, and key domains. Frontiers in Psychology, 369(8), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00369
Ferguson, J. (2006). Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal World Order. Duke University Press.
Frank, A. W. (2010). Letting Stories Breathe: A Socio-Narratology. University of Chicago Press.
Frank, A. W. (2012). Practising Dialogical Narrative Analysis. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Varieties of Narrative Analysis (pp. 33-52). SAGE.
Hall, S. (2007). Will life after Blair be different? British Politics, 2(1), 118-122. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bp.4200045
Harris, J., & Adams, A. (2014). Making sense of the lack of evidence discourse, power and knowledge in the field of sport for development. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 27(2), 140-151. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-06-2013-0082
Harris, K. (2018). Building sport for development practitioners’ capacity for undertaking monitoring and evaluation – reflections on a training programme building capacity in realist evaluation. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 10(4), 795- 814. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2018.1442870
Harris, S., & Houlihan, B. (2016). Implementing the community sport legacy: the limited of partnerships, contracts and performance management. European Sport Management Quarterly, 16(4), 433-458. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2016.1178315
Harris, S., & Phillips, P. (2019). The role of non-traditional sport structures in systemic sport governance. In D. Shilbury, & L. Ferkins (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Sport Governance (pp. 107-125). Routledge.
Hartmann, D., & Kwauk, C. (2011) Sport and Development: An Overview, Critique and Reconstruction. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 35(3), 284-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723511416986
Harvey, D. (2007). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
Hayhurst, L. M., & Frisby, W. (2010). Inevitable tensions: Swiss and Canadian sport for development NGO perspectives on partnerships with high performance sport. European Sport Management Quarterly. 10(1), 75-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184740903554140
Hayhurst, L. M., Thorpe, H., Chawansky, M. & Ahmad, N. (2021). Feminist approaches to monitoring, evaluations and learning. In L. M. Hayhurst, H. Thorpe & M.Chawansky (Eds.), Sport, Gender and Development (pp. 191-209). Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 191-209.
Hayhurst, L. M., Wilson, B., & Frisby, W. (2011). Navigating neoliberal networks: Transnational Internet platforms in sport for development and peace. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 46(3), 315-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690210380575
Henry, I., & Ko, L. M. (2014). Routledge Handbook of Sport Policy. Routledge.
Houlihan, B., & Green, M. (2009). Modernization and sport: The reform of Sport England and UK Sport. Public Administration, 87(3), 678-698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.01733.x
Houlihan, B., & Lindsey, I. (2013). Sport Policy in Britain. Routledge.
Hylton, K. (2013). Sports Development: Policy, Process and Practice. Routledge.
Jeanes, R., & Lindsey, I. (2014). Where’s the “evidence?” Reflecting on monitoring and evaluation within sport-for-development. In K. Young & C. Okada (Eds.), Sport, Social Development and Peace (pp. 197-217). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
John, A. & McDonald, B. (2020). How Elite Sport Helps to Foster and Maintain a Neoliberal Culture: The ‘Branding’ of Melbourne, Australia. Urban Studies, 57(6), 1184 – 1200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019830853
Kashwan, P., Maclean, L. M., & Garcia-Lopez, G. A. (2019). Rethinking power and institutions in the shadows of neoliberalism: (An introduction to a special issue of World Development). World Development, (120)1, 133-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.026
Kay, T. (2009). Developing through sport: evidencing sport impacts on young people. Sport in Society, 12(9), 1177-1191. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430430903137837
Kitchin, P.J. (2017). Using dual-sited organizational ethnography to examine change within and between community sport organizations. Managing Sport and Leisure, 22(3), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2017.1417739
Lewis, S.F., & Hennekens, C.H. (2016). Regular physical activity: forgotten benefits. The American Journal of Medicine, 129(2). 137-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.07.016
Lindsey, I., & Banda, D. (2011). Sport and the fight against HIV/AIDS in Zambia: A ‘partnership approach’?. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 46(1), 90-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1012690210376020
Lynch, K., & Grummell, B. (2018). New managerialism as an organisational form of neoliberalism. In F. Sowa, R. Staples, & S. Zapfel (Eds.), The Transformation of Work in Welfare State Organizations (pp. 203-222). Routledge.
Mackintosh, C. (2021). Foundations of Sport Development. Routledge.
Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophic and Practical Guide. Falmer Press.
McSweeney, M., Oxford, S., Spaaij, R., and Hayhurst, L.M.C. (2020). Sport and livelihoods: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Sport for Development, 15(8), 1-9. https://jsfd.org/2020/11/25/sport-and-livelihoods-an-introduction-to-the-special-issue/
Mellsop, G., & Wilson, J. (2006). Outcome Measures in Mental Health Services: Humpty Dumpty is Alive and Well. Australasian Psychiatry, 14(2), 137-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1665.2006.02270.x
Mills, K., Dudley, D., & Collins, N.C. (2019). Do the benefits of participation in sport and exercise outweigh the negatives? An academic review. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology, 33(1), 172-187. https://doi.org./10.1016/j.berh.2019.01.015
Ministry of Defence. (2019). Population Projections: UK Armed Forces Veterans residing in Great Britain, 2016 to 2028. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c52cb35e5274a494e0b8522/20190107_Enclosure_1_Population_Projections_-_UK_Armed_Forces_Veterans_residing_in_Great_Britain_-_2016_to_2028.pdf
Mudge, S. (2008). What is neo-liberalism? Socio-Economic Review, 6(4), 703–731. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwn016
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Pearson.
Nicholls, S., Giles, A. R., & Sethna, C. (2011). Privileged voices, unheard stories and subjugated knowledge: Perpetuating the “lack of evidence” discourse in sport for development. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 46(3), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690210378273
Oatley, C., & Harris, K. (2021). How, and why, does participatory evaluation work for actors involved in the delivery of a sport-for-development initiative? Managing Sport and Leisure, 26(3), 206-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2020.1735942
O’Hanlon, R. (2021). You can leave the military, but the military never leaves you.’ An ethnographic study examining the influence of a sport and physical activity-based support programme on veterans undertaking the military to civilian transition [Doctoral dissertation, Manchester Metropolitan University]. E-Space.
O’Hanlon, R, Mackintosh, C., Holmes, H., & Meek, R. (2023). Conducting ethnographic research in male-dominated environments: reflections of a(n) (emotional) female researcher. Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941231206785
Plehwe, D., Walpen, B. J. & Neunhöffer, G. (2005). Neoliberal Hegemony: A Global Critique. Routledge.
Raw, K., Sherry, E., & Schulenkorf, N. (2021). Managing sport for development: An investigation of tensions and paradox. Sport Management Review, 25(1), 134-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.09.002
Rich, K. A., Jenkin, C., Millar, P., Sveinson, K., & Sherry, E. (2022). Sport and Community. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 4, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2022.1057368
Rose, J. (2022). Neoliberalism and its (Leisure) Discontents. Leisure Sciences. 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2022.2098881
Ruck, K. & Moustakas, L. (2023). E-learning, sport and the sustainable development goals: mapping the field. Sport in Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2023.2233442
Smith, B., & Monforte, J. (2020). Stories, new materialism and pluralism: Understanding, practising and pushing the boundaries of narrative analysis. Methods in Psychology, 2. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2020.100016
Spaaij, R., & Schaillee, H. (2021). Inside the black box: A micro-sociological analysis of sport for development. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 56(2), 151-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690220902671
Spaaij, R., Schulenkorf, N., Jeanes, R., & Oxford, S. (2018). Participatory research in sport-for-development: Complexities, experiences and (missed) opportunities. Sport Management Review, 21(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.05.003
Sport for Development and Peace International Working Group (2009). Harnessing the power of sport for development and peace: Recommendations to governments. https://www.sportanddev.org/sites/default/files/downloads/rtp_sdp_iwg_harnessing_the_power_of_sport_for_development_and_peace.pdf
Springer, S., Birch, K., & MacLeavy, J. (2016). The Handbook of Neoliberalism. Routledge.
Sullivan, P. (2012). Qualitative Data Analysis Using a Dialogical Approach. SAGE.
Thompson, B. (2017). Gender, Management and Leadership in Initial Teacher Education: Managing to Survive in the Education Marketplace? Palgrave Macmillan.
Thorpe, H. & Rinehart, R. (2012). Action sport NGOs in a neo-liberal context: The cases of Skateistan and Surf Aid International. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 37(2), 115-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723512455923
Vogel, T., Brechat, P.H., Lepretre, P.M., Kaltenbach, G., Berthel, M., & Lonsdorfer, J. (2009). Health benefits of physical activity in older patients: a review. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 63(2), 303-320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01957.x
Venugopal, R. (2015). Neoliberalism as a concept. Economy and Society, 44(2), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2015.1013356
Verhaeghe, P. (2014). What About Me? The Struggle for Identity in a Market-Based Society. Scribe Publications.
Weems, A. J., Garner, J. R., Oshiro, K., & Singer, J. N. (2017). Corporate social responsibility: Considerations for sport management in the age of neoliberalism. International Journal of Exercise Science, 10(6), 900-914.
Welty Peachey, J. W., Cohen, A., Shin, N., & Fusaro, B. (2018). Challenges and strategies of building and sustaining inter-organizational partnerships in sport for development and peace. Sport Management Review, 21(2), 160-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.06.002
Wilson, B., & Hayhurst, L. (2009). Digital activism: Neoliberalism, the Internet, and sport for youth development. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26(1), 155-181. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.26.1.155
Wilson, R., & Platts C. (2018). Managing and Developing Community Sport. Routledge.
Journal of Sport for Development 