ABSTRACT

Federative sport organisations are increasingly conducting advocacy vis-à-vis public authorities on behalf of their membership, but the meaning and implications of such interest representation are unclear. The purpose of this paper is therefore to explore how representatives of sport federations understand interests in the context of sport advocacy, and the transformative effects on future representational and wider democratic practices that may follow from such conceptualisations. Drawing theoretically on a distinction between attached and objective interests, and empirically on interviews with 46 Swedish Regional Sport Federation representatives, we show that interests are understood as best derived from central policy documents and edicts rather than clubs’ immediate wishes. This centralised sourcing of advocacy issues may be explained with reference to the legitimacy representatives believe that the internal democratic system bestows on processes of issue prioritisation. In the absence of bottom-up practices outside of general assemblies to channel federated clubs’ interests, this issue prioritisation strategy involves a shift from accommodating interests attached to clubs to promoting understandings of sport’s collective and ‘objective’ interest. The significance of this shift is twofold. First, it enables the justification of a professionalised, bureaucratic and centralised advocacy dedicated to increasing advocacy impact rather than ‘downward’ representational authorisation and accountability. Second, it may shape what is perceived as legitimate subsequent representation, including the appropriate participatory practices associated with advocacy. More generally, if clubs and their members come to understand their interests as objective, their capacity and will to formulate their interests as attached may be further weakened.

摘要

联邦体育组织越来越多地代表其成员对公共当局进行宣传，但是这种利益代表的意义和含义尚不清楚。因此，本文的目的是探讨体育联合会的代表如何在体育倡导背景下理解利益，以及这种概念化可能对未来的代表性和更广泛的民主实践产生的变革性影响。从理论上根据附加利益与客观利益之间的区别，并根据对46个瑞典地区体育联合会代表的采访，我们表明，利益被理解为最好地来自中央政策文件和法令，而不是俱乐部的近期愿望。倡导性问题的这种集中采购可以参考合法性代表来解释，合法性代表认为内部民主制度赋予问题优先级过程。在大会之外没有自下而上的做法来引导联盟俱乐部的利益时，此问题的优先级策略涉及从容纳俱乐部的利益转变为增进对体育的集体和“客观”利益的理解。这种转变的意义是双重的。首先，它可以为专业化，官僚化和集中化的倡导辩护 在大会之外没有自下而上的做法来引导联盟俱乐部的利益时，此问题的优先级策略涉及从容纳俱乐部的利益转变为增进对体育的集体和“客观”利益的理解。这种转变的意义是双重的。首先，它可以为专业化，官僚化和集中化的倡导辩护 在大会之外没有自下而上的做法来引导联盟俱乐部的利益时，此问题的优先级策略涉及从容纳俱乐部的利益转变为增进对体育的集体和“客观”利益的理解。这种转变的意义是双重的。首先，它可以为专业化，官僚化和集中化的倡导辩护影响而不是“向下”的代表授权和问责制。其次，它可能会影响被认为是合法的后续代表，包括与倡导有关的适当参与性做法。更笼统地说，如果俱乐部及其成员以客观的目的了解他们的利益，那么他们制定自己的利益的能力和意愿就会进一步削弱。