“WORLDWIDE TRENDS OF SPORT FOR ALL - a book for the year 2000 “Lamartine P. DaCosta & Ana Maria Miragaya
University Gama Filho – Rio de Janeiro
In The Berlin Agenda for Action, published at the end of 1999, at least one
area of sport is practically related to the central conception of life-long education
which introduces that statement. It is Sport for All, a three-decade movement
whose fundamental propositions are very close to the ones developed byinternational sports institutions, physical education, health and leisure, all put
together by ICSSPE in Berlin (1).
In fact, the so-called Sport for All has been concretely promoting active life
for people of all age groups but not exaggerating on the aspect of competition as
the top sports have always done. Moreover, these non-formal activities depend lesson the administration and on the financial resources than on school physicaleducation, frequently considered as deficient in any country (2). However, there isalso the bad news in Sport for All: the lack of theoretical conceptions which validate
its interventions in the socio-cultural environment.
This vicious circle of good practice and bad theory sometimes explainsconsequent prejudices against Sport for All the same way it assigns meaning to its
incapacity to renew original propositions. In other words, Sport for All, as far as thecharacteristic pragmatism of its leaders is concerned, has not freed itself from thecalls codified by the European Council and published in the early seventies, when
the benefits of physical activities were taken to everybody everywhere.
The result of that is the fragile legitimating of the practices of Sport for All,
which in theory, has evolved too little to incorporate new experiences andpropositions. To sum up, whatever is too much in sports competition and even inschool physical education, it is too little in Sport for All today, yet still very far fromscientific validation. In more specific terms, Sport for All has been more a result of
the "should be" than of the "be", that is to say, it is more a product of aspirations
than a systematization of practices. This is overly important in relation to somevulnerable groups within a society whose sports practice is usually doubtful inrelation to its benefits.
The very first attempt to review such limitations took place with thepublication of the book "Sport for All", edited by Pekka Oja and Risto Telama in
1991, which established both an international perspective and a scientificclassification according to themes. Even though more than one hundred authors
had contributed for this publication, in the end, according to the introduction of1

editors, it was not possible to obtain an interpretation other than the diversity
which seemed to characterize Sport for All (3).
In 1997, after comparing the main themes of 440 papers on the same
subject presented in international conferences between 1971 and 1995, DaCosta
suggested that culture was the central category for analysis. Diversity would notthen be a limitation once Sport for All, culturally determined, would have its ownand local meanings. The problem in this case would spring up if broader analyses inthe social field sciences were adopted (4). This interpretation is confirmed today by
the fact that there are several national publications on Sport for All and only very
few and rare initiatives of international scope.
At the end of 1998, UNESCO and TAFISA (Trim & Fitness International Sportfor All Associations) developed an agreement to produce an international book thatwould describe national initiatives and, thus, make sense out of internationaltendencies by means of comparisons. This way not only the cultural aspect but also
the need to understand Sport for All would be carefully examined within principles
of scientific validity. The chosen editors of this book - also authors of the present
article - developed an initial survey based on which a framework was defined bothfor the presentation of the national reports and for the elaboration of cross-culturalcomparisons. Accordingly, the objective of this research was "to build a state-ofthe-art book which aims at providing a body of knowledge able to point out
adequate ways and means of developing Sport for All in the upcoming 21stCentury" (5).

RESULTS AND PROSPECTS
The eighteen-month experience of editorial work in UNESCO-TAFISA bookappropriately entitled "Worldwide Experiences and Trends in Sport for All" hasdemonstrated that the proposed initial framework works effectively for diverse
cultures. Therefore, we estimate that very soon there will be a common and specificlanguage for Sport for All, which will make easier the task of better understanding
the similarities and differences among the practices of diverse cultures. So far, themain categories of the framework approved by the authors of the book as theyreport their national realities have been: (a) history; (b) institutions; (c) marketing;(d) culture; (e) sponsorship and finance; (f) target groups and activities; (g)settings and activities; (h) strategy and activities; (i) social changes and (f)conclusions.
Categories (f), (g) and (h) have been adapted from research carried out by
Powell et al. (6). Within these empirical surveys, three crucial aspects have been2

identified in the promotion of the practice of physical exercise in populations ofdifferent countries: (i.) settings, (ii.) strategies of intervention and (iii.) target
groups. The UNESCO-TAFISA book has adopted these central aspects making thenecessary adjustments according to the situation of each country so as to include
the category activities, which predominates in the practice of non-formal sports andgames. In other words, both theory and practice were made to be together within
an analytical model aiming at a future identification of tendencies in aninternational order.
Most

important,however,wasthedevelopment

ofpossibilities

ofcomparison and of generalization starting from local experiences, until now
inexistent but necessary for Sport for All to have its own theoretical body.
Accordingly, the choice of the authors of each chapter, equivalent to one country,
privileged academic experience as priority. The objective here was to match thepractice of traditional leaders of Sport for All with new approaches and theoreticalinterpretations. Approximately two-thirds of the participating authors pursue
academic careers, which results in the rise of a new Sport for All, based more onsocial and cultural tendencies than on propositions idealized by government orsports institutions.
An example of this change of focus lies on marketing, a traditional tool ofSport for All, which by comparisons between different countries has shown to becrucial only during the very initial phase of a physical exercise campaign. As acampaign progresses, the frequency and the number of initiatives by means ofseveral other approaches seem to be more effective than promotions of events.
Consequently, the priority attributed to the media and other means of promotion bycertain initiatives of Sport for All cannot be generalized once it has turned out to bea non-confirmed emphasis in most of the reported experiences.
Physical practices have traditionally been considered very important, which
can be seen in the titles assigned to campaigns and programs. By comparing
reports, it has been suggested that both physical practices and their target groups
have become means of mediation. As a consequence, it is necessary to value thecategory of history (framework item #1) in terms of characterization of Sport forAll. The observation of lifestyles of populations along the years has revealed theirown preferences and adaptations of the physical activities introduced in the local
culture but not the opposite as it had been previously thought of. That has been thesituation of individual countries such as Australia, Colombia, Poland, Brazil andSouth Africa.

3

Another probable myth of Sport for All has been pictured by key successstories, out of the preferences of the surviving tradition of the seventies. These
supposed models of establishment and maintenance of Sport for All have not foundtheoretical support because they are very successful only during certain stages,
which shows that there is a natural oscillation of the initiatives in the face ofinstitutional and social changes. One consequence of this fact is the greater
importance given to governmental institutions confronting other ways of managing
Sport for All. This tendency, also identified by comparisons, can be explained by thefact that the government can still maintain its stability in spite of unfavorable
results.
Sport for All, rediscovered at the dawn of the 21st century, in the light of its
international tendencies, seems to have as its main challenge the maintenance of
its responsibility of promoting physical activity for everybody, everywhere andduring their entire life. These propositions tuned up today with globalization canhave their experiences presented as models of the Berlin Agenda for Action.
This can only be accomplished if the intensive diversification of Sport for All
is accepted as a common manifestation of any culture and not exclusively as anobstacle to the construction of knowledge of its activities based on scientificprinciples. These are the hopes of the authors and editors of the book UNESCOTAFISA to be published in the second semester of 2000.

“Worldwide Trends of Sport for All” - The Countries, the Authors
EUROPE
England – M. Collins; Russia – S. Bordin ; Bulgaria – V. Girginov & P. Bancov;
France – J. Raynaud; Portugal – J. Bento & G. Pires; Finland – J. Savola
Romenia – A . Suciu & O. Oana; Slovakia – J. Holko; Germany – J. Palm & W.
Baumann; Poland – T. Wolanska, Z. Mikolajczak, B. Jung, M. Pastwa, J. Salita & J.
Zysko; Spain – E. Blanco Pereira & M. Mosquera; Cyprus – N. Kartakoulis;
Greece – Y. Harahousou & K. Paparoupa; Belgium (Flanders)– A . Van Lierd ;Hungary – G. Foldesi , J. Jakabhazy & N. Nagy ; Denmark – P. Gregersen et al.;Sweden - A. Olsson; Austria - .F. Holzeweber.
AFRICASouth Africa – A. Goslin & A. Bush; Nigeria – B. Onanuga; Cameroon – M. Jean
Algeria – B. Lalaoui; Uganda – M. Kadoodooba; Tunisia – K. Benzerti.
ASIA AND MIDDLE EAST
Japan – M. Ikeda & Y. Yamaguchi ; Lebanon – W. Moussa ; Korea – J. Ho Changet al.; Australia – R. Stewart & M. Nicholson (consultants: Brian Dixon & JaneShelton); Israel – H. Ruskin ; China – Wangmei, Y. Zhongyi & Z. Jinqiang;
Malaysia – S. Sing & S. Khoo ; Singapore – S. Min Yan.
SOUTH AMERICA

4

Colombia – O. Ruiz, A. Olmos, L. Puyo, R. Ruiz & J. Mejia; Argentina – O.
Incarbone; Chile – C. Zalazar; Paraguay – J. Acosta; Venezuela – E. Cabrera &C. Vera Guardia; Uruguay – C. Gomensoro & C. Mira; Brazil – A. Bramante, E.
Valente, V. Matsudo & J. Santos.
NORTH AMERICA
USA – D. Jones-Palm et al. ; Canada – R. Kisby; Mexico – E. Subiratis.
EDITORIAL STAFF
Chief Editor- L. P. DaCosta ( Brazil )Review Editor - A. M. Miragaya (Brazil)
REFERENCES(1) ICSSPE. The Berlin Agenda for Action for Government Ministers. ICSSPE
Bulletin no. 28 , January 2000, p. 11.
(2) Hardman, K. & Marshal, J. (1999).Worldwide Survey of the State and Status of
Physical Education in Schools. ICSSPE Bulletin no. 28 , January 2000, pp.40-43.
(3) Oja, P. & Telama, R. (1991). Sport for All. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
(4) DaCosta, L.P. (1997). Toward a Cultural Meaning to Sport for All Promotions.
19th TAFISA World Congress, Penang-Malaysia, pp. 5-20.
(5) DaCosta, L. P. (1999 ). Tafisa and Unesco Announce a new Book and Call forAuthors. University Gama Filho – Rio de Janeiro , p. 2 .
(6) Powell, K. E. (1991) Progress and Problems in the Promotion of Physical
Activity. In Oja, P. and Telama, R. , Op. Cit. , pp. 55-73.
________________

5