REVISANDO A CONSTRUÇÃO DA
REDE ESPORTE PARA TODOS NOS ANOS DE
1980 NO BRASIL COM PUBLICAÇÃO NO
EXTERIOR

PUBLICAÇÃO PREPRINT-INFOGRÁFICAFOTOBIOGRÁFICA DO eMUSEU DOESPORTE, RIO DE JANEIRO, 2022

PRODUÇÃO: BIANCA GAMA PENA – ORG.
& LAMARTINE DACOSTA – ED.
www.emusudoesporte.com.br/home

TREINAMENTO DE VOLUNTARIOS DA REDE ESPORTE PARA TODOS, SANTA MARIA – RS, COM LAMARTINEDACOSTA PALESTRANDO À DIREITA EM PÉ, 1983SUMÁRIO / CONTENTS
1. LISTA DE PARTICIPANTES DA REDE
EPT EM 1983 COM ADIÇÃO DE
PUBLICAÇÕES E ENTIDADESPARCEIRAS
2. ARTIGO EM INGLÊS SOBREFUNCIONAMENTO DA REDE EPT –COMUNICAÇÃO APRESENTADA EMCONGRESSO POR L. DACOSTA,FRANKFURT, 1986COMUNIDADE ESPORTIVA

Reprint in English-Language
From original Communication tobe published in nº 38,
may-june, 1986

The Network and Low-cost Approach to Leisure and Sport for All – Theory andPractice Review

LAMARTINE PEREIRA DA COSTA

This report was prepared for the German
Sports Federation for submission to theInternational Olympic Committee in March 1986.

The Author is Professor of Physical Education,
University of Gama Filho and Coordinator ofSport for All Network, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

1

2

3

INTRODUCTION
The basic assumption of the present report is that modern sport is in a fast process of transition, not tomention similar occurrences with physical education and recreation. As a result many propositions andinterpretations arised recently surpassing the classical boundaries of physical activities knowledge, with new
approaches in philosophy, sociology, economy, politics, etc. (1) This often recognized fact, on the part leaders andadministrators, is represented by difficulties in conducting or managing the “new sports”, so diverse inparticipation, activities and opportunities. Further, the key role of diversity is also being faced by governmental
and nongovernmental organizations when dealing with individuals and group sport demands, or with political andcommercial controversies.
Arising from these evidences, it is becoming clear that the growing importance of leisure and physicalactivities, as well as the lack of integration of sports physical education and recreation, are categories on which
fundamental representations should be defined gradually, both causes are emerging by means of questions, as
those related with the need of new social and political approaches of sports, r the necessary change of the physicaleducation and recreation paradigms (2).
Also viewed in the large the increasing criticism about negative deviations of elite sports., i.e., excess ofcommercialism, exaggerated conservatism, competition as an aim, etc, is bringing about the needing for changes.
With less impact, life long physical education innovative proposals – since they were set forth with impressivenessin the 70’s – have been acting similarly in some countries, at least on academic level.
Thus, we are experiencing a transition in which knowledge is far behind facts. Therefore, it is not
surprising that theoretical approaches are outing forward more questions than answer in the changing patterns ofsport organization and practice. Naturally, empirical positions and solutions will prevail for some years to come,despite the effort of analysts to produce ideal models. The present study, proposes to balance practice andknowledge of “Sport for All”, which is regarded as an answer to many of today’s challenges of social and politicaldecision-makers.
This report attempts to evaluate past experimental initiatives of Sport for All”, focusing on the network
as an organizational solution for “new sports” which enables to manage the transition considering its contra
dictions. Such scheme comprehends situations of widely different nature, suggesting to be a synthesis of current
organizational needing. Hereafter a comparative analysis of different approaches of Sport for All, is followed bytechnical essential and future perspectives of actions.
Therefore, our focus includes the rationales of renewal and integration, bearing in mind the separation ofsports, physical education and recreation as much as the differentiation between rich and poor societies.
This review attempts likewise to discuss Sport for All searching for necessary synthesis that could
consolidate fragmentary information’s, expressed partly by word of mouth in professional and partly by the following overall documents:a)Sport for All Clearing House – Brussels – 1975/1985 – cards and reports;

4b)Proceedings and Preliminary Proposals of International Congresses, Conferences and Seminars ON
Trim and Fitness/Sports for All – 1969/1985;c)Council of Europe – Recommendations, Publications and reports on Sport for All – 1966/1965;d)Sport for All Programmers Throughout the World – UNESCO – 1980;e)“Articles Concerning Sport for Al” – CONI / Roma – 1982 (in Italian);f)Olympic Scientific Congress 1984 – Papers Presented at “Sport as Recreation and Leisure” Area –Eugene, USA;g)

Proceedings of International Symposium on Sports for Everyone – University of lllinois, USA – 1984;h)Sport for All Network – Brazil – Publications and proceedings of Congresses and Seminars “Sport
Community” bimonthly magazine – 1977/1985 ( in Portuguese, Spanish and English).

i)

Overviews of the World – Status of Sport for All – Jurgen Palm-German Sport Federation –1983/1985.

In addition to these purpose of evaluation and propositions, we are strongly convinced about the need ofsupporting research in order to review and recommendations from other sources.

DEVELOPMENT

The most common approaches to Sport for All regarding its origins are associated with pioneer cases ofalternative practice from conventional sport or with prior proposals of social development of sport and leisure
Probably the simple and direct concern about the raising status of modern sport in social functions andindividual needs* should explain primarily the surge of alternative possibilities of sports practice. This represents anatural trend of many of today’s society activities, to facilitate the access of some population segments, put aside byeconomic reasons or by all kinds of problems. In some cases this tendency comes up as a movement of ideas andpractice.
This first approach gives grounds to the appearance of sports “for all” campaigns, initially with television
as basic support but now diversified in mean and propositions. Under such circumstances, these organized
movements emerged in the end of the sixties in North European countries, since in that region was located themain effort to guarantee sports benefits to population majorities. The innovation, in those pioneer cases, wasunderstood as an emphasis on participation rather than competition, with a parallel encouragement of simple
games and exercises, which could be adapted to different age and sex groups, as well as different living or working
places of participants.
Progressively, the “Sport for All” campaigns, or “Trim” movements as they are called in Scandinavian
countries and in Central Europe, assumed a variety of formats, sophisticated media coverage and occasionalsponsorship. Once the preponderance of these initiatives was generated by government and private sport systems,
the advancement in popular mobilization and simplification of activities met no corresponding attitudes of thedecision-markers from those occasionally called “formal” sports organizations. In short, the “new sports have beenbasically a complement of “old sports” as they were innovative in methods not in concepts (3)This assumption is to be appraised firstly taking in consideration the marketing techniques and rationales
in which the central source of decisions in entitled to follow up its client’s needs and impulses, maintaining theclassical products in line with new ones. Therefore, inside one single marketing-oriented body, there is notnecessarily a contradiction of Sport for All alternative methodological solutions with well-defined procedures. In

5short, this latter movement has been growing more as a modernization practice for its sponsoring organizations
than a reforming action.
Secondly, in political terms, this “new methods with old concepts” approach underestimated in manycases the expertise of Sport for All, even in international exchange of knowledge, succeeding the traditional
division among physical education, recreation and sports. Indeed, in most countries Sport for All were andprobably is an exclusive issue of sports local system, generally supported by governmental of quasigovernmental
agencies, as reported by Mc Intosh in 1980 (4). Again, according to Mc Intosh: “The growth of the Sport for All
movement since 1966 has not been characterized by the use of a common term. Sport for All, however, I an
adequate description of a movement which has taken many different forms and has become governmental policy
under many different titles”. These reasoning were referred lately to UNESCO and IOC, which should assume an
attitude recognizing the prestige and scope of the movement.
The evolution of alternative forms of sports might be also lacking in updated conceptions for better
understanding and to meet further demands of practice, theory, research and co-operation. Such conditions would
be contributing to the dependence of Sport for All to orthodox organizations and knowledge. Furthermore, asimple examination of Sport for All technical sources shows a remarkable stress on activities rather than a processof analysis and synthesis, reflecting the basic constraint of “new sports” to find its own conception.
The related issue of marketing requirements, otherwise, also overemphasizes activities – mainly games
and exercises – with their organizational resources, since this lather discipline has been operating as a frameworkfor sports innovative propositions. Still, Sport for All leaders should have been crating their proposals on
perceptions of alternative needs of sports, very likely to occurrences of popular versions of medicine, agriculture,
civil engineering etc. this hypothesis finally suggests that the state-of-the-art and comparative approach to Sport
for All is to establish concepts as combinations of empirical and generally accepted perceptions.
Moreover, Sport for All initiatives are naturally differentiated in grass-root levels, becoming valid adiversified interpretation for practice. In addition, marketing focuses essentially on activity promotions yet a
relevant dimension is to be undertaken by the community, if some process of development is proposed. But as a
postulate, the understanding of this key role of community in Sport for All, has been much less effective than newdevices in methods of practice and in communication (5).
Thus, the empirical observation of Sport for All actions points out a conspicuous trend, represented bymarketing approach with minor community engagement, and another one often unnoticed, expressed bycommunity-centered initiatives, using technology of mobilization. Both extremes explain the large differentiation
among programmers and the importance of this dichotomy to be solved equally by expertise of both develop anddeveloping countries.
Within these limits OS Sport for All variation, at least in one case there have been opportunities to asses’
different position between marketing and community approaches. Surely, the Brazilian experience in Sport for All
is worthy of note for its contribution to develop new theoretical concepts on sports practice, s it had a peculiar
evolution on a step-by-step basis, facing diversity besides isolation from traditional sports, physical education andeven recreation. More specifically, the case history of Sport for All in Brazil is the first one of demarketing a
campaign, looking forward to the necessary balance between marketing and community approaches. The main
reasons on this conscious decision might be summarized as follows:

1.

There were sound difficulties in sustaining an overall campaign with one single line ofcoherence (mark, proposals, slogans etc), facing similar initiatives at local and regional

6

levels. The national campaign was launched in 1977 but there were previous community
sports alternative and self-generated actions since the 1910’s (popular football), the 1920’s(“Public Recreation” in streets with adapted volleyball and other activities), the 1930’s(“holiday Meetings” for children’s play or exercise), the 1950’s “Leisure Streets”) ad the
1960’s to 1970’s (large groups promotions).
Also, in 1975 a private TV network with the best national coverage, started the “Mexa-se”(Move Yourself) campaign with commercial sponsorship and four month duration. Until
now, in many parts of the country, people use the mentioned slogan as a colloquial
expression, which clearly proves the promotion’s impact. Then, in 1978, when the Sport for
All campaign was brought to an end, there where 22 organizations carrying out some form of
unstereotyped sports program, with government or private support under seven different
denominations.
2.

The country is a cultural and ethnic mosaic with great social, educational and economic
inequalities. In this context, many population segments normally tend to alternative
solutions, explaining the premature – taking into account the “new” Sport for All point ofview – Appearance of simplified forms of sport.
Such diversity always recommends to simplify procedures and to decentralize initiatives evenwhen modern technology is applied. This was the operational choice to convert the campaign
into a movement of many institutions and regional actions, after two years working tomobilize nearly ten million participants and about eleven thousand volunteer helpers.

Today, the Brazilian Sport for All movement comprises an outstanding variety of involvements,
interpretations and denominations, according to local cultural background. As most activities are traditional ornearly so, the movement’s theorists’ common approach is “new conception with old methods” balanced with theway of conducting major sports systems-shared campaigns. It is equally important to consider the seventy years
old practice of alternative sports in the country. These generally accepted and perceptive pioneer activities havebeen fully announced and became the basic references to present and future proposals of the movements (6).
Of course, correspondent phenomena of self-generated sports activities are plausible to many countries
whatever cultural tendencies or technological level may be. In some cases of individual, group or organization
discoveries of non-conventional sports practice, the logic of their usefulness is so obvious that the innovators
remain unaware of dealing with a new technical category. Such expressive situation was identified among others in
two prominent demonstration initiatives of Brazilian movement’s present stage: Sorocaba, an industrial town (300thousand population), and Itapira, commercial and agricultural center (50 thousand) where open public spaces
were adapted to simplified sports and leisure programs. Although the first national Sport for All campaign was
activated in 1977, the Itapira case was promoting stable events since 1969, as an alternative to physical educationof local institutions. The former case also started its community recreational projects in 1972 and was dedicated to
expand games and exercises as leisure possibilities in the neighborhood of participants (7).
With the appearance of the national campaign both groups of promotions did not classify themselves into
the new propositions and methods, just as they had to be provided with more than simple information andmotivation demands. As long as they were local leaders and professionals of physical education or recreation, they
were accustomed to receive the support from external enterprises. Reversing the campaign proposals from 1979
onwards, they were finally mobilized according to their own perspective of participation, in successive stages ofcontacts, discussions and direct training.

7

Arising from these examples there is a significant conclusion: exaggeration in marketing efforts putting
aside individual, groups and community involvement is a complication of simple and traditional tasks.
Underestimating modern technology is also a communication. Moreover, the trade-off of complex versus simple
solutions seems to be peculiar to alternative choices in conventional ordered environments. This might be thereason that motivated Per Hauge-Moe, the Trim pioneer, to advise his international counterparts in 1981, against
the complication tendency of Sport for All actions (8).

In other words, we are dealing with a continuum of two complementary variables, which proportional
participation in actions id dependent upon environment’s historical background and tendencies as well as theexternal organization capabilities and aims. It can be argued, in this case, the usual interpretation of Sport for All
by means of national models, since contingency seems to be a more adequate basis in terms of empirical reality.
Figure 1 depicts schematically the marketing-community continuum, showing the contingential nature ofopportunity (environment) versus positioning (organization). These both alternatives, of courses, are better fit
together by conscious and in-depth knowledge of local, region al or national characteristics, underlying a basic
premise: each country or distinct region must be encouraged to explore and meet its unique sports needs and toorganize its sports actions (9).
If some advanced Sport for All programmers are compared, the polarization marketing-community
emerges through detached forms and contents, such as: broad communication – local creativeness, fitness –participation, physiological effect – psychological effect, activity as an end – activity as a means, etc. in this sense, aCouncil of Europe’s study (10) identified one key ambiguity, early in 1975, but forwarded a significative
proposition: “In particular it has be recognized that the last category of activity (conditioning activity) stands incontrast to the other three (competitive games and sports, outdoor pursuits and aesthetic movement) in some
important respects. Activities in the first three categories posses’ intrinsic interest. Given a sufficient level of skill
to again a sense of achievement, the performer derives pleasure directly from participation. Motivation is thus
“built-in” to taking part regardless of other “benefit” accruing. Such “benefit” – especially physiological effect – isincidental and dictated by the nature of the activity not the needs of the participant. Activity in the fourth category,
however, can be selected on account of its known effects on physical working capacity and can be lees dependent
on a particular level of skill. Motivation on the other hand, is more likely to fluctuate and, initially, must almost
certainly depend on an element of public campaigning. Overemphasis of these differences can give rise to apolarization of views characterized, at one extreme, by preoccupation with prophylactic and therapeutic aims and,at the other, by insistence o the “purity” of true sport and recreation and contempt for any form of “contrived”

8activity. Either kind of overemphasis is misguided, for in the current socio-cultural situation, there is a need forboth approaches they can be mutually reinforcing. Sport for All must accept and encourage both. If it is notconcerned with sport and recreation it contradicts its own title; exclusive preoccupation with these forms limits its
possibility of catering for all.
A recently and more detailed survey referred to United Kingdom (‘The Impact of Sport for All Policy
1966-1984 and a way forward”), confirmed thoroughly the mutual reinforcing thesis, as we remark from its final
conclusion (11): “Sport as a means and sport as an end are not mutually exclusive. There is a continuum ofemphasis from extrinsic to intrinsic rewards and from sport as useless enjoyment to sport as social machinery. Oursuggestion is that Sport for All has traveled too far along this continuum towards social machinery. The next stage
for Sport for All might be to travel back and to base both research and promotion on enjoyment rather than social
function. There is here a pradox: if sport is promoted and pursued as an end in itself it may bring social benefits
which will elude the grasp of policy makers if they treat it as little more than a clinical, social or political
instrument to fashion those very benefits. Our final suggestion is then, that a social policy for sports should now bebased on twin principles expressed in two slogans; Fit for Life, and Sport for Fun”.
Is a nutshell, we are actually dealing with natural ambiguities as direct consequences of the diversity
involving Sport for All proposals and actions. By establishing this as a focal point of our analysis we can broaden
our basic assumptions as follows:i)

Mutual reinforcing of most contingent and oscillatory variables of Sport for All gives content toneedful integration when relating with diversity problems. Therefore “new sports” are above all“contextual sports”, which means that people in diverse situations is the basic reference toprocedures instead of “old sports”.

ii)Sport for All is a bridge linking people to “old sport”, also reinforcing the need of its own
conceptions as much as becoming valid the old methods of practice along with new ones.

iii) New conceptions of Sport for All are based in empirical perceptions of pioneer but theoretic
development is dependent upon the integration rationale in definitions, operations and organization.
iv) The state-of-the-at of today’s Sport for All is an outcome of programmers and campaigns
comparison, nevertheless this classification approach must evolve to analysis and synthesis, to seek
proper development in research an co-operation.

DEFINITIONS

The prior proposals of social development of sport leisure represent the other most common approachbesides alternative cases to stereotyped sport practice. Now the innovation is credited to Council of Europe for its
1966 – Sport for All Charter, as for the follow up of this original proposal by means of updating studies (12).
Of course, there was a challenge in defining “new sport” since this beginning, although the Charterdeclared that “every individual shall have the right to participate in sport”. This was not remarkable to expertise,once difficulties in defining sports, physical education and recreation known from the turn of this century up to
70’s, when nearly 60 interpretations and nomenclatures were identified (13). However, a 1970 Council of Europe’s
report proposed a broad meaning and universal appeal (14): “The concept of Sport for All 0 which is quite
different from the traditional conception of sport - embraces not only sport proper but also, and perhaps above

9

all, various forms of physical activity, from spontaneous unorganized games to minimum of physical exercise
regularly performed”.
In 1975, a clarification came up from the same source (15): “The expression ‘sport for all’ is alsofrequently used as a slogan, when it seeks to create a climate of opinion encouraging all to take part in sport andcalls for action to provide opportunities for all to do so”. Further, there was a complementary remark (16): “Sport
does not mean the same thing to all people and to attempt to justify it in either way is to over-rate it in the shortterm and to under-rate it in the longer term. Is special significance for different persons or for the same person at
different stages in his life”.
This sort of discussion has been particularly important in brazil, from where it was proposed a definition
based in the rationales of renewal and integration as well as in the existing inequalities between poor and richregions (17): “Sport for All is the set of all the sport and recreational activities that strive, in different degrees, forthe physical fitness and the physical socializing of the practitioners; activities that take place in locations withadapted equipment under simplified direction; activities to which all natural groups of society have access without
excessive limitations of economic, gender or age conditions. In summary, Sport for All is any sport activity that is
not practiced at high level conditions but that be a support for the latter when it is necessary”.
Related to these definitions and to the previous assumptions of the present paper, is the outcome of theframework formal/informal/non formal (FIN), now being adopted by Brazilian academic leaders. This FIN model
was initially conformed to UNESCO definitions on Life-long (18), but then it assumed proper configuration andcontent considering the needful coherence of non-conventional sports’ theory and practice. Figure 2 exhibits thethree dimension FIN model and its empirical characterization is presented as follows:

DEFINITIONS

10Formal activity is a continuous flow of actions with ordered and stable components, which applies thefundamental purposes of standardization, synchronization and maximization (19). Non-formal activities arecomplementary and discontinuous versions from formal events with different degrees of utilization of their originalcomponents, aiming at the fulfillment of contingent needs. Informal activities are independent and self-governing
actions performed by individual pr group in the attainment of their permanent or casual requirements.
These three possibilities are integrated in a continuum of overlapping interrelationships of daily life, workand leisure diversity. Thus the formal components decrease progressively in quantity, outside their specificenvironment, changing their fundamental characteristics and diversifying non-formal alternatives. Whenarrangements become autonomous from formal involvements, the activity is considered informal. Though peculiar
in nature the three types of events have mutual dependency, with a clear and general predominance of formal
dimensions which present the best control capabilities. This dependency, otherwise, is based on information, theonly regular component found at any part of the continuum.

ORIENTATIONThe FIN model is a dialectic one just as “new sports” natural ambiguities are concerned. The formal is an
original direction while non-formal and informal are opposites and their unifications at the same time. In academic
terms, this represents one adequate possibility to analyses sports as a process instead of activities. Being naturally selfsufficient, formal is virtually isolated from its alternative non-formal and informal; however the continuum
interpretation makes possible the aggregation of different perceptions in one consistent conjunction.
This open-system approach is able to provide integration to physical education, sports and recreation, inthe sense they are separated only in formal context, equally to any other organized branch of knowledge oractivity. At the environment of non-formal or informal practice, these three related areas are mostly subjected tomutual reinforcing.
Another proposition of FIN model is an individual, group and organization – centered continuum, withthe meaning that each one of these cam make the best possible choice among formal, informal or non-formal
possibilities, combining components and focusing efforts, with the available skill and capacity. Bearing thisintegration in mind, the marketing and community approaches may avoid extremes of specialization, searching thebest result for each specific situation. This approach is naturally contingential, giving grounds to the proposed
bridge between context and “old sport” procedures.
Further, the concept generation for knowledge development is also a consequence of the individual, groupand organization-centered continuum. Classified into the dimensions of FIN framework, each proposition fromobservers or leaders may be compared, analyzed and submitted to a synthesis, from which derives tool concepts for
activity organization or new assumptions. This rationale is now taking place for instance, in the medicine of many
countries, facing the rehabilitation of popular practices.
The FIN model gives also an orientation to the diversity of nomenclature in alternative actions of sports.
As a superior category of classification, “non-formal” or “informal” are adjective forms whereas “Sport for All”
and other names are substantives, which imply in separate areas of activities. Since this latter conclusion in
supposed to be contradictory with the existing physical education, sports and recreation, the solution is to qualify
each traditional corpus of knowledge. Therefore, the substantive nomenclature of promotions is to be respected inorder to emphasize individual’s, group’s and organization’s initiatives. Similar attitude was taken by technology as
a whole, which alternative versions are being generally accepted by the term “appropriate technology”.

11

MANAGEMENTThe FIN concept is essentially an open-system approach to general organization of initiatives withdifferent levels of expectations and contributions. Giving the necessary status to non-formal and informal, thisframework acts as a management guide with emphasis in simplification and decentralization. This is also the
opposite direction of modern bureaucratic enterprises, especially governmental ones. As a transition arrangement,
the FIN option has a strong connection with attitude change and training as a key priority to be established.
The Brazilian FIN experience is already able to settle significant conclusions in these matters as, forinstance, the distinguished role to be given to professional or volunteer “animateurs” or agents. He and she now
represent the movement by their actions and behavior as long as this intermediary position is the real point ofintegration of formal with non-formal or informal. During the marketing-oriented campaign’s phase it was thecentral point of decisions which tried to do so, through messages of motivation and practice information. It seems
more consistent now that this integration is better developed by trained mediators living at that same palace ofpractioners.
From this local point of decision, the messages are more adaptable to community reality whether using
modern media – in the case of high standard of living or large extent areas – or personal contacts. In summary, inthe begging agents were parts of campaign’s actions as currently the movement is complementary to agent’s initiatives.
Technically, this FIN management is based on general reactions as much as on local opportunities and notin the usual flow of decisions. Because of this the dialectic concept of “coordination through information” wasdeveloped with the meaning of directing media central production more to agent’s and less to the general public.
As a result the movement presently has two basic and permanent prospects: training leaders and agent’s, andmaintaining the flow of information’s from these agent’s to movement’s own media. The communities’ actions
depend on their choices, traditions and trends. Therefore, the movement simply collects agents and communities’
achievements and feeds back training preferences. This is also valid for technical development in event’sorganization concerns.

ADAPTATIONThe FIN model’s being dialect is presumed to be adaptable through processes of observation and events
practice. This continuous knowledge development opposed to discontinuous situations is a simple representationfrom any natural environment, but is does not fit in the logic of formal organizations. As stressed before, modern
management is very much connected with control which needs, by its turn, a continuity base. With the involvementof non-formal and informal, the degree of adaptability of the formal is on the increase, following the enlarged
acceptance of discontinuity.
All sorts of non-formal sports situations are widely understood by the possibility of adaptation ofactivities to majority of people. In operational terms, competition becomes less important than participation, whenformal is integrated to non-formal participation, the new general FIN proposition to sports would rather be basedin activities adapted to people and not the traditional opposite. Of course, in the matter of physical training with
the necessary control, or competitions of the sports elites, the right and indispensable predominance belongs toformal dimension.

12

UNIQUENESS

Having in mind the reserved participant-activity relationship, another consequence is the growing need ofadaptation to local community and environment circumstances, when proceeding from formal to non-formal
possibilities. The informal solutions, otherwise, are not gradual in nature, since each event is unique in theadaptation. In other word, “re-creation” is a non-formal quality whereas creation is an informal accomplishment,
as both are usual but controlled practice in a formal context.
Despite the bureaucratic constraints, the ultimate aim in formal organizations should be the search of thebest possible positioning in relation to non-formal and informal combinations. This is a suitable proposal tomarketing or community requirements as well, presuming both are participant-oriented with different methods
and objectives. In this case or in any case, as long s the non-formal is often a synthesis of formal and informal
combinations. Still, emphasizing the balance between people and organization demands, the non-formal, with its
adjective nomenclature, is the general category to define alternative actions of formal organizations or branches ofknowledge.
In observing these proposals, the validity of this theoretical development can be questioned over facts oflife and nature. However, modern society and its organizations are not sensitive enough to simple occurrences. In
the beginning of Brazilian movement’s experience, the interpretation of this need was ideological – in the sense ofideal to transformations – among physical education teachers (20), but later a more effective and practical position
was searched. With the FIN conception, this problem is likely to become a pursuit of adequate organizational tools.
The developing countries and regions, in spite of their backward management practices, are more
vulnerable to organizations’ insensitiveness, simply because the local communities have not, in this case, sufficientmotivation to resist the government and private enterprise’s pressure to gain political results or shares of themarket. Equally serious is the export drive from rich to poorer regions, which encompasses technical knowledge
besides other advanced factors. This trend is more clearly recognized in international relations, although is has thesame importance internal exchanges of continental countries like USA, Canada, Brazil, the Soviet Union etc. As aconsequence, the local traditions are often obliterated by practices of higher status.
Again the Brazilian experience is worth mentioning: after the campaign phase and the change of directionof the proposed one single line of coherence, there has been a constant effort to divulge the values of cultural formsof sports, with emphasis in appropriate technology, i.e. local low cost facilities or equipment development, as wellas popular propaganda (word-of-mouth, banners, etc). In response, some sort of non-formal sports practices were
found at about 25% of Brazilian municipalities, according with a 1983 survey (21).
Apart from this, later there were not indications of decreasing in marketing oriented promotions, except
for mass events in open spaces of large urban concentrations (22). in one particular commercial example – “RodaViva do Esporte” (Mary-go-Round of Sport), from the state of São Paulo – the impressive amount’ of 14 million
cards, with the mobilization of a complex logistic system and a costly advertising campaign.
With these empirical characterizations in mind, again we stress that each country or region is unique indeveloping its own non-formal sports actions or programs if the cultural background is taken as an essential
support. Further, in terms of international or inter-regional knowledge exchange, such uniqueness is defined by
the following declaration:

Formal sports must be unique for every country or region to allow competition and development of sports.
Non-formal sports must be unique in each country or region to improve participation and personal development. Both13

versions are complementary and offer opportunities for informal sports creations, as choices for discovering theuniqueness of sport in each person.

In dealing with this proposition, one common Sport for All approach is entitled to change from its
habitual form, using successful or influential case histories and performance achievements, to other with more
technical content. As for the FIN model, it is resumed that a consistent approach should consider the noteworthy
variables: people, operations and organization.

OPERATIONSIn extreme cases sorts practice neglects people as factor of variation since this physical activity isnormally selective, i.e. in formal sports individuals and groups are conformed to functional standards and norms.
In schools, clubs and sports centers, most efforts are made to adapt people to traditional patters, originating anelite of athletes, occasional practitioners and a mass of drifter. In FIN context the athletes and drifters became
participants as they equally practicing adaptable activities, with expanded standards and flexible norms. As aresult the variation in sex, age, physical fitness, sports background, economic status etc., is raised to the central
position of every operational problem, taking the place of performance variation.
Besides this key variable identification, the non-formal approach implies in changing the nature of
motivation and activity, from the original practices. Thus, to a lower impact of competition is added the incentive
of individuals and group achievements, along with nature and community pleasant influences (beaches, forests,
open spaces, streets etc). More important is to promote an activity correctly fitted to a specific targets group, in theplace the participants live or in available areas and facilities.
In all, these necessary steps to plan or organize non-formal activities suggest similar efforts to those often
found in formal promotions. But, since non-formal or informal tasks are capable to admit different degrees oforganization, the promoters adjust themselves to lower levels of difficulties when facing complex situations.
Another limitation is the insufficient knowledge about the benefits and disadvantages of alternative solutions. Bothprejudices explain briefly the stereotype of improvisation frequently associated with non-formal or informal
practices.

14

Figure3

exhibits a model
followedinBrazilsince 1981 as a

basic

assumptiontooperations (23).
This

generalorientation put

forward the need of adapting activities to specific groups but the references were the cultural acceptance of sports
and not segments of participants which would involve surveys. The purpose of this model was to develop atransitional position between broad improvisation and well-planned actions. At the same opportunity of using thisscheme, the cultural of activity organization. More recently, the University of Santa Maria, located in south ofBrazil, developed another model (24) which instructs physical education teachers or Sport for All agent’s toconsult local communities about non-formal activities and facilities, including a park construction withappropriate technology. Other models of surveys have been experienced – especially in Sorocaba and State of
Rondonia – in recent years, which might indicate that adequate levels of planed actions are long term objectives
and an important issue of training and research.
Examining the figure 3 short description, it is, worthwhile to mention some remarks for operations’references. Thus, individuals in isolations are more receptive to fitness training, solitary joggers being the best
example. In opposition, large groups easily accept social gathering with simple tasks (e.g., bicycle riding, mass
running, etc). Between these two extremes we find families, small groups and community groups, all withpeculiarities and different degrees of dealing with affection and cognition. In this case, community is understood as
the global effect of al these groups’ interactions, being equally peculiar. Therefore to promote non-formal activitiess a persistent search of balance between two variables: physical fitness and participation. As suggested by previous
sections of the present work, this dichotomy is mutually reinforced, depending in the integration of people(segmentation, community groups by cultural acceptance of activities, mix of community groups andsegmentation), activity (traditional, proposed by surveys), motivation (participation, competition, nature and15

community environment, achievement), participation (affection, cognition, group, group idiosyncrasy); andphysical fitness (programs, control).
But the right proportion of each one of these elements is a contigential problem, to which is advisable tofind formal and non-formal sports identity of individuals and groups through a process of combinations of activity
and socializing actions. Not withstand, an informal sport is a case in which each individual or group realizes thisprocess by themselves. Figure 4 represents this requirement, showing the static disposition of variables that should
evolve to a dynamic process, whether by a trial and error procedure or by surveys orientations

activity

or

sport

(walking,volleyball, fitness circuit, etc),

specific(health, friendship, enjoyment

etc),

organization(advertising,facilities,

equipment,

financing,theme

sponsorship,etc) and others. In the context ofprocess

approach, these today’s major

proceedings

would contribute to research

only as a basis,

to be followed by analysis ofseveral sorts.

An

exampleofanalyticalbreakdown follows in table 1, respecting variables as they are possibly characterized and aggregated in formal andnon-formal contexts. After this classification by comparisons, it was identified the nature of each group ofvariables, to which synthetically interpretations and denominations suggested integrative functions to both formal
and non-formal operations. This reference framework was a product of a matrix analysis (25) developed with 182
papers presented in 1982 – Brazilian Sport for All National Congress (City of Curitiba) and confirmed equallywith 137 WORKS OF 1984 – Congress (City of Belo Horizonte). In fact, those technical reports were mostly
related with event’s classification and description, just like their traditional counterparts in other countries.
The overview of traditional Sport for All campaigns denotes a predominance of the static approach, i.e.
classifiable descriptions, comprising one or more frameworks as target groups (youngsters, elders, disabled,families, population of a region or country, etc), specific16THE NETWORK

Organization is the complementary function of definitions and operations or, in other words, the support
to people involvement with activities. Usually in Sport for all programmers, the term “organization” is connected
to “campaign” since the pioneer stages and still predominant in today’s major initiative.
From marketing point of view, Sport for All campaigns were not innovative, but in reference oftraditional sports a revolutionary way forward was created. Basically a campaign encompasses aims and messages,
relatively to target groups and mass media coverage. For “new sports” purposes, the messages attempt to informand motivate participants of simplified and adapted physical activities, aiming health and social development forindividuals, groups and families. On the other hand, the selective role of traditional sports is minimized while newversions of games, exercise and competitions increase acess to a diversity of people.
In Brazil, the campaign style was followed by the two first national Sport for All initiatives in the 70’s. As
it had been clearly observed, there was a successful in mass communication but a doubtful effect in individuals’
and groups’ social requirements. Therefore the campaign model was placed by a community priority focus, withmultiform methodology which would meet diversity according to capabilities and preferences.

17

This diversity of actions was progressively accepted as able to sustain Sport for All development if it could
aggregate promotions of formal or non-formal nature, yield by promoters or institutions of diverse specializations,from government or private enterprises. In fact, the effectiveness of this approach was a discovery, a result of trial
now understood as a comprehensive combination of decentralized initiatives.
The integration effort, in this particular case, implied in lowering the profile of the leading organizations
in order to emphasize peoples’ or institutions’ autonomy, as well as to interpret effectiveness in terms of global
results, a sum of many independent parts and not in relation to one single undertaking. Surely, this management
style has gains and losses according to different involvements of Sport for All and even to leisure activities as awhole, suggesting an analytical and comparative appreciation.
Probably, the Brazilian experience is worthy of note since the integrative management started early in
1979 when it was assembled in a coherent grouping, parts of previous campaigns, occasional programmers,
isolated actions and a reformation movement of physical education professionals. This coherence received the
explicit denomination of “network” in the begging of 1982, after the Federal Government decides to finance a
information system for Sport for All. In summary, the empirical fundamentals of this pioneer “Sporty for All
Network” according with today’s positions are the following:

AGENTSAs we continually emphasized in FIN model’s propositions, agents are the structural basis of Sport forAll. For network concerns they represent the essential decentralized and autonomous points of decision, mobilizing
local participants to activities, properly fitted to geographic and demographic conditions with simultaneous
approach to cultural traditions. As mediators, they motivate local communities to practices as efficiently as
institutions.
Additionally, agents can provide the local rhythm of accepting and experiencing physical activities
distinct from traditional sports and folk games. They are also the best alternative to adapt equipment and facilities
using appropriate technology. In this concern, it is supposed that low-cost Sport for All is more a result of agent’s
local creative solutions than a managerial implementation of objectives.
As for Brazil, pioneer “animateurs” and today’s agents, achieved in crating spaces for activity in beaches,parks and other public places, using the support of institutions. If these latter ones should tried to do the same bymeans of bureaucratic routines, the costs could be equivalent to formal solutions with more benefits in long termbasis.
At least in one important case this proposition becomes obvious: the rural areas, where distances andscattered population increase costs of sports projects and promotions, making them clearly questionable. None theless, the most successful case of Brazilian network in 1983/1984 period was the Rural Sport for All in Rio Grande
do Sul State, which comprised nearly 200 municipalities with more than 400 trained agents, in a project sponsoredby the State’s Secretary of Agriculture. Undoubtfully, the auspicious results were credited to agent’s independentactions. That was the main reason to locate the Firs PanAmerican Conference on Sport for Al (November, 1984) in
Rio Grande do Sul rural region, making possible the observations of six countries, UNESCO and OAS
representatives, over the feasibility of the agent as basis support to Sport for All.
Another agent’s feature is his or her capacity of integrating Sport for All components of practice andsupport. Few central organizations are able to level off local intermediary functions because of common isolationand competition behavior exhibited by formal systems. Thus, agents are the best information producers and often

18

concept proponents, when involved in academic relations. In all, these characteristics enable them to establish thedemanding process of developing activities instead of a simple repetition of models and check-lists.
The limitation of agent’s actions, however, refers to aims and objectives when these general orientations
are proposed by central organizations. With major community involvements and agent’s autonomy,, there is no
guarantee for original purposes. Despite this trend, the final results are likely to be more realistic, meeting local
needs and wants. Taking the Brazilian experience as an example, the several changes in courses of actions of thewhole chiefly reflected influences form the parts, i.e., agents and organizations. Because of this peculiarity, thisnetwork only associates participations instead of affiliations, without any formal engagement, rules, norms orcontrols. Coordination’s, in this context, is more a result of agreements, collective opinion brought about by
information , as reproduced by the network media or discussed in meetings, seminars, congresses etc. althoughimperfect as a definition, this proposition is now being denominated coordination through information.
Within these limits, the network structure is not strong enough to afford fast and efficient responses toenvironmental changes, according with the expectation of modern marketing enterprise’s managers. But the“weakness” of the whole is compensated by the strenghness of the parts. This fact is an important gain when Sport
for All deals either with developing of even developed regions’ and countries problems as imitation of funds
facilities and equipment or such diversity of natural environment, social structure, religion, standard of living etc.
In summary, the usual discussion in the field of leisure activities and Sport for All about motivation,
participation, creativity, communication, resources and social and natural environment adaptation, is a relative
issue with more importance to central organization’s point of view. Emphasizing agent’s local work and decisions
the original problems become normal courses of actions.
The Brazilian experience also indicated new roles to agents. As Sport for All

movement

progressed

different segments of agents were identified, suggesting diverse approaches to training, information and technicalmeeting. Besides the local agent – volunteer, semi-professional or professional, independent or supported by local
or external institutions – there are at present stage academic agents (physical education teachers in most cases) andState’s agents ( public service professionals entrusted with the information circulations and training organizations
at each State). These different roles regulate the network’s media production and stimulate evaluation of Sport for
All actions. Since community is a first priority, a decentralized social control was recommended and that has been
partly provided by criticism and contributions from academic scope.
Indeed, this new profile of “animateurs” is quite diverse from the usual agents’ procedures, including thewell known model of primary health care in developing regions and countries.

INFORMATION
Concerning the agent’s role the network structure, training is surely a key function regarding
information production and circulation. With the normal reference of job description to instructional content,
training material and methods would rather be based in common courses of actions. However, diversity of local
situations makes this proposition unrealistic. The alternative adopted by Brazilian network was referred to broad
communication of creative solutions from several and diversified cases, as mentioned in FIN framework analysis.
This indirect approach to activity promotions stands currently to encourage local adaptability and creativity.
Being also a motivation tool, this involvement represents an agent’s compromise of developing his or her own workand of exchanging results and knowledge as well.

19

The voluntary concern of agent’s initiatives – which should include professionals equally proposed towork with autonomy – implies in an important effect of turn over, demanding continuous training courses andinformation’s in order to have a stable flow of agents. For Brazil’s situation, the network estimated training
capacity is approximately 5000 local agents a year.
In relation to other segments, there are about 200 steady academic agents, 100 State’s agents (estimate
including work teams of 29 States and Territories) and roughly 2000 transient adherents, comprising physicaleducation university students and teachers, and professionals of various specializations. These figures come forth
during national Sport for All congress which had participation of 1200 in 1982 (city of Curitiba) and 2800 in 1984
(City of Belo Horizonte). More recently, in 1985, the first post-graduation course in the specialization of Sport for
All took place at the University of Santa Maria, with 30 enrollments, indicating a trend to increase the amount of
academic steady agents.
For those upper levels of agent’s actions, training is interpreted as an exchange of information (State andprofessional levels). This proposition emerged with the “Comunidade Esportiva” - Sport Community magazine,
firstly circulating as a 20000 copies newspaper and then, 1983 onwards, as 5000 copies technical and scientificpublication in Portuguese, Spanish and English languages.
With the inclusion of radio to back up the network’s information flow in the beginning of 1982 – a weekly
program, broadcasted every Sunday morning with a national coverage of half of the existing 1600 Brazilian
stations – the segmentation of agents was consolidated as follows:a.

Local agents: national radio transmission, State’s network newspaper or bulletin, training
brochures and local radio transmissions;b.

Academic agents: “Sport Commnunity” magazine and other technical publications o tapes fromnetwork’s central office;c.

State’s agents: (a) and (b) adding the “Network Bulletin”, a special report from central officeconnecting State’s agents for mutual exchange of information’s.

By establishing this orientation, the network was converted in a co-operation structure, acting in anational perspective with the aim of exchanging information for mutual interests and realizations. Schematically,
figure 4 represents the Brazilian Sport for All Network in today’s positioning, in regard of the basic relationshipbetween agents and media. From this core connection, different layers are included with characterizations
discussed in the next sections.

MEDIA

Comparatively with major and traditional Sport for All campaigns, the network approach reversed thetrend to emphasize the general public and its segments (for local or group-oriented promotions) as main media
targets. In other words, marketing rationales became community logical basis for “new sports” concerns.
Television, in this particular case, appears as the central focus of discussion since it often represents innovative
stimulus to Sport for All, as envisaged by pioneers.
Television, of course is the most important medium of nowadays communication. In turn, its adequacy isrelated to mass events and interests, except in cases of local stations. Whether commercial or not, the use of
television implies in two key interrogations concerning Sport for All: message and costs. For the first topic, the20

question is about appropriateness of intense repetition of messages in which sport is a “product” to be “consumed”
by practitioners. Apart from ethic or ideological possible issues, a technical uncertainty is acknowledged in relation
to effectiveness of this kind induction. As for costs, television is by far the most expensive medium, putting forward
a permanent doubt about its benefits.
With the Brazilian experience in view, an alternative positioning of television is proposed by figure 4 inwhich mass media is the external coverage layers of the network. If “mass sport” is the aim, mass media with
television in prominence are likely to be the appropriate approach, dealing with entertainment or mobilization.
Contrariwise, if the aim is related to democratization of sports, presupposing more consciously participation, thecombination of specialized media with segments of agents is probably the adequate intervention in social
environment. Considering the previous conclusion about the mutual reinforcing of both options, the network is
proposed to deal equally with each other alternatives.
But in reference to television this compatibility came out by itself as a complex task. Facing thecommercial purpose of this medium in Brazil, the relationship was characterized by pressures and businessinterests. Even when using Public Service and Educational television, the predominance of the medium’sorganization and management avoided the desirable exchange with Sport for All social propositions.
In short television and mass media are naturally adapted to activity promotions and broad participation.
Furthermore, they lack in capacity to interpret social groups in the context of local culture, with the exception ofsome local or regional production, probably, social grouping hold the balance between mass and specialized media
in Sport for All network design. Figure 5 suggests this state of equilibrium and stresses the relationship of suitablelayers. Thus, the importance of elements in the network decreases from core to outer layers whereas adequacy
gains its significance in separate parts of this structural and non-hierarchical organization.

COORDINATIONThe network concepts as indicated by figure 5 is also a matter of compatibility, resulting in the inclusionof pairs of management guidance. That is the situation of the layer directly connected with the core, reffered to anagent and institution continuum, although the former is subjected to a more conspicuous role than the latter.
Politically, both are entitled to receive the same attention, once exclusions in an exchange organization have themeaning of

mismanagement

anddisintegration.

21

The same advice refers to local culture following social groups, participation in connection to activities
and mass media related to mass Sports. Therefore, the proposed objective to renew sports practice and concepts isnow defined by integration as a management priority.
Another important reason to establish pairs of reference is the weakness and instability pairs of referenceof network’s compromises, being this a typical for instance agents and institutions, the Brazilian experience showsa permanent shortage of guarantees in action, when preceding from a central source the orientation forprocedures. This was clearly observed in poor regions and less in developed areas. For that motive, management
function after 1979 was understood as coordination and later in 1982 this new concept was explicit adopted by the
network.
Today, the network reaches most institutions by means of agents from their own structure since it has
been more difficult to integrate interest at directive levels. This experience is valuable concerning government
agreements, private sponsorship, financing as well as university relations, particularly with reference to physicaleducation faculties. By far, the stronger resistances to Sport for All have been found in this university area: only 13
from 102 existing superior courses in Brazil had some connection with the network up to 1985, dealing withtraining courses, specific discipline of non-formal sports, activity promotion etc.
The coordination through information, and not as a decision, has been improved by old methods of work.
An example is demonstration initiatives, based in successful accomplishments. This is particularly actual related tomunicipalities of medium size, rural areas and corporations, from which realizations have been widely disclosed by
network media. The same orientation is followed in respect of agents’ distinguished achievements, basically whenradio and newspaper are involved. An essay of this method had been performed in the organization of national
congress using “agents” to mobilize the “network” or participants and an internal radio transmission to set forth
relevant occurrences (27). The verified impact of this prescription was a result of the best possible benefit of a
network structure, but essentially it represented a simple revival of the old “education by examples”.

PARTICIPATION AND COSTS

An important consequence of sharing responsibilities in Sport for All development is the low-cost of
network’s management. Taking the Brazilian case as an example, the Central Office located in Rio de Janeiro
works with four people in printing materials (magazine and other publication), four part-time professionals inradio, a secretary and a coordinator. This teamwork has a capacity to process 650 communications a year (articles,
reports etc)*, feeding them back to primary sources (agents and institutions) with adapted formats to network’s
media but respecting the original content. The total cost of logistic support (telephone, telex, facilities, printing andrecording services etc) to these tasks is approximately US$ 25.000,00, except salaries.

22

* Short news not included.
This amount represents the Federal Government’s direct financial aid to Sport for All, complemented
with funds distributed to 28 States and Territories for physical education, sports and recreation programmers.
Thus indirect costs are found in several expenditures as well as it is widely recognized that few local expenses arecovered by federal money. Because of this decentralization of efforts, Sport for All actually is managed bymunicipalities, communities, agents and institutions. From this fact, some important recommendations are
frequently introduced in massages of network’s media:(1) Local initiatives are not obliged to use central organization’s denominations, symbols,
principles, models etc;
(2) Participants will not be pressure to know Sport for All or to join its activities;(3) Network design and operation are irrelevant to participants, agents, communities andinstitutions, since they understand better through examples or exposures of needs;(4) The agent’s and institution’s comprises are voluntary determined by local values andinterrelationships, not through external organization and movement contacts and demands;(5) The Sport for All Network is explained in its parts or in the whole by the pursuit of inventive
and modest solutions, always expecting changes in far-reaching prospects.

EVALUATION AND RESEARCH

Participative evaluation is the suitable assessment of methodology and results in network context. This
proposition is based in precedent Brazilian experience, from the campaign phase in the 70’s when community andagents were considered active proponents instead of passive participants. Unfortunately, this approach was andstill is incomplete in methodology, recommending progressive adoption by promoters (28).
As the primary proposition remains, the necessary evaluation has to evolve by means of traditional
survey methods and improvements in scarcely available technology i.e. absence of acceptable definitions in Sport
for All concerns, lack of taxonomy of activities and others. Also, to this limitation is added the constraint of agentsand researcher’s knowledge, references and motivations.
In this sense, the problem of evaluation and even research has been observed as a decentralized work inprogress, with a patient construction of support and stimulus, being “Comunidade Esportiva” magazine afundamental step: after five years of circulation and two of technical specialization, the desirable flow of evaluation
and research works turn out to be stable. But still is a clear requirement in quality to be fulfilled.
So far, the challenge of investigation is also been faced in international level, as one might conclude by
Wolanska’s specific report on current trends of research in Sport for All (29). Themes, in particular, are likely tobe pertinent to both campaign and community – centered models, as they focus on problems of sedentary life
physical potentiality and accident prevention, considering differentiation of age, sex past experiences etc; sociocultural variables of participation. Time budget, life style and sports practice in relation to droping out, actitudes
and behavior of various social groups; social diversity of population etc. probably, these converging interest might
be able to facilitate future co-operation amid researchers, organizations and countries.
Basic to co-operation feasibility and to evaluation and research development, is the problem of data. If
the approach to Sport for All is the decentralized and autonomous network, to collect and process data is23

responsibility of local agents and institutions, without thee strict obligation to send them to upper levels. Whenreversing this proposition, the lower levels will be submitted to control in managerial terms. This interpretation
leads to a conversion of the network into a hierarchical organization, at least in regions and countries wherecontrol is an important issue of political or commercial competition.
The Brazilian case is very significant is respect of data collection by central sources of any kind, since
suppliers often modify them according with contingential needs. For that reason, the network in present-day status
only solicits the number of agents submitted to training courses and of municipalities involved in some kind of nonformal sports activities.* This procedure permits to endorse benefits against cost for bureaucratic duties besides tourge for local evaluations.
Certainly, this is not the typical interface with evaluation and research, mostly dependent on controlled
data, but it is the right approach to perform investigations with personal responsibilities implied notwithstanding,this is another reinforcement to network solution for many specific national or regional situations.

THEORY AND PRACTICE

In the theoretic terms, the described network structure consists in an open-system approach to Sport for
All organizations and management, which should stand for a self-governing, self-designed and exchange purposes.
Technically, this sort of organization is already know by its advantages and limitations. Natural co-operation
among participants, for instance, is frequently pointed out (30), as difficulty in coordinating and controlling is themost critical deficiency (31).
For sports concern this solution is apparently unprecedented as a compatibilization system, that is, a
specific situations. Beside the Brazilian case, there is another experiment with similar approach: the “participation
Network”, the Canadian Movement for personal Fitness, an associative enterprise in progress since 1984, also
acting in Sport for All fields. Similarly with the previous example from Brazil, the Canadian network derived froma campaign structure, being now a system of paid affiliations (magazine, brochure, books etc). Again, informationis the basic support of this new network but many differences specify each one initiative (32).
Briefly, the network is an accumulative solution explaining the origin and evolution of both Brazilian andCanadian experiences. This fact broadens our initial conjecture about the possibilities of the network and brings
about the aggregation of “new sport” to “old sport”, or physical education to recreation, or ultimately, all for thesepractices to leisure activities.
Of course, being a transition stage of physical activities in general, further observations must to be madeto confirm these propositions. Meanwhile, the basic theoretic assumptions of Sport for All network design are
consolidated as follows, on account of the preceding experiences and discussions:(a) Autonomy of participants, agents and institutions;(b) Objectives, evaluation and data mutually established and shared;(c) Specialized media to agents and institutions with mass media complementary function;(d) Decentralization of actions, respecting local culture and with community major participation;(e) Coordination through information;(f)Local production of information with broad distribution through specialized media;(g) Training for agents aiming autonomous decision and work, creativity, technical development,
criticism capacity, motivation and mobilization;(h) Volunteer association without formal affiliations or compromises;

24

(i)

Self-designed, self-governing ad exchange orientation;(j)

Decentralized use of denominations concerning operational knowledge;(k) Absence of controls, including results and data;(l)Integration and renewal of diverse organization and practices.

FUTURE ACTIONS

Throughout this paper, we have been attempting to submit experiences to theoretic interpretations but asimple appraisal of recent declarations from leading international organizations and congress in the field ofphysical education, sports, recreation and leisure, meets correspondents review and propositions.
Taking, for instance, UNESCO recommendations to member States in 1983 – reffered to the 1976
International Charter of Physical Education Approved by 65 nations and 22 international agencies – a close
connection is observed between the stated propositions of low-cost, community-centered and appropriatetechnology for future actions, and early evaluation of Sport for All in Brazil (33). Another relevant example is the1984 Olympic Scientific Congress (Eugene, Oregon, USA) in which most of contributions about sports and relatedareas were concerned to conceptual revisions and new developments, apart from physiology, psychology ad
coaching aspects (34).
In our opinion, the way forward to integrate and develop these common prospects might be settled bymeans of national and international co-operation. Summing up that was same of many other encouraging
initiatives involving sports and leisure activities renewals.
At the minimum, future actions should be based in one final recommendation of the 1984 Panamerican
Conference on Sports for All (35): “This first conference recognizes Sport as a means instead of an end by itself; ameans with capacity of providing health and education to people, as well as integrating individuals and countries
as protagonists of their own development process”.

NOTES

01.

Already in 1984 Olympic Scientific Congress, for the 1054 papers presented there were 21
interdisciplinary areas related to sport. The major concentration was on “sports medicine”
with 155 works (14,68%) while “genetics” had 11 contributions (1,04%). According with
Tubino, M.J.G. – “As Tendências Internacionais de Pesquisa em Educação Física” –Kinesis, dez, 1984, p. 157-176, this academic diversity is a clear trend of modern sport
research.

02.

Paradigm is here used in the classical proposition of Kuhn,m T.S., “The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions”, The University of Chicago Press, 1962.

03.

Cf. Pereira da Costa, L., “The Uniqueness of Non-Formal Sports in Different Countries
and Regions”, International Symposium on Sports for Everyone Proceedings, University oflllinois, Champaign, 1985, p. 16-17.

04.

Cf. Mc Intosh, P., “Sport for All Programmers Throughout the World”, CIEPS –UNESCO, 1980, p. 8-11.

25

05.

Cf. Pereira da Costa, L., “La Motivation dans lês Programmers – Brésil”, 1977 Conference
International Sport pour Tous, Comité National Olympique et Sportif Français, Paris
1977, p. 34-36.

06.

Cf. Pereira da Costa, L., “Setenta Anos de Esporte Para Todos no Brasil”, Rede EPT –Petrobrás, 1984, this brochure presents the historical back ground of non-formals sports in
Brazil since 1910’s onwards.

07.

Cf. Pereira da Costa, L., “Teoria e Prática do Esporte Comunitário e de Massa”, Palestra
Editora, Rio de Janeiro, 1984, p. 157-167.

08.

Cf. Hauge-Moe, P., Opening of Trim and Fitness Conference”, Proceedings, SLS/ASS,
Bern, 1981, p. 8.

09.

Pereira da Costa, L., Op. Cit. In note nº3, p. 24-25.

10.

See card 101 from Sport for All Clearing House – 1975, Appendix p. 6-7.

11.

Cf. McIntosh, P. and Charlton, V., “The Impact of Sport for All Policy 1966-1984 and a
Way Forward”, The Sports Council, London, 1985, p. 193.

12.

From 1975 to 1985 there were several studies and surveys. The latest one is “1985 Sport for
All Campaigns”, Sports Information Bulletin, number 2, 1985, Brussels, p. 40-69.

13.

Cf. Simri, U., “Diversidade dos Conceitos de Educação Física e sua Influência sobre seus
Objetivos”, Rev. Brás. Ed. Fís. Desp., nº 40, jan/mar 1979, Brasília. The original text of thissurvey was published in German-language, concerning conceptual diversity of physicaleducation.

14.

Cf. Council of Europe, “Sport for All. Five Countries Report”, Strasburg, 1970, p. 7.

15.

Sport for All Clearing House, Op. Cit. in note nº 10, p. 1.

16.

Ibid., p. 1-2.

17.

Cf. Pereira da Costa, L., “Once and for All What is sport for All?”, WLRA Journal, vol.
XXVI, nº 4,0july-august 1984, new York, p. 16-19.

18.

Cf. UNESCO, “Terminologia de la Educacion de Adultos”, IBEDATA, Paris, 1979.

19.

Originally, these purposes were connected to all industrial system, as Alvin Toffler analyses
in “The Third Wave”, Bantan Books, New Yok, 1981, p. 46-60.

20.

Cf. Pereira da Costa, L., and Candido, P., “Sport for All Campaign in Brazil”, VI Trimand Fitness Congress Proceedings, Lisboa, 1979.

21.

Cf. Ribeiro, N., Takahashi, G., Pereira da Costa, L., “Sport for All Movement in Brazil”,
VIII Trim and Fitness Seminar, Stockholm, 1983.

22.

Cf. Pereira da Costa, L., “Demarketing Campaigns and Improving Sport for All in Streets
and Roads” VIII Trim and Fitness Seminar, Stockholm, 1983.

23.

Cf. Pereira da Costa, L., Op. Cit, in note nº 7, p. 15.

24.

Cf. Dieckert, J. and Monteiro, Fd., “Parque de Lazer e de Esporte para Todos”, MECSEED, Brasília 1983.

25.

Cf. Comunidade Esportiva” II Congresso Brasileiro de Esporte para Todos”, nº 33, fev.
1985, Rio de Janeiro, p. 10-11.

26.

Cf. Pereira da Costa, L., Op. Cit. In note nº 22, p. 108-128, section “Trim in the Open Air”.

26

27.

The two national congresses are described in the books: “Teoria e Prática do Esporte para
Todos – 1982/1983” and “II Congresso Brasileiro de Esporte para Todos – 1984”, bothissued by Secretary of Sports and Physical Education – Ministry of Education, Brasília.

28.

Cf. Pereira da Costa, L., and Rocha, R. L., “Participative Evaluation in Non-Formal Sportsof Mass Programs”, Artus, nº 9/11, 1981, Rio de Janeiro.

29.

Cf. Wolanska, T., “Tendencies Corrientes en la Ciencia para el Deporte para Todos y sus
Aplicaciones Practicas », Comunidade Esportiva, nº 33, fev. 1985, Rio de Janeiro.

30.

This is the central thesis of Axelrod, R. in his book “the Evolution of Cooperation”, Basic
Books, New York, 1984.

31.

Cf. Burt, R. and Minor, M. (eds.), “Aplied Network analysis – A Methodological
Introduction” SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills, Calif., 1983.

32.

This network publisher four times per years the periodical “Members Magazine”,
including the folders: “Leader’ Quarterly” and “Contact Sheet”. The reference isParticipation Network”, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

33.

Cf. UNESCO, “Rapport Final – Troisieme Session – Comité Intergouvernmental pourl’Education Physique et le Sport », Ed – 83/conf. 216/8, Paris, 22-29 mars 1983.

34.

Op. Cit, in note Number 1. the areas with direct connection to sports totaled 45, 27% while
16 other related areas were the reference for 54,73% of presented papers.

35.

Cf. Comunidade Esportiva, “Primeira Conferência Panamericana de Esporte para Todos –1984” nº 31/32, ano IV, jul/out 1984, p. 23-24, Rio de Janeiro.

ABSTRACTThe Brazilian non-formal sports experiences suggest that low-cost are a direct consequence of local
agent’s (animateurs) initiatives and much less than management and technology introduced by central
organizations. In this context, a network approach to Sport for All is described to meet either economic
alternatives of practice or to provide adequate organizational support to leisure activities when facing diversity incultural, social and natural environments. Being a pioneer proposal, the Brazilian Sport for All Network isanalyzed as a trial-and-error result, of past experiences, comprising local and regional promotions, televisionbased and mass campaigns, programmers, movements etc, from government and private initiatives. Conclusively,
this self-design structure is presented as an encouraging effort to integrate appropriate local solutions with modern
requirements of communication and investigation, as well as to renew precedent sports organization and practice.
Yet the network approach focuses the national co-operation amid individuals, groups and organization, bearing in
mind international prospects.

27

Tires as local adaptation to equipment for leisure activities in streets and squares of Porto Alegre – Brasil –1920’s. Original foto from the collection of Frederico Gaelzer, pioneer of “Public Recreation! In Ro

28

29