Sport ’ s ambiguous relationship with social capital: The contribution of national governing bodies of sport

Abstract

Despite arguments that the decline in social capital observed by Putnam in the USA has not occurred in the UK (e.g. Johnston & Jowell, 1999 ), the social capital thesis has been embraced here. Indeed, the status ‘ social capital ’ has achieved in the policy world is intriguing. How this eminence, and the project itself, are interpreted depends on the political position of the analyst. For some it is an attempt to appropriate older established notions of community and solidarity and render them subservient to the interests of capital through financial accounting systems. For others it is to take back in the interests of social welfare some of the ground lost to the economics of the bottom line during the period of pre-eminence enjoyed by neo-liberal economics. Nonetheless, for leisure scholars it comes as something of a relief to find a big idea accepted in government and academic circles that allows us such ready access to the debate. From relatively early writings (e.g. Bellah et al., 1987 ) the potential contributions from sport and leisure have been stressed. Indeed, Siisiainen (2000) has suggested that it is only really in relation to sport and leisure associations that Putnam ’ s idea of social capital has any purchase.