SPORT 1913 - 2013

brilliance, and the recognition and reception of their work, are deeply connected to social pro- cesses. In emphasizing the cultural making of sport, this is not to destroy the notion of ge- nius, or downplay the creativity, expressive- ness, existential experiences and symbolic features that are part of the sports world. In fact, sport stars hold powerful functions for the societies they represent – after all, societies ‘make them’. While the British ‘gave’ modern sports to the world, over the course of the second half of the twentieth century, the decline of Great Britain, in political and economic terms, was matched by their amateur performances on the playing fields (Maguire 2012b). Old rivals got better and new competitors overtook them in the de- veloping sporting international rank order. This was due, in part, to the adoption by the Soviet Bloc, from the 1950’s onwards, of a sci- entific, highly rationalized and technologized system for the identification and production of sport talent. This approach was exemplified by the sports system developed by the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Key elements of this system involved the scientifically orga- nized and rational selection of boys and girls in early childhood; excellent facilities and a highly planned approach to coaching and training; extensive networks of support by sci- entists from different branches of the natural and social sciences; and, a very specific focus The Making of Sport Work: Systems of Production and Consumption

on achieving success in specific sports where success was more likely and where there was some tradition of German involvement. This system, with local modifications, was adopted by Australia and Canada, in the 1980’s onwards and, in the build-up to Lon- don 2012, the British have adopted a model not dissimilar to that followed by the GDR. However, as more and more nations adopt some or all of the elements outlined, competi- tion intensifies: sporting success has become the equivalent of an ‘arms race’ in which ever greater resources have to be invested in order to maintain or improve the position of the na- tion in the medal table. What then are the cur- rent ingredients for the production of sport- ing success in the twenty-first century? There are increasing similarities between countries and a formal standardised model of elite sport development has emerged, which has been modified to suit local histories, cul- tural sensitivities and contemporary political circumstances. Several key elements of this standardised model have been identified and have been drawn together in three clear ‘clus- ters’ (Houlihan and Green, 2008; Green and Oakley, 2006). Clearly, the initial concern is with the availability of funding and resources that can be derived from the state and/or the private sector but must be of a level that en- sures that athletes can be employed ‘full-time’ (the days of elite amateur athletes are long gone). Resource issues relate also to the qual- ity, access and provision of scientific/medical knowledge.

The efficiency of this investment also re- lates to whether a system of rational, bureau- cratic planning and administration exists. Such a system is a necessary component as it enables effective administration to exist with- in and between different agencies and depart- ments involved in the process. Such an ap- proach ensures that effective priorities are set, detection and identification undertaken, monitoring accomplished, and that ‘objective’ evaluation occurs. Talent can be detected, re- sources allocated, rewards distributed and support provided. These concerns apply to the athlete, the coach and the sports administra- tor. In order to build these capacities there has to exist well-structured competitive pro- grammes and highly tailored facilities that serve the needs of specific sports. Without these, nations who do produce talent tend to find that there is a ‘brawn drain’, where such talent is attracted to other countries to train, compete in and, in specific instances, com- pete for other nations. In contrast, athletes can also be recruited from other countries to represent the nation – this has, in the past, been done on an ad hoc basis, but with the 2012 London games looming, a more system- atic approach regarding the recruit of foreign migrant athletes was adopted, not without some debate and controversy regarding issues of identity, citizenship and the omission of native born athletes. The British are not alone in turning migrant labour into ‘naturalised’ citizens to represent other nations than their ‘homeland’.

26