The Sport for Development and Peace Sector: An Analysis of Its Emergence, Key Institutions, and Social Possibilities

Article excerpt

Since the late 1990s, we have witnessed the emergence and exponential growth of what has become known as the Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) sector. SDP projects use sport as an interventionist tool to promote different types of social development and peaceful social relations across the world. While SDP projects are implemented in both the Global North and South, they tend to be sited in developing regions and in war-torn or post-conflict settings.

It is not possible to provide a complete picture or final calculation of SDP projects, but it might be reasonably estimated that there are now thousands of these initiatives across the world, varying greatly in scale, duration, and mission. The goals that are pursued across the SDP sector include poverty reduction; the education of young people; health promotion and disease prevention education; women's empowerment; and peace building, rehabilitation, and reconstruction in post-conflict contexts.

A substantial volume of academic research on the SDP sector has been undertaken since the late 1990s, particularly in the fields of anthropology, sociology, and political science, with sport studies providing an interdisciplinary foundation for this inquiry.1 My own research and analysis with respect to SDP has been conducted over more than a decade, leading to the publication of papers in academic journals and books. This work has also included participation at the Sport and Development international conference, hosted by the Swiss Academy for Development in Magglingen, in February 2003, and the coproduction of the main text for the section "Peace 1: Sport, Violence and Crisis Situations," as part of the "Magglingen Declaration" at this event.2

This article draws on fieldwork and interview research undertaken in the Balkans, the Middle East, South Asia, and southern Africa, as well as in Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. A significant proportion of the research has examined how football is used by agencies for conflict resolution and peacemaking; however, this paper also considers the use of other sports for various SDP purposes.3

The article is divided into five main parts. First, I put forward some illustrative SDP activities and projects, highlighting their diverging missions and aims. Second, I set out four main categories of SDP institutions or agencies and consider the ways in which they are interrelated. Third, I outline why the different agencies are attracted to sports as a way to help them accomplish their missions. Fourth, I seek to challenge any tendencies within the SDP sector toward "sport evangelism" by examining sport's complex historical and sociopolitical relationships to violence, conflict, and peace. Finally, I identify some of the key features that are apparent in the more progressive SDP projects.

SDP Projects: Some Examples

It is useful to begin by providing some illustrations of the different types of SDP work that are undertaken. Some examples include:

* The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Match Against Poverty, which is regularly contested by the world's leading football players to raise money for the poor and to promote public awareness of the need to eradicate world poverty.4

* The "Segundo Tempo" project in Brazil, which promotes schooling among hundreds of thousands of poor young people through a mixture of after-hours sport, free meals, and additional school time.5

* The Grassroots Soccer program in Zimbabwe, which promotes HIV/ AIDS education among young people.6

* The work of the Elena NGO in Cameroon, which uses football to promote educational participation, empowerment, and domestic abuse prevention.7

* The UN Mission in Liberia's "Sport for Peace" initiative, which ran for five weeks across 15 counties in 2007.8 The initiative aimed to encourage young people to use sport in order to build peace and promote development in the post-conflict context. Supported by the UN Mission in Liberia, the Liberian government, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and various sport governing bodies and NGOs, the initiative saw sports events and tournaments staged across the country.

Clearly, these initiatives are focused on meeting key development and humanitarian needs. Such an approach is crystallized in the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and, indeed, the UN considers sport to be "a viable and practical tool to assist in the achievement of the MDGs."9

However, it is important to recognize that the field of SDP work extends well beyond the MDGs. We need also to locate within the SDP sector those projects that are based in the Global North, as well as those that are focused on more political, legal, and normative issues relating to human development, such as social justice and human and civil rights. For example, Global North projects might include:

* The United Kingdom NGO Street League, which uses football as an interventionist tool to assist young people, particularly those involved in criminal activity, with employment, education, or training.10

* The Midnight Basketball initiative in the United States, founded in the late 1980s, which uses sport to draw young people away from criminal activity, particularly in inner-city African-American neighborhoods.11

Initiatives that focus on social justice and human/civil rights include:

* The United States Anti-Sweatshop Movement, which has developed campaigns against the exploitation of workers in developing nations by sports merchandise corporations.12

* The Play the Game NGO in Denmark, which is particularly critical of corruption in sport and is focused on transparency, good governance, and media freedom.13

* The Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE) network, which campaigns against racism, sexism, and homophobia in football.14

* Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, each of which focused human rights campaigns on the hosting of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.15

* Local community groups and national social movements, which campaign against the building of stadiums or hosting of sports mega-events in cities on the grounds of their high social costs, such as excessive expenditure of limited public monies, intensified surveillance and security, the forced removal or relocation of local people, the destruction of local communities, and the social exclusion of the poor.16

The SDP sector features initiatives and projects that have a diverse array of missions and objectives, and these in turn are underpinned by very different kinds of agencies and institutions, as I now explain.

SDP Agencies and Institutions: Four Categories

SDP institutions and agencies vary substantially with regard to their scale, location, objectives, policies, ideologies, and strategies. We may differentiate these agencies into four broad categories.

1. There are the nongovernmental, nonprofit organizations, which facilitate and/or implement SDP projects and come in many shapes and sizes. International NGOs that focus on SDP work include Right to Play, Street Football World, Football Against Racism in Europe, and Open Fun Football Schools. Other more established development NGOs such as Care and Action Aid have also used sport to promote their interests and agendas. At local and national levels, we find grassroots NGOs, such as the Sarvodaya movement in Sri Lanka, that are particularly well placed to implement SDP projects.

2. There are the intergovernmental and governmental organizations, which are particularly active in facilitating and overseeing SDP campaigns and projects, while also contributing to implementation. The United Nations plays a key role in this institutional category, having established its own SDP office (the UNOSDP), while as many as 26 UN associate agencies, such as UNDP and UNICEF, are active in SDP programs and campaigns.17 Some international development departments and agencies that are linked to national governments have been active in SDP work-for example, the British Council, NORAD (Norway), and Canadian Heritage. National and international sport governing bodies, such as the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), might be placed within this category rather than in the NGO list as they function largely as governmental institutions while also seeking to grow their particular sporting interests at the international level.18 These governing bodies are increasingly involved in SDP work; for example, FIFA established a large international Football for Hope initiative to run until 2015 and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), European football's governing body, has a significant "social responsibility" platform.

3. There is the private sector, which engages with the SDP sector mainly through voluntary initiatives that are themed around corporate social responsibility and principles of self-regulation within the marketplace. For example, Vodafone, Daimler, and Mercedes-Benz partner with Laureus, which organizes glitzy annual sports award ceremonies, and which also houses an SDP foundation that draws heavily on Laureus' association with celebrities in regard to public relations work. Additionally, sport manufacturers such as Nike have responded to campaigns against poor labor practices in their production plants by publishing self-reports of the industrial conditions and treatment of their workforce.

4. Finally, there are radical NGOs and social movements, which have more politicized approaches toward SDP and are more focused on promoting social justice and human and civil rights, as noted earlier. Invariably, this category of SDP agency tends to come into conflict with corporations, intergovernmental organizations, and some NGOs-as illustrated by their anti-Nike campaigns and protests against the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

These categories help to differentiate and to clarify the diverse SDP agencies, but inevitably some significant complications may arise in the classification of specific institutions. For example, in the NGO category, the Laureus model is relatively close to the "corporate social responsibility" field of activity that is associated with the private sector, while some smaller NGOs may be closer to the radical NGO and social movement category because of their willingness to engage with human rights or social justice issues. Some institutions may also feature the key characteristics of two categories: for example, the Peace and Sport organization is a Monaco-based NGO that supports SDP initiatives, but also exhibits many features of government because it receives strong supported from Prince Albert of Monaco, a long-standing member of the International Olympic Committee, and its organization of conferences and promotion of networking opportunities.

Currently, there is substantial cooperative work across the first three categories: that is, among NGOs, (inter)governmental agencies, sport governing bodies and institutions, and transnational corporations (TNCs). Much of this work features the planning, financing, and implementing of SDP projects. For example, one scenario might involve a UN agency highlighting a particular major problem, such as a large number of refugees or a major health issue; then an international NGO and a local NGO may collaborate to develop a sports project, with logistical and advocacy support from the UN agency; and finally, a TNC and a sport federation may provide funding and other resources (such as sports equipment) to support the project. A further illustration is provided by the SDP initiative with which I am working. This project is located in Europe and funded by the European Commission with the objective of empowering European football supporters to promote anti-discrimination messages and practices. The project partners include several international NGOs in sport, several national football associations, the international football players' union, and a group of academics.19

We also find that extensive forms of social capital are established across the first three categories, notably as officials within NGOs, (inter)governmental agencies, TNCs, and sport federations attend a regular series of international conferences on SDP. These events also serve to publicize SDP work and provide platforms for the shaping of future SDP agendas. Such events and networks have been particularly prominent since 2005, which was named the "International Year of Sport and Physical Education" by the UN, with a very strong focus on SDP activity. Conversely, more radical NGOs and social movements have tended to have relatively restricted roles or to have been absent from these networks and events, with the result that these forces have been marginalized within the SDP sector.

Development and Peace Initiatives: The Attractions of Sport

Having provided some detail on the different kinds of agencies and goals across the SDP sector, it is useful to set out what the strengths of sport might be for those institutions that seek to undertake development and peace work. These perceived benefits or attractions can be summarized as follows:

* As global cultural forms, sports are played worldwide and are familiar or easily taught to people in most settings. Sports are thus an immediate way of building contact with projected client groups.

* SDP work typically targets young people, as they are critical to building long-term social change and development. Sports participation appeals particularly to young people, thereby offering project workers an effective way of reaching this social cohort.

* Sports are already employed in schools and wider social settings as educational tools.

* Where organized in such a way as to promote full social inclusion and personal enjoyment, sports have the potential to secure social and psychological benefits for participants, such as facilitating positive and enjoyable self-expression, developing personal and interpersonal creativity, and fostering team building and group solidarity.

* Sports may enable new social contacts and relationships to be established between different groups within play-focused contexts.

* Sports may promote the wider socialization and education of young people into competitive, rule-governed behavior.

* Sports may feature individuals at local, national, and global levels who have high volumes of symbolic capital and are thus effective in communicating messages.

* The official ideologies and discourses that envelop sports tend to have strong universalist messages.

SDP projects that are centered on peace building tend to view sport as offering a particular set of positive sociocultural and political characteristics that may be helpful in contexts where the targeted user groups have been caught up in violent conflicts. These perceived benefits can be summarized as follows:

* Sports are understood as offering particularly effective meeting spaces for "breaking the ice" between those who have been in conflict. Sports may provide one of the first post-war contact points for such conflicts, while also enabling third parties to be involved, for example in the role of mediator (perhaps as a referee or umpire). For example, sports projects in Bosnia provide one of the few ways in which young people from different Serb and Bosniak (Muslim) communities may interact, despite the fact that these participants may live in villages or towns that are only 15-20 kilometers apart.

* Sports may provide a playful, competitive, rule-governed context for relations to be built with "the other." The presence of a confirmed set of rules in sport, which are agreed upon by the participants and which underpin their interaction, is particularly important for facilitating play and, more seriously, for offering a basis for future, rule-governed interaction offthe field of play. Participants may benefit in particular by being responsible for making and enforcing the rules of play, by entering into dialogue, and by negotiating. For example, in war-torn regions of West Africa, sports projects may provide former child soldiers with a nonviolent social field in which they may enter into these forms of rule-governed interaction.

* Sport-based interventions may help to routinize forms of contact and interaction with former enemies, and to challenge the demonization of the absent or imagined "other." Sports are particularly effective in reaching and engaging with the next generation of potential combatants, while encouraging older generations to allow young people to take ownership of future relationships with peers on "the other side." For example, in Sri Lanka, some sports projects engage directly with different generations in towns and villages, in order to promote wider understanding between different communities, particularly with respect to the treatment of Tamils.

* The universalist messages within sports typically convey support for internationalism and peaceful relations between competitors. While often closely linked to the branding and ideologies of major sports federations, messages (such as those regarding "fair play") may also be evident in the everyday playing ethics of different sports communities.

* Sports may be used to resocialize and to rehabilitate people who have been traumatized, or physically or emotionally damaged by war. Examples of this would include the use of sport to help in the social inclusion and personal rehabilitation of land mine victims in West Africa or Cambodia.

* Sports may contribute more broadly to the reconstruction of societies within the post-war context, for example, by providing a focus for the re-establishment of civil society associations, and for leisure and recreational facilities.

* Sports may also demonstrate to nonparticipants, such as parent groups, how "normal" social relations with other groups and communities may be achieved.

This final point may serve to illustrate the "ripple effect," whereby the impacts of peace-building education projects spread to wider social groups, beyond the immediate participants in such programs. Gavriel Salomon developed and applied the idea of the ripple effect in his study of Israeli-Arab peace education programs, and their potential impacts on wider communities; his colleague Baha Zoubi has employed the concept in his study of binational (Israeli and Arab) participation in football clubs in Israel.20

This summarizes the perceived benefits of sport for different development and peace initiatives and agencies. However, to develop an adequate understanding of sport's social impacts and possibilities, we need to recognize the complex and highly uneven historical and sociopolitical relationships of sport to development and peace. This is perhaps best demonstrated through a brief examination of sport's nexus to processes of peace, conflict, and subjugation.

Sport, Peace, and Violence: A Complex History

If we turn to examine the positive side of sport's historical association with peace and development, one focus may fall on the Olympic Games. In Ancient Greece, the Olympic Truce was established as early as the ninth century BC, with the aim of suspending military conflicts and enabling athletes and spectators to enjoy safe passage to the games. The Olympic Truce was subsequently revived by the IOC and, since 1993, via UN Resolutions 48 and 11, the Truce has been supported by the United Nations prior to each Olympic Games.21 Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the inspiration for the modern Olympics, believed that the competition would promote internationalism by bringing different nations and peoples into contact.22 Further historical illustrations of peace building through sport include the story of the 1914 Christmas Truce between British and German soldiers during which hostilities between the two sides were suspended. Some reports indicate that the soldiers met in no-man's-land to exchange greetings, sing songs, and play football.

On the other hand, we need also to recognize the long-running associations between sport, warfare, and violent conflicts. We might consider here the 100-hour so-called Football War, which erupted between Honduras and El Salvador in 1969. Relations between the two nations had long been tense due to disputes over land, the treatment of cross-border migrants (particularly of Salvadorans in Honduras), and the strong nationalism of politicians and national media. El Salvador and Honduras contested three key football matches which were qualifying fixtures for the 1970 World Cup finals in Mexico; all three fixtures generated significant violence between rival supporters and communities, with the third and final game providing the spark for the declaration of military conflict, which lasted around four days and was understood to have claimed up to 3,000 lives.23 The Yugoslav civil war was preceded by widespread rioting among football fans, players, and police at a fixture between Dinamo Zagreb and Red Star Belgrade in 1990. Many of the supporter movements were subsequently transformed into paramilitary units during the civil war.24 These provide relatively recent illustrations of modern sport's long association with aggressive militarism, as reflected in the long-running and widespread use of sporting disciplines to prepare members of the armed forces physically and psychologically for future conflicts.

More broadly, we might consider the long-standing presence of hooligan subcultures, or outbreaks of hooliganism and violence at football fixtures at both national and club levels, which have occurred throughout almost the entire history of the modern game. As I write, Egypt has been gripped by a major social crisis following the death of 74 spectators and the injury of hundreds more at a club fixture between Al-Masry and Al-Ahly; there has been substantial subsequent comment on the possible complicity, or worse, of the security forces in facilitating the violence.25

Finally, we might also note modern sport's role in enabling forms of social subjugation, pacification, and integration to be imposed upon diverse populations. Otherwise stated, sport has also been a device of social intervention for serving the political interests of dominant social groups. For example, in Britain, modern sports were established and promoted through the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in part to pacify unruly upper- and middle-class schoolboys within private (fee-paying) schools, and also to help the social integration and political pacification of the lower classes within the bourgeois social order.26 In the colonies, the British games revolution helped to build social relations and social capital among the colonial classes and indigenous elites, and also to promote ideologies of "muscular Christianity" and Anglocentric "fair play" that served to normalize colonial rule.27 Elsewhere, we might consider the connections between football and political populism, notably in mobilizing support for rightist or military regimes, such as in Latin America during various periods of the twentieth century.28 Finally, in recent times, the sport of football has provided the crucial social laboratory for the testing of new techniques and technologies of social control; in the United Kingdom, for example, closed-circuit television systems were effectively pilot tested in football stadiums in the late 1980s and early 1990s before being rolled out across most urban centers.29

The historical record reveals that sport's relationship to peace building and conflict resolution is, at best, highly uneven. Consideration of this record also provides us with a more general reminder that any adequate analysis of the SDP sector should avoid slipping into what I have termed "sport evangelism," wherein sport is assumed to be inherently good and an innate source of positive and peaceful social relations.30 We need to recognize instead the crucial role of social context in determining sport's relationship to development and peace. The social context shapes the diverse meanings and uses to which sport is put; it underpins the ways in which sport, as a cultural form and as a force for diverse kinds of social solidarity, is embedded within the wider social order; and, it is itself shaped by matrices of power relations between elites and wider publics.

With those points in mind regarding the historical and social context, we may turn to consider some of the distinctive features that are evidenced in the more progressive SDP projects.

Progressive SDP Projects: Key Features

Projects that appear to have the most progressive social qualities and impacts in the SDP field tend to have several key features. The discussion here is perhaps most applicable to SDP projects that are run by NGOs in the Global South, but what follows is also relevant to multi-agency projects and those initiatives that are enacted in the Global North.

First, sustainability is critical to the project's potential success. Sustainability may be secured through harnessing or developing sufficient financial support or human resources to enable the project to operate beyond its initial life, ideally over several years. Thus, solid financing may enable the project to be implemented over a significant period of time, while the training of local people may also promote the project's longer and more diffuse impacts, as local people learn the skills and techniques for implementing their own projects, some of which may require little or no resources. In the context of peace-building SDP projects, social contacts involving members of divided communities need to be sustained over a significant period of time in order to increase opportunities for the formation of deeper relationships and to facilitate extended challenges to the demonization of "the other."

Second, it is particularly beneficial if SDP agencies are committed to the empowerment of their user communities in a way that enables the latter to take ownership of SDP initiatives. To achieve this goal, it certainly helps if SDP projects are strongly embedded within the host community, and thus able to engage in dialogue with local communities in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of projects. Grassroots NGOs are best placed to conduct this work, notably in enabling local communities to take ownership of the projects. As the project unfolds, this form of social empowerment should enable targeted user groups to take responsibility for, and to make informed choices regarding, the future forms of development and peace-building work that they wish to implement.

Third, the SDP project needs to be carefully located within the wider social, political, and cultural context. For example, with regard to peace-building initiatives, the project is most likely to succeed where there exists a positive environment for its work to be conducted, particularly in post-conflict situations where significant cultural, social, and symbolic capital can be secured by engaging with influential individuals and groups. Moreover, the project should also be carefully located with regard to other relevant stakeholders. For example, peace-making projects and initiatives must be considered in relation to work being undertaken by other agencies in the same region.

Fourth, when examining and assessing their long-term impacts, the most progressive projects draw on a diversity of monitoring and evaluation techniques, which might include the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods. At the same time, these projects recognize that isolating and demonstrating the direct social effects of their work can be problematic. Moreover, the SDP agency must not slip into "sport evangelism," recognizing instead the complex historical and contextual relationships of sport to development and peace.

Finally, SDP agencies or institutions offer perhaps the most progressive responses to development and peace-building problems within different regions when they are able to engage fully with different stakeholders across the sector. In particular, working with new social movements and comparatively radical NGOs, which are particularly interested in social justice issues or civil rights, may help both to draw the SDP project into a deeper relationship with the local community and to explore how development and peace are more effectively secured in the long term through engaging fully with difficult questions of social justice and human and civil rights.

Concluding Comments

The SDP sector is one of the fastest-growing and most vibrant fields of activity involved in development and peace building, and is highly salient to academic research into the transnational aspects of sport. Four main types of stakeholder agencies may be identified, each with different objectives and modus operandi within the SDP sector. Sport is understood to have a variety of benefits for the implementation of development and peace projects, but at the same time we need to avoid assuming an essentialist or evangelist perspective. The most constructive and progressive SDP initiatives are sustainable over time and more oriented toward the empowerment of local user groups, the use of imaginative evaluation methods, engagement with other SDP agencies, and acknowledgement of the complexities of their operational contexts.

Overall, SDP agencies are at their best when the officials employ what I termed in 2008 a "critical reflexivity" in their work: by this, I am referring to how agency officials may reflect critically on how they engage with different user groups, in order to improve their own practices and service delivery.31 More broadly, since 2009, I have argued that SDP projects tend to draw on three main models or approaches in their philosophies and their work, namely the technical, the practical, and the critical.32 The technical model tends to take a strongly interventionist approach toward SDP work, and has relatively little open dialogue with local user groups. The practical and critical approaches, in which the best SDP work tends to occur, are more appreciative of different cultural contexts and are more committed to empowering local user groups.

In recent years, attendance at conferences and events on SDP indicates that the sector has become somewhat standardized and routinized, and would benefit from exploring new themes, principles, and strategies. One way ahead would be to draw critical NGOs and social movements more fully into the main networks within the sector. These kinds of institutions or agencies have been particularly active in the past in highlighting major social problems that have been subsequently and positively addressed, such as the use of child labor in the manufacturing of sports equipment. Drawing critical NGOs and social movements into transnational SDP networks would also encourage other SDP institutions to adopt a stronger form of critical reflexivity and to explore practical or critical approaches in the implementation of future projects.

[Sidebar]

Sport has also been a device of social intervention for serving the political interests of dominant social groups.

Notes

1. For example, see: Gary Armstrong, "The Lords of Misrule: Football and the Rights of the Child in Liberia, West Africa," Sport in Society 7, no. 3 (2004): 473-502; Gary Armstrong, "The Global Footballer and the Local War-Zone: George Weah and Transnational Networks in Liberia, West Africa," Global Networks 7, no. 2 (2007): 230-47; Fred Coalter, A Wider Social Role for Sport (London: Routledge, 2005); Simon Darnell, "Power, Politics and 'Sport for Development and Peace': Investigating the Utility of Sport for International Development," Sociology of Sport Journal 27, no. 1 (2010): 54-75; Patrick K. Gasser and Anders Levinsen, "Breaking Post-War Ice: Open Fun Football Schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina," Sport in Society 7, no. 3 (2004): 457-72; Hans Hognestad and Arvid Tollisen, "Playing Against Deprivation: Football and Development in Nairobi, Kenya," in Football in Africa, ed. Gary Armstrong and Richard Giulianotti (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2004); Marion Keim, Nation Building at Play: Sport as a Tool for Integration in Post-Apartheid South Africa (Aachen: Meyer and Meyer, 2003); Paul Richards, "Soccer and Violence in War-Torn Africa: Soccer and Social Rehabilitation in Sierra Leone," in Entering the Field: New Perspectives in World Football, ed. Gary Armstrong and Richard Giulianotti (Oxford: Berg, 1997); Nico Schulenkorf, "Sport Events and Ethnic Reconciliation: Attempting to Create Social Change in War-Torn Sri Lanka," International Review for the Sociology of Sport 45, no. 3: 273-94; Geoffrey Whitfield, Amity in the Middle East: How the World Sport Peace Project and the Passion for Football Brought Together Arab and Jewish Youngsters (London: Alpha Press, 2006).

2. Richard Giulianotti, "Human Rights, Globalization and Sentimental Education: The Case of Sport," Sport in Society 7, no. 3 (2004): 355-69; Richard Giulianotti, "Sport, Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution: A Contextual Analysis and Modeling of the Sport, Development and Peace Sector," Ethnic and Racial Studies 34, no. 2 (2011): 207-28; Richard Giulianotti, "The Sport, Development and Peace Sector: A Model of Four Social Policy Domains," Journal of Social Policy 40, no. 4 (2011): 757-76; Richard Giulianotti, "Sport, Transnational Peace-Making and the Global Civil Society: Exploring the Reflective Discourses of 'Sport, Development and Peace' Project Officials," Journal of Sport and Social Issues 35, no. 1 (2011): 50-71; Richard Giulianotti and Gary Armstrong "Sport, The Military and Peacemaking," Third World Quarterly 32, no. 3 (2011): 379-94. See also: Richard Giulianotti, Gary Armstrong, and Hans Hognestad, "Sport and Peace: Playing the Game," Sport and Development: An International Conference (paper, Swiss Academy for Development: Magglingen, Switzerland, February 16-18, 2003).

3. As this paper will be reaching a largely North American audience, it is important to note that, though the sport is referred to as soccer in North America, it is known as football in most of the world.

4. "24,000 Fill Arena for Match Against Poverty," United Nations Development Program, http://www. beta.undp.org/undp/en/home/ourwork/goodwillambassadors/match_against_poverty.html.

5. "Segundo Tempo: Programas de Incentivo," Brazil.gov, http://www.brasil.gov.br/sobre/esporte/ programas-de-incentivo/programa-segundo-tempo.

6. "Where We Work: Zimbabwe," Grassroots Soccer, http://www.grassrootsoccer.org/where-we-work/ zimbabwe/.

7. "Elena NGO: Cameroon," streetfootballworld, http://www.streetfootballworld.org/network/allnwm/ elena-ngo.

8. "United Nations Peacekeeping," United Nations Sport for Development and Peace, http://www. un.org/wcm/content/site/sport/home/unplayers/fundsprogrammesagencies/dpko.

9. "Sport and the UN Development Goals," United Nations Sport for Development and Peace, http:// www.un.org/wcm/content/site/sport/sportandmdgs.

10. "Change Lives Through Football," Street League, http://www.streetleague.co.uk/.

11. Douglas Hartmann, "Notes on Midnight Basketball and the Cultural Politics of Recreation, Race and the Politics of At-Risk Urban Youth," Journal of Sport and Social Issues 25, no.4 (2001): 339-71.

12. "Nike Campus Activism," Campaing For Labor Rights, http://www.clrlabor.org/alerts/DateUnknown/ nike_campus_activism.html.

13. "Playthegame.org," University of Aarhus Department of Sport Science, http://www.playthegame.org/.

14. We Are Football People, Fare Network, http://www.farenet.org/.

15. "Human Rights in China and the Beijing Olympics," Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty. org/en/china-olympics; "Beijing Olympics Basics," Human Rights Watch, http://china.hrw.org/press/faq/ beijing_olympics_basics.

16. For example, see: "Sports Stadium News and Analysis," Field of Schemes, http://www.fieldofschemes. com/; Games Monitor: Debunking Olympics Myths, http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/; "Radical Africa," Bolekaja, http://bolekaja.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-kick-off-of-the-poor-peoples-world-cup-13-june- 10-am/#more-306. On this subject, see also: Urban Studies, special issue on "Security and Surveillance at Sport Mega-Events" 48, no. 15 (2011); and Helen Lenskyj, Olympic Industry Resistance (New York: SUNY Press, 2008).

17. "Sport For Development and Peace," United Nations, http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/sport/ unoffice.

18. FIFA is world football's governing body; the IOC is the governing body of the Olympic movement.

19. "Pro Supporters-Prevention Through Empowerment," Fonds Wiener Institut für Internationalen Dialog und Zusammenarbeit, http://ec.europa.eu/sport/preparatory_actions/documents/annexe-i-066.pdf.

20. Gavriel Salomon, "Four Major Challenges Facing Peace Education in Regions of Intractable Conflict," Peace and Conflict 17 (2011): 46-59; Baha Zoubi, The Direct and Indirect Influence of Jewish and Arab Participation in Bi-National Soccer Clubs on the Attitudes and Perceptions of Their Family Members and Friends toward the Other Side (unpublished PhD diss., University of Haifa, 2011).

21. "Observance of the Olympic Truce," Res. 48/11, Forty-eighth session, United Nations General Assembly, November 2, 1993, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/48/11.

22. William J. Morgan, "Cosmopolitanism, Olympism, and Nationalism: A Critical Interpretation of Coubertin's Ideal of International Sporting Life," Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies 4 (1995): 79-92.

23. Ryszard Kapuscinski, The Soccer War (London: Vintage, 1992).

24. Srdjan Vrcan and Drazen Lalic, "From Ends to the Trenches and Back," in Football Cultures and Identities, ed. Gary Armstrong and Richard Giulianotti (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 1999).

25. "Egyptian Police Incited Massacre At Stadium, Say Angry Footballers," Observer, February 5, 2012.

26. John Hargreaves, Sport, Culture and Power (Cambridge: Polity, 1986); J.A. Mangan, The Games Ethic and Imperialism (London: Vintage, 1986).

27. John MacAloon, ed., Muscular Christianity in Colonial and Post-Colonial Worlds (London: Routledge, 2007).

28. Tony Mason, Passion of the People? Football in South America (London: Verso, 1994).

29. Richard Giulianotti, "Social Identity and Public Order: Political and Academic Discourses on Football Violence," in Football Violence and Social Identity, ed. Richard Giulianotti, Norman Bonney, and Mike Hepworth (London: Routledge, 1994); Richard Giulianotti and Gary Armstrong, "From Another Angle: Police Surveillance and Football Supporters," in Surveillance, CCTV & Social Control, ed. Clive Norris, Gary Armstrong, and Jay Moran (Aldershot: Gower/Ashgate, 1998).

30. Giulianotti, "Human Rights," 356.

31. Richard Giulianotti, "Sport, Globalization and Development: Making the Global Civil Society," International Sociology of Sport Association annual conference (paper, Kyoto, Japan, July 26-29, 2008).

32. Richard Giulianotti, "Sport, Peace and Development: Exploring the Role of Sport within the Emerging Transnational Civil Society," 6th conference of the European Association for the Sociology of Sport (keynote speech, Rome, May 27-31, 2009); Giulianotti, "Sport, Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution."

[Author Affiliation]

Richard Giulianotti

Professor of Sociology

Loughborough University

Richard Giulianotti is Professor of Sociology at Loughborough University. His research focuses on globalization, the sociology of football, and the sport for development and peace sector. Most recently, he is co-author of Globalization and Football (Sage, 2009).

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.