1 Department of Health and Sport Sciences, Adelphi University, USA
1 Centre for Sport Leadership, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Citation:
Whitley, M.A. (2025). Untethering Sport for Development from Labels and Boundaries. Journal of Sport for Development. Retrieved from https://jsfd.org/
ABSTRACT
This commentary challenges the restrictive labels commonly used in Sport for Development (SfD), especially sport plus and plus sport. I argue these categories, along with the very term development, hinder the field’s evolution and perpetuate problematic assumptions. This commentary questions the necessity of distinguishing between SfD and traditional sport, highlighting how rigid definitions limit sport’s inherent potential for positive impact. By shedding these artificial boundaries, I propose a more fluid and inclusive understanding of how sport can foster individual well-being and collective flourishing for all.
INTRODUCTION
This commentary critiques the various labels ascribed to the Sport for Development (SfD) field, as they rigidify its conceptual boundaries and prevent the necessary evolution of both theory and practice. Hayhurst et al. (2016), Whitley et al. (2019a; 2023), Camiré (2024), and Sup (2024), among others, have critiqued the labels and definitions used over the years, with some calling for more clarity, some advocating for a more expansive understanding of SfD, and Camiré (2024) suggesting the removal of labels and definitions entirely. I will focus on the two labels that are cited most often in the SfD field (i.e., sport plus and plus sport), along with questioning the need to differentiate SfD from traditional sport and the use of the term development itself. While this might discomfort those who seek clarity and structure, the SfD field is too complex and dynamic to be confined by these labels and boundaries. In the words of one of the reviewers for this commentary, “rather than strive for clarity (and the simplicity that accompanies it), we must become comfortable with uncomfortability, accept that there are no solutions (only more/different questions), embrace messiness, and stay plugged-into the flows/fluxes of productive uncertainty.” In the sections below, I explore how we might shed these labels and boundaries, such that the SfD field can grow and evolve in ways we cannot yet fully imagine.
IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SPORT PLUS AND PLUS SPORT NECESSARY?
In 2007, Coalter outlined two labels for Sport for Development (SfD) which have largely guided the field in terms of what is, and is not, SfD: sport plus and plus sport. He explained that:
Some [projects] can be described as sport plus, in which traditional sport development objectives of increased participation and the development of sporting skills are emphasized. However, this is rarely the sole rationale and very rarely the basis for external investment and subsequent evaluation. Almost without exception, the presumed instrumental role of sport is emphasized, with sport being used to address a number of broader social issues (e.g., gender equity, HIV/AIDS education). These outcomes are pursued via varying mixtures of organizational values, ethics and practices, symbolic games and more formal didactic approaches – but rarely simply through sport. In such circumstances sport is mostly a vitally important necessary, but not sufficient condition. The other approach can be described as plus sport, in which social, educational, and health programmes are given primacy; and sport, especially its ability to bring together a large number of young people, is part of a much broader and more complex set of processes. Short-term outcomes (e.g., HIV/AIDS education and behaviour change) are more important than the longer-term sustainable development of sport. Of course, there is a continuum of such programmes and differences are not always clear-cut. (p. 71)
In 2010, Coalter described these two approaches again (bullet points and italics in original article):
- Sport plus, in which sports are adapted and often augmented with parallel programmes in order to maximize their potential to achieve developmental objectives.
- Plus sport, in which sport’s popularity is used as a type of ‘fly paper’ to attract young people to programmes of education and training (a widespread approach to HIV/AIDS prevention programmes), with the systematic development of sport rarely a strategic aim. (p. 298)
Over the years, sport plus has been referenced 3,720 times in the academic literature, while plus sport has been referenced 1,330 times. Why have these labels resonated so strongly with SfD scholars? Is there a need for clarity? A need to legitimize the field (and perhaps our scholarship itself)? A need to align with leading scholars in the field (Chu & Evans, 2021)?
I do not believe we need to differentiate between sport plus and plus sport. Coalter himself (2007) mentioned that “there is a continuum of such programmes and differences are not always clear-cut” (p. 71). This aligns with Bhattacharya’s (2021) point that boundaries blur, as noted by Whitley et al. (2022) within the SfD field. For example, Coalter (2007) indicates that sport plus interventions address broader social issues over a longer period of time, while plus sport focus on shorter-term individual outcomes like behavior change. Yet, literature suggests this is not the case, with SfD interventions recognizing the continuum and choosing to blur boundaries (e.g., Sherry et al., 2017; Whitley et al., 2019b; 2019c). Might it be time to shed these labels and accept the fact that SfD is complex and dynamic, and is unfolding in a dynamic, interconnected world (Burns & Worsley, 2015; Whitley et al., 2022)? Could new ideas connect and flow more freely, leading to deeper, more nuanced understandings (Camiré, 2024)?
WHY MUST WE DIFFERENTIATE SPORT FOR DEVELOPMENT FROM SPORT?
I also have concerns with the name of the field itself: Sport for Development. It has been identified by several names over the years but always includes the term ‘development’ (e.g., sport-for-development, sport for development and peace, sport-based youth development, positive youth development through sport). However, this term has been criticized for decades for its simplicity, Eurocentrism, and assumption that individuals and groups of people should pursue a linear progression towards a Global North model (Sup, 2024). Founded upon this vision of development, many SfD initiatives help to maintain and reproduce established economic, social, and political structures (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Kelly, 2019). In reality, this concept of development is controlling, oppressive, disciplining, colonial, and falsely generous, with SfD participants learning how to operate within inequitable and unjust systems and structures (Black, 2010; Darnell & Hayhurst, 2011; Kochanek & Erickson, 2019; Spaaij & Jeanes, 2013). While there are other interpretations of development, such as post-development theory, and there have been debates in the SfD field about what interpretation is most appropriate for SfD and who should make this decision (e.g., Darnell & Hayhurst, 2011; Camiré, 2024), might it be best to remove reference to development entirely?
But then this raises the question of what differentiates SfD from traditional sport? In 2010, Coalter differentiated sport plus and plus sport from traditional sport in this way: “traditional forms of provision for sport [have]…an implicit assumption or explicit affirmation that such sport has inherent developmental properties for participants” (p. 298). But why must we differentiate the development that occurs through sport (defined as implicit processes by Holt et al., 2016) with more intentional approaches (defined as explicit processes by Holt et al., 2016)? I recognize that the common element among the leading definitions of SfD is that there is an intentional focus on the use of sport to achieve development and/or social change outcomes, but are the boundaries between SfD and traditional sport really so distinct? I would argue they are not. For example, if a coach in a ‘traditional’ sport setting (i.e., school sport, club sport) is intentionally incorporating development and social change outcomes into their coaching practices, then should this be defined as SfD? Who decides this? Hartmann and Kwauk (2011) present a different take, suggesting that the difference between traditional sport and SfD is the population. They believe SfD interventions serve populations perceived to be disempowered and/or marginalized, while traditional sports are designed for mainstream, middle-class youth. Once again, we are drawing artificial lines around SfD.
By drawing these lines, we are limiting sport’s potential. Let us return to Coalter’s (2010) definition: “traditional forms of provision for sport [have]…an implicit assumption or explicit affirmation that such sport has inherent developmental properties for participants” (p. 298). This highlights the developmental properties of traditional sport, yet holistic development and well-being are all too often sacrificed to prioritize talent progression and winning (Coakley, 1992; Massey & Whitley, 2021). This results in an exclusionary and destructive model of sport that has both individual- and community-level consequences (Massey & Whitley, 2021). What might transpire if traditional sport incorporated some of the evidence-based practices that have been used in SfD for years, as recommended by Harwood and colleagues (2024)? In their words, “it is both possible and necessary to pursue holistic, dual intentions of personal and athletic development” (p. 157). Could this lead to reduced drop-out rates, lowered stress and anxiety, and increased social cohesion, among other individual- and community-level outcomes?
In SfD, the core components of sport that have inherent developmental properties are often deemphasized. For example, physical activity is, at times, minimized in lieu of activities that support development in the cognitive, affective, social, and/or lifestyle domains (Bailey, 2006; Whitley et al., 2019c), despite the established benefits of physical activity (e.g., improved mental health, adaptive responses to stress) (Logan et al., 2019; Streeter et al., 2012). Competition is also frequently deemphasized in SfD programming, even though healthy competition can increase motivation and serve as a powerful teaching tool (Camiré, 2015; Whitley et al., 2018). Finally, the focus on skill development in SfD programming can be undervalued when the drive to improve sport skills is often what draws young people in – and keeps them engaged (Camiré, 2015; Whitley et al., 2018). A mantra in SfD is ‘the power of sport’, yet some of the most powerful features are deemphasized.
This gap between SfD and traditional sport is growing as the sport industry is professionalized, especially at the youth level (Gregory, 2017; Harwood et al., 2024; Wagstaff, 2017; 2019). Removing these lines would acknowledge the potential for sport – in all forms – to foster both individual and collective flourishing for all people.
A WAY FORWARD?
Given the concerns identified above, I propose a fundamental shift: moving away from the categories of traditional sport, sport plus, and plus sport, and removing reference to development in the name. Instead, let us embrace sport on its own terms, recognizing its true power and potential, while remaining acutely aware of its capacity for harm (Massey & Whitley, 2021). So, the need for intentionality remains, as does the need for individual and joint reflection, where relational ethics guide us towards shared responsibility and reciprocal engagement (Hoskins et al., 2011). Our central, iterative question should be: How can sport foster personal well-being and collective flourishing? This shifts our focus from what something is (i.e., traditional sport, sport plus, plus sport, SfD) to what something does; in other words, we should be less concerned with labels and boundaries, as the politics around these decisions keeps power in the hands of the few. Additionally, the debates about labels and boundaries are all too often limited to the ivory tower. When I engage in sport outside of academia – as a coach, parent, participant, and consultant – there is minimal, if any, consideration of whether the intervention is traditional sport, sport plus, or plus sport. Instead, the focus is tackling other questions that are more pressing and more pertinent. Academics need to be part of this discussion. Rather than writing papers critiquing labels and boundaries, let us just call it sport and join the effort to help sport grow and evolve in ways we cannot yet fully imagine.
REFERENCES
Bailey, R. (2006). Physical education and sport in schools: A review of benefits and outcomes. Journal of School Health, 76(8), 397-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00132.x
Bhattacharya, K. (2021). Rejecting labels and colonization: In exile from post-qualitative approaches. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(2), 179-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420941049
Black, D.R. (2010). The ambiguities of development: Implications for ‘development through sport’. Sport in Society, 13(1), 121-129.
Burns, D., & Worsley, S. (2015). Navigating complexity in international development: Facilitating sustainable change at scale. Practical Action Publishing.
Camiré, M. (2015). Examining high school teacher-coaches’ perspective on relationship building with student-athletes. International Sport Coaching Journal, 2, 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2014-0098
Camiré, M. (2024). Posthumanist imaginaries for inquiring positive youth development through sport. In N. Holt & M. McDonough (Eds.), Positive Youth Development Through Sport (3rd ed., pp. 170-182). Routledge.
Chu, J. S. G., & Evans, J. A. (2021). Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(41), e2021636118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021636118
Coakley, J. (1992). Burnout among adolescent athletes: A personal failure or social problem? Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.9.3.271
Coalter, F. (2007). A wider social role for sport: Who’s keeping the score? Routledge.
Coalter, F. (2010). The politics of sport-for-development: Limited focus programmes and broad gauge problems?International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 45, 295-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690210366791
Darnell, S.C., & Hayhurst, L.M.C. (2011). Sport for decolonization: Exploring a new praxis of sport for development. Progress in Development Studies, 11(3), 183-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/146499341001100301
Gregory, S. (2017). How kids’ sports became a $15 billion industry. Time. https://time.com/magazine/us/4913681/september-4th-2017-vol-190-no-9-u-s/
Hartmann, D., & Kwauk, C. (2011). Sport and development: An overview, critique, and reconstruction. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 35(3), 284-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723511416986
Harwood, C., Johnston, J., & Wachsmuth, S. (2024). Positive youth development and talent development: Pursuing dual intentions in a multilayered environment. In N. Holt & M. McDonough (Eds.), Positive Youth Development Through Sport (3rd ed., pp. 156-169). Routledge.
Hayhurst, L. M. C, Kay, T, & Chawansky, M (Eds.) (2016). Beyond sport for development and peace: Transnational perspectives on theory, policy and practice. Routledge.
Holt, N. L., Neely, K. C., Slater, L. G., Camiré, M., Côté, J., Fraser-Thomas, J., MacDonald, D., Strachan, L., & Tamminen, K. A. (2016). A grounded theory of positive youth development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(1), 1-49.https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2016.1180704
Hoskins, T. K., Martin, B., & Humphries, M. (2011). The power of relational responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 16(2), 22-27.
Kelly, L. (2019). SDP and youth in the global North. In H. Collison, S.C. Darnell, R. Giulianotti, & P.D. Howe (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sport for development and peace (pp. 352-362). Routledge.
Kochanek, J., & Erickson, K. (2019). Outside the lines: An exploratory study of high school sport head coaches’ critical praxis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 45(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101580
Logan, K., Cuff, S., Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness, LaBella, C. R., Brooks, M. A., Canty, G., Diamond, A. B., Hennrikus, W., Moffatt, K., Nemeth, B. A., Pengel, K. B., Peterson, A. R., & Stricker, P. R. (2019). Organized sports for children, preadolescents, and adolescents. Pediatrics,143(6). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-0997
Massey, W. V., & Whitley, M. A. (2021). The talent paradox: Disenchantment, disengagement, and damage through sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 38(2), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2019-0159
Sherry, E., Schulenkorf, N., Seal, E., Nocholson, M., & Hoye, R. (2017). Sport-for-development in the South Pacific region: Macro-, meso-, and micro-perspectives. Sociology of Sport Journal, 34, 303-316. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2017-0022
Spaaij, R., & Jeanes, R. (2013). Education for social change? A Freirean critique of sport for development and peace. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18(4), 442-457. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.690378
Streeter, C. C., Gerbarg, P. L., Saper, R. B., Ciraulo, D. A., & Brown, R.P. (2012) Effects of yoga on the autonomic nervous system, gamma-aminobutyric-acid, and allostasis in epilepsy, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Medical Hypotheses, 78(5), 571-579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2012.01.021
Sup, M. (2024). Sport for development: A troubling past to a brighter future? In S. Lawrence, J. Hill, & A. Rasul (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sport, leisure, and social justice (pp. 308-320). Routledge.
Wagstaff, C. R. D. (2017). Organizational psychology in sport: An introduction. In C. R. D. Wagstaff (Ed.), The organizational psychology of sport (pp. 1-8), Routledge.
Wagstaff, C. R. D. (2019). A commentary and reflections on the field of organizational sport psychology. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 31(1), 134-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2018.1539885
Whitley, M. A., Massey, W. V., & Wilkison, M. (2018). A systems theory of development through sport for traumatized and disadvantaged youth. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 38, 116-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.06.004
Whitley, M. A., Collison-Randall, H., Wright, P. M., Darnell, S. C., Knee, E., Holt, N. L., & Richards, J. (2022). Moving beyond disciplinary silos: The potential for transdisciplinary research in Sport for Development. Journal of Sport for Development, 10(2), 1-22.
Whitley, M. A., Cooper, J. N., Darnell, S. C., Carter-Francique, A. R., & O-Rourke-Brown, K. G. (2023). A critical examination of race and antiracism in the sport for development field: An introduction. Sociology of Sport Journal, 40(2), 113-120. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2023-0047
Whitley, M. A., Farrell, K., Wolff, E. A., & Hillyer, S. J. (2019a). Sport for development and peace: Surveying actors in the field. Journal of Sport for Development, 7(12), 1-15.
Whitley, M.A., Massey, W., Camiré, M., Blom, L., Chawansky, M., Forde, S., Boutet, M., Borbee, A., & Darnell, S. (2019b). A systematic review of sport for youth development interventions across six global cities. Sport Management Review, 22, 181-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.013
Whitley, M.A., Massey, W.V., Camiré, M., Boutet, M., & Borbee, A. (2019c). Sport-based youth development interventions in the United States: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 19(89). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6387-z
Journal of Sport for Development 