FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

To answer our research objective about how social inclusion in and through sports and sport mega-events is understood and experienced by Sámi and non-Indigenous people, this section is structured around key themes that clarify how different understandings were expressed by participants. We structure this section as follows: first, we provide understandings of social inclusion in sports, beginning with the broader concept of social inclusion in sports through the sport-for-all ethos. We then explore the understanding of inclusion in sports from Sámi perspective. Next, we examine Sámi inclusion in the context of the Olympic bidding process. Finally, we delve into reimagining social inclusion within the broader framework of sports and sports mega-event bids, considering how these events can serve as platforms for ensuring social inclusion of Indigenous (Sámi) Peoples. We chose this structure to foreground the variations and tensions in how social inclusion is defined and constructed within the context of the Olympic bids. These differences became particularly visible in discussions related to the sport context in general, where conflicting interpretations hinted towards deeper issues around representation and recognition. Highlighting these divergent perspectives first in the sport system offers a clearer lens through which to understand the broader dynamics at play in sport contexts, and how they are translated to sport mega-events in specific.

Understandings of Social Inclusion in Sports

Understanding of Social Inclusion in Sport in General: The Sport-for-all Ethos

Social inclusion within Norwegian sports is primarily understood as the goal of integrating all individuals into mainstream sports activities, a common sentiment expressed by several participants (P5, P7, P9). For example, P9 formulates: “we want everyone in” and “everyone should be involved and welcomed in Norwegian sports.” This reflects a broad, inclusive ethos aimed at ensuring that people from all backgrounds are welcomed into the sporting community. However, P9 shares that “even when certain groups, like refugees, are placed in separate teams or activities initially, the ultimate aim is to integrate them into regular sports teams”. This idea of integration into mainstream sports teams is echoed by P7. Initiatives that are, for example, tailored towards specific minority groups, are described as being inclusive and are seen as a temporary step toward inclusion of minority groups into mainstream teams. These groups mainly target refugees and immigrants who do not know the Norwegian sports system. Despite this formulated emphasis on inclusion, the approach often overlooks the distinct needs and cultural contexts of national minorities like Kven and Norwegian Finns, Forest Finns, and particularly Sámi. A non-Indigenous participant recognizes the importance of cultural sensitivity and cooperation: “one can have Sámi competitions and meeting places across national borders” (P4). However, another participant explains that one must reflect over the differences between mainstream sports and Sámi sports:

It may well be that it is important for SVL to continue offering sports for the Sami, but at the same time if it is to be included, it must be a part of the mainstream sports system… I believe that SVL organizes sports in the same way as NIF does, so if one should try including Sámi sports in the main system, the focus must be on the differences in sports themselves and their content, and maybe other values”. (P5)

Another understanding of inclusion discussed by participants is about structures that do not create barriers. P5, P7, and P9 explain that the key to inclusion is removing economic, cultural, and language barriers, making the pathway into sports easier for all individuals. As P7 explained, their role within the sports council is to ensure that as many people as possible, especially young people, are given the chance to engage in sports, emphasizing the importance of minimizing these barriers. Moreover, participants shared that public funding is necessary to support children from low-income families and ensure they can participate in sports, further reinforcing the need for structural collaboration between sports organizations and governmental bodies:

there are 100,000 children in Norway who grow up in low-income families. If we are to be an organization for everyone, we must also facilitate their inclusion in our movement… We cannot do it alone… We must ensure that the authorities can also provide money so that children from low-income families are truly included. (P5)

There are economic and structural challenges. I think we can gain a lot from collaborating better. Because we can do quite a lot if we join forces. If the school, sports, culture, volunteers, and parents join forces, then I think you can achieve a lot. But that kind of coordination requires finances. (P7)

The removal of barriers, again, points toward understanding inclusion as participation, which is applied to different vulnerable and marginalised groups through focused initiatives and programmes, e.g., free training opportunities for children from low-income families. However, when it comes to Sámi inclusion, their needs and backgrounds are unintentionally overlooked by NIF because they either do not fit to already defined social inclusion strategies or there is a lack of knowledge regarding social exclusion in the sport system of the nation-state (Consulting, 2023). For example, non-Indigenous and Sámi participants within NIF shared: “I have never heard of any special work being done for Sámi. Yes, I just thought they were included in the regular sports team” (P9) and “we don’t have any specific initiatives that directly target Sámi, they are, in a way, considered a part of our general inclusion strategy” (P7). These quotes highlight the lack of awareness and challenges in the mainstream sport system that Sámi face, contributing to the construction of inclusion practices that often place Sámi in predefined vulnerable groups. By overlooking the lack of knowledge regarding specific needs of Indigenous Peoples, and the ongoing use of Eurocentric understanding of the inclusion concept may hinder decolonization and reinforce assimilation ideas:

If you are unfamiliar with the sport, if you are new to the country, if your parents have no experience whatsoever with the sport, then it is… of course…Less likely that their children will participate. So if there is someone with a Sámi background who is not familiar with the sport then they will fall into the target group. I’m not familiar with certain measures towards Sámi people, but our goal is to get everyone involved in sports. (P9)

Although there is an understanding that Sámi might fall into one of the vulnerable groups and thus be included anyway, this approach does not account for the distinct needs and challenges that Indigenous Peoples face. We interpret this as, even though Sámi and other minority non-Indigenous participants are welcomed, the mainstream inclusion idea of sport-for-all dominates. The consequence of this idea might become an escape hatch for making changes that really promote inclusion of some groups, like Sámi. The lack of focus on the inclusion of Sámi among sports organizations, locally as well as at the national levels, can be explained by a lack of knowledge, as P15 states: “The biggest problem is that the majority population generally has very little knowledge [about Sámi], they have not learned any at school”.

To summarize, we have found that Sámi identity, prominent in Sámi sports, is nearly absent in mainstream sports. Our findings suggest that it is difficult to enact one’s own identity as a Sámi in sports. This can be explained by intersectionality (Anthias, 2006) and the fact that Sámi identities are difficult to enact in some contexts (Bjørklund, 2016). Sport is a difficult context for enacting a Sámi identity when the sport-for-all ethos dominates. This is because inclusion in the sports-for-all ethos is limited to inclusion of marginalized groups. Sámi often do not fit the description of or want to identify with.

Understanding of Sámi Inclusion in Sports – an Indigenous Perspective

The experiences of Sámi highlight the challenges and the opportunities for creating meaningful inclusion on personal and structural levels within the Norwegian sports systems. One recurring theme is the tension between integration and segregation. One participant from SVL (P3) noted the uncertainty experienced by new groups when trying to register:

We don’t have any formal cooperation with NIF. The only thing we have is an informal or tacit collaboration. This means that NIF is fine with the fact that if you are a member of NIF, you are also a member of our organization [SVL]. And we see this now when new sports are joining, they are uncertain about whether they can register with us. (…) So, there’s this informal arrangement where two sports confederations exist alongside each other.

Sámi organizations have often had to seek permission or clarification from NIF, resulting in a “silent” organizational structure in which two sports federations operate parallel to each other (Skille & Fahlén, 2020). This situation reflects the complexity of integrating Sámi athletes into the broader sporting system while maintaining a distinct Sámi identity. This dual structure raises questions about the necessity of a separate Sámi sports confederation.

Understanding of inclusion has also been expressed by the emotional experiences of Sámi participants (P3, P8, P10, and P11), which were coded as forcefulness that marks the importance of tone and voice (Lawless & Chen, 2019). In our case, it was mainly laughter/chuckling during the interviews by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants, which we analysed in relation to the topic that was discussed. For example, forcefulness helped us notice that in most cases Sámi participants chuckled whenever we talked about the topics related to self-determination and assimilation consequences, while with non-Indigenous participants we didn’t see a specific pattern that could be related to our article. Sámi informants also expressed emotions in a more somber tone, for example, one of the participants and the interviewer cried together when talking about intergenerational trauma and consequences of assimilation. P3 shared a painful moment of realizing the discrimination faced by Sámi children in sports, particularly when these young athletes felt compelled to suppress their Sámi identity to fit in:

I think that the awareness of promoting Sámi sports is much greater now than it has been in the past. In Sámi communities, we face a lot of discrimination, and children and young people are very vulnerable to it. So, trying to highlight Sámi life in a positive way is something we believe is necessary, but at the same time, we have to be careful because we know that even the word ‘Sámi’ provokes a lot of people. Children and young people say it’s fine for them to wear traditional Sámi clothing, but when they start speaking Sámi, people get angry and they get insulted. (…) The only safe space for these children and young people is Sámi sports. It’s the only place where they can speak Sámi, express their identity, and meet other Sámi children and young people from different areas. Outside of that, they feel they must suppress their identity just to survive in society.

The emotional toll of such exclusion was described as “terribly painful” (P3), reflecting the deep sense of alienation many Sámi feel within the broader Norwegian sporting community. This highlights the need for a more inclusive approach that allows for the expression of Sámi identity in sports without fear of discrimination. Moreover, the lack of dedicated Sámi sports facilities and the underrepresentation of Sámi sports in mainstream arenas has led to the creation of “safe spaces” for Sámi youth. According to P3, Sámi children often find the only “safe space” where they can express their identity is within Sámi sports. These spaces allow them to speak Sámi, express their cultural identity, and connect with other Sámi youth. Without these arenas, young Sámi athletes are forced to suppress their identity to navigate mainstream sports environments. Additionally, it is highlighted that “culture, language and identity are the foundational pillars of Sámi sport” (P3). This quote illustrates that Sámi sport is more than just about doing sports and, therefore, considering these pillars in the design of sport policies and sport mega-events would strengthen their inclusion. The following quote provides examples of practices and structures that can help to foster inclusion practices and highlights the importance of Sámi communities to actively approach local organizations, which then can support and create events that cater to Sámi needs and interests:

What is important here is that if there is a need or desire for it [focus on Sámi inclusion and Sámi sports], we need to be made aware of it. And then we can do something about it: create events and showcase the Sámi sports and Sámi events, help generate interest. We also must be there to cheer, to create those events. So we are happy to join the team, but we need help with organization based on the needs and wishes. (P7)

Both non-Indigenous and Sámi participants express a strong sense that Sámi must be active participants in the creation of their own inclusion in Norwegian sports and sport events, rather than being passive recipients of imposed initiatives; this perception could create a barrier for self-determination.

Sámi Inclusion in Sports and the Olympic Bidding Process

The Olympic bids in Tromsø 2014 and 2018 provide insightful understandings and experiences of Sámi inclusion in the Norwegian sports context. In the application for the 2014 Olympics in Tromsø, Sámi participation was focused on culture and business development based on crafts and traditions. However, in 2018, the process (which stopped earlier), Sámi were to be included more broadly and deeply. This quote from a representative of the Norwegian Sámi National Federation Party, which we  found in our document analysis illustrates:

This time Sámi are hosting. It means much more than showing off in a gákti [traditional Sámi clothing] and showing off reindeer. We will take part in all aspects of the event and planning. It gives us an opportunity to build new skills and develop the entire Sámi community. (Riikkasearvi, 2007)

However, the participants report that most discussions were more about the technicalities of an event rather than creating a legacy for Sámi communities (P3).

The analysis of documents, organisation charts, plans, and minutes of meetings, reflects that Sámi issues were on the table and Sámi representatives were at the table in the planning stages of the bid. Tromsø 2014 condenses the various legacies they hoped for during the bidding:

For Sámi, Tromsø is an important center for education, research, health and culture. The ambitions for international Indigenous work are expressed through the Indigenous City of Tromsø concept. Sámi representatives have been involved in the Olympic work from the start, and Sámi will be a natural part of hosting if Tromsø is chosen for the 2014 Winter Olympics. The legacy before, during, and after an Olympics in Tromsø could be significant. An entire region, Sámi areas, the coast and the nation will get a boost. (AS, 2004, p. 5)

For the Tromsø 2018 bid, Sámediggi’s (The Sámi Parliament) inclusion ideas were to unite Indigenous Peoples globally, in Northern regions and strengthen Sámi identity (Turi & Skarvik, 2006) . However, even though inclusion visions and efforts are considered in the bidding documents, there is a dilemma regarding maintaining or reworking an Indigenous identity on one hand and inclusion on the other.

During the bidding and planning processes in both 2014 and 2018, the organising committee attempted to incorporate the theme of Sámi inclusion throughout different areas (symbols, language, cooperation with Sámediggi and representatives from art and culture), however, Sámi sports and Sámi sports representatives remained marginalised. The experience of a Sámi practitioner involved in the bid emphasizes the lack of inclusion:

We were just dragged in at the very end, so you can write in a bid [2014] that Sámi are involved (…). And for the 2018 bid process, we were in from the first meeting.

We probably said that we don’t think it’s okay to be used as a decoration. How should I put it? Used as a painting. If we’re going to be involved, we have to be involved in the whole process, right? (…) But we felt that it wasn’t really okay. Because we weren’t really included at all [in the 2014]. (…) And [for 2018] there was very little of what we said, that I think I remember, was taken seriously, to put it that way. (…) (P3)

The quote above resonates with the document analysis. The organization “Nei til OL (No to Olympics)” used, among other arguments, the lack of specification of what inclusion of the Indigenous population as an argument against hosting the games:

Tromsø 2018 (bidding organization) does not explain how Sámi sports dimensions to be strengthened. (…) The Council of Sámediggi says in a statement of 30.10.06 that “a Winter Olympics in the north can mean a lot for Sámi community and identity building” and “see it as only natural that Sámi host this event.” It is surprising that Tromsø 2018 bidding committee has not been able to specify how the Indigenous dimension is to be taken care of. (OL, 2007, p. 19)

These examples can be understood as a distinction of knowledge about and knowledge in where the Norwegian sport system and the bidding organizations have the knowledge about doing action (hence including Sámi), but there is a non-“ability to perform the action” (Guttorm, 2011). Another inclusion idea of Sámi in the bid was using the reindeer symbol. In the 1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, Norway, the reindeer were used as a Sámi tribute and symbol; Indigenous Peoples have a special relation and connection with living non-human and non-living things like animals and land (Skille & Sam, 2024). While reindeer are a part of traditional culture, they are also an important part of Sámi life and sport (Skille & Sam, 2024). However, this inclusion was part of a cultural program that can be considered “showcasing” (Puijk, 2000). Over time, inclusion ideas progressed from showcasing to representation of Sámi sports and inclusion in the planning process. However, P15 emphasises the challenge of balance when it comes to big projects, like Olympics, that have international and national aspects:

It is more challenging to get things done on Sámi premises [self-determination]. It means that Sámi should recognize themselves in what is presented, and that it is not something like where you are just dressed up and exhibited, but that it is competence-building and that you present a genuine side of Sámi culture.

Reimagining Social Inclusion of Sámi in Sports and Sport Mega-event Bids

Social inclusion has been widely discussed, particularly for marginalized groups (e.g. Cobigo et al., 2012), but traditional frameworks often focus on conformity to dominant societal values, overlooking subjective aspects like feelings of belonging and cultural identity. A more comprehensive approach, which includes subjective measures of well-being, is needed. Our findings bring attention to the importance that sports events, including Olympic bidding, in Norway have the potential to better address the distinct needs of diverse populations, specifically Indigenous Peoples.

The different understandings and experiences from Sámi and non-Indigenous people from our findings illustrate that the notion of social inclusion must extend beyond a one-size-fits-all approach. While traditional metrics of inclusion often focus on visible participation in mainstream sporting activities, a more inclusive framework must account for the unique needs and experiences of Indigenous groups, whose historical and cultural backgrounds are often at odds with the expectations imposed by majority-led systems. For example, in the context of sports, the lack of Indigenous-specific strategies in the event bidding process or sports organizations may unintentionally overlook the social exclusion faced by Indigenous Peoples. This omission could stem from both a lack of awareness and knowledge of their specific needs, which comes from the educational system and  dominant framework that define inclusion based on existing societal norms rather than on the lived experiences of Indigenous communities.

Derived from our findings and feedback and input from Sámi participants, we sensibilize social inclusion of Sámi within sports mega-events based on three major themes: (a) identity and cultural safety, (b) value of Indigenous cultures and knowledge, and (c) historical and current needs and background.

Identity and Cultural Safety

Our findings illustrate that social inclusion from Sámi perspective is often described as the feeling of being accepted and secure enough to express one’s identity and (cultural) safety. As participants expressed “Inclusion for me is being able to feel safe showing my identity” (P10) and “it is only perhaps in Karasjok and Kautokeino [core Sámi areas] they [children and youth] have the opportunity to be Sámi”. (P3)

Another statement echoes this when answering the question about experiencing racism or discrimination:

of course, many times (…) I find it very hurtful to know that my daughters or nephews and nieces have these experiences when they are performing and participating in sports events, especially in soccer. People are kind of full on adrenaline and can say quite upsetting and racist things, which can create quite a hostile atmosphere. I think that many coaches for youth soccer are not well prepared to address this, and many of them might be quite racist themselves and not realising that. (P11)

These sentiments reflect a central tenet of social inclusion: the ability to participate fully as yourself in society without fear of judgment, exclusion or discrimination. For many, feeling included means having the freedom to express oneself openly and authentically without the fear of being silenced or marginalised. This is especially important in environments where different cultural norms may be at play, such as in Norway, where cultural differences between Sámi and the cultural majority have historically been significant. When we look at the inclusion debate for the Olympic bid in relation to the inclusion of Sámi sports today and the participants’ experiences, we can better understand why inclusion is so complicated. One point is that there is much more to Sámi sports than participation and competition; cultural and historical components play a central role–  knowledge  that gets overlooked by the Norwegian mainstream sport system and bidding organizations (Guttorm, 2011).

The concept of safety extends beyond physical safety to include emotional and cultural safety. The understanding that silence may imply consent in certain cultural contexts can be problematic for marginalized groups, as P10 noted: “Norwegians have a saying that goes as this: the one who remains silent agrees. But in Sámi it is the opposite, the one who remains silent disagrees”. This statement highlights the importance of understanding cultural differences in communication, where silence may indicate disagreement, not consent. Additionally, it is an example of how silence can be interpreted differently across cultures, demonstrating the limitations of the traditional view of social inclusion that cannot be reduced to mere participation or the outward signs of involvement. In our view, cultural awareness and the ability to show understanding for Sámi realities, as highlighted by P3 and P10 is a necessary first step for creating inclusive environments to actively create spaces where individuals are encouraged to express their opinions and identities.

Another important aspect of social inclusion is the feeling of belonging and emotional safety: “We have to truly feel that we belong and feel at home… that I have a place to be myself… to feel that the door is open when I come” (P7). The idea that social inclusion is not only about being acknowledged but also about the internal sense of comfort and security within a group. The sense of belonging is often intertwined with the idea of a “safe space” (P3), where individuals can participate without fear of rejection or discrimination. P8 expressed, inclusion is

that I mean something, that you see me, others see me and accept what they see because I am not perfect. I don’t feel perfect, but I can feel more than good enough because we can be fantastic as a team.

This highlights that social inclusion is also deeply connected to fostering communal ties and a collective sense of security.

In the context of sports, social inclusion is seen as the responsibility of the majority to ensure that marginalized individuals feel safe and included. As P10 explained,

for example, to be alone as a Sámi among 50 others…it is the responsibility of the majority to take care of the one and make sure that the one feels safe and included. It doesn’t necessarily have to be connected to sports, but all arenas.

P11 supports this argument:

they [NIF] have lots of resources, and the problem with the Truth and Reconciliation process is not that Sámi are engaged or Sámi are connected or giving input. The problem is that the dominant portion of the majority does not think it has anything to do with them.

This understanding stresses the importance of proactive efforts to ensure that marginalized individuals are not only welcomed but also supported in their participation in various activities and social spheres. Social inclusion requires active efforts to create safe, respectful spaces where people can express their identities and fully participate in society. It means enabling individuals from diverse backgrounds to thrive and contribute.

Value of Indigenous Cultures and Knowledge

Even though there are similarities within Sámi society, “there is not one Sámi indigenous culture, but many subcultures” (Melbøe et al., 2016, p. 5). This could be connected to the larger issue of knowledge regarding Sámi and the education system that is working on incorporating knowledge about Sámi languages and cultures. While the understanding of inclusion between Sámi and non-Indigenous participants reflected the ‘mainstream’ understanding of inclusion, such as participation, diverse perspectives, being seen, heard, feeling welcomed, and a sense of belonging (Brix et al., 2022; Cobigo et al., 2016; Martin & Cobigo, 2011), the cultural, social, historical, and linguistic aspects were not considered by non-Indigenous participants. In sports and in the bid planning process, through personal experience and acquiring máhttu (the skill), we can see that the awareness and knowledge of those working with Indigenous inclusion, changes in a way that the nuances and importance of working with Indigenous issues come forward, be that Indigenous (P10) or non-Indigenous participants (P4). While the overall inclusion discourse within the Norwegian mainstream sports system has advanced over the years, we call for a greater attention to inclusion policies and practices regarding Sámi and other ethnic minorities living in Norway, especially taking into consideration the historical needs and backgrounds.

Historical and Current Needs and Backgrounds

Inclusion programs should be shaped in ways that recognize the specific histories, experiences, and needs of Indigenous Peoples and ethnic minorities, particularly in light of past policies like Norwegianization, as overlooking these factors may reinforce existing barriers to inclusion. As Indigenous cultures and knowledge are highly contextual, there is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to inclusion policy design or a bidding process for a sports event. Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing are not only rooted in the traditions and land but are also shaped and transformed by the historical processes within the nation-state borders. These differences can be seen not only through the political and sports systems, but also through individual experiences.