Abstract
Integration of migrants is currently among the most relevant political issues in Western societies. In this context, voluntary sport clubs (VSCs) have been granted substantial trust to bring people together in joint sport activities. However, despite ambitious programmes launched by public authorities and/, or sport federations, a relatively small proportion of VSCs engage with such targeted initiatives. The existing literature provides explanations as to why VSCs do not implement external initiatives, but it falls notably short in explaining why they do. Therefore, the aim of our contribution is to understand why some VSCs implement programmes that promote social integration of people with a migration background. In a multi-case study design across five European countries, we developed, based on document analysis and interviews with key decision-makers case study reports of 30 VSCs engaged in programmes for the target group. From these cases, we identified a range of VSCs′ organisational identities (Stenling and Fahlén, 2016) that demonstrate clubs’ varying willingness along different horizons of justification to implement integrative measures. A typology constructed based on these organisational identities advances the understanding of clubs’ ambitions to further integrative goals and can be used by public authorities and sport federations to stimulate and support club-level processes.
Introduction
Ongoing conflicts across the world and particularly the patterns of forced migration produced by them, have elevated social integration to one of the most pressing socio-political issues. To address this issue, receiving countries have shifted their policy priorities and launched programmes aimed at integrating, temporarily or permanently, migrants and refugees into host societies (e.g., Fahlén and Stenling, 2022; Puech et al., 2023). As part of this development, organised sport and voluntary sport clubs (VSCs), in particular, have been bestowed with substantial trust to bring people together in joint sport activities aimed at facilitating social integration (e.g., Spaaij et al., 2019), here understood as the social ability to act in different contexts in a manner that preserves ethnic and cultural reference, but allows a quality of participation that nurtures wellbeing (Esser, 2004).
Due to their ample provision of opportunities to establish social networks and emotional bonds and build knowledge around societal norms and values, VSCs can indeed play a crucial role in promoting social integration among specific target groups like migrants and refugees (e.g., Dagkas and Armour, 2012; Nagel et al., 2020). Several studies show that members in VSCs feel respected by other members, interact socially, create friendships and identify with the club (e.g., Elmose-Østerlund et al., 2019). However, despite ambitious programmes launched by public authorities and/or sports federations, a relatively small proportion of VSCs implement policy programmes, or their own (developed) initiatives, for migrants and refugees (e.g., Ehnold et al., 2024). Evidently, social integration is rarely a sports club’s main focus, instead being viewed as a potential positive side effect of regular and member-directed activities (e.g., Elmose-Østerlund et al., 2020). It is well known that VSCs, due to their voluntary character and in many contexts autonomous standing, are ‘introvert’ organisations that often shy away from external proposals that draw attention and resources away from their core activities (Stenling and Fahlén, 2016). Sport-based social integration is thus by no means an automatic process, and practices of social exclusion, ethnic boundaries and discrimination contribute to people with a migration background remaining underrepresented in VSC activities (e.g., Dowling, 2020; Schmidt et al., 2025; Seiberth and Thiel, 2010; Spaaij, 2012). These studies show that people with a migration background are particularly less active in VSC compared to other forms of organised sport. Here, exclusionary practices and experiences of discrimination can result from a club culture orientated toward tradition and a missing intercultural understanding (e.g., Mickelsson, 2024).
As policy makers worldwide continue to launch directives, programmes and measures that position VSCs as promising agents of social integration (e.g., Fahlén and Stenling, 2022), clubs’ somewhat lukewarm approach to this ascribed role raises questions around how public authorities and federations can provide support that increases the number of VSCs that engage in integrative work (Ehnold et al., 2024). Key to addressing this issue is understanding what impels often highly autonomous and member-oriented VSCs (e.g., Skille, 2008) to set up activities that are directed at the migrant and/or refugee target group.
Previous studies on VSCs as policy implementers refer to structural impediments or limited organisational capacity as explanatory factors for poor implementation (e.g., Elmose-Østerlund et al., 2022; May et al., 2012; Nowy et al., 2020). However, pertinent for our study is the line of work that suggests that clubs avoid or decouple programmes and initiatives if their content misaligns with their institutional logics (Fahlén et al., 2014), club goals or member interests (e.g., Borggrefe and Cachay, 2021; Harris et al., 2009) or core purpose and practices (e.g., Skille and Stenling, 2018). Thus, the existing literature on this topic comes some way in explaining why clubs do not implement external initiatives, but it mostly falls short in explaining why they do. Thus, we still lack detailed knowledge and explanatory models concerning why some VSCs prioritise integrative goals and launch specific initiatives for migrants and refugees (Ehnold et al., 2024).
Purpose and significance
The aim of this paper is to explain VSCs’ potentially varying reasons to implement measures and initiatives that promote social integration of people with migrant backgrounds. This knowledge can aid policy actors in their development and promotion of programmes aimed at sports-based integration. In pursuing this aim, we recognise that clubs’ autonomous position within sport systems leaves public authorities and federations reliant on clubs’ willingness to act as implementers of programmes (Skille, 2008) that potentially extend the focus and transform the content and target group of core activities. We use the concept of organisational identity (Stenling and Fahlén, 2016) as an analytical framework to unveil the logic of action that shapes clubs’ interaction with the policy context.
Our main contribution is a typology that outlines and explains clubs’ willingness to adopt integrative measures according to different organisational logics. The typology is based on 30 case studies in five countries. With it, we extend existing research on VSCs as policy implementers (Skille, 2008) by focusing on why clubs choose to extend the content, focus and target group of their core activities. Such knowledge is crucial to advance understanding of how societal ambitions to further integrative goals interact with club-internal dynamics, and how public authorities and sport federations can stimulate VSCs to implement integrative programmes or own initiatives, and best support club-level processes (Ehnold et al., 2024). Based on the typology, we derive in a further analytical step recommendations on how to upscale the number of sports clubs that engage in integration of migrants by indicating how policy actors can design tailored integrative programmes and support structures to correspond with the organisational identities of the different types of VSCs.
Conceptual framework
The literature is replete with depictions of clubs declining to heed calls for organisational change embedded in externally constructed change initiatives or responding to them in a manner that represents decoupling or reinforcement of existing activities, rather than substantial change (e.g., Elmose-Østerlund et al., 2022; Thiel and Mayer, 2009). Suggested in this literature, furthermore, is that implementation failure is rarely due to clubs not understanding what is expected from them, but that they lack the willingness to develop in the direction suggested by the (external) pressures for change exerted on them (e.g., Borggrefe and Cachay, 2021; Ehnold et al., 2024; Skille, 2008). In most club sport contexts, willingness appears to be difficult to stimulate – at least in the short to medium term (e.g., Skille and Stenling, 2018). Consequently, successful use of clubs for policy purposes, such as integration, must rely on an alignment between the policy initiatives and the existing willingness of clubs to implement programmes.
Organisational identity
One way of approaching the notion of willingness is via the concept of organisational identity, meaning the understanding within an organisation around the question ‘Who we are and what we do’ – the core purpose (e.g., shape well-integrated citizens vs. improve sport performance), practices (e.g., low-threshold physical activities vs. conventional sports) and target groups (e.g., children with sporting ambitions vs. risk youth from vulnerable groups) of the organisation (Glynn, 2008; Stenling and Fahlén, 2016). Following Stenling and Fahlén (2016), we adopt an institutional view of organisational identity, which implies that internal identity-negotiation processes are in a recursive relationship with clubs’ institutional context, including the policy conditions under which they operate. In the context of policy implementation, organisational identity is significant because it structures what organisations can ‘imagine doing’ (Hall and Taylor, 1996: 948) and therefore how new organisational ideas (e.g., around new target groups) are interpreted and acted upon.
From this perspective, clubs’ willingness to engage with non-sport policy aims such as integration is structured by logics of (in)appropriateness (March and Olsen, 1989) concerning what the club should seek to achieve, how, and why. In the context of VSCs, we know from previous research that such logics, or rationales for action, vary with organisational identity (Stenling and Fahlén, 2016) and that in any given sport system, clubs are not ‘same same, but different’ (Stenling and Fahlén, 2016: 1) in terms of their organisational identities and, consequently, in their willingness to align their operations with, for example, integrative policy aims. To illustrate, whereas one club's identity and its associated logic of action may support a willingness to implement external programmes (or own initiatives) based on a desire to grow the membership base or strive for sporting success, another club's willingness to do so may be anchored in a wish to assume social responsibility and serve a diverse local community (e.g., Nesse and Hovden, 2023), or based on a shared commitment to integration within the club (Ehnold et al., 2024). That is, clubs may ‘do the same thing, but for different reasons’ according to their core purpose, target group(s) and existing practices (Stenling, 2015: 70).
Dimensions of policy programming
Organisational identity – which frames VSC willingness to implement integrative measures – has implications for policy programming that can stimulate clubs’ engagement in social integration. Puech et al. (2023) show that programming differs across contexts, and we build on Fahlén and Stenling (2022) in suggesting three dimensions according to which elements of policy programming may be variously designed and that are expected to vary with organisational identity.
The first dimension is the sender and intermediaries of policy initiatives, where clubs’ willingness to adhere to policy initiatives may be contingent on established or emerging interdependencies. Clubs may, for example, be reluctant to ‘bite the hand that feeds them’, and instead be inclined to answer policy calls from public agencies, federations or other organisations that they seek to nurture good relationships with for reasons beyond a specific policy initiative (e.g., Borggrefe and Cachay, 2021).
The second important dimension is the ways in which the cultural content and framing of policy objectives align with clubs’ organisational identity and, by extension, willingness to participate in policy implementation. Very likely, a club identity that harbours social responsibility in its core purpose and practice presents a fertile ground in this regard. However, clubs that combine the implementation of integrative programmes with a functional logic (e.g., recruiting more members or improving sporting success) may be moved differently, and less, by a focus on integration. Furthermore, willingness related to policy aims in integrity-related activities may also originate in clubs’ aspiration to build legitimacy vis-à-vis specific audiences (e.g., local communities), implying that engagement may be a form of virtue-signalling (e.g., Lehtonen, 2017).
A third and final dimension of significance is the instruments, or ‘concrete action forms’ (Bemelmans-Videc, 2007: 4), that constitute the specific means by which policies are rolled out. Here, willingness to engage may, for example, depend on funding structure (e.g., project grants vs. block-funding), the rules surrounding funding schemes (e.g., eligibility criteria, application and reporting requirements), and the support structures available to clubs. To illustrate, previous research (Vandermeerschen et al., 2015) suggests that the ‘Matthew effect’ is at work in club sports, meaning that any club-level organisational capacity generated by previous engagements with policy initiatives fosters not only a willingness to respond to new policy initiatives, but also increases the capacity to enter new application processes, carry out ‘deliverables’, and adequately report on them. In that sense, the make-up of the specific instruments used in implementation processes may also (mis)match clubs’ willingness. This suggests that policy actors need to be careful in how they construct instruments so that they fall within the horizon of what the club can ‘imagine doing’.
Based on the above, we aim to develop a typology that outlines how sports clubs’ varying organisational identities structure their willingness to implement integrative measures. We pursue this aim by examining how VSCs differ with regard to the identity-defining features of core purpose, target groups and activities, as well as the logic of action that underpins their commitment to integrative activities. We thereafter discuss policy considerations related to (un)appropriate senders/intermediaries, cultural content/framing and instrumentation of policy programmes given their (mis)alignment with the organisational identity of the club types.
Method
The analysis is based on data constructed in the project ‘Integration of newly arrived migrants through organised sport – from European policy to local sports clubs practice (INAMOS)’ (Nagel et al., 2022). Based on a multi-level analytical framework (Ehnold et al., 2024), the following data units were examined in the project: (1) the policy contexts of and policies/programmes for promoting integration, (2) the operations of VSCs and (3) the impressions and experiences of club members, particularly migrants. In this paper, we make use of data constructed in the qualitative and cross-national VSC-study – in 30 case study reports – in order to capture the clubs’ core purpose and practices, target groups and rationales for action. In addition, data on policy contexts and policies collected in the project were used to elucidate the contextual dimensions of sender/intermediary, cultural content and instrument.
Case-study design
To collect detailed information on sports clubs’ organisational identities, a qualitative approach was instrumental. In addition, a multiple case study design allowed in-depth insights into organisational practices and developments (Stake, 1995), and made it possible to capture the complexity of the situation and underlying processes in order to develop a holistic understanding (e.g., Skille, 2013). This approach availed for an investigation of each VSC (the ‘case’) in detail and within its real-world context (Yin, 2014). All through the larger project, we followed a holistic multi-case study design (Yin, 2014) by analysing social integration in organised sport with a specific focus on specific programmes or own initiatives in sports clubs in five European countries (Denmark, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland).
Sampling
Generating knowledge on why VSCs engage in integrative work required a sampling of clubs that were active in this field. The identification of such clubs was based on a mapping of policy programmes on national levels (see Fahlén and Stenling, 2022), aiming to promote and support social integration of migrants and refugees in VSCs. The mapping helped us identify six clubs per country with current or previous engagement in specific integration through sport programmes or own initiative.
With an eye towards variety, the cross-national design facilitated the selection of sports clubs (n = 30) with a wide variety in institutional and socio-political contexts as well as structural characteristics such as local neighbourhood/regional settlement structure, size (i.e., number of members), and type of sports in their repertoire. Sport federations and public sports offices aided recruitment by sharing information on programmes and contact details to clubs. We recruited centrally positioned decision makers (e.g., chairperson and/or leaders) with extensive knowledge about their club's internal life and the integrative programme. As we relied on clubs’ voluntary participation, we encouraged them to provide us with the most suitable (in their own view) interviewee. This meant that formal positions varied across the sample, although guided by the common principle of getting hold of respondents with extensive knowledge. Across the 30 clubs, 51 interviewees (25 female and 26 male) were recruited to expert interviews (Trinczek, 2009).
Data collection
Data were collected using problem-centred interviews, which are particularly suitable for conducting expert interviews because of their focus on ‘exploring, systematising, or generating theoretical and insider knowledge about certain issues’ (Witzel and Reiter, 2012: 21). The interviews were designed according to the logic of problem-centred interviews and therefore sought to elicit ‘knowledge derived from practical everyday experience’ (Bogner and Menz, 2009: 47).
Respondents were informed about the aim and scope of the study, and data collection followed the ethical requirements of the respective countries. Interviews were conducted face-to-face in club settings or other contexts convenient and safe for the respondents, or via Teams, Zoom or other similar distance-spanning software. Following pseudonymisation to prevent identification, data were handled and stored in accordance with national laws in the respective countries and local regulations at the respective higher education institutions.
Data analysis
After transcription, data were coded and analysed in four steps, with the last two specific to the analysis reported in this paper. In a first step, a manual with rules for coding was developed as two of the participating researchers coded the first cases independently and then discussed codes to agree on definitions and coding rules, for example, for ‘club goals’, ‘programme roll-out’. Employing qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2022), coding was supported using an inductive approach to allow for the detection of novel and more differentiated content. Intersubjective comprehensibility and validity (Lamnek and Krell, 2024) were ensured with a systematic, rule-guided content analysis (Schnell et al., 2023).
In a second step, a larger group of researchers from all participating countries involved in the analysis procedures met to discuss and agree on the codebook and the emerging category system. Once applied to the data from all participating countries, five country-specific case reports detailing social integration practices in each of the participating six clubs were generated.
In a third step, the country reports were analysed by employing the analytical constructs ‘core purpose and practices’, ‘target groups’ and ‘rationales for action’ (Glynn, 2008; March and Olsen, 1989; Stenling and Fahlén, 2016), in order to identify clubs’ organisational identities. This step involved a classification of characteristics along these dimensions, resulting in the description of five ideal club types (Swedberg, 2018). The aim of this typification was to ensure maximum internal homogeneity with maximum heterogeneity between the types (Kelle and Kluge, 2010). As opposed to empirical categories, ideal types are heuristic devices that are formed from the characteristics and elements observed; however, no single club corresponded to an ideal type. To Weber (2001), ideal types are tools for analytical accentuation through which we can synthesise ‘individual components [of empirical observations] as historical reality presents them to us… We select in their sharpest, most consistent form those individual features which we find exerting their effect there in a variously arranged, fractured, more or less consistent and complete way, more or less mixed with other heterogeneous features, and combine them according to how they belong together, so producing an “ideal-typical” concept’ (106–107). Effectively, this means that we concentrate certain features (described in the third step above) to construct conceptual abstractions that help us illustrate broader empirical variation.
To prepare for our discussion, these five types were examined in a fourth and final analytical step with an eye towards the previously outlined policy dimensions of ‘sender/intermediary’, ‘cultural content and framing’ and ‘instrument’ (Fahlén and Stenling, 2022) in order to construct recommendations on how public authorities and sport federations may best stimulate and support club-level processes around integrative programming.
Findings and discussion
A typology based on clubs’ organisational identities
In the following, the five ideal club types generated from our analysis are presented according to the core elements (i.e., core purpose and practices, target groups and rationales for action) (Glynn, 2008; March and Olsen, 1989; Stenling and Fahlén, 2016) of their organisational identities (see also Table 1).
(Ideal-) types of VSCs’ willingness to engage in integrative programming (based on the concept of organisational identity).
The Integration Club
The core purpose of The Integration Club is to actively use sport as a vehicle to integrate individuals with a migration background into the society in which the club resides. Society, in this context, can be both the country in question as well as the local neighbourhood, village or town. Therefore, the primary target group can be very specific (e.g., refugees, asylum-seekers and first-generation migrants in the vicinity of the club) or more general (all interested individuals with migrant backgrounds). The core practice provided is a variety of competitive sport activities exercised in both formal league systems and informal sessions, not intended as preparation for local, regional and national competitions. These practices are accompanied by social, non-sport activities with the purpose of creating a welcoming and convivial atmosphere (e.g., language cafés) and an entry point for individuals not specifically interested in sport. The club's rationale for action is primarily to integrate individuals with a migrant background in the host society in the sense that it sees itself as an important actor with broader societal ambitions in the context of integration through sport. For these clubs, the engagement in promoting social integration of migrants is their main objective, i.e., integrative work has a direct function for the club. Thus, The Integration Club has an intrinsic willingness to implement programmes and measures for people with a migration background.
The Social Club
Somewhat counterintuitive to the conception of a VSC, the core purpose of The Social Club is not about doing sports. Instead, it centres on the idea of providing a sense of community and network platforms for social networks where sport practices are one among many social activities. Therefore, the club's primary target group consists of individuals needing or having restricted access to the community due to personal circumstances such as a limited financial capacity or absence of other forms of social networks. In that sense, the target group is not necessarily individuals with a migrant background but what is commonly characterised as vulnerable groups (cf. Fernández-Gavira et al., 2017: 312, women, ethnic minorities, prisoners, substance abusers, the homeless, immigrants, etc.). Practices are tailored to fit individuals with little or no experience of sport, and rather than formal and traditional competitive sport activities, they are therefore akin to physical activity of a so-called low-threshold nature. The Social Club's rationale for action is based on the idea of social responsibility in that it draws on the argument that it opens doors that should already be open. Rooted in the basic and widespread idea that sport should be accessible for all, the club takes issue with the fact that many sport activities are expensive, demand certain skill levels and builds on a very specific understanding of what it means to be a member. The main goal of The Social Club is to promote and foster social networks and communities for the whole population. This club type, therefore has an intrinsic willingness to implement social programmes, albeit not always with an integrative ambition, that are combined with sports and physical activities.
The Social Sport Club
The core purpose of the Social Sport Club is to offer a social setting that is based mainly on doing sports. However, focusing on the social dimension of sport involves an emphasis on fostering social skills, rather than on developing sport-specific skills. Consequently, the Social Sport Club is set on welcoming all, as opposed to specific target groups such a migrants, yet it makes an effort to signal that the offered activities are not associated with high costs or skill requirements. Participants are commonly residents in the vicinity of the club, but activities can also have a broader reach when the club does outreach activities to recruit participants from different vulnerable groups. The club type tends to be located in socio-culturally diverse settings, which means that many participants have a migrant background. The practices exercised in The Social Sport Club are a mix of formal competitive sport and low-threshold activities in the form of formal competitive sport (e.g., practices, games, leagues and tournaments), and informal sport practices where the ambition is limited to club-internal competitions. The Social Sport Club's rationale for action thus follows the idea of ‘sport-for-all’.
The Sport Club+
Discussions on VSCs’ integrative potential are often carried out with the image of The Sport Club + type in mind. The core purpose of this type is to offer conventional sport activities, but with various sport-for-all and integration activities as an add-on. The inclusionary ambitions of the latter can take the form of reaching out to or welcoming vulnerable or underrepresented groups in general, or individuals with migrant backgrounds specifically. However, being also a club that offers conventional sport activities, The Sport Club + is characterised by many features associated with a conventional VSC. Thus, its core activities are sport-specific practices, and engaging in leagues, cups, tournaments and other forms of competitions. This club type's primary target group is undefined, insofar as an explicit effort to welcome all is made. However, it is well defined in terms of primarily addressing residents in the vicinity of the club. This target group focus carries over to the integration activities the club organises, wherein local residents with a migrant background and vulnerable/underrepresented groups are offered a variety of low-threshold, as opposed to conventional, activities that are underpinned by multiple rationales. Whereas some activities are motivated by external arguments, such as social responsibility, others are based on internal arguments, such as member acquisition. The rationale for the action of the Sport Club+ is thus to engage both in activities that contribute to social cohesion in the local community and in those that further club-internal and traditionally oriented objectives.
The Traditional Sport Club
The core purpose of The Traditional Sport Club is to organise competitive sport in its conventional and traditional form (e.g., practicing specific sports, participating in leagues, cups, tournaments and other forms of competition). As such, it does not have a very specific target group but welcomes all interested in the sport/s in question, although children and youth constitute a majority of participants. As with the other club types, The Traditional Sport Club is a local organisation that primarily speaks to residents in the club's vicinity. Therefore, immigrants are a target group because the club is located in an immigrant-dense neighbourhood. The club's core activities (training and competing) are closely related to the core purpose and, in that sense, not different from the activities found in clubs residing elsewhere. This club type's rationale for action is to grow its membership base and sporting success, and in this context, the social or ethnic background of new members is of little importance. More participants help the club to secure its existing teams and their performance, and in the long run, the club's overall existence. Furthermore, engagement in integrating migrant people can help to improve public reputation and gain access to sport facilities. Thus, arguments for integrative work in The Traditional Sport Club draw on the internal rationale that diversity as a resource helps to fulfil club goals and is good for long-term success. Integration of migrant people is more of a side-effect and opportunity in this club because of its main focus on members’ interest in practicing certain sports.
A cross-type summary and comparison
If we consider the organisational identity-defining elements, core purpose, practices and target group (Glynn, 2008; Stenling and Fahlén, 2016), there are both distinctions and similarities among the identified types (see Table 1).
As shown in Table 1, The Integration Club uses sport as a tool for integrating residents with migration backgrounds, whereas The Social Club and The Social Sport Club have a broader target group and provide social platforms for community building for various vulnerable groups. Thus, these three relatively outward-oriented types further differentiate The Social Fostering Club conceptualised by Stenling and Fahlén (2016). In all three types in our study, the core practice consists of a variety of mainly low-threshold sport and physical activities, as well as purely social events. Whereas The Integration Club and The Social Sport Club have a clear focus on the practice of various sports, The Social Club offers sport activities as only one form of social activities to promote social networks and integration (see also intercultural clubs for women with migration background: Adler Zwahlen et al., 2017). In contrast, the core purpose of The Sport Club+ and The Traditional Sport Club is conventional sports and welcoming all people in the vicinity of the club.
The five types can also be distinguished by their different rationales for action (March and Olsen, 1989; Stenling and Fahlén, 2016). Whereas The Integrative Club engages in conduct that furthers the integration of people with a migration background, The Social Club seeks to promote and foster social networks and community for all, and The Social Sport Club seeks to guarantee sport-for-all and sport participation as a right. In line with ideas around diversity management, the rationales of these three types can therefore be interpreted in relation to the socio-normative mandate expectation for clubs to take responsibility for societal issues and fulfilling socio-political functions (e.g., Nagel et al., 2020). In contrast, The Traditional Sport Club follows a functional logic in the sense that integrative work is viewed as a means to fulfil non-integrative related club goals (e.g., member recruitment, improving sport performance, enhancing public reputation) (Cunningham, 2019). Thus, integration is more of a side-effect of (competitive) sport activities that contribute to achieving member interests. Finally, the rationale of The Sport Club+ is a mixture of normative and functional arguments. This club type intends to contribute to social cohesion in the local community, thus getting a reputation and legitimation, as well as to promote club goals simultaneously. This is in line with current debates in diversity research showing how a mix and synthesis of functional (benefit-oriented) and normative (fairness-oriented) arguments might be useful (e.g., Funder et al., 2023).
Implications of the club types for policy actors, based on the policy programming dimensions
The impetus for this paper was an escalating need for measures that support social integration, governments’ continued use of VSCs as targeted vehicles for such measures, along with the body of literature that fails to address why VSCs respond to policy calls and become policy implementers or develop their own initiatives. Accordingly, the further aim of this paper has been to aid policy actors in their development and promotion of programmes aimed at sports-based integration by detailing and explaining VSCs’ varying willingness to implement measures and initiatives that contribute to the social integration of people with migrant backgrounds.
The five ideal types described in the previous section are the outcome of our application of this theoretical understanding to a rich dataset. In the context of this paper, the significance of these ideal types lies in their policy implications and, based on Fahlén and Stenling (2022), we propose sender/intermediary, cultural content and framing and instrument as three dimensions of the policy programming that may vary in the extent to which they stimulate each club type's potential engagement with integrative measures. These aspects of the policy context can (and must) be managed to stimulate interest in and action with sport for integrative programming. Our analysis, therefore has practical value for policy actors in terms of efforts to mobilise clubs to respond to and engage with integration through sport initiatives. The rationale for action associated with each club type is the instrumental ‘bridge’ between clubs’ inner life and their policy context, and thus Table 2 provides an overview of important policy actor considerations in relation to the policy programming dimensions of interest.
Club types’ rationales for action and their implications for policy actors.
Sender/intermediary
This dimension denotes the relationship between clubs’ willingness to engage with integration programmes and the degree and nature of their interdependence with policy actors. Consequently, the kind of policy actor that is well positioned as a programme sender and/or intermediary will vary between club types. As Table 2 illustrates, policy agents outside of established sport structures (e.g., immigrant agencies) are likely to catch the attention of The Integration Club, The Social Club and The Sport Club+ because their social integrative raison d’êtres aligns with those of such actors. However, even among these types, there is a variety in the best potential sender/intermediary-club matches. For example, whereas The Integration Club might have both familiarity and identity-level alignment with integration-specific policy actors, The Social Club's rationale for action makes welfare-oriented agents tasked with addressing social and economic inequality in a broader sense (e.g., local social services) well placed as programme sender/intermediaries.
The Social Sport Club, The Sport Club+ and The Traditional Sport Club, on the other hand, are highly nested in established sport structures and therefore poised to respond to programme calls from central and regional sport policy actors (e.g., National Sport Federations and Regional Sport Federations) which can then profit from their established networks and knowledge. But again, there is a distinction between the three types, with the two former better aligned with actors that promote sport-for-all and the latter with agents that represent sport performance. The variety among club types on this dimension aside, clubs are locally embedded phenomena (Skille and Stenling, 2018), which implies that actors at the local and regional level, almost regardless of their orientation, can profit from the familiarity, networks and knowledge in roll-out processes of programmes (Borggrefe and Cachay, 2021).
Cultural content/framing
This dimension relates to objectives embedded in a programme and how they are framed in ways that (mis)align with clubs’ varying identity types and associated rationales for action (Fahlén and Stenling, 2022). It is important to note that clubs may ‘do the same thing, but for different reasons’ (Stenling, 2015: 70). Thus, the straightforward and normative link between programmes whose primary and stated goal is to achieve social integrative objectives of various sorts (i.e., immigrant integration, community-building and rights-based sport participation respectively) and The Integration Club, The Social Club and The Social Sport Club may lead actors to overlook the potential that lies in the functional rationales for action that guide The Sport Club+ and The Traditional Sport Club, two types that likely constitute a large portion of the sport club population in most national contexts (e.g., Stenling and Fahlén, 2016). The Traditional Sport Club, for example, may be eager to be part of programmes with social integrative objectives on the condition that additional gains for sport performance operations can be discerned. In that sense, from the perspective of this dimension, the pool of prospective participating clubs is larger than immediately conceivable, but an ‘intercultural opening’ (Borggrefe and Cachay, 2021) of clubs requires a differentiated framing of programmes so as to link both with clubs whose identities overlap with integrative objectives, and those who considers the achievement of them as side-effects of performance-oriented activities (Dowling, 2020; Elmose-Østerlund et al., 2020).
Instrument
The third and final dimension refers to the concrete means by which policy actors wield their power to conduct interventions and thereby restructure behaviour (Bemelmans-Videc, 2007). As Table 2 demonstrates, club types vary with regards to their potential responsiveness along this dimension, too. For example, instruments embedded in sport-specific funding schemes may go unnoticed or even create an aversion with The Social Club-type due to their perceived affiliation with competitive sport. Should sport policy actors wish to support this club type, they may therefore consider channelling funds via for example municipal social service agencies, because they are likely to have both local knowledge and a raison d’être that aligns with the club type. On the other hand, The Traditional Sport Club's unfamiliarity with complex funding structures makes easily understood instruments with low administrative requirements more suitable with this type. On the third hand, the competence, agility and flexibility in relation to pursuits of additional funding to support core activities among clubs of the Sport Club+-type, makes multiple funding schemes possible.
The overall variety in the five types displayed in Table 2 show that a ‘one-policy-fits-all’ approach that address all sports clubs equally by publicly funded integration programmes should be avoided. Instead, the focus should be on differentiated approaches that take into account the variety of organisational logics or identities of sports clubs that guide their rationale of action. This requires on the side of policy actors capacities and competencies to identify different club types (based on their logics) and addressing them accordingly through targeted program content and support. Accordingly, differences along the three dimensions of sender, cultural content and instruments have to be considered in tailor-made policy programmes for promoting integration via VSCs.
Concluding remarks, limitations and suggestions for future research
The aim of the explorative multi-case study design was to develop ideal types (as conceptual abstractions that help us illustrate broader empirical variation) regarding the willingness of VSCs to implement programmes and initiatives for social integration of people with migration backgrounds. Given the broad selection of case studies in five European countries, it can be assumed with some caution that the five types cover a broad range of different organisational identities of VSCs in the context of engaging in social integration. Here, the goal of the study was not to make statements about how frequently types can be observed in the sports club landscape or to what extent there are differences between clubs in the various countries. To clarify how frequently the different types can be observed, a further quantitative analysis could be carried out based on our findings. Further research can also expand the context of the five European countries with similar sport systems and explore the question of willingness of VSCs to engage in social integration in a broader geographical context. Additionally, future research can analyse in comprehensive case studies the roll-out process of tailored integrative programmes for different types of VSC and thereby empirically test our assumption that different policies may be varyingly useful for the various types of organisational identity.
The novel approach of exploring different types of willingness, and the resulting typology, provide knowledge that can help policy makers in upscaling the number of VSCs that engage in integrative programmes with tailored initiatives and measures for people with a migration background. The idea of developing a typology based on the concept of organisational identity might be useful for analysing and promoting the contribution of VSCs also in the context of other socio-political functions or current issues such as diversity management or sustainable development.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable contribution to this article from research partners in the project ‘Integration of newly arrived migrants through organised sport – from European policy to local sports clubs practice (INAMOS)’: Sarah Schlunegger (née Vögtli), University of Bern, Switzerland; Andreas Gohritz, IST University of Management Düsseldorf, Germany; Mathilde Skov Kristensen & Eva Berthelsen Schmidt, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark; Justin Robar, Western University, Canada; Henning Jarck, Ruhr University Bochum, Germany.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union.
