Unpacking the Sport for Development Discourse

Theoretical basis and transformation of the NGO Right To Play

2004

Lotta Westerberg1

“State parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and
recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child….”

Convention of the Rights of the Child, Art.31:1

1
Swedish National with a Bachelor’s of Arts in Political Science from Stephen F. Austin State University, USA and
a Master in International Development from Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver,
USA. She recruited RTP’s first Swedish Athletic Ambassador (Carolina Klüft). Ms. Klüft partnered with RTP in
May 2004 and later went on to win the gold medal in Hepathlon in the Olympic Games in Athens.
1. Introduction

Many recognize the importance of early childhood development, as this period in the life
cycle provides a widow of opportunity to break the vicious intergenerational cycle of limited
education for children from poor families. However, research in this area has mostly focused on
the impairing affect of undernutrition on the mental and physical ability of children, and research
has established that the impact of insults suffered in early childhood (resulting in growth failure,
for example) is often irreversible or is far more expensive to cure than to prevent (Balachander
1999). In recent years, however, with the development of the Sport for Development discourse,
the mental and physical benefits of play, together with an adequate nutrition/health, is
increasingly recognized. Since this is a rather new discourse, there is not much quantative
research from the developing world to fall back on.2 However, 2005 has been designated the
“International Year for Sport and Physical Education” and the United Nations has set up an
interagency task force focusing on sport and development, hence this discourse is increasingly
gaining recognition. While this paper will not provide any additional quantative evidence
demonstrating a negative correlation between physical activities, child development, and adult
capabilities in the developing world, it will aim to help unpack the theoretical basis of the Sport
for Development discourse by looking at the creation and the transformation of the international
non-governmental organization (NGO) Right To Play.

2. Overview of Right To Play

2.1 Mission

Right To Play is an international NGO committed to improving the lives of the most
disadvantaged children and their communities through the concept of Sport for Development. 3
The foundation of the Sport for Development discourse is the belief that by engaging children in
physical activity it will enhance their healthy ‘physical’ and ‘psychosocial’ development and

2
Research exists (Martinek et. al. 1980: Hughes 1999) from the developed world describing the importance of
physical activity and child development; however, there is a lack of research from the developing world focusing on
how the lack of play during childhood negatively affects the potential to break the cycle of poverty in adulthood.
3
Right To Play never makes an attempt to separately define the concepts “play” and “sport,” rather the terms are
used interchangeably. The only clarification of either concept on the website states, “Sport programs must be crafted
to uphold the values of development -- equity, inclusion and sustainability” (www.righttoplay.org/sport_dev.asp).

2
build stronger communities. Essentially, the aim of the Right To Play is two fold; personal
development and community development. These two aspects are believed to be very
interrelated and interdependent. According to its philosophy, personal development is essential
to rebuild community capacity, as the community is only as strong as the sum of its components.
Play/sport, it is implied, teaches valuable life skills essential for rebuilding a perceived destroyed
social capital within war torn communities. The organization alleges that play/sport teaches
children such essential life skills such as teamwork, fair play, trust, self-confidence, and respect.
Further, play/sport is at the center of its approach not only because it is seen necessary for
optimal development of human and community capabilities, but also because it is seen as a
universal aspect binding communities together.

2.2 Structure

Right to Play believes that well designed play/sport programs put children on a positive
path to healthy development. The motto of the organization, “Look After Yourself, Look After
One Another” symbolizes Right To Play's aim is to be a catalyst for a social movement to
improve health by harnessing the “full humanitarian potential of sport” (www.righttoplay.org).
The idea is that play/sport does not only teach children to look after their bodies, but also teaches
them that in order to play we need each other. Through programs and communications efforts,
Right To Play hopes to use this philosophy to promote positive health behaviors and bring
awareness, understanding, and funding to important health issues.
One important aspect of the organization is the support of its Athlete Ambassadors,
which is a network of Olympic and professional athletes who donate their time to give back
through sports. The hope is that the support of these athletes inspires children, and helps raise
Right to Play’s profile at the local and international levels, and further attracts funders for the
organization and its programs.
Essentially, Right To Play implements programs for children in the most disadvantaged
communities, such as refugee populations, former child combatants, and children orphaned by
HIV/AIDS. Currently programs are being implemented in Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea,
Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Zambia, Pakistan and Thailand.
Many of these programs, which will be discussed in detail later, are implemented in corporation

3
with other multilateral organizations and international NGOs.4 Right To Play also cooperate
closely with several North American and European governments.5

3. History of Right to Play

3.1 Overview

The history of Right To Play, due to its close cooperation with the United Nations,
mirrors the new approaches within development theory advocated by the UN in the last decade.
The creation of the then called Olympic Aid occurred a few years after the first UN Human
Development Report, with acknowledging the importance of non-economic factors for
development by sponsoring programs focusing on education and health. Then, during the late
1990s and in early 2000s, it became a human rights focused organization, in accordance with the
2000 Human Development Report focusing on Rights for Development.

3.2 The Creation of Olympic Aid: Olympic Athletes raise awareness

The organization currently known as Right To Play got its beginnings at the 1994 Winter
Olympics in Lillehammer, Norway. The Lillehammer Olympic Organizing Committee (LOOC)
created the concept Olympic Aid, which was focused on showing support for people in war torn
countries and areas of distress. The initial goal of Olympic Aid was to help raise funds and
awareness of programs implemented by such organizations such as the Red Cross and Save the
Children. These programs focused on enhancing infrastructure, such as building schools and
hospitals, and supporting refugees and other disadvantaged children. The basic assumption of the
Olympic Aid movement was that Olympic Athletes, as public figures, would be able to raise
awareness for these programs already in place. During the six years following its creation,
Olympic Aid continued to raise funds, with close cooperation with the UN, for different
programs, many focusing on health education.

4
Current implementing partners include: the United Nations, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF,
International Labour Organization, World Health Organization, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization,
and The Vaccine Fund.
5
Canada, the United States, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland.

4
3.3 Transition to Direct Implementation: Sport as a development tool?

By 2001, Olympic Aid had mobilized several Olympic Athletes to support its movement,
and now they wondered what the limits of this group’s support should be. Further, they asked
themselves; how instrumental is sport as a tool (means) for development? As a result of this
discussion, Olympic Aid started to implement its own programs, called “Sports Work,” which
focuses on engaging disadvantaged children in different physical activities. Further, during the
2002 Winter Olympics, Olympic Aid hosted a Roundtable Forum, bringing together global
leaders in health, sports, and development to discuss what benefits sports can have for
development. The focus of the discussion was the role of sports regarding five development
issues: vaccination, tobacco-free sport, HIV-AIDS prevention, and the rehabilitation of refugees.6
In the end, play/sport was seen as tools to advance child and community development.

3.4 Transition to Right to Play: The right to play is essential for development

This discussion led to the next transition for the organization. The organization, which
had gone from arguing that Olympic Athletes can help bring awareness to asking whether
play/sport could be a tool for development, now started to argue that play/sport is an essential
tool for development. The organization also shifted to more of a human rights approach, based
on the 1989 Covenant of the Rights of Children, advocating every child’s right to play.7 Hence,
play was no longer seen as just a tool for development, it was now also seen as an end of
development. In early 2003, the organization changed its name to Right To Play, about the same
time as a UN task force of experts submitted a report containing recommendations for an
increased role of sport to realize the Millennium Goals, arguing that “sport…improve[s] the lives
of the people – and particularly young people” (“Goal! Sport and the Millennium Development

6
The focus on these five issues reflects the need in the area in which Right To Play operate; in disadvantaged
communities, such as refugee camps, in Africa. The difficulty of reaching children in war torn communities with
vaccination lead to the close cooperation with the Vaccine Fund and GAVI, and hence the focus on vaccinations.
The focus on HIV/AIDS is due to the high prevalence of this disease, and its orphans, in many of the countries in
which Right To Play operates. The focus on tobacco free sport is because of the limitations tobacco puts on a person
to pursue physical activities, and the non-communicable diseases that can be a consequence of addiction. While the
first four aspects focus on the basic health benefits, the rehabilitation of refugees focuses on the psychological
trauma that affect many refugee children. By discussing this aspect, the organization recognizes the need for an all
around physical and mental health.
7
The organization always supported the right of children to play, as recognized in the 1989 Convention of the
Rights of the Child (Article 31); however, the shift changed the organization from being a supporter to being an
advocator.

5
Goals” – emphasis added). The present focus of the organization is obvious in its currently
distributed mission statement:

“Right To Play is a humanitarian, non-governmental organization (NGO) committed to improving the

lives of the most disadvantaged children and their communities through Sport for Development. Sport for
Development evolved out of the growing evidence that strengthening the right of children to play
enhances their healthy physical and psychosocial development and builds stronger communities.”

http://www.righttoplay.com/overview.asp

Next, this paper seeks to analyze the theoretical base of the two goals of the organization
expressed in its mission statement, healthy ‘physical’ and ‘psychosocial’ child development and
community development, in order to decipher and clarify the new concept of Sport for
Development.

4. “Healthy physical and psychosocial development”

4.1 Overview

The name “Right To Play” implies that the organization views play/sport as an inherent
human right, and the goals of the organization implies that this right is viewed as essential for
development. Amartya Sen was the first to bring a truly human rights perspective into the
development discourse. Essentially, Sen argued against the concept that economic growth is the
end of development. He argued that development should be more concerned with “enhancing the
lives we lead and the freedoms we enjoy” (Sen 1999:14), and to give people the ability to
exercise these freedoms. Later, Martha Nussbaum, one of Sen’s colleagues, centered her
discussion on ‘capability’ and ‘functioning,’ instead of freedoms. She makes the distinction of
‘capabilities’ to be healthy (such as access/affordability of nutrition and healthcare), and the
action of living a healthy life (exercising, etc), which she terms ‘functioning.’ Human rights,
Nussbaum argues, is a combination of these aspects.
The influence of such scholars such as Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum on the Right
To Play’s philosophy is apparent. The organization have progressed from focusing only on

6
‘capabilities,’ for example by supporting the rebuilding of health infrastructure, to also
incorporating ‘functioning’ into its programs, by shifting its focus towards programs that aim to
give children the tools for ‘full functioning’ in society. This is evident by its distinction between
“physical” (capabilities) and “psychosocial” (functioning) development in its mission statement.
The two main programs that the organization currently operates, “Sport Health” and “Sport
Works,” reflect these two goals.

4.2 ‘Capabilities’: “Sport Health” Programs and ‘Physical’ Development

The Sport Health programs

Right To Play’s Sport Health Program uses the “convening power of sport” to provide
health education and encourage healthy lifestyles behaviors, with a special focus on vaccination,
HIV/AIDS prevention, and physical fitness. “Sport Health” project coordinators and
communications coordinators are based in urban centers and, in addition to running play/sport
programs through schools, youth groups and other outlets; they implement social mobilization
campaigns around important national health issues. The social mobilization campaigns are about
delivering health messages using the “convening and carrying power of sport and play”
(www.righttoplay.org – emphasis added). Right To Play argues that sport has a natural and
universal power to attract, inspire, motivate and engage, and since sport is “everywhere” it has a
“capacity” to move people– emotionally and physically. By highlighting “the strong links”
between health, development, and sport, Right To Play see the opportunity to address childhood
health priorities of vaccinations, nutrition, hygiene, malaria, HIV/AIDS, maternal care and to
improve the health and well-being of some of the most disadvantaged communities in the world.
Essentially, the “Sport Health” programs are delivered on three levels: local programs for
children, national social mobilization campaigns, and the global social implementation
campaigns. A country in which all of these levels have been incorporated is Ghana. Right To
Play has operated a “Sport Health” program in the capital of Accra since 2001. During this time,
the organization has established relationships with both local and international organizations as
well as with the Ministries of Health and Education. As a result, Right To Play has established a
partnership with the Expanded Program for Immunization (EPI), which will result in locally
trained volunteers assisting with social mobilization, with a priority on the Polio Campaign. In

7
addition, in the northern outskirts of Accra, Right To Play delivers a sport and health program to
communities and schools, while a focusing on delivering health information.

Capabilities the program produces

While Right to Play focuses on ‘functioning,’ they also realize that many of their
constituency does not have the basic ‘capabilities’ to fully engage in these activities, and
therefore they also provide some basic services to enhance their constituency’s ‘capabilities.’
Hence, the aim of the “Sport Health” program is to empower the children in these countries with
the basic ‘capabilities’ needed for sufficient development. The program aims to make sure that
the children in the area, countries, and the programs have adequate nutrition and health in order
to be able to participate in the activities aimed at developing “full functioning” in society.
Essentially, Right To Play focuses on the “threshold capabilities” proposed by Nussbaum.
Nussbaum focuses not on the comparability of ‘capabilities’ between people, but instead of the
“threshold” of what ‘capabilities’ a human need. Instead of using ‘capabilities’ for comparison
purposes, she wants to use them to demonstrate the “thresholds” of human existence in order to
put pressure on governments to provide its citizens with these “basic capabilities” (Nussbaum
2000:12). Hence, these programs aim to raise the awareness for child health issues at the national
and the global level, in order for administrators at this level to take responsibility for the health
of the children. This indicates that while Right To Play rely on the personal contribution of
thousands of volunteers and Athlete Ambassadors, they do support the concept that the state is
ultimately responsible for the health of the children, as it is the state who is the signatory of the
Covenant of the Rights of the Child.

4.3 Functioning: “Sport Works” Programs and ‘Psychosocial’ Development

Sport Works Program

In addition to the many physical benefits, Right To Play believes that play/sport programs
help foster three key protective factors in the well-being of children; (i) resilience, (ii) a
meaningful connection to adults through the coaching relationship and (iii) a sense of safety and
security through regular activity. In addition, play/sport, it is believed, serve as tools to teach

8
important values and life skills including self-confidence, teamwork, communication, inclusion,
discipline, respect, and fair play. The programs that try to encapsulate these aspects are the
“Sport Works” programs. The objectives of these programs are (i) to enhance healthy child
development and, (ii) to develop community capacity by establishing community structures and
building local community ownership through coach and leadership development. Hence, the
“Sport Works” program has two top-level objectives (i) child development and (ii) community
development (the later will be discussed in the section focusing on community development).
The “Sport Works” child development element has two components; the “Red Ball Child
Play” program and “Live Safe, Play Safe” program. The “Red Ball Child Play” program uses the
five Olympic rings as symbols for meaningful personal development. Each ring symbolizes an
aspect of healthy child development: mind, spirit, body, social cooperation, and health. 8 Specific
play activities have been developed to promote each aspect of development. The “Live Safe,
Play Safe” program is a health education program designed to give children knowledge about
personal health and the skills to make the decisions needed to maintain personal health.
Play/sport, Right To Play argues, awaken an interest in one’s body, especially among girls who
may not have thought of their bodies as their own. This interest generates questions about
maintaining health. In recognition of that personal health decisions take place within a social
dynamic, Right To Play designed the “Live Safe, Play Safe” program to use physical activity to
teach children about power relationships, self confidence, assertiveness, and to give them the
knowledge necessary to make the best decisions. In the end, Right To Play also believes that the
“Sport Works” programs will enhance the knowledge of the children to the degree that they now
become personal advocates of the importance of improved health. Since this is an active
engagement in ones own health, it goes beyond the “basic capabilities” approach.

8
The Red Mind Ring represents cognitive and intellectual development. This includes a child's perception of
the world and of themselves; the capacity to learn and build knowledge; and their ability to gain awareness and
insight.
The Black Body Ring represents physical development, including a child's awareness and understanding of
their body.
The Yellow Spirit Ring represents emotional development, relating to the feelings such as joy and
happiness, self-esteem, confidence and a sense of hope and optimism.
The Green Health Ring represents the World Health Organization's definition of health: "a state of
complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."
The Blue Peace Ring represents social development, in terms of a child's relationship with their peers,
family, community and environment.

9
4.4 Linking Practice with Theory

Relationship between capabilities and functioning

According to Sen, it is not enough to give people freedoms, you also have to give them
the tools (teamwork, leadership qualities, trust, self-confidence) to be able to use these freedoms
to fulfill their own potential. For ‘full functioning’ in public social action the individual needs go
beyond ‘basic needs’ and beyond formal rules. The individual needs self-esteem (confidence in
personal abilities – now that individual has a set of abilities and capabilities), a feeling of
belonging (citizenship) and trust in institutions in place. Sen never focuses on what needs to be
done to ensure that people are better at using their freedoms. The re-socialization of a population
who has lived during adverse times through organized interaction with other people, such as
sport/play, is Right To Play’s answer to this question.
Essentially, Right To Play’s “Red Ball Child Play” program seeks to enhance human
capabilities through play/sport, as these activities are seen as increasing children’s ability to
‘function’ in society. However, Right To Play’s “Live Safe, Play Safe” programs encapsulate the
reverse relationship argument that ‘functioning’ enhances ‘capabilities,’ as an improved
psychological state will have favorable affects on an individual’s health. Aaron Antonovsky
argues (1987) that health is not only the absence of disease, but it is also “the process by which
individuals maintain their sense of coherence (i.e. sense that life is comprehensive, manageable,
and meaningful) and ability to function in the face of changes in themselves and their
relationships with their environment" (Antonovsky 1987). The “Live Safe, Play Safe” program
teaches children how to become aware of their own bodies, and the rights they have over their
own bodies. This certainly teaches the children how they, as physical beings, are related to the
surrounding environment; it teaches them how and where they belong.

Functioning in childhood and capabilities in adulthood

While Sen and Nussbaum primarily focus on adults in their discussions, Nussbaum also
brings up the fact that the socialization during childhood affects an individual’s potential in
adulthood. She argues that, as adult citizens are concerned, the political agenda should be to
focus on ‘capabilities,’ instead of ‘functioning,’ as she does not want to “push individuals into
functioning” (Nussbaum 2000:88). At the same time, she argues, that ‘functioning’ in childhood

10
is necessary for ‘capability’ in adulthood. More specifically, she argues that certain types of
‘functioning’ in childhood “is frequently necessary to produce a mature adult capability”
(Nussbaum 2000:90). Nussbaum actually incorporates the concept of play in her argument of
‘capabilities.’ She argues that while ‘basic capabilities,’ such as seeing and hearing, develop
naturally, ‘internal capabilities,’ such as knowledge of the native language, “develop only with
support from the surrounding environment, as when one learns to play with others…”
(Nussbaum 2000:84). However, Nussbaum also argues that the ‘capability’ to play does not have
as much of an affect on economic growth and political functioning as other capabilities, 9 and this
is in sharp contrast to the philosophy of Right To Play. Its emphasis on ‘functioning’ have led the
organization to render that sport/play is an essential tool for development (as well as an end of
development), and that every child’s right to play is due to its right to develop ‘full functioning’
within society. The development of this ‘full functioning’ in childhood will contribute to more
productive adults, which will be beneficial for economic growth and political development.
Essentially, Right To Play’s combination of focusing on ‘capabilities’ and ‘functioning’
for children should in the long-run produce more productive adults within the society. However,
Nussbaum argues that participation in the activities focusing of ‘functioning’ needs to remain
voluntary, as “play is not play if it is enforced” (Nussbaum 2000:88). However, when it comes to
children who have never had the opportunity to play, one might argue that a little encouragement
might be necessary to get them to participate in playful activities. If participation in playful
activities leads to healthier, both physically and emotionally, children, Nussbaum does agree that
some encouragement, or “insisting,” may be legitimate (Nussbaum 2000:90).10

5. Building Stronger Communities

5.1 Overview

Right To Play, and the general Sport for Development discourse, emphasizes that
play/sport does not only lead to personal development, but it can also help “build community
capacity” (www.righttoplay.org). This aspect is important, because just as the individuals within
9
“…states must be concerned with all the capabilities, even when these seem not so useful for economic growth, or
even for political functioning. A particularly interesting case is the capability to play” (Nussbaum 2000:90)
10
“…it seems legitimate to insist on the health, emotional well-being, bodily integrity, and dignity of children in a
way that does not take their choices into account” (Nussbaum 2000:90).

11
the network affect the network, the individuals themselves are affected by the structure of the
network (Long 2001). For example, Nussbaum argues that for ‘full functioning’ of ‘capabilities,’
they need to be combined with favorable external circumstances suitable for “the exercise of the
function” (Nussbaum 85:2000). Many of the places in which Right To Play operates do not
provide optimal external environments, hence the additional focus on rebuilding communities.
The affect play/sport programs have on a community is two-fold; it can operate as a unifying
force in a diverse setting, and it can help rebuild the social infrastructure of the community. The
aspects of the Sport Works program that focuses on community development, incorporates both
of these concepts.

5.2 Community Development Programs

Right To Play is a strong advocator of the power of involved community development to
improve the living conditions of a population, and therefore they emphasizes the importance of
building strong communities. Through its programs, the organization aims to develop skills and
confidence, as well as connections among the adults. Right To Play contributes to the
development of this capacity by building capacity in the community to manage play/sport
programs for all the children. This, Right To Play argues, reconnects adults and children in the
community (which we have seen is vital to child development); builds community capacity (the
confidence adults and youth gain as coaches transfers to other areas of their lives); and achieves
development goals as people learn to take charge of their own future and gain a sense of control
over their lives (www.righttoplay.com). Right To Play promotes this community development
through its “Coach2Coach” module of the “Sport Works” program and by the creation of Sport
Works Groups and Sport Leagues.
“Coach2Coach” is a training module for local adults and young adults. Coach training is
delivered using the child development principles of the “Red Ball Child Play,” and in general
areas of leadership, project management, and the running of teams and leagues. Training
emphasizes practical methodologies to teach theory. Coaches are encouraged to seek further
challenges by delivering regular programs to children (such as implementing “Red Ball Child
Play” in schools; coaching a team; training other coaches; managing special events). “Sport
Works” coaches also help establish “Sport Works groups” to ensure that the community is
actively involved. These groups, which include men, women and youths of different ethnicities

12
and levels of ability, are established to work with Coaches to implement regular play/sport
programs with children. In addition, “Sport Works” coaches also help develop sport leagues
within the community or strengthen existing league activities.

5.3 Linking Practice with Theory

Sport/Play programs as a unifying force

Right To Play administers several programs in areas with a perceived depleted

community infrastructure, depleted because of natural disasters, war etc. It is perceived that these
societies, which often are refugee camps, have no common ideology holding them together, and
play/sport is seen as a universally accepted entity being able to fill this gap. This philosophy can
be traced back to a structural functionalism approach, or, more specifically, Durkheim’s
sociological functionalism. While Durkheim views religion as the glue holding a society
together for the benefit of a group (Peet et. al. 1999), the Sport for Development discourse
substitutes religion for sport; a reasonable substitution considering the tendencies of religion to
cause additional conflict. Right To Play argues that sport should fill the place of a unifying force
because “due to sports transcultural and apolitical nature, sport and play are an active instrument
to bring people together” (Olympic Aid Roundtable Forum 2002: 4).

Rebuilding social infrastructure

The Sport for Development discourse argues that play/sport cannot only serve as a
unifying force, but the attributions it foster (teamwork, fair play, respect, etc) also attributes to
the rebuilding of communities. The concept of social capital can be instrumental in explaining
the connection between these aspects and the re-building of a community infrastructure. The
notion of social capital has about as many definitions as there are people writing about it.
Coleman (1990:302) refers to social capital as “some aspect of a social structure…facilitating
certain actions of individuals who are within the structure…social capital is productive, making
possible the achievements of certain end,” while Burt (1992) defines social capital as “social
structure which confers advantage.” Uphoff and Wijayaratna (2000) further make the distinction
between structural and cognitive social capital. While cognitive forms of social capital is a more

13
abstract concept of what exits in one’s mind, structural social capital are the more tangible
aspects of social capital such as rules, regulations, roles, procedures, precedents, as well as social
networks. If one takes the “structure as an outcome” approach (Gabbay & Leenders 2001), one
would argue that structural social capital is not likely to exist without cognitive social capital as a
basis for enforcing it. On the other hand, these two aspects, structural and cognitive, are
connected and mutually reinforcing, and hence, the “structure as a cause” approach (Gabbay &
Leenders 2001) is also applicable as the cause and effect eventually come full circle. However,
since structural social capital needs the base of cognitive social capital, but not the reverse, the
more abstract cognitive social capital is harder to create. However, if you have cognitive social
capital as a base, increasing the structural social capital can increase the cognitive social capital,
and hence social capital as a whole. Essentially, in a society in which both the cognitive and the
structural social capital is destroyed, Right To Play attempts, through play, to create a sense of
community, which they hope will help rebuild the cognitive social capital of the community. The
relationships created in the community during the implementation of “Sport Works” and “Sport
Health” programs will also help to enhance the structural social capital.

8. Conclusion

8.1 Overview

This paper has unpacked the Sport for Development discourse by looking at the creation
and transformation of the international NGO Right To Play. This discourse argue that many
children are denied the opportunity to “express themselves imaginatively” in play (Nussbaum
2000:90), and this will have adverse affects on both their present and future lives. While Marx’s
argument that “…the senses of human being can operate at a merely animal level – if they are
not cultivated by appropriate education, by leisure for play and self-expression, by valuable
associations with others…” (Nussbaum 2000:72) might be somewhat drastic, it does carry some
weight. For example, in many countries, like Ecuador, children are too busy working to get a
chance to play, and because of this, and the following consequences, it is likely that they will be
treated like second-hand citizens for the rest of their lives.

8.2 The Future

14
 If Right To Play wants to ensure that their programs truly lead to a sustainable poverty
reduction, they have to focus on two issues in the future: (i) the continuation of programs after
refugees return, and (ii) the inclusion of all groups of society in their programs. Due to its young
history, Right To Play have not yet had to deal substantially with the first issue, but they are
going to have to in the near future. Some of the Right To Play trained coaches from a Rwandan
refugee camp in South-East Uganda have plans to leave the settlement and return to Rwanda to
build up their life back home. Right To Play hopes to continue to work with these repatriate
coaches so that they can continue to bring sport/play to their new communities, how to
practically handle the dispersion of their coaches over a large area is not yet solved however (for
example, how do you finance all these new locations?). Of course, if managed in a good way, it
will be a very effective way to increase the reach of their programs and multiply its effects.
Secondly, in order to use sport/play as unifying force in many developing countries,
Right To Play should consider to not only incorporate disadvantaged children, but incorporate all
children, on equal terms, from society. If sport/play is truly a unifying force, these activities
needs to be shared with all levels of society, because if you cannot play together as children, i.e.
know the same games and songs, how will you be able to work together as adults? Of course,
disadvantaged children need special attention to make sure that they are able to compete on equal
terms with other children from society. However, if the children do not play together, and do not
work together as adults, the disparities in the society will stay the same, even if some poorer
citizens are now able to contribute more to the political and economic development of the
country as increasingly productive members of society. If this is the result, one runs the risk of
simply using the less fortunate citizenry as tools to achieve the developmental goals, i.e. ends, of
the ruling elite. Or as Nussbaum puts it; “…the capabilities in question should be pursued for
each and every person, treating each as an end and none as a mere tool of the ends of others: thus
I adopt a principle of each person’s capability, based on a principle of each persona as end”
(Nussbaum 2000:5). The aim of Right To Play should therefore be to remove the material, social,
and cultural constraints that prohibits some of the members of society to fully participate in
sport. Once these constraints are removed, all children, from all levels of society, should
participate in play/sport programs together, in order to learn how to work together as a team, as a
community, and as a country.

15
8.3 Final Thoughts

In conclusion, it should also be acknowledge that one will never be able to reach a
completely egalitarian society, because to acquire some ‘capabilities.’ “…luck plays a substantial
role. Thus, governments cannot hope to make all citizens healthy, or emotionally balanced, since
some of the determinants of those positive states are natural or luck-governed. In these areas,
what government can aim to deliver is the social basis of these capabilities” (Nussbaum
2000:81). Hence, by ensuring that children get the opportunity to participate in play/sport, the
government, or an international NGO like Right To Play, can ensure that at least all children
know the rules of the games and the words of the songs; then at least they have the tools to
participate actively in playful activities that in several ways mirror interaction during adulthood.

Bibliography

Antonovsky, Aaron. 1987. Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and
stay
well. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Balachander, Jayshree. 1999. “World bank support for early childhood development: Case

16
 studies from Kenya, India, and the Philippines.” Food and Nutrition Bulletin (UN Press)
Vol. 20, No. 1, March.

Burt, Ronald S. 1992. Structural Holes. The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.

Gabbay, Shaul M. and Roger Th. A. J. Leenders. 2001. Social Capital of Organizations: From
Social Structure to the Management of Corporate Social Capital. Social Capital of
Organizations, Vol.18, pages 1-20.

“Goal! Sport and the Millennium Development Goals.” UN Sport for Development and Peace.
http://www.un.org/themes/sport/intro.htm (Accessed on 4/16/2004).

Hughes, Fergus P. 1999. Children, play, and development. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
Publishers.

Long, Norman. 2001. Development Sociology. London, UK: Routledge.

Martinek, Thomas, et. al. 1980. Growth and development: The child and physical activity. St.
Louise, MS: Mosby Publications.

Nussbaum, Martha. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Olympic Aid Roundtable Forum 2002. Healthier, Safer, Stronger: Using Sport for Development
to build a brighter future for children worldwide. Salt Lake City, February 9th.
(Accessible from the Right To Play website).

Peet, Richard and Elaine Harwick. 1999. Theories of Development. New York, N.Y.: Guilford
Press.

Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development As Freedom. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Upphoff, N., and C.M. Wijyaratna. 2000. Demonstrated benefits from social capital: the
productivity of farmer organizations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka. World Development, Vol. 28,
No. 11, pgs1875-1890.

www.righttoplay.org

17