Building Sport Programs to Optimize Athlete Recruitment, Retention, and Transition: Toward a Normative Theory of Sport Development

Abstract

Sport development has become a leading issue for sport policymakers and sport managers worldwide. Sport development systems have two main objectives: to increase the number of participants actively engaged in sport and to enhance the quality of performances in sport. This is the foundation of the much used, but rarely examined, pyramid analogy in sport development. In this article, the pyramid model of sport development is explored, and its underlying assumptions are critiqued. Three tasks necessary for an effective pyramid model are identified: athlete recruitment, athlete retention, and athlete transitions. Recruitment requires the assistance of significant others, as well as the proliferation of many smaller, local-level sport programs. Retention requires a focus on motivation, socialization, and commitment. Advancement requires that programs be linked vertically and that athletes be aided in processes of locating and socializing into new levels of involvement. Although specific strategies for enhancing recruitment, retention, and transition of athletes can be identified from the literature, further research is needed.

Managing high-performance sport: introduction to past, present and future considerations

“…As the wide range of literature on talent identification and development in the field of sport science endorses, the HP process commences with attracting athletes, retaining/transition and nurturing them (i.e. the ARTN processes) in the sport system (Green, 2005;Sotiriadou & Shilbury, 2009). In these processes, a great number of organisations and stakeholders offer opportunities for competitions, training in specialised facilities, coaching and skill development, talent identification, selection, development and transition to higher levels of competition (Rees et al, 2016).…”

Sport Transitions as Epiphanies

“…Development of an athlete is often seen as the goal of a sport system such as the popular sport pyramid model (Eady, 1993;Green, 2005;Shilbury et al, 2008). This development may come in tandem with movement from one sport context to another.…”

“…These respondents knew almost immediately that they would never participate in the same way, if ever again. Perhaps the "up or out" nature of the typical sport system (Green, 2005) results in such a large number of events that have an immediate, life altering impact.…”

An analysis of County Sports Partnerships in England: the fragility, challenges and complexity of partnership working in sports development

“…Furthermore, the work of the sports development officer (SDO) could embrace varied aspects of community sport including voluntary sports club development, community event planning, volunteer recruitment and retention and coach education and development activities. Similarly, Green (2005) has argued that, in defining this field of sports development, policy should address at least three key specific matters namely: athlete entrance, retention and advancement. Indeed the boundaries of sports development are constantly shifting and increasingly hard to delineate as these three distinct features highlighted by Green (2005) do not necessarily reflect the diverse range of activities which now incorporate sports development practice.…”

“…Similarly, Green (2005) has argued that, in defining this field of sports development, policy should address at least three key specific matters namely: athlete entrance, retention and advancement. Indeed the boundaries of sports development are constantly shifting and increasingly hard to delineate as these three distinct features highlighted by Green (2005) do not necessarily reflect the diverse range of activities which now incorporate sports development practice. Equally, as has been identified elsewhere, there is no unified, agreed definition of sports development (Houlihan andWhite 5 2002, Hylton 2008).…”