Exploring Implementation Barriers of Elite Parasport Programs in National Parasport Organizations

Abstract

Policy implementation has received attention from the literature. However, there has been a lack of research on the implementation barriers affecting elite parasport policies. In response to this literature gap, this research explored the perceptions of managers regarding aspects making the policy implementation processes more challenging in Brazilian parasport organizations. Focusing on elite programs, twenty-six managers of five national parasport organizations were interviewed. A qualitative research design accommodating exploratory objectives was adopted, and the obtained data were analyzed by thematic analysis. Only perceptions of barriers regarding the programs implemented for the Tokyo 2021 Paralympic Games cycle were considered. Parasport managers perceived that issues of funding, bureaucracy, specialized knowledge, accessibility, policies, culture, and influences from international parasport organizations were the major barriers affecting the effectiveness of their elite parasport programs. These results contributed to the sport literature with new information on aspects impacting the implementation of national elite parasport policies from a managerial perspective.

Keywords:

• Parasports
• policy implementation
• national parasport organizations

1. Introduction

In sport organizations, policies direct, control, and regulate the organizational activities to achieve desired outcomes (Lachance & Parent, 2023). However, policies alone do not generate benefits, as potential positive outcomes depend on how they are implemented (Schultz, 1982). Over the last four decades, an increasing body of scholars has explored policy implementation issues. Until 1980, policymakers did not perceive policy implementation as a central problem for decision-makers or policy analysis (Jann & Wegrich, 2006), with studies emphasizing policy evaluation rather than implementation (Howlett et al., 2018; Schofield, 2001). The recent literature, however, endorses the importance of implementation processes as they may transform, impede, or distort a policy (De Voto, 2019; Grin & Loeber, 2006; Hupe, 2018; Schofield, 2001).

Central to the understanding of the policy implementation processes is a comprehensive examination of the factors that can prevent or hinder the delivery of sport policies (Weatherson et al., 2017), that is, implementation barriers. Identifying these barriers is essential to the analysis of determinants for unsuccessful or inefficient implementation of policies (Chaillet et al., 2007). In this sense, understanding policy implementation barriers allows policymakers and sport managers to identify gaps between policy intentions and desired outcomes. Moreover, investigating barriers that policymakers face in the processes of policy implementation is crucial to address frontline staffs’ practices of deviation (Newans & Siddiqui, 2021). Studies on barriers of policy implementation may also provide practical insights and a better understanding of the implementation dynamics and processes (May et al., 2013). In parasports, knowledge of local barriers is important to national and international sport organizations as it provides a better understanding of local contexts and culture (Devine et al., 2018).

Given the complexity of policy implementation practices, scholars continue to argue that more studies on this topic are necessary (Fahrner & Klenk, 2018; Howlett et al., 2018). For instance, Lachance and Parent (2023) drew attention to the lack of research regarding the impact of policy implementation on sport policies within federated systems, particularly the capacity of national sport organizations to follow government legislation. While a few studies have explored the implementation of sport policies, these investigations tended to focus more on Olympic sports rather than parasports (De Bosscher et al., 2015; Digel, 2005; Fahrner & Klenk, 2018; Houlihan & Green, 2008; Lachance & Parent, 2023; Patatas et al., 2020; Strittmatter & Skille, 2017). Therefore, despite the fact that policy implementation has gradually gained more attention in the sport literature (Christiaens & Brittain, 2023; Fahlén et al., 2015; Harris & Houlihan, 2016; Skille, 2008, 2016), there has been limited research on policy implementation in national parasport organizations. As an example of how limited the research has been in this area, up to 2021, no academic material was found in the literature about the implementation of elite parasport policies. This review was conducted using several platforms (e.g. Google Scholar, Brazilian Capes Platform, and Griffith University library) and a combination of terms (e.g. sports, parasports, policy implementation, implementation processes, athletes with disabilities, and Paralympic sports). The few manuscripts that emerged from that literature review were either referring to the implementation of parasport policies to increase participation in clubs and communities (Buszard et al., 2020; Christiaens & Brittain, 2023; Donaldson et al., 2012; Harris & Houlihan, 2016; Ikramullah et al., 2018; May et al., 2013; Stenling, 2014) or regarding accessibility in sport venues (Paramio-Salcines & Kitchin, 2013). Therefore, exploring implementation barriers of elite parasport programs in National Sport Governing Bodies (NGBs) advances knowledge regarding why unsuccessful or inefficient policy implementation practices may occur at the elite and national levels.

More recently, importance has been given to elite parasports and the right of people with disability to participate in sport, resulting in an increased political awareness regarding the sport policies for athletes with disabilities (Dowling et al., 2018; Pankowiak et al., 2023). Nevertheless, studies on national parasport policies are still in their infancy (Dowling et al., 2018; Patatas et al., 2018). In this context, there has also been a lack of research on how the Paralympic movement works and how elite sport policies involving this movement are implemented (De Bosscher et al., 2008, 2015; Doll-Tepper, 2016; Dowling et al., 2018; Dowling & Legg, 2017; Legg et al., 2015; Misener & Darcy, 2014; Pankowiak, 2020). With these research gaps, an understanding of what and why some implementation practices occur becomes unclear. Moreover, the lack of research on implementation barriers regarding elite parasport policies prevents parasport managers and policymakers from making evidence-based decisions on the design, implementation, and results of parasport policies. More investigations about the implementation of such policies may also inform key parasport stakeholders in which circumstances national policies were (or not) successful (Pankowiak et al., 2023). According to Reis et al. (2017), studies on policy implementation and parasports can also support policymakers to improve the design of sport policies for people with disabilities and maximize the outcomes of these policies. Overall, the limited research on policy implementation processes in parasport organizations offers an opportunity to better understand the challenges and needs of parasport organizations, particularly to implement elite parasport programs and sport public policies.

Researchers have shown the need for more investigations and analysis of how parasport organizations in resource-poor countries operate (Dowling et al., 2018). Moreover, scholars have also argued that a deeper scrutiny of elite sport policies and government interventions in non-English speaking contexts are still needed (Dowling et al., 2018; Fahlén et al., 2015). In Brazil, the federal government empowers and funds the domestic National Paralympic Committee and parasport NGBs to implement national policies for para-athletes. Nevertheless, the impact of the federal government interventions on the NGB processes of policy implementation needs further research.

Governments legitimize the public importance of not-for-profit sport organizations, such as NGBs, when financially contributing to them. With this support, governments empower these organizations with roles of public interest (Pereira, 2017), for instance, to design and implement national elite parasport policies. In line with Sotiriadou et al. (2017), NGBs are often involved with the development and success of elite athletes, being typically responsible for the implementation of elite programs at national levels. Despite receiving such support (i.e. financial resources) from governments, parasport NGBs face managerial challenges when implementing their national elite programs. For example, parasport NGBs are often smaller than their able-bodied peers, with less influence on public national sport policies (Dowling et al., 2018; Thomas, 2004). Therefore, the relationship between a government and parasport NGBs may have a distinct dynamic compared to Olympic NGBs, with a governmental approach more distant to parasport organizations and less aware of their real needs. This creates additional challenges for parasport NGBs to effectively implement their elite programs and management processes.

Acknowledging the importance of understanding the barriers affecting the implementation of elite parasport programs and the current lack of literature addressing this topic, the objective of this research is to explore such barriers from the perspective of parasport managers. More specifically, this study focuses on managers of parasport NGBs in Brazil. By exploring these barriers, this paper contributes to advancing knowledge regarding policy implementation and parasports, particularly offering new insights to policymakers into managerial challenges related to the implementation of elite parasport policies. The following section details the background research employed in this investigation.

2. Theories and Literature Review

2.1. Contextualizing Policy Implementation

Understanding what policy implementation means is essential to properly explore implementation barriers. May (2013) argues that policy implementation never refers to a single thing that is to be implemented. Moreover, the implementation cycle embraces decisions, knowledge, resources, and actions taken to translate policies (Setegn, 2018). Hupe (2018) affirms that policy implementation concerns dealing with dilemmas in daily practices. Similarly, Schofield (2001) underlines that policy implementation studies have the potential to concentrate on the real issues of how managers operationalize frequent ambiguous policies. Overall, several definitions of policy implementation can be found in the literature (Jann & Wegrich, 2006; May, 2013; Setegn, 2018; Vimarlund & Keller, 2014). These definitions have been used to explain distinct aspects of policy implementation. For instance, some definitions are operational-oriented, focusing on the activities required to implement established policies (Harris, 2013; Jann & Wegrich, 2006; Vimarlund & Keller, 2014; Weaver, 2016). While other definitions are agent-oriented, highlighting the role played by implementers (agents) interpreting policies (May, 2013; Schofield, 2001; Setegn, 2018). Putting together such differences, policy implementation in this research is considered both voluntary and mandatory actions performed by individuals (e.g. parasport managers) to put into practice specific processes, structures, or activities established by an institutional program or policy for the achievement of specific objectives (May, 2013; Pülzl & Treib, 2006; Setegn, 2018; Vimarlund & Keller, 2014).

The literature has offered several theoretical approaches to analyze the multiple aspects that affect policy implementation. Nevertheless, the literature has overly focused on top-down and bottom-up approaches (Hupe, 2018; Schofield, 2001; Vimarlund & Keller, 2014). These approaches offer insights regarding organizational aspects that may affect the policy implementation processes. For instance, from the top-down approach, it is possible to observe the importance of hierarchy, command, and control, and bureaucratic structures to successful policy implementation, in which implementation failures would come due to the lack of compliance by the employees (Hupe, 2018; Schofield, 2001). Conversely, the bottom-up approach demonstrates the relevance of inter and intra-personal elements to implement policies, focusing on what happens on the ground level of an organization (Hupe, 2018).

Within these approaches, scholars have provided more examples of factors that potentially impact policy implementation. Hence, demonstrating the complexity of policy implementation, the literature presents a wide range of organizational aspects that are involved with the implementation processes. For example, several sport researchers demonstrated how organizational structures and inter-dependencies (e.g. funding from governments) may affect practices of policy implementation (Bravo & Haas, 2020; De Voto, 2019; Digel, 2002, 2005; Dowling et al., 2018; Houlihan & Green, 2009; Lucidarme et al., 2018; Parent et al., 2018; Zardini Filho, 2020). In this research, both approaches were considered, therefore, inductively exploring implementation barriers drawing upon the perceptions of parasport managers. Such perceptions could reveal barriers that could theoretically be related to either the top-down or bottom-up approaches.

2.2. Parasports’ Structures, Organizations, and Managerial Challenges

Parasports exhibit unique aspects that need to be considered when analyzing elite parasport policies in a country (Pankowiak et al., 2023; Patatas et al., 2020). Parasports do not follow the same logic as that of the Olympic movement, particularly regarding organizational and structural challenges (Reis, 2014; Reis et al., 2017). Hence, some characteristics of the Paralympic movement shape processes designed to implement elite parasport programs. For example, an important characteristic of the movement is the functional classification system, guiding which athletes are eligible to compete at the Games (Mauerberg-DeCastro et al., 2016). However, whether and which characteristics are perceived by parasport managers as affecting policy implementation needs further investigation.

The way parasport NGBs are structured may also influence how their programs are delivered. Several international sport federations manage both Olympic and Paralympic sports, which can affect national structures. For instance, several NGBs previously managing only Olympic sports have incorporated a similar parasport (adapted) version of that sport following the example of their international federation. In countries such as Brazil, the National Paralympic Committee not only acts as a national Committee but also as an NGB for a variety of sports (Reis et al., 2017), potentially increasing governance and management challenges (Winckler, 2012). Moreover, policies implemented by NGBs can be influenced by the decisions of the IPC. As the top organization internationally leading the Paralympic movement, the IPC has the authority, influence, and legitimacy to implement rules and practices. Thus, National Paralympic Committees must observe and comply with the administrative and operational guidelines issued by the IPC (IPC, 2011). The potential impact of the IPC on NGBs and the specific features of national parasport sport systems illustrate not only the need for research specifically design for parasports, but also eventual policy implementation challenges that emerge from the relationship between committees and NGBs.

Around the world, elite para-athletes face restricted access to assistive technology and specific sport equipment, lack of sponsorships, and often they do not have a voice in the decision-making processes in sport organizations (Mauerberg-DeCastro et al., 2016). In this context, the challenge to develop elite parasports increases due to the fact that media coverage on para-athletes is commonly tied to specific and short events, granting visibility only for the period in which some victories appear relevant to the media (Mauerberg-DeCastro et al., 2016). These issues may also affect private funding for parasport NGBs and the development of para-athletes. Thus, governments play an essential role in implementing policies to fund and develop elite parasports, usually through sporting NGBs (Christiaens & Brittain, 2023; Dowling & Legg, 2017; Ferreira et al., 2018; Harris & Houlihan, 2016; Hoye et al., 2015; Patatas et al., 2020; Zardini Filho, 2020). With governments funding parasport NGBs to implement public policies, legislation imposed by public entities and political disputes may impact the implementation of elite parasport programs by NGBs, which still needs more investigation.

2.3. Governments, Public Parasport Policies, and Parasport NGBs and Managers

After the Second World War, countries around the world invested intensively in elite sports as a measure of national ascendancy (Houlihan, 2013; Theodoraki, 1999), which has resulted in an ongoing process of development of national public policies for elite sports. In line with Theodoraki (1999), the pressure on governments to promote sporting success is irresistible, even considering that uncertainty of investment is a feature of elite sports (Houlihan, 2009). As a result, elite sport issues have gained increased attention on the agendas of governments (Fahlén et al., 2015; Grix & Phillpots, 2011; Sotiriadou & De Bosscher, 2017). Due to the increased importance given to elite sports, governments also started to fund parasport NGBs to obtain success at the Paralympic Games.

Governments invest in parasport NGBs conditional on certain governance and sporting results (e.g. medals in international events) (Haiachi et al., 2016). To control and assess such investments, governments use New Public Management techniques, including more formal contractual relationships (Harris & Houlihan, 2016). In general, organizations depending on public resources often operate setting out plans to deliver agreed objectives to governments (May et al., 2013), in which these resources can ensure their survival. Hence, in contexts of inter-dependencies between sport entities, the control of financial resources is an important element facilitating or constraining the implementation of elite sport policies (Fahrner & Klenk, 2018). Attempts from governments to use funding control to interfere in the governance or management of sport organizations may violate their autonomy, which can affect their autonomous nature and policies (Sam & Schoenberg, 2020). Therefore, the interactions and level of support from governments to parasport NGBs can affect the policy implementation processes of such sport organizations. Nevertheless, it is worth highlighting that not all parasport NGBs receive funding from governments (e.g. the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee-USOPC), which may have less funding-related influence on these NGBs.

Sport managers are the main actors responsible for elaborating and implementing policies for sports (Zardo et al., 2018). In this scenario, sport managers must be prepared to perform in several areas and execute various activities, including planning, organizing, leading, and evaluating (Chelladurai, 2009). Therefore, parasport managers can provide unique insights regarding barriers affecting the implementation of elite parasport programs. Given this importance, this research focused on exploring the parasport managers’ perceptions of policy implementation barriers regarding elite parasport programs in NGBs. As the current research analyses the perspectives of managers from Brazil, the following section introduces the features of the Brazilian parasport system.

2.4. The Brazilian Elite Parasport System and Funding Context

It is estimated that 23% of Brazil’s population has some sort of disability (Reis & Mezzadri, 2018), indicating the need for targeted parasport policies in the country (Reis & Mezzadri, 2018). Despite this necessity, the formal practices of sports involving people with disabilities are only recent in Brazil (Begossi & Mazo, 2016). A turning point in the elite parasport policies in Brazil came with the foundation of the Brazilian Paralympic Committee (CPB in Portuguese) in 1995. Previously, the configuration of the parasport system in the country was incipient and amateur. In 2001, the Law n. 10.264/2001 (Brasil, 2001), known as Agnelo/Piva Law, amended the Pelé Law and consolidated the idea that the national sport committees (e.g. the CPB) would have a public status, with roles and sporting results that would be important to the Brazilian society. As a result, the CPB started to receive public funding directly from the national lottery for the development of sport programmes.

Currently, the Brazilian elite parasport system is shaped by a complex network of laws and organizations that have changed over time. The law that designs the system is the Law n. 9.615/98 (Brasil, 1998), informally called Pelé Law, which generates the general norms of the national sport system. At the federal level, an elite sport department (SNEAR in Portuguese) linked to the Ministry of Sport has as objective to support other organizations (such as parasport NGBs) to prepare athletes to represent the country in international competitions (Mendes & Codato, 2015). In the last two decades, the Brazilian government has funded para-athletes and organizations to implement elite parasport programs, with direct investments from SNEAR. This funding comes through contracts with NGBs, fiscal incentives, tax exemptions, grants to para-athletes, and lottery resources (Ferreira et al., 2018; Reis & Mezzadri, 2018). This enhanced federal involvement and investment also occurred due to the government’s intention to turn Brazil into a sporting superpower (TCU, 2011), with the Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games legitimizing such investments. However, during and after the Rio 2016 Games, the country was affected by an economic and political crisis. In this context, the Ministry of Sport had a budget cut of 87% just after the Rio Games (Vecchioli, 2017). Without direct investments from the government, the parasport NGBs and CPB became heavily depend on resources from the national lottery.

The national lottery resources have been the driving force funding the design and implementation of parasport policies in Brazil. For instance, from 2007 to 2014, the CPB received approximately AUD 70 million from the national lottery (Esporte, 2020). Due to the Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the percentage allocated to the CPB increased. From 2015 to 2019, the CPB obtained approximately AUD 246.3 million from that source (Caixa, 2019; CPB, 2018a, 2019; Furtado et al., 2019; Haiachi et al., 2016). With these resources, the CPB can maintain itself, develop several sports as an NGB, and transfer part of this revenue to other parasport NGBs. For example, in 2019, the organization obtained approximately AUD 55 million from the lottery (Caixa, 2019) and distributed AUD 14.4 million to other NGBs (CPB, 2020). Most of the resources remain with the CPB probably because it manages (as an NGB) athletics and swimming, the most popular and successful parasports in Brazil, and maintains the new National Paralympic Training Centre. To distribute the lottery resources to parasport NGBs, the CPB established a norm in 2018, which included requirements, acceptable expenses, model of documents, and how an NGB should prepare its funding project (CPB, 2018b).

As a result of the abovementioned public investments, Brazil has achieved significant international sporting success. The country is currently a major contender in the Paralympic movement. As examples of these feats, seventh place in the general medal ranking was achieved at both the London 2012 and Tokyo 2021 Paralympic Games, eighth position in Rio 2016 (but with more medals than in 2012), and the country was the leader in the medal ranking at four consecutive Parapan-American Games, in 2007, 2011, 2015, and 2019 (Begossi & Mazo, 2016; CPB, 2022; Haiachi et al., 2016; Magri, 2019). Given the abovementioned context and actors, not only managers of the parasport NGBs but also from the CPB were considered in this research.

As the purpose of this current article is to explore implementation barriers of elite parasport policies in Brazilian NGBs, understanding the parasport context and funding system in Brazil allowed a better guided analysis of the achieved findings. The following section details the method of this study.

3. Methods

Given the purpose of this study, a qualitative research design accommodating exploratory objectives was adopted. To explore the policy implementation barriers, a case study approach was used to garner a wide range of managers’ perspectives on what these barriers are and how they impact the implementation of elite parasport programs in Brazilian NGBs. This approach was chosen because it supports investigations of contexts and analyses of patterns and linkages of theoretical relevance (Thomas, 2004), as well as generating empirical descriptions of settings and phenomena (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Drawing upon Harris and Houlihan (2016), multiple cases can also contribute to the development of robust evidence that can support initial theoretical propositions. For these reasons, this current research investigated several organizations, in which parasport NGBs are considered the cases under investigation (Coutinho, 2018).

3.1. Sampling

The sampling process to select the NGBs participating in this research was built following a purposive process, in which researchers use their experience and knowledge in the selection process (Skinner et al., 2015). To ensure a diversity of NGBs and capture a range of managers’ perceptions, NGBs were chosen to provide cases with distinct (1) individual, team, and/or mixed sport events, (2) types of para-athlete impairments, (3) annual revenues, (4) organizational settings, and (5) sporting success in terms of medals obtained in the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games. As a result, the following cases were selected: the CPB, managing swimming and powerlifting; the Brazilian Table Tennis Confederation and the Brazilian Canoeing Confederation, managing simultaneously Olympic and Paralympic sports; the Brazilian Confederation of Sports for Visually Impaired Athletes, managing football 5-a-side, judo, and goalball; and Brazilian Wheelchair Basketball Confederation. As the objective of these criteria was to ensure a diversity of NGBs under investigation, Coutinho (2018) affirmed that this sort of purposive sampling is also known as maximum variation, in which the researchers document variations within and between the cases looking for patterns of responses or behaviors. To obtain information regarding the selection of the NGBs, a document analysis was employed as well. Official documents from NGBs were analyzed not only to provide the data to select the organizations but also to identify potential interviewees in those NGBs.

Nilsen et al. (2013) highlight that policy implementation research describes the actions of people. This paper analyzed the abovementioned cases through the practices and perceptions of one group, that is, the parasport managers. With the NGBs selected, several criteria were also applied to identify appropriate managers for the study. Most importantly, only parasport managers directly involved in the management of elite parasport programs were approached. Similar to Pankowiak (2020), managers with long-term involvement in the management of elite parasport programs at a national level were preferred. Most of the managers in the final sample had previous sport experiences (e.g. as managers, athletes, or coaches working with parasport or Olympic demands in Brazil), and all five cases had representatives of higher and lower hierarchical management positions. The final sample of twenty-six managers was composed of (four) presidents, (one) vice-president, (three) CEOs, (one) superintendent, (five) directors (with operational roles, non-Board members), (six) coordinators and supervisors, and (six) others in management positions. The interviewees presented background features, such as (1) forty years was the average age of the interviewed managers, (2) seventeen managers were former athletes and twenty-one had previous working experiences with sports before starting at their current NGBs, (3) twelve managers had sport-related educational background, while nine had management-related degrees, (4) only five managers had disabilities, and (5) only four participants were women.

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Semi-structured interviews were adopted to gather managers’ perceptions, experiences, and opinions. As a data collection instrument related to qualitative research, interviews have been used by scholars to explore understandings, experiences, and points of view regarding policy implementation practices (Belizan et al., 2019; Weatherson et al., 2017). The interviews were conducted online (through the Microsoft Teams platform) from December 2020 to May 2021. Before questions about the perceived barriers, the definition of policy implementation taken in this research was presented to the participants to mitigate answers focusing on aspects not related to policy implementation. Managers were then asked about their roles and routines, as well as about the elite parasport programs of their NGBs. For instance, they were questioned about what would hinder or make the implementation of their elite programs challenging. This study received full ethical clearance from the Office for Research at Griffith University, Australia (Ref No: GU 2020/780).

All data obtained through the interviews were transcribed in Portuguese, a process operationalized through the NVivo 12—Transcription Module. The final transcripts were created keeping the data spoken as natural as possible (e.g. informal expressions). The author of this paper is a Portuguese native speaker. The transcripts were then translated (verbatim) into English. Back translation was not used in this translation process as the author of this study (who conducted and transcribed the interviews) is bilingual in Portuguese and English. Similar translation approaches without a back translation process can be found in the sport management literature (Hammerschmidt et al., 2021; Pankowiak, 2020; Sotiriadou et al., 2017; Wang & Theodoraki, 2007). This dataset was analyzed by a thematic analysis following the six steps proposed by Braun and Clarke (2012). In short, these steps refer to get familiar with the collected data, generate initial codes, search for themes from the initial codes, review the generated themes, define the themes, and produce a report (Braun & Clarke, 2012). An inductive coding process was also adopted, therefore, following a data-driven analysis with coding and interpretation drawing only upon the participants’ perceptions to create the themes (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Scholars have been using thematic analysis in sport policy-related studies (Lachance & Parent, 2023; Pankowiak et al., 2023).

A limitation usually attributed to qualitative data refers to trustworthiness. To mitigate this issue, several steps were taken in this research. Regarding credibility, which refers to the capacity to confirm the data (Bakos, 2020; Coutinho, 2018), Yin (2009) argued that it increases with patterns found in several case studies. In this study, five cases were considered. In terms of dependability, which refers to how consistent the findings reflect the studied phenomenon given a certain research method (Bakos, 2020; Coutinho, 2018), Thomas (2004) claimed that it increases if a clear audit trail throughout the research process is created. Regarding this matter, the method and findings of this research were structured to show in detail the paths followed by the author, who kept all documents and interview transcripts in case third parties need to crosscheck the analyses made. The final step to address the trustworthiness concerns transferability (Coutinho, 2018; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This step is related to the issue of generalizing the results of this manuscript to a broader population (e.g. other organizations or countries). Coutinho (2018) demonstrated that, regardless of the intention of the researcher, the burden of generalization remains with the reader. Furthermore, attempts at generalization would depend on the degree of similarity between the original case(s) and the contexts and features of the cases in which the findings would be transferred to (Bakos, 2020). Although actions were taken toward transferability (e.g. multiple NGBs), it is important to highlight the uniqueness of the Brazilian elite parasport context, which turns any generalization to other sport system challenging. To sum up, the trustworthiness of qualitative data has been labeled as a limitation, in which researchers have been trying to create mechanisms to increase the quality of qualitative analysis and their trustworthiness level. Nonetheless, as somehow the interviewer interferes with the way qualitative data are produced, qualitative analyses may greatly vary regardless of efforts to improve the trustworthiness of qualitative research (Pankowiak, 2020).

3.3. Scope and Delimitation

For the purposes of this research, elite parasport policies were understood as actions taken by NGBs to implement national elite parasport programs, that is, policies were analyzed through institutionalized programs. Drawing upon the work of De Bosscher et al. (2008) and De Bosscher et al. (2015), an understanding of what actions compose a basic national elite sport program was created. Thus, a national elite parasport program would be represented by actions implemented to (1) provide financial support to para-athletes and coaches (e.g. grants), (2) equipment and training facilities, (3) professional training support, and (4) participation and organization of (inter)national competitions. Once decided which actions this research was interested in, the research design was structured to explore the perceived barriers affecting the implementation (i.e. delivery) of such actions by the NGBs.

Another delimitation refers to the timeframe of this research. Managers were asked about barriers regarding the implementation of their elite parasport programs for the Tokyo Paralympic Games cycle (mid-2016 to mid-2021). Therefore, managers would report more recent and updated policy implementation challenges.

The final delimitation is related to the distinction between governance and management, a difference also presents in parasport organizations (IPC, 2010). As the focus of this current research is on managers and implementation processes of elite programs, Board members and implementation of actions at the Board (governance) level were not considered. Hence, the analysis took into consideration managers, such as presidents, directors, CEOs, coordinators, and other managers linked to the operational level of the NGBs, that is, managers who directly contribute to the management of the organization. In sum, only parasport managers acting in the direct management of the elite parasport programs took part in this study. In addition, managers of units responsible for pure administrative or non-sporting areas, such as legal offices, IT, and building maintenance, were not considered as well. Within this research design, similar to Weatherson et al. (2017), hypothetical barriers were also not takin into consideration.

4. Findings and Discussion

Parasport managers perceived a wide range of barriers impacting the implementation of elite parasport programs in their NGBs. From the managers’ perceptions, six themes emerged. More specifically, managers believed that issues regarding finances, bureaucracy, knowledge, accessibility, policies and culture, and international influences created these barriers.

4.1. Financial Issues

Despite receiving significant public funding from the federal government, parasport managers reported that these resources (including from the national lottery and federal grants directly sent to para-athletes) were not enough given all their administrative and sport-related demands to implement the elite programs. Managers explained that the total amount received from the government, as well as the current legislation that imposes a specific percentage of administrative costs (e.g. salaries) payable with the public funding, were factors that make the implementation of their programs more challenging. Most likely, these perceptions involving public resources and legislation as barriers were often mentioned due to the funding dependence context of the parasport NGBs in Brazil. One manager highlighted this barrier as:

… the [public] resource today is not yet enough for all the demands and actions that we have to address… to hire professionals, to have a multidisciplinary team… The biggest difficulty, the biggest puzzle in the administrative area is to make the most of our money… we try to issue flight tickets 40 days earlier [to a competition date], international [flight] tickets… to make our processes move faster… so that we can save money in one area and be able to add it in another area. So, our biggest headache is squeezing and squeezing [the resources] so that we can invest in other areas that are necessary. We are always doing calculations… everything in advance… to save money, to not waste any money… because we usually work with public money…

From a different angle, several managers also considered the lack of private resources as an implementation barrier, as well as currency exchange issues related to the participation in international events and purchase of sport equipment. Two NGBs had their headquarters located in states far from the two richest regions in Brazil, that is, Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo (where the new National Paralympic Training Centre is located). This distance results in these parasport NGBs in states with limited opportunities to obtain private resources compared to other organizations, for instance, in Sao Paulo. In these two organizations, such financial issues perceived as a barrier were more often mentioned by the managers.

Without adequate financial resources, sport organizations have their organizational capacities restrained (Cox et al., 2018; Svensson, 2015; Wicker & Breuer, 2014). However, given the significant amount of public funding invested in parasports in Brazil, the understanding of the lack of resources as an implementation barrier may be explained from different angles. For instance, these perceptions may emerge due to uneven expenditure. Unnecessary or exaggerated expenses linked to administrative processes (e.g. salaries or positions) can lead to over costing policy implementation processes, which may result in less investment capacity to foster para-athletes. In a study conducted by Harris and Houlihan (2016), the scholars found sport NGBs with the majority of funding internally allocated for the development of administrative positions, without sufficient resources left to implement activities for the development of sport programs. Another potential reason for these perceptions may be related to increasing costs to promote elite parasports that came with the recent sport mega-events in Brazil (e.g. the Paralympic Games), for which the current public funding is inadequate to meet the increased demands for parasports in the country. Nonetheless, the impacts of such mega-events in elite parasport programs need more research.

Moreover, considering the funding dependence context of the Brazilian parasport NGBs, the perceived lack of resources may further maximize the importance of public funding for the survival of these organizations. However, funding control can be utilized by the government to increase pressure or to enforce authority (Fahrner & Klenk, 2018). Thus, attempts from governments and national sport committees using funding control to interfere in the governance or management of NGBs (e.g. by legislation or norms) may violate the autonomy of such organizations, in which these attempts can affect their autonomous nature and policies (Sam & Schoenberg, 2020). The funding dependence on public resources may not only reduce the autonomy of NGBs (Lucidarme et al., 2018), but the legal requests to access these resources may result in processual inefficiencies for the NGBs. After all, considering that most parasport NGBs in Brazil have a limited number of managers and employees, more internal bureaucracy to meet legal requirements may concentrate the managers’ attention on internal administrative demands rather than on the policy goals of the NGBs, which can cause policy distortions (Meyers & Vorsanger, 2007). The following barrier further explores bureaucracy issues.

4.2. Heavy Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy was another frequent barrier stated by the parasport managers. Most managers explained that the elevated number of regulations and norms from the federal government (e.g. acquisition and accountability legislation) created overwhelming administrative demands to be overcome by parasport NGBs, affecting their elite programs. Since 2009, the body of legislation guiding the use of public funding by NGBs has significantly increased. In this context, several participants also believed that their organizations were not prepared to deal with such legislation and, consequently, the required bureaucratic processes. As the explored NGBs were dependent on public funding, they were subject to heavy federal legislation regarding the use of these resources. From a complementary perspective, managers described internal tensions involving the sporting needs of their elite programs (e.g. specific equipment for para-athletes requested by coaches) and the restrained possibilities to meet them following the federal legislation. Managers offered examples of this issue from different perspectives, for instance:

…para-athletes only want X brand, they don’t want to use another one. They want to wear a X’s shin guard, glove, and knee pads. Can we buy this with the resources from the Law? A process is needed. It’s a barrier many times. This can change the purchase steps… you must justify it… I go to the legal department, which sometimes thinks it is not justifiable… Purchasing under the law can take a long time… it is a limitation.

…the most complex thing is… seaport issue… to release a boat that arrived today, it takes ten days in the port. It is the first problem. It takes three, four, five, ten days… eventually, it is directed to the red zone [products that will require a deeper investigation from customs agents] and you have to submit a thousand of extra documentation… declarations etc…

Ambiguities related to bureaucratic processes required by the government were also reported as barriers to an effective implementation of the NGBs’ elite parasport programs. This issue led to legal uncertainties, creating situations in which managers were not confident that what they were doing was adequate according to these legal requirements. Harris (2013) stated that the lack of clarity regarding legal requirements can compromise the success of policy implementation in sport organizations. Moreover, internal bureaucracies regarding deadlines, workflows, and increasing hierarchical layers were also understood as barriers by the managers. A few participants also affirmed that problems involving the creation and implementation of strategic plans, accountability processes, and the high number of events organized per year made the implementation of the elite parasport programs challenging. In the interviews, several NGB managers also highlighted bureaucracy issues with the CPB, with managers stressing the negative impacts of certain requirements from the Committee, for instance:

For example, last time I sent this same [funding] project to them [CPB], they sent it back saying that I had to write an introduction about the parasport. ‘Oh, talk about the parasport and such…’… which in my opinion is unnecessary. I will say that we have several athletes… that we won a medal… I think these things are unnecessary. Because it is a simple acquisition [process]. They are balls. We need balls. So, I think these things make the process take a little longer…

… when we have to buy a product with the lotteries resource…we cannot benefit a particular manufacturer. So, we can’t say: ‘No, X competes with Y’s (brand) boat due to…’. We have to create a justification that takes two or three days to prepare…. to create a four- or five-pages justification to be sent and return from the CPB…. The CPB says: ‘Oh, no. The TCU [federal court of accounts that oversees the lottery resources] will not approve it like that, you have to improve this justification’… it goes back to us… So, it is exhausting simply to show that…. for X to be champion there is no point in buying Z’s [another brand] boat, it has to be Y’s…

The perceived heavy bureaucracy affecting policy implementation reinforces the vulnerability of resource-dependent sport organizations and a potential drift of attention away from strategic (i.e. policy) goals to internal administrative routines (Harris & Houlihan, 2016). Ideally, bureaucracy (or bureaucratic structures) aims to standardize operations, increase work accountability, and improve the rationale internal processes, which in turn would maximize the coordination of organizational activities (Hoye et al., 2015; Nagel et al., 2015). However, considering organizational efficiency as a key management principle and the often-limited resources for the development of elite parasports, federal governments, policymakers, and the resource distributers should review inefficient, ambiguous, or unnecessary requests perceived as bureaucratic barriers by NGBs. The removal of unnecessary barriers from the government and CPB can enhance the NGBs’ efforts to better develop para-athletes, which appears to be the paramount public interest supporting the governmental funding to these elite parasport organizations.

In her work regarding factors that lead to Paralympic success, Pankowiak et al. (2023) identified policy aspects that impact the results of NGBs (e.g. funding). However, that study did not find bureaucracy as an aspect influencing NGB operations. Hence, this finding advances the current parasport literature, demonstrating the way bureaucracy can affect parasport NGBs when implementing elite programs.

4.3. Lack of Specialized Parasport Knowledge and Professionals

Managers affirmed that the lack of qualified professionals to work with parasport organizations and people with disabilities have been an enduring problem in their NGBs. For instance, some participants referred to changes in the Paralympic Games official program and new funding-related legislation creating a need for new types of specialists (e.g. to work with new governance and classification rules). However, not only there is a lack of parasport professionals in the Brazilian market to meet this need, but also the administrative expenses cap imposed by federal legislation limits the number of management professionals that an NGB can hire with public funding, thus increasing this HR barrier. In an interview, this problem was summarized as: ‘the issue of the professionals… the issue is to find a professional familiar with the parasport, who has empathy with disability as well.’

With this barrier, other challenges regarding organizational structures emerged. For example, participants mentioned having difficulties monitoring administrative processes and procedures due to the excessive workload on the few managers, thereby accumulating internal roles. Furthermore, some interviewees also reported that the size of the country creates further HR complications, as managers need to work with different logistics, supporting services (e.g. availability of professionals), and accessibility issues across twenty-six states.

Controversially, one manager did not understand the lack of specialized parasport professionals as a current problem for the implementation of elite problems in Brazilian parasport NGBs. According to this manager:

Today, I no longer see it [lack of specialized professionals) as a limiting difficulty… that is, in which the [administrative] process won’t progress, it does not move forward. It may delay a process… But, it is not a factor that impedes the process of progressing.

This perception may be explained by the fact that the NGB of that manager receives most of the public funding for the development of elite parasport programs in the country.

From a different perspective but still regarding human resources (e.g. professionalism and power relations), a few managers also perceived governance-related issues at the Board level as a barrier to an effective implementation of their elite programs. For instance, a participant stated that:

It’s one of the really big fights that we have… politically. The Board, unfortunately… these problems of institutional hierarchy… There is always that issue of ‘instead of helping, it makes things worse’…. some people try to benefit from it, in one way or another, to get the attention… they try to politicize and polemicize everything… putting politics in everything, within the organization processes. So, it messes up a lot, it messes up too much.

Managers of that parasport NGB complained that the lack of knowledge regarding parasports (e.g. competition logistics) from certain Board members generates administrative issues consuming significant amounts of time and effort which should instead be focused on the implementation of the elite programs. The same manager of the abovementioned quote further explained this situation as:

There has been many things happening here because of this [Board members politicizing ‘everything’], causing problems because… ‘the money… Why was it used that way? It couldn’t be done like that’. For example, you will not find here in Brazil, apart from the [CPB] CT, a hotel that can receive an average of two hundred people for a sporting event of people with disabilities. Generally, you will find a good hotel that has at most two, three, or four adapted apartments. And a person that… who stays at the door of the Ministry [of Sport] just to complain… because in our workplan the apartment would be double or triple ones… but this person heard that there were up to five people in the apartment… We know that the reality is totally different. With a large team… when we get there, the hotel then faces a different reality. So, they adapt to that situation in order to accommodate everyone. So, this is not a reason for you to report it [to the Ministry of Sport]. Because we will not find in Brazil… a place that is totally adapted to receive so many people with disabilities. Most of the time, in a national competition, we have about 40 wheelchair users with no mobility. How can we put these people in fully adapted rooms? … it [someone reporting this issue to the Ministry of Sport] ends up bringing conflicts into the organizational structure, in which the difficulty in meeting the sports needs is not seen. And that [these conflicts) does get in the way.

The lack of qualified human resources is a managerial challenge faced by several sport organizations (Sotiriadou et al., 2017). This can raise issues of professionalization and organizational capacity in these organizations (Nagel et al., 2015; Shilbury & Ferkins, 2011; Svensson, 2015), for instance, to improve the efficiency of internal processes and the delivery of elite parasport programs. Due to the dependence on public resources of the Brazilian parasport NGBs, it is important to consider that sport organizations in such context may have limited capacities and possibilities to qualify their workforces or hire new professionals without obtaining more funding from governments. In Pankowiak et al. (2023), specialized parasport knowledge to develop grassroots and elite programs was identified as a critical factor in successful national parasport policies. This research advances the work of Pankowiak et al. (2023), showing how such knowledge impacts policy implementation processes in parasport NGBs.

4.4. Accessible Facilities and Transport

The implementation of elite parasport programs was also understood as being impacted by sport-related barriers. These issues were mostly related to accessibility and the difficulties in finding sport facilities for elite training, as well as hotels with adequate structures for para-athletes. Managers also pointed out accessibility issues regarding the transportation of para-athletes and their sport equipment. The participants provided several examples related to these accessibility issues, such as:

Flights are another problem. To travel, for example, two delegations of wheelchair users… most of which you will need to bring the athlete’s chair and the competition [sporting] chair… it’s not easy… You have to work in advance, check availability, how you will separate people in these flights… but it [travel planning] has to be done well in advance so that it [bring all athletes in one flight] can be possible. If not, we need to separate them among several flights.

There are two aspects. The first is sport structures. Brazil is a country of continental extension and in some parts of the country there is still a lack of adequate structures. Today, we have the Paralympic [CPB] CT for the national teams of Brazil. Which is really a structure that doesn’t fall short of any other in the world. But, we need more adequate structures… people with disabilities have the accessibility element in addition to the technical-sport element… It is very difficult for us to find adequate structure.

Despite accessibility being mentioned as a barrier, a positive improvement in such topic refers to the new National Paralympic Training Centre managed by the CPB. Since 2016, several parasport NGBs in Brazil have their training activities and events taking place in the new Centre in São Paulo claimed to be an infrastructural legacy of the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games. The construction of the National Paralympic Training Centre cost almost AUD 100 million, to which the federal government provided a significant investment (G1, 2016). The CPB maintains the Centre and runs training activities supported by lottery resources, public partnerships, and a few sponsorships (Mauerberg-DeCastro et al., 2016). Certainly, the construction of the Paralympic Training Centre in São Paulo has created high expectations for many para-athletes (Haiachi et al., 2016; Vargas, 2016). The facility is prepared to host competitions, training camps, and accommodate athletes (280 para-athletes simultaneously) of 15 parasports (Estadão, 2017). The Centre offers sport structures, a hotel, convention center, laboratory, and physiotherapy, as well as strength and conditioning rooms (Estadão, 2017). However, given the continental size of Brazil, the construction of this facility in Sao Paulo has created limited benefits for the development of para-athletes from other Brazilian states. Thus, better accessibility appears necessary.

4.5. Political and Cultural Aspects

The fifth barrier reflects political and cultural aspects specific to the Brazilian context that were viewed as making policy implementation challenging. Some managers explained these barriers as shortcomings related to public policies and a cultural prejudice toward parasports. More specifically, the lack of a national (public) policy for elite parasports and an enduring societal perception of para-athletes as poor little things were believed as hindering the implementation of elite parasport policies. Managers offered examples of these barriers saying that:

In Brazil, there is no (public) sport policy. There are the sports for people with disabilities, which is now taking shape because there are resources guaranteed by law. But there is no… federal policy that can, since grassroot levels, contribute to the development [of para-athletes].

Paralympic sports are still seen as the ‘poor thing’… We read a lot of things like: ‘Paralympic sports have already gained a lot of visibility’. But, when you go outside the Paralympic sports universe…. inside, yes, we have visibility… but, when you go out, I see a lot of difficulties to people to see Paralympic sports as a professional thing. We are talking about elite sports. We are talking about a high-performance athlete, who trains like any other high-performance athlete who does not have a disability. So, this perception from the society, governments, politicians who say: ‘I’ll invest in those people with disabilities’… There is a sponsor difficulty… the cause of people with disabilities is still part of the barrier. For sure it has already improved… But, I think there is still a lot of that [prejudice].

The perception of parasport managers regarding para-athletes not being treated as elite athletes may also be related to the fact that the Paralympic Games can primarily be seen as a cultural Games (Brittain, 2009) and not as an elite competition. Moreover, as such cultural barriers (i.e. prejudice) request enduring efforts from governments and societies to be overcome, parasport NGBs and para-athletes may be more undervalued in elite sport contexts, particularly in developing countries with education shortcomings regarding people with disabilities. This finding is also aligned with Dowling et al. (2018), who showed that socio-cultural aspects, such as attitude toward disability can influence sport policies and, as found in this research, their implementation processes as well.

Regarding the lack of a national and public plan for elite parasports perceived as an implementation barrier, this finding can be observed from two angles. First, NGBs in Brazil have the autonomy (guaranteed by law) to create and implement their own national policies/programs. However, considering a lasting funding dependence on public resources and routines following bureaucratic processes driven by requests from governments, parasport NGBs may have become used to being reactive in terms of policy design and implementation (i.e. waiting for guidelines showing the way). Furthermore, observing the official websites of the explored NGBs, two of them did not have a disclosed strategic plan, which reflects a deeper planning issue in these organizations. Second, since 1998, a federal law requests the creation of a national sport plan (including elite sports) to guide public investments (COB, 2022; Silva, 2021). Nonetheless, this plan has not yet been created by the federal government. In this sense, the lack of a national plan understood as a policy implementation barrier may also be explained by the Brazilian political context (i.e. political disputes) involving the creation and approval of such national plan.

Considering cultural elements (e.g. prejudice and national political disputes) as macro aspects in policy-related studies (De Bosscher et al., 2008, 2015), this finding also contributes to the parasport literature. For instance, the recent study of Pankowiak et al. (2023) only revealed meso-micro aspects impacting parasport NGBs. Moreover, this finding is aligned with Lachance and Parent (2023), who indicated that cultural and political conditions in federated sport systems should be observed in policy implementation studies.

4.6. Influences of International Sport Organizations

The last finding concerns the influence of international sport organizations on the implementation processes of elite parasport programs in NGBs. Parasport managers argued that this influence impacts on aspects, such as event calendars, fees, sporting rules, rankings, and, most significant, the functional classification norms. Due to uncertainties regarding these aspects (e.g. sudden changes), they were perceived as affecting the implementation processes. The participants stated that these international aspects directly influence their workplans, while changes in these aspects can also lead to further changes in the NGBs’ strategic plans. For instance, sudden changes promoted by the IPC related to the classification system can create significant problems for the NGBs, such as losing potential Paralympic medalists (who became ineligible for a certain event) or not having athletes competing in a new class. Both situations demand investment and strategic changes in elite parasport programs. A range of examples of how international parasport organizations impacted the elite programs of national NGBs were given by the managers, for instance:

[international parasport organization influence the NGB elite program with] calendars, rankings, and the rules of the games. We follow the X [international federation] determinations. And there’s the financial aspect too, the annual fees. And all of this impacts the maintenance, the workplan…

…for example, the IPC cancels the X event [competition] in Y [parasport]. And we have top athletes in five of these competitions and they cancel ten of them. With five more gold [Paralympic] medals we change our position [at the Paralympic Games ranking]. Z will no longer be a sport in the Paralympic Games. They [the IPC] did not decide it monocratically. The events [with the parasport] they decide alone.

… what can impact sometimes is a visual impairment ranking decision. They [the IPC] remove a guy from one place [a class] and include him in another. So, this impacts our entire plan.

This finding offers complementary evidence to the work of Houlihan (2009), that is, demonstrating how international influences can also affect elite parasport domestic programs and their implementation processes. Furthermore, these results demonstrate the management complexities around elite parasports. More specifically, they can support parasport managers and policymakers in creating strategies to mitigate the effects of international influences. As previous parasport policy studies did not explore how such international barriers impact parasport NGBs and their elite programs (Pankowiak et al., 2023; Patatas et al., 2020), this research contributed to advancing knowledge about how implementation processes of NGBs are affected by international organizations in the Paralympic movement.

5. Conclusion

Managers of parasport NGBs perceived several aspects as barriers to the implementation of elite parasport programs in Brazil. Issues related to finances, bureaucracy, knowledge, accessibility, politics, culture, and international sport organizations were understood as hindering or impeding the progress of administrative processes of such NGBs to deliver their elite programs. These policy implementation barriers demonstrate the complex routines and challenges that parasport managers face in their NGBs. The way such barriers affected the delivery of elite programs provides insights to policymakers and parasport managers of what barriers should be addressed to increase the efficiency of NGBs, particularly because these organizations are funded with public resources to implement actions (i.e. support for para-athletes) of public interest.

Policy implementation issues regarding funding, sport facilities, local culture, national policies and politics, bureaucracy, lack of specialized knowledge, and international influence on domestic sport organizations were previously mentioned by researchers (Gowthorp et al., 2017; Houlihan, 2009; Legg et al., 2022; Leopkey et al., 2010; May et al., 2013; Wicker & Breuer, 2014). However, despite the literature having already identified these policy implementation barriers in other sport scenarios (e.g. in clubs or community programs), the findings of this research contributed to the sport literature with new evidence of implementation barriers specifically affecting national elite parasport policies in NGBs. Hence, the obtained results in this research advanced the knowledge of organizational challenges faced by NGBs to deliver elite parasport programs.

The findings of this current research have a generalization limitation. As a case-study approach was adopted, other barriers may exist in different contexts and countries. Hence, policymakers and parasport managers of countries other than Brazil may consider the explored barriers in this study to plan actions in their contexts with caution. Additionally, as the focus of this research was on elite programs for para-athletes, there may have been different barriers regarding grassroots or inclusion sport policies in the investigated NGBs.

Given the qualitative and exploratory approach used in this current research, future research may explore in more depth the aspects raised by the Brazilian managers. For example, researchers can utilize the themes obtained in this study to guide new quantitative-driven investigations (e.g. surveys) with a bigger pool of participants, or thoroughly explore each theme in new qualitative investigations in other countries.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Carlos Eugenio Zardini Filho

Carlos Eugenio Zardini Filho is a PhD from Griffith University/AUS, with two master’s degrees (Coventry University/UK—Chevening program—and University of Brasilia/BRA), a Bachelor’s degree in Sports (State University of Londrina/BRA), and more than 15 years of experience in sports management working for sports clubs and governments. Carlos also has a variety of papers and chapters in books published, addressing a range of topics regarding sports, mega-event legacies, governance, and management.