Printer-friendly version

Read more in English on idrottsforum.org Within the social sciences, social capital is today widely used as a concept to describe connections within and between social networks. Most people will probably associate the term with Pierre Bourdieu, but one of the first writers to put a name to the value of networking was L.J. Hanifan, in an article about local support for rural schools. The definition of social capital was refined, and extended, during the twentieth century, and Bourdieu played an important part by relating it to other forms of capital. In the 1990’s, the concept gained wide recognition and popularity. Social networking was seen as valuable in and of itself, and many saw it as a the panacea for all social problems, with social capital its gain. Social capital reached new segments of the educated classes through Robert Putnam’s widely read Bowling Alone. The last five years or so have seen a glimmer of interest among scholars of sport for social capital as a viable concept in the analysis of the role of sport in society. One of the first books in this sub-field to hit the bookstores was Sport and Social Capital, an anthology edited by Matt Nicholson and Russell Hoye (Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann) and featuring leading sport sociologists and sport policy scholars, such as Grant Jarvie, Fred Coalter, Ørnulf Seippel and Tess Kay. We asked Thomas Persson, who has been in involved in a project about sport and social capital on a European basis, to review Nicholson & Hoye’s book, and his knowledgeable review points out the strengths as well as the weaknesses of Sport and Social Capital. The role of social capital in sport