In a recent debate on the European Sport Model in Colombia, we asked ourselves: should the National Sport System (SND) be understood as an industry or as an ecosystem? This distinction is not merely semantic—it defines the type of governance, prevailing values, and public policy priorities surrounding sport.
Although the social function of sport is widely recognized, its status as a fundamental right remains a subject of debate. In the Colombian legal framework, sport is considered a derivative right, which weakens its institutional protection compared to other rights. This ambiguity becomes even more problematic when an industrial vision of sport prevails—one focused on performance, media visibility, and profitability—at the expense of inclusion, equity, and community development.
The SND has gone through several stages of evolution—centralization, consolidation, and institutionalization—but remains a functionally fragmented system. Decentralization without a robust architecture led to the disappearance of key local institutions and critical dependence on national-level funding. This significantly reduced the sport sector's capacity to integrate into broader sectoral (especially health and education) and territorial agendas.
Although the concept of better or “good” governance—internationally known as such—has been instrumentalized through mechanisms like the SGO and NSGO, one of the most important contributions to the current debate comes from a processual and relational perspective on governance. This approach challenges dominant technical, normative, and linear frameworks. According to Professor Maarten Van Bottenburg (2021) from Utrecht University, governance is a social, dynamic, and evolving practice that must consider at least three key elements: the history and relationships among actors; power, dependence, and legitimacy; and symbolic capital.
We must remember that systems are shaped by both individual and institutional actors who influence the present and determine the viability of any reform. Furthermore, there are asymmetrical relationships between federations, governments, and private actors that create entrenched power structures. Public trust and social oversight cannot be imposed—they must be built through open and participatory processes.
Van Bottenburg argues that it is not enough to define structures; it is necessary to reassess the mechanisms of representation and accountability of all stakeholders. From this perspective, sport governance must move away from a purely normative character and embrace an ecosystemic logic—one where rules emerge from dialogue among diverse actors rather than from top-down imposition. The current design of the SND has favored certain elites, reproducing exclusionary structures that particularly affect grassroots and community sport.
The shift toward a sports ecosystem requires breaking with the industrial logic and revaluing sport as a public good. This implies:
Strengthening intersectoral coordination (education, health, culture);
Promoting decentralization with real management capacities;
Democratizing sports organizations from the top down and from the bottom up;
Prioritizing ethics over formal regulation.
In conclusion
Although the National Sport System has achieved progress in infrastructure, public policy, and high-performance outcomes—including Olympic success—serious structural problems remain: institutional fragmentation, corruption scandals (mainly tied to mega sporting events), and a disconnection from physical education, recreation, and grassroots sport.
This debate compels us to reflect on how we understand sport in a democratic society. The transformation we need goes beyond administrative or legal reform; it requires a cultural and ethical shift that redefines the priorities of the sport ecosystem.
If we accept that ecosystems have no hierarchies or coordinators, rethinking the SND as an ecosystem entails redistributing resources based on actors and subsystems that coexist—sometimes with opposing goals and methods, yet occasionally complementary. The lack of a legitimate national vision reinforces the existence of a rigid institutional architecture ill-suited to today’s challenges. Ideally, structure should follow strategy—not the other way around, as is currently the case.
While Olympic medals are valuable for the widespread sense of well-being and national unity they can inspire, it is time to ask what these achievements truly mean if they are not accompanied by a transformative social function.
EN 
ES