Document Type : Research Paper


University of Birjand


With the contextual analysis of the subject, this study attempted to explain the national sport policy. Given the importance of education in the development path, this paper adopted an educational sport approach. Due to the ambiguity and dependence of known factors, this paper used the inductive method to collect data, so this study was conducted with a qualitative approach using the grounded theory. Deep and semi-structured interviews were used to collect data. The statistical population consisted of academic experts and top managers of Iran sport. The samples were selected by purposive sampling method and continued until saturation based on theoretical sampling method. The results showed the dependency of sport development on the educational sport, and the social development on sport development. They also showed that the development of the comprehensive plan of sport development can lead to the efficient employment of resources, the development of movement attentions, the modification of attitudes and the elimination of perceptional misunderstandings in addition to the role it plays in developing sport. Finally, the theory of Iran was provided given the explored framework.


  1. Yetim A. Sociology      and sports. Ankara: Berikan Publishing House. 2010
  2. Tripes S. Zelena V. Voracek J. Kral P.      Knowledge Modeling of National Sport Policy. proceedings of 7th WSEAS      International conference on business administration. 2013:54-59. ISBN:      978-1-61804-152-4.
  3. Green      M.  Collins S. Policy, Politics      and Path Dependency: Sport Development in Australia and Finland. Sport      Management Review. 2008; 11(3): 225-251.
  4. Sadria A. Sport and      sustainable development. The First National Symposium on City and Sport. NCCS01. Tehran.      2006:1-10. [In Persian]
  5. Mull R.F Bayless K.G.      Jamieson L.M. Recreational sport management. 4th edition, Human Kinetics.      2005: 354.
  6. Kashef M. The 4th      National Conference on Sport Sciences and Physical Education of Iran. SPORTCONF04.      Tehran. 2018:86-87. [In Persian]
  7. Ehsani M. Amiri M. Gharehkhani H. Designing and      Developing the Strategic System of Professional Sport. Sport Management Review. 2013; 5(17):123-134. [In      Persian]
  8. Côté J. Lidor R. Hackfort      D. ISSP position stand: to sample or to specialize? Seven postulates about      youth sport activities that lead to continued participation and elite      performance. International Journal of Sport Exercise Psychology. 2009; 9:      7—17.
  9. Côté J. Vierimaa M.      The developmental model of sport participation:      15 years after its first conceptualization.      Science & Sports. 2014; 29:63-69.
  10. Stuij M. Stokvis R.      Sport, health and the genesis of a physical activity policy in the      Netherlands. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics. 2015;      7(2):217-232.
  11. Wood C. Hall K.      Physical education or playtime: which is more effective at promoting      physical activity in primary school      children?. Wood and Hall BMC Research Notes. 2015; 8: 12.
  12. Bryant A. Charmaz K.      Introduction. Grounded theory research: Methods and practices. In Antony      Bryant & Kathy Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory,      London: Sage, 2007:1-28.
  13. Mani P. Research into      the value of quality physical education and school sport. Research      Directions. 2013; 1(1): 1-3.
  14. Donnellya      P. Atkinsona      M. Boyle      S. Szto      C. Sport for Development and Peace: a public sociology perspective. Third      World Quarterly. 2011; 32(3):589-601.
  15. Levermore R. Evaluating      sport-for-development: Approaches and critical issues. Progress in      Development Studies. 2011; 11: 339-353.
  16. Lyras A. Peachey J.W.      Integrating sport-for-development theory and praxis. Sport      Management Review. 2011; 14(4):      311–326.
  17. Edwards M. B. The      role of sport in community capacity building: An examination of sport for      development research and practice. Sport      Management Review. 2015; 18(1):      6–19.
  18. Malakootian      M. Sport and politics. Politic Quarterly. 2009; 39(2):301-316. [In Persian]
  19. Centers for Disease      Control and Prevention. State Indicator Report on Physical Activity.      Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2008:1-27.
  20. Finkelstein E. A. Di Bonaventura      M. D. Burgess S. M. Hale B.C. The Costs of Obesity in the Workplace.      Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (JOEM). 2010; 52(10):      971-6.
  21. De Bosscher V.      Bingham J. Shibli S. Van Bottenburg M. De Knop P. An international      comparative study on sports policy factors leading to international      sporting success. The global Sporting Arms Race. Aachen: Meyer &      Meyer. ISBN: 978-1-84126-228-4. 2008:p173.
  22. Deniz S. Yenel F. The      Structural Analysis of Physical Education and Sports System in the Turkish      Republic Of Northern Cyprus. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.      2013; 89: 772 – 780.
  23. Ennis CD.      Implementing meaningful, educative curricula and assessments in      complex school environments. Sport Education Society. 2012; 18:115-120.
  24. Weston A. The making      of American physical education. New York: Appleton Century Crofts. 1962:      1-315.
  25. Society of Health and      Physical Educators. SHAPE. America national standards      and grade level outcomes for K-12 physical education. Champaign.      IL: Human Kinetics. 2014:1-42.
  26. Penney D. Jess M.      Physical education and physically active lives: a lifelong approach to      curriculum development. Sport Education Society. 2004; 9: 269-87.