Public management of sport: a description and comparative analysis of the organizational structure in Brazil and Portugal

. This article delves into the public management of sports policies in Brazil and Portugal, relying on a descriptive and comparative analysis of the organizational structures adopted by the two countries. The study takes the form of descriptive-analytical research employing a qualitative approach with an exploratory scope. The employed methodologies encompass bibliographic review and documentary analysis. The primary objective was to describe and conduct a comparative analysis of the public management of the national sports policies in Brazil and Portugal, using the organizational structures in the sector as a benchmark, up until 2022. The findings reveal that both countries share a history of tethering or subordinating sports to various realms of state activities. This aspect could be interpreted as indicative of institutional fragility, highlighting a diminished political legitimacy of the sector and a lesser integration into the governmental agenda. Distinguishing between them, a noteworthy discourse revolves around the establishment of a national sports system. This system delineates competencies, responsibilities, and modes of interaction. In this regard, the Portuguese context appears to make more significant strides compared to the Brazilian scenario.


Introduction
This article aims to study the sports policies of Brazil and Portugal and, more specifically, addresses the public management of this sector.The presence of sport in the governmental agenda of these countries expanded in the second decade of the XXI century, when Brazil went through a cycle of mega sporting events with promises of socioeconomic, urban, and sporting legacies, while Portugal, to a lesser extent, experienced a similar situation by hosting the European Football Championship in 2004 (Euro 2004).
Currently, Brazil has a population of 201.6 million inhabitants in 2022, according to estimates by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE).Data from the National Sports Diagnosis (Brasil, 2015) showed that 54% of the Brazilian population practiced physical activity or sports (PAS).By way of comparison, this data corresponds to the average percentage of the European Union, measured by the Eurobarometer 2017.
However, Brazil's extreme inequality and multiple deprivations produce a harmful effect on social areas, including sports.The "Movimento é Vida" ("Movement is Life") Report (UNDP, 2017) points out, for example, the direct relationship between the Municipal Human Development Index (MHDI) and access to the practice of PAS, in which regions with higher MHDI have higher percentages of practitioners.
An excerpt from the National Household Sampling Survey (IBGE, 2017), in a study commissioned by the Ministry of Sports, found, based on social markers, a percentage of 37.9% (42.7% in men and 33.4% in women) of people who practice PAS in Brazil.This new index would place the country among the most sedentary in the European Union, ahead only of Romania (63% of non-practitioners), Portugal, Greece, and Bulgaria (68%).
In 2021, approximately 10.36 million people resided in Portugal, with 52.4% women and 47.6% men.According to the 2017 Eurobarometer dedicated to the theme of sport and physical activity, Portugal is among the most sedentary countries in the region, with 68% not practicing PAS, a worsening of four percentage points compared to the same 2013 study.The Portuguese who practice PAS regularly are only 5%, again four points lower than in the previous study.
Although there are methodological questions to the diagnostic studies cited and important information in the disaggregated data, the overall figures indicate that both countries have a huge challenge in expanding access to the practice of sports and physical activity for their citizens.Even if permeated by distinct social phenomena -Brazilian socioeconomic inequality and Portuguese aging and population decrease -access to sport as a right is an aspect to be faced by governmental agendas, as well as studied by the academic-scientific field.
The research that originated this text was based on the initial hypothesis that a model of global organization with strong intermediation of the market and private entities of the sports sector would currently parameterize the configuration and management of national sports policies.However, the scope of this research is limited to the public administration of sports at the national level, and, therefore, does not address the relationships between public and private agents that make up the sector and the impacts of this coexistence on public policies.
It is important to highlight the historical and contemporary ties that unite the countries that are the object of this research and justify the choice for this comparative basis.The indissoluble bonds that link Brazil and Portugal are, for example, crystallized in history, culture and language.Just as an illustration, Brazilians are currently the main foreign community living in Portugal, representing 27.8% of the total number of immigrants in 2019.
Notwithstanding the political and social particularities, Brazil and Portugal seek to expand their participation in international geopolitics and international arenas of concertation and decision.Within this diplomatic design of international relations, sports policies are inserted, as demonstrated by the recent agenda aimed at promoting mega sporting events.Correia (2009) claims the urgency of studies of comparative methodological basis on foreign experiences of sports governance as a support for the development of the Portuguese sports policy.Without disregarding the relevance of this consideration, it is possible to identify in the literature comparative analyses in which the sports policy of Portugal is contemplated, especially in studies that adopt the European Union as a sample.We highlight, for example, the publications of Marivoet (2003), Hartmann-Tews (2006), Hovemann andWicker (2009), De Bosscher et al. (2015).
Furthermore, it is noteworthy to emphasize more recent comparative studies that have delved into more specific subject matter.For instance, Alvarez et al. (2020) and Sans Osanz & Inglés Yuba (2020) have contributed significantly in this regard.
In the Brazilian case, the growth of comparative analyses within the scope of sports policies is still at an early stage and, unlike the Portuguese case, it does not extend to the continental border.Examples of productions with this characteristic can be found in Rocha (2018), Matias et al. (2020), Starepravo and Piggin (2021) and Athayde et al. (2021).
Given the aforementioned context, this paper aims to undertake a comprehensive descriptive and comparative analysis of the public administration of sports policies in both Brazil and Portugal.This analysis is grounded in the examination of the organizational frameworks implemented at the national level up until the year 2022.In addition to this introductory text, this article is composed of the description of the methodological outline, the exposition and analysis of the data on the adopted indicators, the main conclusions, and prospects for a research agenda.

Materials and Methods
This study is characterized as descriptive-analytical research with a qualitative approach and exploratory scope.The qualitative research was structured and carried out in the following stages: a) exploratory phase; b) fieldwork; and c) analysis and treatment of documental material.
The exploratory phase, prior to the execution period of this research, began with the preparation and approval of the research project by Brazilian funding agencies and its submission to the Ethics Committee for Research with Human Beings of the Faculty of Health Sciences of the University of Brasilia, with approval by Opinion No. 4,008,482.
The fieldwork constituted the survey of documentary material, from primary and secondary written sources (Marconi & Lakatos 2019).Primary sources correspond to official documents of national scope, especially legislation and political instruments linked to the subject of sport.
The sports legislation of Portugal was located on the website of the Portuguese Institute of Sport and Youth (IPDJ).In addition to the regulations, the Programs of the XXIII (2022-2026) Constitutional Government, as well as the Activity Plan 2021 of the IPDJ.The Brazilian legal system was consulted in the Legislation Portal via the 'Legislation Search' tool and its time frame was between March 24, 1998 (when the Pelé Law was enacted) and May 24, 2022 (the day the search was carried out).
Secondary sources refer to the publications that comprise the bibliographical research, which helped form the background for a better understanding of the theme and the production of knowledge concerning the investigated object.Complementarily, this set of secondary sources includes reports issued by official research institutes, international organizations and governmental advisory and monitoring agencies, as well as statistical surveys of a census nature on the national or regional sports scenario.

National Sports Systems and Models
This article is dedicated to the exploration of organizational structure, conceptualized as the institutional and administrative framework within the government entrusted with the stewardship of public sports policies.Accordingly, the focus rests upon federal or national public administrations tasked with sport management.Notwithstanding the research's delimited scope, it remains imperative to acknowledge the interplay between governmental tiers and the interactions between public authorities and the private sector within the domain of sports, which are expressed, for example, in different management models for sports facilities, as demonstrated by Santacruz Lozano et al. (2021).
Simultaneously, a thorough analysis of the organizational structure necessitates historical contextualization, shedding light on the formation and arrangement of sports models or systems within which this specialized structure finds its place.
On the European continent, despite a shared origin characterized by a foundation rooted in sport associations, Burriel and Puig (1999) delineate a distinction between the more liberal Northern Europe, led by Nordic and Anglo-Saxon countries, and the Southern European region.The latter is typified by a heightened influence of public authorities in the sports domain, chiefly represented by Spain, Italy, France, and Portugal.
According to Burriel and Puig (1999), the philosophy in Northern Europe, which gravitates towards reduced public sector interference, has given rise to a self-contained ethos within sports organizations, averse to external regulations.This stance, albeit shaped by the necessity of public funding for sports, extends to the extent of resisting community court decisions that impact the entire European Union.Within these nations, the public sector's role in shaping sports policies is more subdued, with privately-driven organizational structures taking the lead in representing the sector before the government.
Conversely, Southern European nations exhibit a more pronounced State presence in sports, bolstered by specific entities within their governmental framework.In these instances, the government -either independently or in collaboration with private entities -crafts the nation's sports policies, formulating fundamental principles, guidelines, and overseeing the organization and regulation of competitions and sports entities.While diverse relationships between the State and sports characterize the European landscape, Ribeiro e Castro (2007) contends that the enactment of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 bestowed distinct legal status upon sports within the community framework.This marked a pivotal moment, allowing for the establishment of European standards attuned to the dynamics of sports and the European model of sporting organization and practice.Correia (2009) introduces the concept of a "European Sports Model" that identifies robust State or government intervention in the European sports sector.According to the author, this State engagement is intrinsically tied to the Welfare State's effectiveness, giving rise to public policies for the sector.A similar correlation is also noted by Mikkonen et al. (2022) in the context of Finnish sport policy.
In the case of Portugal, Correia (2009) identifies a substantial state intervention in the country's sports landscape, leaving little room for civil society initiatives.The author critiques the sector's dependency on the state, which subjects it to the confines of "regent state bureaucracy."Simultaneously, the author contends that the Portuguese model deviates from its constitutional obligations to ensure the promotion of sport and physical activity for all, as state efforts are primarily directed towards the competitive subsystem or federated sports.
Shifting focus to the American continent, the United States' relationship between the (federal) State and the realm of sports is predominantly influenced by professional leagues.Historically, up until the 1960s, the State seldom interfered in sports, limiting its role to regulation and conflict mediation.This situation transformed with the growth of sports betting in the 1960s and 1970s, coupled with the rise of neoliberal principles that organized the country's economic, political, cultural, and social landscape (Coakley, 2011).Johnson and Frey (1985) acknowledge that, akin to other nation-states, the US government wielded influence in sports through economic and fiscal policies.
Emerging as a synthesis of influences originating from Europe, the Soviet model, and North America, Brazil epitomizes a distinctive hybrid model for its state-sport relationship.This intricate framework evolved through successive phases, commencing with a period of prominent state presence during autocratic administrations, a reflection of the totalitarian sports management practices observed in Europe.Subsequent shifts emerged with the liberalization of sports in the 1990s, underpinned by the infusion of neoliberal principles.In the contemporary landscape, the Brazilian public administration accentuates its commitment to sectoral funding and regulatory mechanisms.Notably, substantial autonomy is bestowed upon sports entities for the orchestration of operations and events, albeit without a shared mandate for sports advancement on a national level.Noteworthy, recent shifts in legislative paradigms have arisen, introducing an air of skepticism surrounding the latter dimension.
It's worth noting that the examples provided above, while not exhaustive, are chosen for their relevance to the scope of this study.Additionally, it's essential to acknowledge that the relationship between the State and Sports involves a multitude of actors.Giulianotti (2016), recognizing the limitations of his framework, presents an ideal typology which encompasses four categories of political actors intertwined with sports: (i) market-oriented political actors; (ii) nation-centered political actors; (iii) international political actors; (iv) political actors associated with humanity.
Recognizing the multifaceted array of stakeholders and arrangements inherent in national sports policies and being mindful of the sometimes ambiguous demarcation between public and private domains, the involvement of the State in sports perseveres as a steadfast element, manifesting itself in diverse extents.This engagement harmonizes with the legal mandates enshrined in national constitutions, exemplified by the 1976 Constitution of the Portuguese Republic and the 1988 Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil.Furthermore, it resonates with the State's duty to uphold and encourage physical and sporting pursuits.

Organizational Structure of Sport in Brazil and Portugal
The option to circumscribe the organizational structure to the public administration is linked to the recognition of the importance of the State as a fundamental agent for ensuring access to sport as a citizenship right.Meira et al. (2012) have not identified works on the theme of the organizational structure of the performance sport in Brazil, in accordance with models proposed by the international literature of the area.The authors highlight that the "study on the Brazilian sports organizational structure is relevant for Physical Education and Sport in the country" (p.254), with possibilities of contributing to the development of the policy and administration of this sector.
De Bosscher et al. (2008), cited in the study (Meira, et al. 2012, p. 252), understand "that the systematization of the organizational structure of different countries is reflected in good international sports results".The authors present a proposition of analysis of the sports system, from three levels: macro, meso and micro.In this text, the intermediate (meso) level will be used, represented by the policies or actions of society and governments aimed at sport.
Similarly, to the Portuguese historical experience, the organizational structure for the public management of the Brazilian sports policy, after the constitutionalization of sports in 1988, has adopted different formats and legal natures.In most cases, the sports management agency remained linked to other sectors such as, for example, education, culture, and tourism, or directly to the Presidency of the Republic.A similar characteristic is cited in the studies by Mikkonen et al. (2022) and Horvat and Mason (2022), who studied, respectively, the sports policy in Finland and Slovenia.
To describe and analyze the organizational structure of sports at the national level in Brazil, there are two important milestones.The first one concerns the publication of Law No. 9,615, dated March 24, 1998, known as "Pelé Law", establishing general rules for sports in the country.The second is the creation of a specific Ministry for the sector in early 2003.
The Pelé Law established in its articles 4th and 13th, respectively, the Brazilian (SBD) and National (SND) Sports Systems.According to the changes made by Law No. 10,672/2003, the SBD was composed of the Ministry of Sports, the National Sports Council, the SND, and the state and municipal sports systems.
The legislation establishes that the SBD "has as its objective to guarantee the regular sports practice and to improve its quality standard" (Brazil, 1998), although it is not clear in the document which are the parameters to assess this quality.And the SND "has as its purpose to promote and improve the performance sports practices" (Brazil 1998).
Despite the legal-formal existence of the SBD and the SND, between the years 2004 and 2010, three editions of the National Sports Conference (CNE) took place in Brazil.The first two editions addressed the (re)construction of a National Sports System, based on the assumption that the SBD and SND did not adequately comply with the function of a systemic organization, besides not contemplating representative instances of the different sports manifestations provided for in the legislation itself.
Nevertheless, it is crucial to note that deliberations regarding a National Sports System in Brazil experienced an interruption subsequent to the third iteration of the CNE.As underscored by Godoy (2013) and further elaborated upon by Godoy et al. (2015), the 3rd CNE, convened in 2010, marked a departure from its predecessors by shifting its emphasis away from the prior discourse centered around the establishment of the National Sports System.
This shift in trajectory emerged as both a result and instigator of alterations within the governmental agenda and the reorientation of public sports policies, with a newfound focus on hosting major sporting events within the country.Despite this shift, the conclusive records from all three editions reflect participants' unanimous support for the establishment of the System.This concern has since been reaffirmed by the most recent regulatory framework for sports in Brazil, the General Sports Law, designated as Law No. 14,597/2023.Within this legislative context, the formation of the National Sports System (Sinesp) and the National System of Sports Information and Indicators (SNIIE) materialized.The former is entrusted with "planning, formulating, implementing, and evaluating public policies, programs, and actions for sports across various levels of government" (Article No. 11).
The second timeframe refers to the creation of the Ministry of Sports (ME) through Provisional Measure No. 103, dated January 1st, 2003.The Federal Government of the time justified the need for the ME by the absence of a policy with continuous and articulated programs and actions, of national scope, able to relate to the public and the private in the development of the sector.Besides, it criticized the fact that the state actions were offered by programs and projects located and small, without extension to the state or municipal sphere.
The Ministry of Sports was originally conceived with three secretariats dedicated to the sports dimensions (educational, participation and high-performance).However, after some administrative reforms, this configuration was modified with the agglutination of the social area, the maintenance of the sector responsible for high-performance, and the creation of new structures to accommodate the demands of the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 Rio Olympic Games.
As outlined by Starepravo et al. (2015), the reconfiguration of the administrative framework within the Ministry of Sport emerges as an additional outcome of the ongoing "contests over spatial dominion and the establishment of a public policy agenda for sports and leisure in rural areas" within the Ministry of Sports (p.225).The reorientation of the sports agenda, tracing its evolution through the three editions of the National Sports Conferences, prompted Brazil to accord primacy to sports mega-events as a pivotal organizing factor in this sector's policy direction.However, following the culmination of these events there appears to be a perceptible wane and retrenchment in the prominence allotted to sports on the public agenda.
As a vivid illustration of this diminution or erosion of prominence, a pertinent instance transpired through the enactment of Law No. 13.844/2019, a measure delineating the fundamental structure of the bodies within the Presidency of the Republic and the Ministries' administration for the period from 2019 to 2022.This statute precipitated the dissolution of the Ministry of Sport and the inception of the Special Secretariat of Sport, affiliating it with the Ministry of Citizenship.According to Castellani Filho (2019), this decision excluded the possibility, already weakened, of Brazilian sports policy assuming the status of a State policy.
It is imperative to underscore that, despite adopting an ultraliberal orientation accompanied by a reductive state discourse, the operational framework for steering Brazil's national sports policy exhibited a noteworthy expansion under the aegis of the Federal Government.This expansion is exemplified through tangible measures such as the establishment of two additional secretariats beyond those that had been extant during the tenure of the Ministry of Sport.These new entities are namely: (i) the National Secretariat for Incentive and Promotion of Sport, and (ii) the National Secretariat for Para-sport.
The Portuguese Constitution, in article 79, provides for the right to sport and recognizes the role of the State, "in collaboration with schools and sports associations and collectivities", to "promote, stimulate, guide and support the practice and dissemination of physical culture and sport, as well as to prevent violence in sport" (Portugal, 1976).
In the case of Portugal, a sports system based on the pyramid structure of the European model is registered, as shown in the Table 1.Involvement with the community and promotion of "sport for all".

Specific Associations by sport Regional
Organization of competitions and coordination of members' activities.

National Federations by sport National
Technical and legislative regulations, as well as regional structures in their absence.

European and international federations and associations
European Similar to those of national federations.
The Basic Law for Physical Activity and Sport (Law No. 5/2007) defines, in articles 6th and 7th of chapter II, the attributions of the public administration, the State, the autonomous regions and the local authorities.Chapter III, dedicated to sports associations, addresses the Olympic organization, the sports federations, the sports public utility, the organization of professional sports competitions, the sports clubs and societies and the sports agents.
According to Santos et al. (2021), there is clarity as to the importance of the central administration in structuring the Portuguese sports system.To Godinho (2018, p. 31), the current Law maintains as its scope "to establish the general framework of the sports system and aims to promote and guide the generalization of sports activity, as an indispensable cultural factor in the full formation of the human person and in the development of society".
Figueira (2018, p. 45) identifies in Law No. 5/2007 "a greater importance in the existence of a global policy and a coordinated action of the organs of power, in order to ensure a transversal sports development to all citizens and the entire national territory, carried out in a decentralized way".The author locates in the document the principles of universality and equality; sports ethics; cohesion and territorial continuity; and coordination, decentralization, and collaboration.Correia (2009) considers that the archetype of state intervention in Portuguese sports presents a traditional configuration, characterized by an intervening State and direct promoter, or funder of the federated subsystem.Besides the lack of focus of this model, the author understands that there is not enough space for the participation of the private society and decentralization, capable of ensuring greater organizational and management initiative from the communities and local authorities.
Silva ( 2009), while criticizing the little reflected enlargement of the State and its inability to meet the demands imposed by legislation, places the creation of Public Institutes as an attempt to modernize the structure of public administration.In this sense, it is important to highlight the creation in 2012 of the Portuguese Institute of Sport and Youth (IPDJ), in force until the present moment.
In early 2022, Portugal went through new legislative elections, which elected the XXIII Constitutional Government.With the current administration taking office, Decree-Law No. 32 was published on May 9, 2022, and its organization and operation regime was approved.This document affirms the need for a more compact and collaborative government to fulfill the priorities of its Program in the various areas of governmental action.The act states that the changes made to the organizational structure reflect the transversal architecture of the actions foreseen in the Program and the particular requirements of this legislature.
The Program of the XXIII Constitutional Government (2022-2026) presents, within the "2nd Strategic Challenge: Demography" in the theme "aging and quality of life", the proposal to "stimulate physical and sporting activity".To achieve this proposal, two strategic objectives are listed: (i) affirm Portugal in the international sports context and (ii) place the country among the fifteen European nations with more physically active citizens in the next decade.
In Decree-Law No. 32/2022, the Deputy Minister of Parliamentary Affairs assumed the competences related to sport that were previously the responsibility of the Minister of Education.Although the change of governmental area may reflect a demand from the sports sector for greater prioritization of its specific demands and detachment from education policy, at the same time it symbolizes the secondary place that sport occupies in the governmental agenda.According to the main conclusions of the "Study characterizing the sports sector in Portugal and impact of COVID-19": In Portugal, the [sports] sector has not been highlighted at the strategic level, but rather included in contiguous areas such as Health and Tourism.Examples of the lack of autonomous distinction are the Strategic Agenda Portugal 2030 and the Recovery and Resilience Plan, where sport is residually presented in strands related to the component of health, education and social inclusion, and not with its own section (PwC, 2021, p.11).
The State Secretariat for Youth and Sports (SEJD) is the government department responsible for executive policy in the areas of sports and youth (Figure 2).For this article, the following structures are described and analyzed: a) Portuguese Institute of Sport and Youth (IPDJ); b) Sports Foundation; and c) Directorate General of Education (DGE).The option for these three is due to a more direct link with the final management of the sports policy, i.e., they are responsible for the preparation and conduct of public policies for the sector, attending to all sporting dimensions (sport for all, school and high-performance sport).
The IPDJ is a public institute integrated with the indirect administration of the State, endowed with administrative and financial autonomy and its own assets.Its creation in 2012 is the result of a merger between the Sports Institute of Portugal and the Portuguese Institute of Youth.
The IPDJ assumes a pivotal role in the organization and execution of public sports policy within Portugal.Its multifaceted engagement spans the promotion of sports engagement across diverse segments, encompassing "Sports for All," while also extending its purview to the high-performance domain.This domain encompasses endeavors such as anti-doping initiatives, sports medicine interventions, and infrastructure development.The only exception to its mandate pertains to school sports, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Directorate-General for Education (DGE).
The extent of IPDJ's operational domain is validated by the strategic objectives outlined in the 2021 Plan of Activities.These objectives draw inspiration from the agenda of the XXII Constitutional Government 2019-2023, namely: (i) Promote sport for all, physical activity and civic participation by young people, emphasizing the dimensions of equal opportunities and social inclusion; (ii) Develop the Sports and Youth areas at national and international level, namely through the training of the respective agents, the optimization of infrastructures and the involvement of young people in the decision-making process; and (iii) Strengthening the services provided to the public, as well as the instruments and resources placed at their service, promoting their improvement in terms of quality, agility and efficiency (IPDJ, 2021).
The Sports Foundation was established, by public deed, on September 26, 1995, and was granted public utility status in 1998.According to the entity's website, the year 2013 constitutes a milestone in its history with the reconfiguration of the entity as a Private Institution of Public Utility and the attribution of its competence, by Government resolution, of the national coordination and international promotion of the High-Performance Centers (CAR).Noteworthy, in 2015, is the approval of the Project "Internationalization of the National Network of CARs in Portugal" by Compete 2020.
Unlike the IPDJ, the Sports Foundation seems to focus its activities on high-performance sports.The reach of this purpose goes through fundraising in interface with the business environment, as well as the sponsorship of athletes, national and international events, the holding of seminars and conferences, among other actions of promotion and dissemination.However, when one observes the lines of the entity's sports project, it is possible to verify a wider range of action that involves the interchange with other sporting dimensions, as in the case of support measures aimed at young talents; people with disabilities; special projects of sporting interest; research, science, publications and editions; and education, training, qualification and qualification projects in the scope of sports.
Finalizing the organizational structure of the Portuguese sports policy, the DGE stands out and, more specifically, the School Sport.According to Decree-Law 95/1991, School Sport is a curricular complement activity, which attends all students in the educational system, including school groupings, non-grouped public schools, private schools and cooperative and professional teaching establishments.

Comparative analysis of the organizational structures of Portuguese and Brazilian sport
When examining the organizational frameworks governing sports within public administration in Brazil and Portugal, a historical pattern emerges wherein sports policy is intricately linked or subordinated to various sectors of state activity in both nations.In the Portuguese context, this interplay is notably pronounced with the realms of education and youth.Nevertheless, a clear demarcation is evident between those responsible for sports policy proper-encompassing sport for all and high-performance initiatives-and the domain of school sports.
The intertwining of sport and education represents a recurring synergy in Europe, as underscored by Mikkonen et al. (2022).Horvat and Mason (2022), for instance, illuminate the harmonization of education and sport within the organizational structure of Slovenia's sports system.In a more recent development, the administration of Portugal's sports policy was entrusted to the Deputy Minister and Parliamentary Affairs.This shift seemingly fostered enhanced proximity to the Prime Minister, thus projecting the potential for bolstering political influence and gaining a more prominent standing on the governmental agenda.However, Teixeira and Ribeiro (2014) assert that the expansion of sport's development was particularly pronounced during the tenure of "New Labour" governments.
In the Brazilian context, the organizational structures pertaining to the sports sector exhibited a higher degree of diversity when juxtaposed with the Portuguese historical trajectory.At times, there emerged a direct subordination to the Presidency of the Republic, echoing a movement akin to that undertaken more recently by Portugal.However, this parallel movement lacked the commensurate political and budgetary representation of the sector.
A contrasting development surfaced more recently, between 2019 and 2022, with the dismantling of the Ministry of Sport in Brazil.Consequently, the sector became integrated with the body responsible for social assistance policy.This choice, to a certain extent, suggested an alignment of sports policies within the realm of strategies pertaining to the State's integrative role, as underscored by Mandel (1982).
Concurrently, within both nations, an organizational culture emblematic of the modern rationality inherent in classical bureaucracy is discernible within their administrative structures.This cultural facet stands as a shared attribute of modern sport, as underscored by Guttmann (1978).This cultural ethos finds embodiment in the metaphorical construct of the "Octopus," as articulated by Deane and Callanan (2000).This depiction characterizes a hierarchical, vertical, and centralized framework interwoven through an intricate mesh of work groups and subgroups.This representation is emblematic of the departmental structure, encompassing its advisory bodies and final sectors.
It is also worth highlighting that both Brazil and Portugal employ similar classifications of the sporting phenomenon, categorizing it into: a) school (Portugal) and educational (Brazil); b) physical activity or sport for all (Portugal) and participation or leisure (Brazil); and c) high-performance (in both cases).This classification, to a certain extent, serves as a guiding framework for the organizational and administrative structures of these countries, shaping their respective endeavors.
As we turn our attention to the distinctions that define the comparison between these two nations, a discernible contrast emerges.Within the Portuguese framework, a clear allocation of competencies and responsibilities underpins the establishment of a comprehensive sports system or model within the country.Nevertheless, this organizational structure does not preclude critical discussions that advocate for a heightened degree of decentralization and augmented participation of subnational entities.In contrast, the Brazilian context presents a divergence; here, the mere legal foundation of the Brazilian and National Sports System fell short of guaranteeing its effective role in orchestrating and steering the sector, defining competencies, and shaping modes of interaction.The pursuit of a National System as the central coordinating entity for sports policy took root through the inception of the National Sports Conferences.Regretfully, this trajectory encountered an untimely truncation, veering the attention towards the realm of sports mega-events.
Concurrently, Portugal's sports organizational framework embraces a culture steeped in planning, oversight, and transparency.A legal mandate stipulates the generation and dissemination of information pertinent to the national sports landscape (Article 9 of Law No. 5/2007), further complemented by the establishment of the National Sports Information System (SNID).Conversely, in Brazil, although modest strides and evident aspirations have been made, the integration of planning and the continual generation of data to facilitate evidence-based decision-making have not been firmly institutionalized within the realm of public sport management.This can be attributed to the dearth of diagnostic studies investigating the state of sport within the country.

Conclusion
As a conclusion, the analysis highlights a consistent pattern within the organizational and administrative framework of the national public management of sports policy in Brazil and Portugal.Historically, both nations lacked a dedicated ministry exclusively focused on the sports sector, except for the interval between 2003 and 2018 in the Brazilian context.Remarkably, as of 2022-the concluding year of this research-neither country had established a specific ministerial portfolio dedicated to the sports sector.
Both countries share a historical tendency to align sport with various domains of state activity-a characteristic that can be construed as indicative of institutional fragility, diminished political legitimacy within the sector, and a restricted foothold on the governmental agenda.
Portugal, however, embarked on a recent endeavor to reshape this narrative by transferring the oversight of sport to an entity in closer proximity to the Prime Minister.Conversely, in Brazil, analogous initiatives have not succeeded in reversing the subordinate role that sport plays within governmental administration.Indeed, the most recent development in the South American nation unfolded in a divergent trajectory: the cessation of the Ministry of Sport-after a 16-year existence-and its amalgamation into the Ministry of Citizenship, which holds responsibility for social assistance policies.
In conclusion, the delineations and analyses presented in this text serve as preliminary insights that lay the foundation for facilitating comparative investigations within the realm of national sports policies.It becomes apparent that this article encompasses specific limitations and gaps that beckon for further exploration in subsequent research endeavors, particularly with respect to the assimilation of subnational facets and the intricate interplay with the private sector.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Organization chart of the State Secretariat for Youth and Sports Source: IDPJ.Prepared by the author.