Sport management, as an area of knowledge and unique tool in the study of sports organizations and the development of sport from different perspectives, enables us to better understand the role of municipalities in providing access to and promoting sport in various social contexts (3, 5). Although existing knowledge reveals a lack of multidisciplinary studies produced in the last decade (4), many authors who have followed this topic are consistent in stating that local authorities are effectively the driving force behind local, regional, and national sports development in Europe (6, 7), especially in smaller countries with less economic power, such as Portugal (8).

The model of sports development in Europe, as established in the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon and recently reinforced by the European Parliament through the adoption of resolution P10_TA(2025)0212 entitled “Role of EU policies in shaping the European model of sport”, formally recognizes sport as a fundamental pillar of modern society and a distinguishing factor due to its social and educational role (9). Ideologically, this model is based on solidarity, sporting merit, and decentralized organization (6), while also valuing the role of volunteering and sport as an educational tool in the adoption of healthier habits, as well as more active lifestyles throughout citizens' lives (3, 10).

In comparative terms, the promotion of sport is based on two distinct models: the American model, which focuses on boosting the business of sport at all levels, as opposed to the European model, which focuses on the public promotion of sport as an instrument for the progress of civilization. This means that it is up to national governments to adopt policies that respect the European vision of sports development (7), acting not only as legislators, but above all as the main agents of promotion and investment in creating conditions for access to sports for all citizens, without exception (11, 12).

In this matter, the public sector should be the driving force behind the development of sport and sporting activities (5), with the central government delegating to its organic structures and substructures a range of comprehensive, well-defined and strategically planned responsibilities and powers to better serve the population (13), in order to ensure and adjust public investment in line with the needs and opportunities of each specific region (14). In this context, municipalities are objectively the main reference point due to their proximity to citizens (15), enabling them to respond appropriately to existing concerns and needs, as well as working towards higher levels of satisfaction among citizens regarding the level of development in the municipality where they live (4, 16).

When it comes to Portugal, local government intervention in the field of sport is multidisciplinary and multilevel, covering responsibilities in defining and planning public policies, as well as implementing and evaluating them (4, 6). As such, their daily activities include: a) the construction and maintenance of public sports facilities and venues; b) the planning and implementation of annual, monthly, and/or one-off recreational and sporting activities; c) the implementation and support for the organization of sporting events of different types of their own initiative or in association with private entities; d) operating and offering municipal sports services in municipal sports facilities (swimming pools, athletics centers, sports halls, among others); e) providing logistical and financial support to sport and recreational associations; f) supporting and offering sports activities in public schools, especially in preschool and primary education; g) auditing sports activities promoted by the private sector; h) promoting the municipality worldwide to attract international competitions and events; i) promoting the municipality in applications for awards; and j) among others (13).

We can therefore recognize that the range of intervention of Portuguese municipalities is now much broader and complex than initially envisaged in the process of decentralization of powers and local autonomy (8, 17), not only due to Portugal's democratic maturation process, but especially due to the need to adjust and align with European standards and common practices in terms of how the state is organized (18). This process has provided the conditions for better governance of public resources and enabled the State to make efficient and effective decisions regarding the adoption of public policies (18), but also more difficult to balance citizens' expectations and good financial management of municipalities (19), especially when it comes to public sports policies (3, 20).

Despite the increased accountability and scrutiny of municipal activities in Portugal, and the existence of instruments validated by the international scientific society for evaluating public policies (21, 22), we find a consensus among different authors regarding the continued absence and lack of public disclosure of results obtained with certain public policies (23), including sport policies (24). This lack of information and the failure to present results that are absolutely relevant for studying and evaluating local sports development, not only contributes to increasing the perception of transparency and opacity in the choices made by Portuguese municipalities (25), but above all validates the widespread perception in society that many policy measures are designed and implemented without a proper methodology and evaluation control, making it difficult to assess the level of local sports development in the various regions of Portugal with any degree of quality and accuracy (14).

However, we live in a society that is more vigilant and aware of political power and its actions at various levels, especially when it comes to local authorities (26), where proximity is greater and the impact on perceptions about cities development is more visible to the population (27). This awareness is now having an increasing impact on political scrutiny over the actions taken, as well as on the decision-making process (28), exerting greater pressure not only on the activities of the municipalities themselves, but above all on constant communication about local political decisions.

This level of engagement suggests that citizens are increasingly concerned about the role played by elected politicians in improving and developing cities, as well as what they offer the population (16). Residents' satisfaction is regularly used as a tool to measure and evaluate their actions and priorities (29), making public opinion increasingly important as the main indicator of (dis)satisfaction with local and national political decisions (30, 31), while also exerting considerable power over the public image of political elites and political parties (30).

Nevertheless, in the absence of use (whether deliberate or not) of assessment tools capable of measuring the effectiveness and efficiency of certain public policies in Portugal, as well as the level of local development, especially in relation to sport, it is recognized that public opinion has been used as an indicator for assessing satisfaction and well-being. The reason for this is that local elected representatives and political parties constantly need to be aware of citizens' sensitivities and opinions regarding whether they agree or disagree with the decisions taken during the governing period (31).

In the absence of available data and satisfactory results to understand this phenomenon, polling has been repeatedly used as a means of assessing levels of agreement and satisfaction in different contexts (27), including in the field of sports (3).

When we address the topic of managing sports organizations and good governance in sports, it is impossible not to mention leadership, ethics, transparency and accountability (13, 32, 33), as well as the modernization of management practices in terms of improving effectiveness and increasing efficiency (34), or the provision of sports services designed to meet the needs in the public sector (3).

However, despite the growing number of published studies and the considerable expansion of knowledge available to date (20, 35), we still face a scientific body that is not sufficiently broad and robust, given its importance (36). This difficulty is caused by the challenges of gathering relevant information and restrictions on access to properly published data, a reality common to the public and private sectors, both sporting and non-sporting (37, 38).

Regarding public sector, there is clearly greater interest in the activities and political intervention of local authorities, particularly due to the historical context of poor management and use of public resources (19), both in terms of transparency in using public funds and poor political and administrative management of the region under their jurisdiction, a reality that has been analyzed in several European countries throughout history (32). In this context, Portugal has also been subject to several studies that sought to analyze and produce knowledge regarding good governance in public organizations (39), especially regarding the activities of municipalities (39).

From a historical perspective, the development of sport in Portugal was marked by a major focus on sporting events during the period of dictatorship (1928–1933 and 1933–1974), with little concern for local public investment in promoting sport with the objective of encouraging physical exercise and sporting activities among the population (40). At that time, local authorities were subverted by the will and intentions of the central government, intervening very little in sport promotion (15, 40).

However, local sports development was also strongly influenced by the fall of the dictatorial regime, with the post-revolutionary period (41) being associated with a phase of major investment in the construction of specialized sports facilities throughout the country (41), along with the first local public sports services (8). After an initial phase, local authorities were given a wide range of legal powers and responsibilities delegated by the central government (13), giving local elected officials more autonomy and decision-making to develop the territory according to the population needs (13).

However, while there were a need and desire to develop the country quickly, this was not accompanied by adequate planning in terms of public investment and maintenance costs (3). This period was also marked by high local debt and inadequate sports facilities for the population in some regions (14). Most municipalities wanted to have their own swimming pool, athletics center, or sport arenas, in a kind of allusion to the “work done” by politicians, without properly assessing the real needs and future consequences for municipalities due to high indebtedness (3).

In terms of public governance and local sports development, the region was experiencing a positive period of development, but good governance was neglected. There was a lack of strategic planning, an absence of synergies and intermunicipal projects (14), to the point where many sports facilities canceled each other out due to their proximity (42). There were also some sports facilities that never opened due to construction irregularities, lack of demand, unsuitability for the characteristics of the population, or even lack of interest on the part of the resident population, demonstrating the absence of good governance for urban optimization and adequate management in the field of sports (41).

By joining the European Community, the scenario changed profoundly in terms of the responsibility of local authorities, as scrutiny became greater, along with the guidelines for political action. This required better management and decision-making based on prior studies or public consultations to bring citizens closer to decisions about territorial development, especially in urban centers (32, 34).

As a result of high levels of debt in the past, municipalities are now required to improve their capacity to manage and use public resources (43), while meeting the growing needs of their populations and responding to the demand for shorter modernization cycles (28). On the other hand, citizens are more aware, demanding, and involved in observing political action, being able to influence decisions and changes in political cycles based on their vision and perception of local development (16, 31).

The study of good governance in sports organizations is growing, including at the local level, although additional time and knowledge are required to consolidate it (3, 44). However, it seems clear that the future of good governance will involve the implementation of municipal management codes across the whole territory that respect efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, and ethics in the measures adopted (45–47), as well as evaluation instruments capable of collecting measurable data. This new approach will allow for the implementation of public sports policies to be correctly monitored and, if necessary, the initial objectives and assumptions to be corrected (3, 32, 34).

Good governance and transparency in sport require ongoing and comprehensive research, even though there has been enormous progress in this area of scientific knowledge. However, given the lack of investigations focusing on the implementation and monitoring of public policies, as well as local development by municipalities, it is essential to use alternative research methods to explore and generate new knowledge. One of the most used alternatives is to assess the opinions and perceptions of citizens, although little has been produced in the field of local sports development to measure the level of agreement and satisfaction with developments and progress in a particular region.

The purpose of the research was to assess the opinion/agreement of citizens residing in Portugal about local sports development according to different indicators. Therefore, to ensure the widest possible approach, while also aiming to achieve a representative sample of the universe under analysis, it was decided to conduct a national survey, including mainland Portugal, the Autonomous Region of the Azores and the Autonomous Region of Madeira.

To ensure the reliability and eligibility of responses, the study population was defined considering the number of voters registered on the electoral roll in December 2023, totaling 9,293,037 citizens. They are divided in 3 groups, i.e., Portuguese citizens, EU citizens (non-Portuguese) and other foreign citizens. This option ensured that responses were validated from citizens of legal age (+18) who were exclusively resident in Portuguese territory.

It was then decided that the study would be applied and conducted broadly, with the intention of disseminating it across a wide range of contexts within Portuguese society. Therefore, it was decided right from the start to include different types of sports organizations, both public and private, including public government institutes, sports federations and associations, foundations, sports clubs, private clubs and associations, associations representing different sports agents, trade unions, among others. On the other hand, non-sports public and private organizations were also included, including public and government organizations and institutes, foundations, associations, companies, higher education institutions, student associations, trade unions, among others.

The decision to conduct this multilevel survey across various sectors of society intended to ensure that the results would not be influenced by a greater affinity for sport, if only sports-related organizations had been considered. Diversity of participation was important, so the goal was to ensure that the results reflected the opinion/agreement not only of citizens with a greater connection to sport, but also those with less or no connection, in an attempt to achieve the highest possible level of neutrality and scientific rigor in the results obtained.

With the universe under study defined, data collection began using an online questionnaire which was sent by email to a total of 1,654 institutional contacts. To ensure that the sample was representative with a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 5%, it was necessary to obtain at least 385 responses. The questionnaire was available over a period of three months, with 971 responses received, although only 937 responses were validated after checking for inconsistencies.

Finally, we can safely assume that participants shared the invitations among their contacts, which makes it difficult to accurately assess the response rate. However, the high number of validated responses made it possible to achieve a representative sample of the population under study.

Considering the exploratory nature of the research, as well as the lack of relevant data in the field under study, we immediately identified the need to collect primary data. We looked at whether there were any previously validated instruments that could be used or adapted, but we couldn't find any that fit the purposes of the study. Based on this, we decided to use a questionnaire specifically designed and structured to meet the study's objectives, having followed all the steps for its validation.

Recognizing that the main objective would be to reach as many citizens as possible, a simple and easy-to-understand structure was chosen, regardless of any differences in age, social context and education levels. On the other hand, an effort was made to use terms and expressions familiar to the context of sports, as well as those used by the media and other digital information sources.

Based on the established criteria, the questionnaire was structured into two sections, comprising a total of 7 questions and 12 statements. The first part aimed to collect sociodemographic data to characterize the profile of the respondents, while the second part of the questionnaire aimed to assess the level of agreement and opinion of citizens regarding sports development, transparency, and political priorities, being subdivided into two groups of statements. In total, the sociodemographic dimension consisted of 7 closed-ended questions, with the remaining 12 statements corresponding to the dimension “Municipalities, Sport and Society”. This last one was subdivided into two groups of 6 statements and intended to assess the level of agreement about different indicators based on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 meant “I completely disagree” and 5 meant “I completely agree”.

A pre-test was carried out involving 12 citizens from different professional backgrounds, as well as 3 experts from academia, which allowed us to gather suggestions for optimization and make minor adjustments in statements. Next, the internal consistency of the scales was verified using Cronbach's alpha statistical measure to assess the reliability, correlation, and homogeneity of the items, with the reliability coefficient being reasonable (between α > 0.708 and α > 0.722). The final version was also validated by the Ethics Committee of the University of Évora (Portugal).

As mentioned above, the questionnaire aimed primarily to measure citizens' level of agreement and proximity with various statements closely related to local sports development, such as satisfaction/perception of the level of sports development, provision of sports services and facilities, priorities, transparency, sports programs, among others, to assess their opinion/perception about the current state of the municipality where they live.

The data was collected between November 2024 and January 2025, obtaining 937 validated responses. The objectives of the study were presented to all recipients, as well as the authors' name and affiliation. The confidentiality of the responses was also ensured, since no personal data were collected during the survey process. The data collection complied with all ethical procedures set out in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, as well as the good research practices regulated by the University of Évora (Order No. 89/2023). Before finishing the questionary, voluntary participation was requested to validate the responses. To ensure that the questionnaire was not accessed more than once, we activated the option to allow only one response per user.

The study was communicated solely by email, with an institutional disclosure presentation accompanying the link to the questionnaire and recipients were selected at random, with no exclusion criteria in order to ensure homogeneity between sports and non-sports organizations from a wide range of social contexts. Considering that requests for participation were sent to the institutional contacts available online, we conceive the possibility that they have been disseminated internally. Of the 1,654 requests sent, 31% (n = 513) were unsuccessful, mainly due to “address not found.”

To ensure the best use of the data collected and considering the exploratory nature of the research, descriptive and inferential statistical methods and techniques were used in the data analysis, using SPSS 30.0 software to process and present the results in tables.

The data was analyzed according to the two dimensions of the questionnaire, with the following variables defined in the sociodemographic dimension: a) gender; b) age; c) academic qualifications; d) nationality; e) professional status; f) region of residence; and g) sport practice habits. In the dimension called “Municipalities, Sport and Society”, the following variables were defined: a) level of sports development; b) provision of sports programs and services; c) sport venues and facilities; d) communication; e) transparency; and f) political priorities.

In the descriptive analysis, we used parameters for the distribution of variables, namely, frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation. To perform the inferential analysis, considering that the variables did not show a normal distribution when applying the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, nonparametric tests were applied. To compare the variables under study between two groups, the Mann–Whitney test was applied, as it is the most appropriate for comparing distribution functions of at least one ordinal variable measured in two independent samples. On the other hand, to compare three or more independent groups in relation to an ordinal or continuous quantitative variable, the Kruskal–Wallis test was applied, followed by Bonferroni's multiple comparison test to compare pairs of groups for greater statistical accuracy.

Opinion polls generally tend to relativize the profile of respondents, since their main objective is to capture opinions/perceptions about a particular phenomenon. It is therefore important to characterize the citizens involved in this study about the local development of sport. According to Table 1, it is immediately visible that participation was homogeneous in terms of gender, with a slight predominance of males (n = 486, 51.9%).

In terms of age, it was observed that most male respondents were between 36 and 45 years old (n = 135, 27.8%) and between 46 and 55 years old (n = 152, 31.3%). In the case of female respondents, it was observed that the two previous groups are also the most representative, namely those aged 36–45 (n = 105, 23.3%) and those aged 46–55 (n = 160, 35.5%).

Regarding marital status, it was observed that among male and female respondents, the vast majority were married (n = 441, 47.1%), followed closely by the single group (n = 255, 27.2%). In terms of professional status, the vast majority were employed (n = 786, 83.9%), followed by self-employed workers (n = 69, 7.4%) and students (n = 37, 4.0%). Of the 937 responses, 99.1% (n = 929) of respondents were Portuguese nationals, 0.6% (n = 6) were European nationals, and 0.4% (n = 3) were other foreign nationals.

In terms of academic qualifications, it was observed that most male respondents had higher education qualifications (n = 359, 73.8%), a pattern also observed among female respondents (n = 350, 77.6%). The level of education was mainly at the bachelor's degree level (M = 192, 39.5% vs. F = 186, 41.2%), with 16.2% (n = 73) of female respondents having a doctorate, while among males this percentage was only 9.0% (n = 44).

As for the region of residence, it was observed that most respondents lived in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area (n = 425, 45.4%), followed by the Central region (n = 218, 23.3%) and the North region (n = 166, 17.7%). Despite the relatively higher number of responses in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, possibly due to the greater concentration of citizens willing to participate in this type of survey, the distribution of responses is consistent with Portugal's demographic structure. Approximately 28.0% of the resident population in Portugal lives in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, while 21.7% and 34.6% live in the Center and North regions, respectively, even though the territorial size of the last two is much larger when compared to the Lisbon Metropolitan Area.

Finally, it was considered important to assess the status of respondents as sports practitioners or non-practitioners. The results demonstrate that most citizens declared that they were sports practitioners, with higher percentage among males (n = 339, 69.7%) compared to females (n = 284, 63.0%). Even so, 33.5% indicated that they were not sports practitioners.

The main objective of the study was to assess the level of agreement and satisfaction of citizens with local sports development. Therefore, the results of this dimension are organized into four tables, in order to present the analyses carried out across the various indicators covered.

As shown in Table 2, it is immediately evident that most respondents (n = 536) agreed (n = 329, 35.1%) and completely agreed that the municipality where they live values local sports development, something we consider very relevant. As for the public offer of sports services, spaces, and facilities, the majority agreed (n = 331, 35.4%) and completely agreed (n = 138, 14.7%) that the existing offer is adequate. Even so, there was a considerable number of responses among those who neither agreed nor disagreed (n = 265, 28.3%), which may be due to a lack of knowledge on this issue.

Regarding regular development of public sports initiatives and activities promoted by the municipality, the vast majority (n = 490) of respondents agreed (n = 322, 34.4%) and completely agreed (n = 168, 17.8%) with the statement, recognizing this action on the part of the municipalities, even though a considerable number of people still neither agree nor disagree (n = 265, 28.3%).

In terms of regular communication of sports activities and programs developed by municipalities, there is a dispersion of responses, since 47.4% (n = 445) agreed with the statement, 30.2% (n = 282) neither agreed nor disagreed, and 22.4% (n = 210) disagreed, making it impossible to accurately assess the level of satisfaction, even though the number of responses is higher in the “I agree” and “I completely agree” fields.

From a different perspective, we intended to assess whether the opinion about local sports development could (or could not) influence citizens' votes in local elections, with most respondents neither agreeing nor disagreeing (n = 289, 30.8%). However, when considering the remaining options, we found that 46.5% (n = 435) admitted considering this issue when voting, compared to 22.7% (n = 213) who did not agree with this statement. If we consider that sport has never been studied as a deciding factor in the choice of elected politicians, we can say that these results require a more careful analysis, while arousing curiosity.

Finally, when asked whether they were generally satisfied with the level of local sports development in their municipality of residence, most respondents agreed (n = 320, 34.1%) and completely agreed (n = 98, 10.5%) with the statement, while 23.6% (n = 221) of citizens disagreed. Although there is some dissatisfaction with local sports development in their region, most citizens are satisfied.

Regarding the level of agreement on transparency and political priorities in municipal sports, we can observe in Table 3 that in terms of transparency, most citizens neither agree nor disagree (n = 397, 42.4%) with the statement that there is transparency in municipal political action regarding investment in sport and how it is implemented. The responses among those who agree with the statement (n = 289, 30.8%) and those who disagree (n = 251, 26.8%) are very similar, which makes it difficult to clarify the results based on citizens' opinions.

As for political priorities, we observe that the vast majority completely agreed (n = 519, 55.4%) that improving conditions and access to sports should be one of the local political priorities. If we also consider the citizens who agreed (n = 296, 31.6%), we see that 87.0% (n = 815) of respondents agreed with the statement, leaving no room for doubt, since only 3.2% (n = 30) disagreed. Regarding the promotion and development of physical activity and sports by municipalities, the vast majority agreed (n = 349, 37.2%) and completely agreed (n = 395, 42.6%) that the adoption of public policies should benefit the entire population without exception, as well as supporting public investment in the various sports agents in the region. It should be noted that only 4.5% (n = 23) disagreed.

In terms of municipal public investment in sport, the vast majority (n = 788, 84.1%) unanimously agreed that this investment should prioritize sports development through school sports, sports associations and clubs, as well as the creation of adequate spaces for sports practice, in order to contribute to the adoption of healthier habits by citizens. Only 2.1% (n = 23) disagreed with this statement. Regarding the value of municipal public investment in sport, the majority agreed (n = 328, 35.0%) and completely agreed (n = 349, 37.1%) that this investment promotes local development in economic, cultural, social, and tourism terms, in contrast to the 8.7% (n = 80) who disagreed.

Finally, we intended to assess whether there were differences in the way municipal public investment in sport is made depending on political orientations, with most citizens (n = 413, 44.1%) neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the statement. However, the group that agreed was significantly larger (n = 415, 44.3%) than those who disagreed (n = 109, 11.6%). This may help to clarify the potential of these results in the citizens' assessment of different political party orientations.

Regarding transparency, we tried to explore the possible relationship between investment in sport and the prioritization of local sports development with the variables of age and academic qualifications.

In this sense, Table 4 shows that, of the correlation between age, education, transparency regarding investment in sport, and prioritization of local sports development, the results indicate that prioritization of local sports development is positively associated with age (r = 0.135) and education (r = 0.198), both correlations being significant at the 0.01 level. This means that older participants with higher levels of education tend to attach greater importance to prioritizing local sports development, while the variable relating to transparency of municipal investment did not show any associations.

Finally, we considered it to be relevant to analyze and compare the relationship between sports practice, age, recognition of local sports development, adequate public provision of services, sports facilities and venues, and regular dissemination of information about sports activities and programs.

Therefore, it is possible to observe in Table 5 that age revealed very similar averages between both groups, suggesting that sports practice is not differentially associated with the age of the respondents.

On the other hand, perceptions about whether the municipality values local sports development, provides adequate public facilities, and disseminates regular information about sports activities and programs were similar among practitioners and non-practitioners. Overall, the practice of physical or sporting activity does not seem to influence participants' perceptions of the municipality's role in the development of sport, nor is it associated with significant differences in age.