Local korfball versus global basketball: a study of the relationship between

Local korfball versus global basketball: a study of the relationship between sports rule making and dissemination * Bottenburg, M. & J. Verm eulen (2011) Local korfball versus global basketball: a study of the relationship between sports rule-m aking and dissem ination, Ethnologie Française, vol.41, no.4 spécial Diffusion des Sports, pp.633-643. Introduction Although basketball and korfball are closely related and highly comparable sports, the first one has become a global phenomenon, while the latter has remained a local peculiarity. Both sports have the same genealogy (Renson, 2003). Both were invented around the turn of the nineteenth century, basketball in America (Springfield, Massachussets) in 1892, korfball in the Netherlands (Amsterdam) in 1902. Both have the same name, korf being the Dutch word for basket, or basket being the English word for korf, dependent on the perspective you take. And both games are team sports in which two teams try to score points by throwing a ball through the top of a basket, or a derivative thereof. Nonetheless, as one of the most popular and appealing sports worldwide, basketball sharply contrasts with korfball, a sport that hardly transgresses the Dutch borders. While basketball has çbecome a global, modern, professional, spectacular, masculine and flamboyant sport in the eyes of many people all around the world (Nathan, 2008; Vivier, Monier, & Rose, 2008), korfball has developed into a sport that is either neglected or ridiculed as provincial, old fashioned, amateurish, simple, feminine and narrow minded (Bottenburg, 1991). This paper explores the question why both sports are so different in spite of their likeliness. Why has korfball become a local sport, subject to mockery and derision in its country of origin, while * The authors would like to thank the participants in the Atelier Pluridisciplinaire Diffusion des Sports, held at Aix en Provence, 25 27 November 2010, for their inspiring discussion of an earlier version of this paper. Special acknowledgements go to Sébastien Darbon and Richard Holt for their detailed comments. 1

basketball has grown out into a global, glamorous sport with mass appeal? In answering this question, this study intends to develop more insight into the complex relationship between the constitutive rules of sports and their differential dissemination and meaning. Theoretical framework The theory of the differential popularization of sports (Bottenburg, 2001) will serve as a framework in exploring the research question. Three principles are central to this theory, which are inspired by the work of Bourdieu, Elias, Blumer and Weick. A first principle, and here the influence of Elias work can be seen, is that the differential popularization of sports, in the long term, is a relatively autonomous, blind, and to a certain extent structured process that develops in relation to social change (Elias, 1970). Why basketball is more popular than korfball worldwide and why korfball is the most popular of the two in the Netherlands cannot be answered by asking people why they have chosen one of both sports. Their sports preferences are the product of their experiences in certain conditions and relations within social groups whose histories stretch back for many generations. This is related to a second principle, in which Bourdieu s influence is reflected. In their technical, intrinsic definition, sporting practices always present a great elasticity, thereby allowing for very different, competing and changing uses and interpretations in local contexts (Bourdieu, 1988). The practice, meaning and appreciation of basketball and korfball can differ geographically, socially and over time. Apparently, the differential diffusion of sports cannot be explained by the fact that one sport is just more fun than another; by definition. A third principle is that the sense making of sports by individuals is on the one hand unique, due to differences in their personal histories, but on the other hand related to shared experiences in the social and cultural settings in which they live and interact with other people (Blumer, 1969; Weick, 2

1995). This construction of meaning is a continuous process, influenced by changing social relations, in particular between countries and social classes, but also between for example men and women, young and old people and people from different regions and ethnic groups (Verweel, 2000). In the following sections, we will examine the construction of meaning in korfball and basketball and how this is related to the process of rule making in both sports. As follows from the theoretical framework set out here, this asks for a historical comparative perspective, looking in some detail at their social history: where and by whom they were developed and with what purposes, what playing rules and meanings were constructed, whether these rules and meanings changed and why, and how this was related to the social and cultural contexts in which both sports developed. As was briefly indicated in the first section, the constructed meanings of basketball and korfball are quite opposite to each other. The concepts and images that form the framework of interpretation in this respect, are dichotomies that reveal broader social and cultural contrasts between both sports: American/Dutch, global/local, modern/traditional, masculine/feminine. The following sections are ordered according to these contrasts. American/Dutch Rules matter; they can affect the diffusion of a sport (Vamplew, op. cit.). However, one always has to keep in mind that rules are human products. They can and often are altered and adjusted in processes of diffusion; sometimes even leading to entirely new sports. Basketball and korfball offer an interesting case in point in that respect. While most sports slowly evolved out of earlier pastimes, basketball was invented by a man at a particular point in time. In 1991, James Naismith, a Canadian educator at the YMCA Training School in Springfield, Massachusetts, laid down thirteen constitutive rules of a new ball game, which he gave the name of basketball. This new sport quickly developed into a popular sport in the United States. 3

By 1900 there was a national basketball championship and a professional basketball competition. To render this sport more compatible with the late nineteenth century ideals of femininity, several directors of physical education adjusted the rules for women s basketball. The playing field was divided into three courts to discourage masculine behaviour and prevent individualism. Players were not allowed to cross the borderlines and had to change courts after each point scored. Dribbling with the ball was restricted and in some variants forbidden, just like obstructing the opponent in any attempt to score. Variants of women s basketball (in the making) were introduced to school teachers in Europe before the first official rules were published in the United States in 1901. Without its official codification, these teachers only learned some rudimentary prescriptive and proscriptive rules, which were interpreted and adjusted freely according to their own visions, purposes and requirements. In England, Martina Bergman Österberg introduced one version of basketball in 1893, after she returned from a visit to the United States. The rules of this game were modified several times at her newly formed Physical Education College in Dartfort. A visit by Ester Porter, a gymnast from Baltimore, who stayed at this college for a few weeks demonstrating women s basketball as it was played in the United States, led to more substantial revisions. The result was another ball game, called netball. Just like women s basketball, netball was a single sex, non contact, non dribbling, three court game, which could be played both indoors and outdoors. However, besides using nets in stead of baskets, this game varied from women s basketball in that each player was given a specific playing area and positional responsibility. A similar process of adaptation took place in the Netherlands, where Nico Broekhuysen, a Dutch teacher of a primary school in Amsterdam, came to learn the rules of America s women s basketball. In 1902, Broekhuysen followed a summer course at the famous Normal School for Handicraft of Otto Salomon at Nääs, Sweden, which among other goals aimed the revival of outdoor games. It was at this institute that Senda Berenson, a leading figure in the regulation of America s women s 4

basketball, had taught the rules of this game to European colleagues during a study trip in 1897. Some elementary rules of women s basketball had been published the same year in a professional Swedish journal. The article was titled korgboll (Swedish for basket), with Basket ball in parentheses, and pointed out that korgboll could be seen as an American game that lent itself for practice by either sex and could also be played with mixed teams, both indoors and outdoors. The rules prescribed that the field was to be divided into three equal courts. The article went on to say that there were more variants, one more suitable for men and one for women or remarkably for mixed matches. In the latter variant, players were not allowed to run with the ball (Bottenburg, 2003; Renson, op. cit.). Back in the Netherlands, Broekhuysen introduced the mixed version of the game at the coeducational school where he taught, under the name of korfbal. He published the rules of this game in a booklet, which was circulated by the Dutch General Association for Physical Education to schools throughout the country. Until 1925, fifteen reissues of the booklet with the rules of the game followed. As a result of Broekhuysen s adaptations, a further non contact, non dribbling, three court game evolved. This version came to distinguish itself from the other women s basketball variants, in that the baskets were located on posts inside the playing area and the teams were mixed, consisting of both girls and boys. In first instance, korfball was presented in the Netherlands as a derivative of an American sport. The American roots of korfball were repeatedly mentioned in the first volumes of the official journal of the Dutch Korfball Association which was sent to all its club members around the country. An article in the first volume stated that korfball was invented by James Naismith and that it was introduced by the heads of gymnasiums for young women. 1 From December 1905 onwards, this journal printed the official American rules of the game in a series of articles to teach to our korfball world the official rules from the country where our game came into being. 2 5

When the Dutch branch of the YMCA introduced (men s) basketball in the Netherlands at the end of the 1920s, greater stress was put on the Dutch character of korfball. The interesting thing is, wrote the Dutch korfball journal about korfball in 1939, that in this case we are not confronted with an imported game, but with a pure product of our own soil. We can say that korfball is a sport which is absolutely of pure national descent, and guaranteed from any foreign blemish. 3 Initially regarded as identical to basketball, korfball was now wholeheartedly presented as a purely Dutch sport, with basketball as another competitive sport from abroad. Global/local There is definitely a family resemblance, as Wittgenstein (1953) would have called it, between basketball, netball, korfball, and related sports (Renson, op. cit.). This not only holds for their constitutive rules, but also for the types of persons and organizations that were cornerstones of their dissemination. All three sports were deliberately and ideologically developed and promoted by school teachers to improve the health of boys and girls, to control feelings of competitiveness and individualism, and with respect to girls to prevent from unfeminine sports behaviour. Moreover, they were strongly encouraged by adults, teachers, physicians and clergymen, and spread via their organizational networks. Thus, both men s and women s basketball spread immediately after their invention across the United States through YMCAs, high schools and colleges. They adapted their gymnastics halls or constructed special basketball courts and included basketball in their sport programs; much to the relief of their pupils, especially the girls. At last, there was an alternative for the gymnastic exercises which they had always been obliged to do at school, with more freedom of movement and a greater game element. Already in the early twentieth century, basketball grew out to the most popular competitive sport at schools among girls and the most popular after football among boys. Outside schools, YMCA community centres brought the game to city dwellers, soon giving rise to competitions between 6

community, church and company teams; strengthening the identification and internal bonding of the team players and the social groups they represented (Bottenburg, 2001). Today, virtually every high school has a basketball team. According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, almost one million boys and girls participated in basketball competitions at the high school level in the 2009 2010 school year (NHS, 2010). In Great Britain and the Netherlands, netball and korfball developed along the same lines. Netball spread through the colleges and girls schools and grew out into the most widely played female sports in Great Britain in the second half of the twentieth century. Likewise, korfball was spread by school teachers throughout the Netherlands. Not only was Broekhuysen himself a teacher, he also gave courses in korfball in which many other teachers were enrolled. Through their efforts, several korfball school clubs were founded by teachers or pupils, in a period when physical education at schools only included gymnastic exercises. Such impulses helped to make korfball to grow into the fifth sport and second team sport in the Netherlands in the mid twentieth century. Among girls up to the age of eighteen, korfball was even the most popular team sport until the early 1980s (Bottenburg, 1991). In 2008, korfball was played by more than 100,000 club members, of whom approximately 60,000 were female; outnumbering basketball by 2.5 : 1 (NOC*NSF, 2008). However, in spite of their likenesses as to their constitutive rules and catalysts of dissemination, the international diffusion of these sports diverged immediately after their invention. Yet, the underlying principle was the same. Basketball was spread to and adopted in many countries within the American sphere of influence, such as Japan, Korea, the Philippines and China in East Asia, and Mexico, Cuba, Brazil and Chile in Latin America. American army units, seamen and merchants played some role, but of much greater importance were the American YMCA missionaries. They gave basketball a place in the education programs of many Asian and Latin American countries, which were restructured under western impulses in the first half of the twentieth century. Young foreigners who studied at American universities also contributed to the diffusion of basketball. In the wake of American army 7

units, the YMCA introduced basketball in many European countries after the First and Second World War, and in African countries in the second half of the twentieth century (Bottenburg, 2001). The commercialization of the NBA from the 1980s onwards, and especially Nike s role in promoting Michael Jordan, caused another acceleration in the globalization of basketball. Today, the Fédération Internationale de Basketball Amateur has 213 national federation members and estimates the total number of basketball players worldwide to be at least 450 million (FIBA, 2010; Markovits & Rensmann, 2010; Nathan, op. cit.). As such, basketball is one of the most diffused sports across the globe. Netball quickly diffused to the white settler Dominions of the British empire, especially Australia and New Zealand, where the sport was called basket ball until 1970. Netball came to compete with the American version in the second half of the twentieth century, but remained far more popular among women. Whereas netball profited in its diffusion from a wider British imperial and commonwealth identity, korfball had far less opportunities to get a footing in other countries and to develop into a widely diffused and practised sport. In view of the modest position of the Netherlands in the international balance of power, the Dutch hardly contributed to the modernization of school systems in Asia, Latin America and Africa in the twentieth century, and did not succeed in including korfball in that system. Neither did Dutch governors, administrators, captains of industry, teachers, merchants, mariners or soldiers play the role of their British and American colleagues, as catalysts of diffusion of sports that were popular in their country and among themselves. The international spread of korfball was thus confined to countries that did lie in the Dutch sphere of influence, like Dutch speaking Belgium and former colonies such as Curacao, Surinam, Indonesia. Today, the International Korfball Federation counts over fifty national korfball countries; each representing no more than a few hundred or thousand korfball players, with the exception of the Netherlands and Belgium. Accordingly, korfball hangs at the tail end of the long list of worldwide diffused organized sport recognized by the IOC. From a global perspective, it remains a provincial sport. 8

The international power and prestige of a country not only affects the way foreigners see their cultural products, it also impacts the way people look at themselves. Korfball came to be seen as a typical Dutch sports ironically despite its American origins and was as such due to a mixture of feelings of inferiority and pride. Mart Smeets, the grand old man of Dutch sport television, who played a few friendlies in the Dutch national basketball team during his sporting career, typified korfball as fantastically blah, Dutch bourgeois through and through, it smells of cabbage and gravy. 4 This deprecatory attitude is quite common with regard to korfball. Ever since its invention and more than any other sport in the Netherlands, it has attracted derision. Critics use its supposed Dutch origin as symbol for a sort of small mindedness that would characterize this sport. Advocates of korfball had ambivalent feelings against this. They were proud on the alleged national origins of their sport. At the same time, korfball propagandists did everything they could to spread the game outside the Netherlands and gain international prestige. These internationalization attempts, however, reinforced rather than mitigated the irony of the evoked responses. Korfball is a lovely Dutch activity, Smeets once remarked, but because some foolish missionaries travelled all round the world to spread the gospel of Broekhuysen, poor fellows from New Guinea, America and Taiwan now have to practice this activity in world championships. 5 Modern/traditional With the exception of the mixed teams and the location of the basket, korfball originally hardly differed from women s basketball in the United States. Their propensity to change, however, contrasted sharply; due to difference in the social and cultural framework in which these sports originated and spread. While many leaders in korfball resisted to rules changes and got the image of an old fashioned game, basketball was adapted quickly to the modernizing and commercializing world by a succession of rules changes. In the words of sports historian Guttmann: Once it had sprung full blown from the high minded Mr. Naismith s brow, basketball was continuously reshaped 9

by the YMCA, the Amateur Athletic Union, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, and various other national and international bureaucratic organizations, anxious to perfect the game (Guttmann, 1988: 72). In 1893 the backboards behind the baskets were introduced, in 1896 the dribble was permitted; in 1906 the basket was replaced by the net; to name just a few adaptations from the early years. That attitude remained unchanged until the present. To quote Guttmann once more: Everyone realizes that basketball, like the internal combustion engine and the computer, is an invention that has been and will be modified (Guttmann, op. cit.: 75). In that context, it does not come as a surprise that there were only small pockets of resistance against commercialization of this game. As early as 1896 a basketball match was reported for which the players got paid. Two years later the first professional basketball league was founded. Around 1920, professional players performed in several pro basketball leagues simultaneously. As a result, the sport became tougher and livelier, and soon shed its initial image of being a sissy game. Shoving, holding and clawing soon stopped being an exception, so that there remained little to recall the original non contact sport. In 1949 the National Basketball Association was formed, which focused exclusively on professional basketball, recruited the best players and paid high salaries. The rise of television accelerated this development. The NBA did what it can do to make basketball telegenic. Thus, the dunk was legalized, the 45 second shot clock was introduced and later reduced to 35 seconds, the three point field goal was introduced, the 20 second timeout per half was allowed, et cetera (Markovits& Rensmann, op. cit.; Nathan, op. cit.). While men s basketball soon shed the dominance of physical education teachers, women s physical education went on much longer to put its stamp on the development of women s basketball. The Women s Basket Ball Rules Committee was not averse to amendments, but was far less inspired by the wish to make matches more exciting than was the case with the men s game. However, these official women s basketball rules were not followed throughout the United States. In various states and cities, especially on the west coast, the men s rules were copied or new, adapted rules were 10

created, putting pressure on the Rules Committee to adjust the official rules too. In 1956, permission was given to take the ball from the hands of the opponent. Unlimited dribbling was permitted in 1966. The three court system was replaced by a two court system in 1938 and then in 1971 abolished in favour of a full court game (Lannin, 2000). In the Netherlands, the rules of korfball were largely amended and sharpened in the early period of codification and institutionalization. In 1906 the poles were lengthened from 3 to 3.5 meter. One year later, the dimensions of the court were expanded. In 1909, the right to score from every fee shot was dispensed. The subsequent introduction of the penalty shot in 1912 and the setting of new court dimensions in 1916 were the last amendments to have an obvious impact on the game in the pre war period. Looking back in 1949, a korfball official could therefore rightly conclude that 1915 can be considered as the year in which the development of korfball to a sport in its own right was finished (cited in Driel et al., 1963: 80). That opinion was shared by the president of the Dutch Sports Press in 1963, who characterized korfball as a game to which the modern luxury of sports has not yet penetrated (cited in Wiering, 1974: 84). From its invention until the middle of the twentieth century, korfball was inspired by educational and moral goals, with teachers as the moving spirits and people from the petit bourgeoisie and skilled workers as its participants. National pride and the preservation of the Dutch cultural heritage were key virtues in these social circles (Bottenburg, 2001). Their social milieu was characterized in telling words by one korfball player who wrote that he and his companions always went by bike to the korfball club because they did not have the money for taking the bus. And if they would have the money, they would have saved it. Yet we belonged to the bourgeoisie, indeed the lower and not the upper middle class; above the labour class, behind the rich people. Our parents were self employed persons, small shopkeepers, who had to count every penny (cited in Wiering, op. cit.: 16). They found friendship and companionship in the korfball clubs, in an atmosphere where nobody lived in great style and people were prepared to deny themselves for the other. 11

Against this background, every innovation of the game was approached with caution for many decades. The game of korfball was seen as a responsible sport, beset with rules based on principles that had been developed and maintained from a moralist educational perspective. The three court system, including a middle court where players had the task to transition the ball from defence to offense (or prevent the opponent to do so) without taking part in either of these sides, formed part of that. This rule was to prevent specialization and individualization among the players and to enforce their cooperation and versatility. Only in the second half of the twentieth century, that picture changed. First, the composition of the population altered. General levels of education and prosperity increased sharply between 1960 and 1980, and the working class and petit bourgeoisie particularly the traditional shopkeepers and wage earners in agriculture and industry gradually accounted for a smaller proportion of the working force. The middle and higher middle classes grew larger, however, keeping in pace with the expansion of higher education and the machinery of government. Korfball lost and won as a consequence of this change. As the recruitment groups from the lower social strata decreased, it lost a part of its blue collar base. Yet, their sons and daughters carried on their family s passion for this sport. This especially appears to be the case for those people originating from the working and lower middle classes, who climbed the ladder by getting new jobs in health care, social work and education thanks to the expanding welfare state and improved education opportunities. Not only did they learn korfball at their parents knees. Korfball also appealed to many of them in the 1970s because its soft values. At the same time, however, they favored modernization of the game, as to underline that they had surpassed the social class of their parents (cf. Bourdieu, 1979). Second, the increased competition that korfball experienced in the Netherlands from other team sports, including basketball, was a catalyst for reform. Several korfball clubs started basketball divisions and provided players of both sexes for representative teams in basketball club competitions. In some clubs, both men and women periodically preferred basketball to korfball if 12

matches were played at the same time. Faced with decreasing membership figures after 1980, modernists gained the upper hand over traditionalists and adjusted the korfball rules to the changing social cultural context. In 1991, the middle court was abolished. After that, new rules were introduced to make the game more attractive. Even the rush basket was replaced by a synthetic one, in spite of heavy resistance in older fractions of the korfball world. The clubs are wary of experiments, a prominent advocate of modernization complained after presenting a new design for the basket, I already got the reproach that we would have to change the name of our game, because my basket looks not longer like a real basket. ( ) Touch their material, and you touch their souls. 6 Paradoxically, the resistance to change had been both an expression of pride and the subject of mockery. The more korfball was ridiculed, the stronger the korfball players felt tied to each other and identified themselves with their sport. No sport association would have received the designation Royal with so much pride as the Dutch Korfball Association on the occasion of its 35 th anniversary. The president of that time, called it a splendid reward for restless efforts, perseverance, pride, misunderstanding and derision (cited in Bogers & Troost, 1984: 46). Masculine/feminine The mixed character of korfball was another element of its problematic image. With wisdom from hindsight, korfball looked quite modern in the early twentieth century world of sports; a progressive island of gender equality amid a sea of masculine and feminine archetypes. 13

Indeed, korfball was and still is a unique sport in the sense that no other team sport (with the exception of the mixed doubles in tennis) is played by men and women together. It was created and developed in the early twentieth century by teachers with a progressive and emancipatory vision on co education, which was in itself seen as a new and controversial experiment at that time; especially in physical education. Korfball leaders did not develop an adapted version of the men s game for women, as happened in basketball and so many other sports. They stuck to one version of the game that could be played by both men and women; in single sex or mixed gender teams. This emancipatory vision on co education went hand in hand with a traditional view on the position of women. First, the rules prescribed that in mixed teams players may only defend opponents from the same sex. Second, a specific division of tasks between men and women was developed and encouraged on the korfball court, with women passing the ball and men shooting at the basket. Third, the dress codes for women with long sleeves and long skirts initially prevented them from equal participation. In the course of time, these differences faded away. Today, women are active, contributory players who score many goals. Nonetheless, males still dominate the world s only true mixed gender team sport (IKF, 2010). The game is designed to give men and women equal opportunities, but in practice men are more in possession of the ball than women, men score more than women and men captain the team and preside the club more often than women (Crum 1988, 2003; Elling, 2003). Women s emancipation in basketball took another path. Starting as an adaptation of men s basketball to meet the cultural norms and social expectations of femininity in the transition from the nineteenth to the twentieth century, the women s version was slowly but steadily brought into line with the men s game. After Title IX (a law implicating that the budgets of men s and women s sports programs of educational institutions should be comparable) passed in the United States in 1972, participation in women s high school and college basketball increased dramatically. So did the chances of professionalism and media attention. In 1975, the finals of the intermural tournament 14

were staged for the first time in Madison Square Garden, the Valhalla of indoor sports at that time. In the same year, a women s basketball match was broadcast for the first time by a prominent national television network. Today, there is a team oriented women's professional sports league, the Women s National Basketball Association (WNBA). The teams play by men s basketball rules as defined by the NBA, with only a few exceptions. Both women s college and professional basketball are hugely popular from the east to the west coast, although it has not yet reached the status of the men s game. As a mixed gender sport, korfball has had divergent meanings at different times and in different contexts. On the one hand, it has grown out into a unique feature of this sport, of which korfball participants are proud. It has made korfball a family sport with a specific atmosphere in clubhouses and on the court; incomparable to any other sport. Korfball marriages are prevalent. Father, mother, daughter(s) and son(s) from the same family are often members of the same club, so that the korfball virus is transmitted from generation to generation. More than an emancipated sport, korfball has become a bourgeois family sport. On the other hand, its mixed character has been picked to portray korfball as a sissy sport. For example, in 1910, male employees of a textile factory founded a sport club, in particular to play football. When female employees expressed their desire to join this club with a women s football team in 1926, the management frustrated this initiative. In their view, football was not a sport for girls or women. Try korfball, they advised (cited in Bottenburg, 1991: 16). Male candidates were selected to create a korfball team; and as such the factory sport club started participating in korfball competitions. It was true that women also participated in sports like golf, tennis and field hockey, but that kind of higher status sports were beyond the reach of these factory workers. At that time, most other sports were seen as male sports. Nothing was left for girls and women of lower and middle classes other than sports like gymnastics and swimming; and korfball of course. 15

Moreover, the mixed gender character of korfball, as well as co education at schools, met fierce opposition, especially on religious grounds. At first sight, one could expect that this intrinsic characteristic of korfball may therefore have impeded its national and international diffusion. The rules of play, however, were adjusted to the local context, in stead of vice versa. Thus, single sex korfball teams arose in the Netherlands where mixed gender competitions were practically impossible or considered inadmissible. In the Catholic parts of the Netherlands, where mixed korfball was seen as fundamentally wrong, single sex women s korfball teams and clubs were founded. Still today, the members of these clubs number over 10,000. Single sex men s korfball never attracted such figures and remained confined to rather isolated places like boys schools and (single sex) army camps. Conclusions Vamplew argued that rules matter because they can affect the diffusion of a sport (Vamplew, op. cit.). This contrast study between local korfball and global basketball shows that the rules of play indeed matter, but that rules as such do not determine the diffusion of a sport. People do. They can prescribe, change or hold to the rules. And the social context does. Sports are adapted to existing sporting and social values and the wider views and cultural frameworks in which they are embedded. Thus, explanations for differences in the diffusion of sports must not be sought primarily in static intrinsic properties, but in their dynamic social characteristics. Basketball rules were frequently adapted to the sporting and social values of rule makers and their target groups. A female version was developed out of Naismith game of basketball (and later back to the men s version), which on its turn was altered during its diffusion process to Europe into other variants, like netball in England and korfball in the Netherlands. After their adaptation and institutionalization, the propensity to change of these three sports was radically different; again due 16

to differences in the social and cultural framework in which they were adapted and spread. Specific educational and moral views on society in general and sport in particular, posed an impediment to change in korfball and a persistence of its culture and image. While women s basketball was adapted to the modernizing and commercializing world by a succession of rules changes during the twentieth century, the leaders in korfball resisted to rules changes, thereby contributing to the image of korfball as an old fashioned game. The impact of the rules on the meanings that people attached to this sport reflected the ideals and conservatism of their leading officials and participant groups. Only in the second half of the twentieth century, modernists got the upper hand; mainly due to wider changes in society. Korfball has remained a relatively small sport in the world sporting system compared to the global sport that basketball has become. As a Dutch adaptation of women s basketball in the United States, korfball lacked the catalysts of diffusion that contributed so much to the spread of basketball and sports originating in countries that dominated the world. Moreover, it deviated from most mainstream masculine sports in its co educational set up: it was intentionally designed by teachers for male and female pupils at schools and became to be viewed as counterpart of both popularized and commercialized team sports, like football, and elitist sports, like tennis and field hockey. This also held true for women s basketball, but while this sport was adjusted to the men s variant and connected to the modern commercial sports world, korfball administrators clung to its tradition for a very long time. Related to its traditional, provincial and feminine image, korfball has always been treated with derision and contempt; more than basketball or other sport. As a consequence, the meaning korfball players attach to their sport has been influenced strongly by the continuing condescending tone and remarks by observers, journalists and indeed the public at large. This has resulted in an ambivalent attitude towards their own sport, which can best be characterized as a dual tendency to equalize and to cultivate. On the one hand, korfball enthusiasts have constantly aimed for a higher 17

social status by adopting prestigious characteristics of the dominant sports culture. On the other hand, they have persistently inclined to resist against mainstream sport developments and to cultivate those aspects of their sport that tie them together. References BLUMER Herbert, 1969, Symbolic interactionism. Perspective and method, Berkeley: University of California Press. BOGERS Netty & TROOST Fred, 1984, Holland korfballand, Amsterdam, Elsevier. BOTTENBURG Maarten van, 1991, «Als 'n man met een baard op 'n bokkewagen», Vrijetijd en samenleving: tijdschrift voor de studie van vrijetijd en cultuur, XI, 1: 5 27. BOTTENBURG Maarten van, 2001, Global Games, Urbana/Chicago, University of Illinois Press. BOTTENBURG Maarten van, 2003, «If korfball had been developed in America», in Fred Troost (ed.), "... and I went on a voyage to Sweden", Five reflections on 100 years of korfball, Utrecht, Koninklijk Nederlands Korfbalverbond: 71 107. BOURDIEU Pierre, 1979, Distinction: critique sociale du jugement, Paris, Les Editions de Minuit. BOURDIEU Pierre, 1988, «Program for a Sociology of Sport», Sociology of Sport Journal, V, 2: 153 161. CRUM Bart, 1988, «A critical analysis of korfball as a 'non sexist' sport», International Review for the Sociology of Sport, XXIII, 3: 233 241. CRUM Bart, 2003, «The Olympic ambition of korfball. A critical comment», in Fred Troost (ed.), "... and I went on a voyage to Sweden", Five reflections on 100 years of korfball, Utrecht, Koninklijk Nederlands Korfbalverbond: 109 140. ELIAS Norbert, 1970, Was ist Soziologie, München, Juventa Verlag. 18

ELLING Agnes, 2003, «Sekserelaties in de korfbalsport: gemengd en gelijkwaardig», in Fred Troost (Ed.) en maakte ik een reis naar Zweden. Negen beschouwingen bij 100 jaar korfbal, Utrecht, Koninklijk Nederlands Korfbalverbond: 165 196. FIBA, 2010, Inside FIBA, http://www.fiba.com/pages/eng/fc/fiba/p/opennodeids/889/selnodeid/889/aboufibamas t.html, Fédération Internationale de Basketball Amateur, retrieved 23 October 2010. GUTTMANN Allen, 1988, A whole new ball game: an interpretation of American sport. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. IKF, 2010, http://www.korfball.org/what is korfball, International Korfball Association, retrieved 12 December 2010. LANNIN Joanne, 2000, A history of basketball for girls and women. From Bloomers to Big Leagues, Minneapolis, Lerner Sports. MARKOVITS Andrei & RENSMANN Lars, 2010, Gaming the world, Princeton, Princeton University Press. NATHAN Daniel, 2008, «Travelling: notes on basketball and globalization; or, why the San Antonio Spurs are the future», International Journal for the History of Sport, XXV, 6: 737 750. NHS, 2010, 2009 2010 High School Athletics Participation Survey, Indianapolis, The National Federation of State High School Associations. NOC*NSF, 2008, Ledental NOC*NSF over 2008, Arnhem, Netherlands' Olympic Committee * Netherlands' Sports Federation. RENSON Roland, 2003, «The roots of the game of korfball a genealogy», in Fred Troost (Ed.),"... and I went on a voyage to Sweden". Five reflections on 100 years of korfball, Utrecht, Koninklijk Nederlands Korfbalverbond: 14 69. 19

VAMPLEW Wray, 2007, «Playing with the rules: influences on the development of regulation in sport», The International Journal of the History of Sport, XXIV,7: 843 871. VERWEEL Paul, 2000, «Sense making in sport organizations», in Annelies Knoppers (ed.), The construction of meaning in sport organizations. Management of diversity, Maastricht, Shaker Publishing. VIVIER Christian, MONIER Brice & ROSE Lois, 2008, «Basketball and cultural representations in the media: an analysis of the French Sport Magazine Maxi Basket», International Journal of Sport Communication, I, 4: 487 511. WEICK, Karl, 1995, Sense making in organizations, London, Sage Publications. WIERING, Henk, 1974, Een tijd, een sport, een leven, Amsterdam, PPC afd. IJ en Amstel. WITTGENSTEIN, Ludwig, 1975 [ 1953], Philosophische Untersuchungen, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. Notes 1 Korfbal, Official journal of the Dutch Korfball Association, I, 30, 29 December 1905. 2 Korfbal, Official journal of the Dutch Korfball Association, I, 30, 29 December 1905. 3 Nederlands Korfbal Blad, Official journal of the Dutch Korfball Association, IV, 19, 11 January 1939. 4 Mart Smeets, cited in Trouw (Dutch daily newspaper), 11 April 1991. 5 Mart Smeets, cited in Trouw (Dutch daily newspaper), 11 April 1991. 6 Adri Zwaanswijk, cited in NRC Handelsblad (Dutch daily newspaper), 17 October 1998. 20