The National Sports Debate: Sponsorship beyond the VIP box
Last year, the National Sports Debate centered on the question of what value sports hold for society. During this second edition, ‘we are turning that question on its head,’ explained moderator Marcel Meijer, a former sports journalist and now head of corporate relations & events at the Dutch Lottery. The discussion on the day focused primarily on how to promote sports. It has been proven that sports contribute to alleviating major societal issues such as physical inactivity, mental health problems, loneliness, inequality of opportunity, and polarization.
Even so, the value of sports was also discussed – understandably so at an event attended by (former) athletes, sports administrators, club sponsors, and other sports enthusiasts. Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema highlighted the social value of sports, which – as last year’s debate also demonstrated – is significant. This value is only fully realized when as many people as possible can participate, which is far from always the case. Research cited by Halsema shows that 63 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual athletes are ridiculed or bullied, which discourages them from taking part in sports.
There are also other challenges. Clubs are struggling with outdated facilities and high energy costs, while trying to keep membership fees affordable. And in a densely built-up city, space is scarce. Building fewer homes to preserve sports fields puts even more pressure on that limited space. Public welfare – of which sports is an integral part – should therefore receive more attention in national politics, according to Halsema.
House of commons-style debate
The plenary session was followed by a ‘House of Commons’-style debate, moderated by Gijs Weenink of DebatAcademie, exploring propositions on what governments, sponsors, and other funders can and should do to promote sports. Propositions such as: ‘Making sports entirely dependent on government funding puts the future of sports at risk.’ A representative of the Platform for Entrepreneurial Sports Providers (Platform Ondernemende Sportaanbieders) agreed. The platform supports entrepreneurs who, on their own initiative risk and at their own risk, offer sports activities in a neighborhood or village – such as soccer training for a few hundred children. Such an entrepreneur often only needs assistance at the outset; after that, they can support themselves. According to the platform, supporting entrepreneurs in this way ‘makes the whole pie bigger.’ Sports that rely solely on government funding, on the other hand, become ‘slower and more risk-averse.’
But the suggestion that the government could therefore step back was met with pushback. One of the debaters argued that the government still invests far too little in sports. There certainly was enough talk about public-private partnerships, ‘if you want to kick-start investments, you can match it with a co-investment,’ for example through an investment fund. Another participant warned that the government might end up using entrepreneurs as a convenient excuse, assuming: ‘They will take care of it.’
That the government remains truly indispensable was underscored by a figure cited by Michel Bezuijen, an alderman in Zoetermeer and chair of the Association of Sports and Municipalities (Vereniging Sport en Gemeenten). Municipalities are the primary investors in recreational sports, collectively contributing around two billion euros per year, largely in facilities. Any company looking to get involved in local sports almost always ends up dealing with the municipality. Municipalities own the fields and sports halls, allocate scarce space, and are aware of which groups might be falling through the cracks.
Award for life goals
After the debate, the discussion shifted to the role of individual organizations. The Frank van den Wall Bake Award, named after the godfather of Dutch sports sponsorship and a partner at the event organizer, IVRM Reputatie, was presented. The award recognizes organizations that demonstrate the impact sports can have and how sports, the business community, and society reinforce one another. The jury selected Life Goals Netherlands from among five nominees. This organization uses sport to give people in vulnerable circumstances a sense of perspective and a place in society: the homeless, people with mental health issues or a history of addiction, at-risk youth, and asylum seekers. To achieve this, Life Goals works with 35 local partners and 440 community sports coaches, bringing together municipalities, healthcare and social service institutions, and sports clubs – public-private partnership at neighborhood level. Participants feel physically and mentally fitter, gain more self-confidence, dare to reconnect with others, and demonstrably require less healthcare or social services. Director Tom van Ketel reported that of the 3,550 participants, 46 percent required less care after participating.
Funding, expertise, and networks
An honorable mention went to Rabobank, which has been enabling sports to make a ‘social impact’ for years, both in elite and recreational sports. A key factor was the bank’s commitment to ‘significant funding,’ and not limiting itself to sponsorships, as many other companies still do. In the words of one of the panelists: ‘Over the past ten years, I have seen plenty of executives in fancy suits show up and take a photo with one of those young people for their LinkedIn profile. And then you never hear from them again.’
Rabobank, in contrast, maintains a genuine long-term focus. Through the Rabo ClubSupport program, the bank supports clubs in three ways: through funding, with expertise, and with a network. The funds are generated through an annual campaign in which members of the cooperative bank vote for their favorite club; the more votes, the larger the financial contribution. In 2025, more than 727,000 members voted, and nearly 20 million euros went to more than 35,000 clubs and associations. The expertise comes, among other sources, from advisors at NOC*NSF, who help clubs through workshops, masterclasses, and one-on-one coaching to make their facilities more sustainable, retain volunteers, or draft a sponsorship plan. In addition, the bank leverages its own network to support the clubs.
The non-athlete
Basic-Fit Netherlands presents a different model. While Rabobank primarily invests in clubs, the fitness company focuses on people who do not exercise at all. The chain also believes in public-private partnerships. In Amsterdam last year, Basic-Fit, with support from the city, helped some 6,000 women to take up exercise. The company carries out similar projects in the other countries where it operates. Together, Rabobank and Basic-Fit demonstrate that a company interested in sports sponsorship can do far more than simply provide funding in exchange for a logo on a jersey and access to a VIP box stocked with bitterballen (Dutch snacks). And they can – and should – do more if they truly want to invest in sports and in their own brand.
This article was published in Management Scope 09 2026.