The activities of sports clubs and organizations have been vivacious in Jyväskylä since the 19th century. The first sports clubs that were established in the city were Päijänteen Purjehdusseura (1886), Jyväskylän Naisvoimisteluseura (1888), Jyväskylän Kisa-Toverit (1899), Jyväskylän Weikot (1905), Jyväskylän Ampumaseura (1908), and Jyväskylän Talviurheiluseura (1922). However, there have occurred many kinds of changes in the club activities throughout the years and thus, only few clubs have kept on their operations continuously. From the clubs mentioned above, Jyväskylän Weikot is still operating and celebrated its 100 anniversary on 26th December 2005. (Jyväskylän kaupunki & Huovinen n.d.)
The variety of sports clubs started to richen due the increased sports facility construction. The first swimming hall of the city, AaltoAlvari, was built in 1955, and during that time, it was only the fifth swimming hall in Finland. Due the large extensions in 1983 and 1991, the swimming hall became one of the biggest hydrotherapy centers in Finland. Also, the constructions of the Hippos sports center (1970s–1980s), the Harju stadium (built 1926, renovated in 1950), the Viitaniemi ice hockey rink (1952), and the Laajavuori recreational area (1960s), improved the conditions of sports clubs. (Jyväskylän kaupunki & Huovinen n.d.)
According to Ilmanen and Kontio (2003, 124) the amount of sports clubs and their memberships grew quite moderately during the 1950s and 1960s. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, the number of sports clubs in Jyväskylä increased from 36 to 56, and total memberships of all clubs almost doubled from less than 9000 to over 16 000. Recent trend in clubs’ development has been the separation of junior and women teams from the mother club.
This has happened especially among Finnish baseball and ice hockey (Ilmanen & Kontio 2003, 139).
Sports facility construction in Jyväskylä was especially powerful in the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, and in the early 1990s. The construction costs and simultaneously started economic downturn forced the city to check and reduce the sports services’ operating costs. From the sports clubs’ point of view, this meant the reduction of grants and the increase of any kind of payment. Between 1990 and 1996, the city’s direct support for sports clubs decreased by 42 percent. Since 1992, the city’s sports administration also gradually removed the free training times and facilities from the clubs. The rents of sports facilities multiplied. (Ilmanen & Kontio 2003, 137–138.)
The changes made by the city’s sports administration had dramatic impacts especially on those sports clubs that used the facilities in the Hippos area. For example the fees of the indoor ice rink increased over 400 percent between 1991 and 1994, and the fees of the multi-purpose indoor hall increased over 150 percent. In order to diminish its own administrational costs and to balance the unreasonable financial burden for some clubs, the city’s sports administration signed annual contracts with the major user clubs of Hippos’ facilities. The contracts for the years 1993–1996 included the time that the club used for training and
matches in the city’s facilities, payment terms, terms of terminating the contract, and the possible sanctions. Remarkable was that the contracts only concerned the clubs’
representative teams and the oldest junior teams. In 1996, there were 13 valid contracts.
(Ilmanen & Kontio 2003, 138.)
In 1995, a lot of discussion between the city and the clubs was arisen because few big sports clubs have got into debt for the city. A specialized working committee was established to prevent the over-indebtedness of the clubs. The City Council decided to convert clubs’
liabilities into long-term receivables, and lowered the fees of facility usage by 30 percent from the 1997 onwards. At the same time, those clubs who have chosen the debt arrangement, committed not to apply for club grants from the city. This, however, did not stop the indebtedness of the sports clubs. According to the new pricing and charging policies, a club could not get any grants or subsidies if it owed money to the city. Some clubs took a loan to pay their debts, but some clubs avoided the boycott by separating the first league team and junior operations. For example the teams JYP, JJK, Diskos, and Kiri were able to apply for the grants because they were considered as new clubs. Overall, it is essential to notice that the new pricing and charging policies increased the financing risks of big ball clubs in already unstable situation. On the other hand, separating the junior operations was seen as a solution for securing the children and youth activities. (Ilmanen & Kontio 2003, 138–139.)
The sports clubs around the Jyväskylä area feel that they are important organizers of sporting activities, not only in their immediate surroundings, but also on a larger scale, for example among several municipality areas or even throughout the entire province. Almost half of the clubs also consider their activities as very important or quite important in a context of their operating area. Arguments for this were the large number of members, targeted activities to children and youth, and the general impact on local and national sports culture. When asking about the construction of sports facilities, the clubs asked, in general, for more spaces to practice a specific sport discipline, especially ice hockey and football. This finding differs significantly from the resident survey (Innolink Research Oy 2009), which reported that the biggest desires concerning the facilities were related to swimming halls and indoor sports facilities. All in all, the sports clubs reported that clear developmental actions would be the security and maintenance of facilities, as well as designing and constructing of new sports facilities. (Kärkkäinen 2010, 98–101.)
9 HIPPOS2020 PROJECT FROM THE PERSPECTIVES OF THREE SECTORS
This chapter presents the results of the study. The first subchapter introduces the different planning phases of the Hippos2020 project, and briefly discuss the further actions after the planning. Next subchapters address the roles of each sector, as well as the cross-sectoral collaboration in relation to the successes and challenges of the Hippos2020 project.