The belief that joint sporting activities can contribute to community development between groups stems from research on regularly scheduled ‘Sport for Development’ programmes in the developing world. These projects have proven to be successful in promoting long-term cross-cultural understanding in societies as deeply divided as Bosnia and Herzegovina [12], Sierra Leone [13], Liberia [14], South Africa [15] and Northern Ireland [16].

F4P relies heavily on the contact hypothesis which states that intergroup contact can be effective in reducing negative intergroup stereotypes and mutual prejudices, provided that certain conditions are met The primary conditions for effective intergroup contact are [17, p. 117]:

Over its 12 year evolution the project has clearly been working to meet these requirements, and has succeeded in most aspects. At all levels equality and cooperation are certainly endemic throughout the work of the project, from the planning stages and training of volunteers and local leaders in the training camps to the coaching on the ground. To some extent this satisfies the need for ongoing personal interaction; however, this only takes place sporadically throughout the year; between the children on the ground in Israel it is generally non-existent outside of project time.

Essentially the project was about co-existence, which was integral to its success and the reason why so many people from different communities are enthusiastic about getting involved in its processes. However, in the case of Israel, F4P’s real purpose now appears to have been about contributing to the general civic project in addressing what co-founder, Professor John Sugden terms as the ‘siege mentality’ of Jewish-Israelis. The programme has made a small contribution to the necessary conditions of a civic democracy, as a possible precondition, or product of, peace at state level between Israel and an independent Palestinian state. Thus, sport is the hook for the children, whereas for local actors at the next level, working towards coexistence is the attraction. Whether all the local leaders are completely aware of these ideas behind the project, in terms of working towards a civic society, is unclear. This presents a problem as, according to Norton, [18, p. 278] ‘uncertainty about the processes and overall goals of a peacebuilding mission risks unleashing a progressively worsening ‘imposition–ownership–divide’. F4P is not overly vocal about its support for radical change and neither does it attack societal inequalities head-on, but by preaching the core values of respect, responsibility, trust, equity and inclusion on the pitch, field and court, the idea is that the children and coaches are exposed to different ideas about how to perceive/treat the other group, which could extend beyond the project.

Whether this happens or not is difficult to measure. The children’s attitudes towards each other certainly progress throughout their time within the initiative and the demeanour of the local coaches and volunteers also appears to alter for the better. Community relationships from continued involvement in the projects, year after year, do appear to grow stronger and this is evident via participant observation, yet it is difficult to evidence as how does one measure a change of heart? In regard to its work in Israel in physical terms, F4P began life there in 2001 with one community and 100 children; by 2012, it involved 46 communities and 1500+ children in 14 different Cross Community Sport Partnerships (CCSP), including one for females only.

There has been extensive research on F4P over the years and various papers, dissertations and books have been published by various academics and students at Masters and Doctoral levels. These have focused on the impact on the children participating in CCSP projects; curriculum development; volunteer coaches’ experiences; political challenges; cultural challenges; practical challenges; motivation; and theoretical concepts and methods of evaluating the work [19].

Formal monitoring and evaluation has run alongside this research. F4P programmes have been monitored and evaluated in different ways and no one method has been used throughout. This is usually because each programme is unique and what is being monitored and evaluated in one is not necessarily what is needed in another. Different partners and funders required specific information for their own reporting and the role of one partner at times was limited to one aspect such as delivering training, recruiting communities, mentoring or supplying volunteers; therefore, harmonisation and standardisation were not always feasible.