The aim of this doctoral thesis is to analyze Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) initiatives from the initiators, sponsors and donor’s perspective through the Scandinavian examples LdB FC For Life in South Africa and Open Fun Football Schools in Moldova. On this basis, it seeks to explore the relationship between rhetoric and practice surrounding both projects. The study is grounded in neo-institutional theory – primarily through the work of John Meyer and Brian Rowan, Nils Brunsson and Mark Suchman. On a general level, neo-institutional theory is suitable when studying the social interaction between organizations and their environments. Given the thesis aim and explicit focus on two SDP organizations it thus becomes appropriate to use. Current study is predominantly based on data constructed through fieldwork in Sweden, Denmark, South Africa and Moldova during a period between 2011 and 2013. The methods used are qualitative ranging from observations to semi-structured interviews. In addition, homepages and documents relating to the two projects have been analyzed. A case study research methodology has been applied and the writing has been inspired by ethnographic fiction. The study shows that there is indeed a discrepancy between theory and practice – that is a gap between intention and implementation meaning initiators, sponsors and donors do not exactly practice what they preach. This inconsistency has been explained by the use of the theoretical concepts of decoupling, moral legitimacy and organizational hypocricy. A common feature of LdB FC For Life and Open Fun Football Schools is that they position themselves as SDP initiatives using sport merely as a means, not an end. This can be illustrated by their objectives, which is to mitigate the spread of HIV/AIDS and create political stability. However, from observations and interviews on site in South Africa and Moldova an opposite picture emerge, namely a strong focus on the development of sport through training and competition. In addition, the empirical findings show that both initiatives serve as a means by which initiators and sponsors can create lucrative advantages on a competitive market. Moreover, the undertaken activities function as a means by which they can be associated with something that the general public considers good, namely social responsibility. Even if both initiatives have good intentions, more research has proven crucial to justify the existence and magnitude of many of today´s SDP programs. This study has aimed to contribute to that discussion, mainly by examining the pros and cons of two specific examples. Consequently, it hopes to fill the parts of a missing gap.