From ‘Sport for All’ to Not About ‘Sport’ at All?: Interrogating Sport Policy Interventions in the United Kingdom

Abstract

This article provides a critical account of the ways in which the funding for, and political justifications underlying, sport policy in the United Kingdom have shifted from concerns to provide ‘Sport for All’ opportunities for the generality of the population, and at various times for targeted groups in particular, to a peculiarly sharp twofold focus. Namely: (i) the promotion of the ‘active citizen’ through social investment strategies that have children and young people as their principal target; and (ii) a ‘no compromise’ approach to winning (Olympic) medals and trophies on the international stage. In utilizing the theoretical perspectives of ‘policy as discourse’ and ‘storylines’, the analysis thus interrogates, and goes some way towards answering, questions raised in the literature regarding the ‘demise’ of Sport for All related programmes and activities. The conclusions consider some of the potential ramifications of this sharpened twofold policy focus for sport policymakers, management professionals and practitioners alike.

Notes

1. Sport England is the brand name for the English Sports Council. It is categorized as a non-departmental public body (NDPB) that operates on the ‘arm's length’ principle in its relationship with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) —the central government department responsible for sport. From 1 April 2006, Sport England's remit changed from one that, in the past, covered a broad elite sport-mass sport range, to one with a much tighter focus on what is being termed ‘Community Sport’.

2. The UK Sports Council (UK Sport) was created in 1996–7 and, like Sport England, is a NDPB under the auspices of the DCMS. It has a tight focus on: supporting elite athlete development; promoting the hosting of major sporting events; control of anti-doping procedures; and the use of sport for international development purposes. Some clarification is also required with regard to the complexity of the organizational architecture for sport in the UK. First, no other country competes internationally at two different levels: sometimes as UK/GB, and sometimes as individual home countries, i.e. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This means that there are currently five Sports Councils in the UK. UK Sport's UK-wide elite focus was clarified above, and Sport England's recently altered remit was explained in note 1. The Sports Councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland deal with both elite and grassroots sport. All five Sports Councils distribute funding, provide services and disseminate strategy. Second, it is acknowledged that the article has a UK/English focus but space precludes an in-depth analysis of Sport for All related activities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, the discussion in respect of elite sport policy is UK-wide and much of the analysis considers Sport for All programmes under the auspices of the former GB Sports Council up to the mid-1990s.

3. Thirty-five interviews were conducted in the study of elite sport policy. In each country, interviewees were selected from: the leading government agency/department for sport; the national governing bodies for swimming, athletics and sailing; and leading sports academics and experts who had written on sport policy. All interviewees were selected on the basis of their involvement in the development, implementation or analysis of elite sport policy within the last 15 years. Nine interviews were conducted for the study of school sport and PE in England, with similar selection criteria as the first study. Interviewees included senior civil servants or senior members of interest/professional organizations and senior academics involved in school sport/PE. Details of the frameworks for organizing the interviews in these two studies can be found in Green & Houlihan (2005) and Houlihan & Green (2006) respectively. Seven interviews have been conducted to date for the third (ongoing) study, again with similar selection criteria as the first two studies. Interviewees were selected from Sport England, UK Sport and the DCMS. (The empirical investigation of selected NGBs begins in 2007.) For all three studies, interviews were recorded and lasted between 40 and 80 minutes.

4. However, it should be recognized that, on the criterion of improved Olympic medal counts, the increased political/financial support for elite sport over the last ten years has been legitimized, to some extent at least. In 1996, the GB/NI Olympic team was placed 36th in the medals table. In 2000, the Olympic team improved its position to 10th place, a position also achieved in 2004 (for more detail see Green & Houlihan, 2005).