History of Sport Development

The Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR) appointed a committee to report on the state of sport in Britain and to make recommendations. This was known as The Wolfenden report (1960). This report found issues and made recommendations on the following aspects:

• „The lack of facilities in the UK.

• „Coaching (a lack of it and the poor quality of those who do it).

• „Organisation, administration and finance of sport.

• Amateurism.

• „International sport (we didn’t do that well on the international stage).

• The influence of the press.

• „TV and radio.

• „Sunday games.

• „Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

• „Need to fill gap in participation after leaving school.

„This report identified the ‘Wolfenden Gap’ (school > adult). School age provision was well-catered for (e.g. PE and community clubs), however the transition into adult sport was limited. „The key recommendation from the report was to establish a ‘Sports Development Council’ (the Advisory Sports Council was set up in 1965). „According to Houlihan and White (2002) the impact of report:

• „Raised the profile of sport in government.

• „Appointed minister responsible for sport.

• „Gave prominence to competitive (and therefore organised) games and sports.

• „Provided basis for reorganisation of administration and funding of sport in Britain over next 30 years.

• „A crusade for more facilities should be undertaken.

In other words, this was a landmark policy which reshaped the landscape of sport!

The UK also had some success on the international stage in this era, even though sport was still poorly organised and the report to recommend changes was still relatively new.

This period was characterised by the growth of facilities and sports provision. The Advisory Sports Council set up in 1965 from the Wolfenden Report was replaced by the GB Sports Council. This organisation was given government funding to achieve government objectives for sport, but were ‘arms-length’ from the government (e.g. they weren’t part of the government). This period also saw an international focus of ‘Sport for All’ (European Commissions, 1975).

To demonstrate the increase in facilities and sports provision in this era, indoor sport centres grew from 12 in 1971 to 449 in 1981 (although this well significantly short of the 815 target by 1981). Swimming pools grew from 440 in 1971 to 524 in 1991 (this was above the target of 447 by 1981). (Coglan & Webb, 1990).

In 1975 the Sport and Recreation white paper was published (white papers guide future government policies). In this paper, recreation was seen as „‘one of community’s everyday needs’ and recommended:

• „‘Recreational Priority Areas’.

• „Use of Higher Education, Ministry of Defence and pro clubs (are we still to address this properly?).

• „‘Joint provision’ and ‘dual use’ of facilities.

• „Youth sections in clubs, coaching schemes.

• „Special attention for sport for disabled, mothers with young children and retired.

• „Support for talented through centres of excellence and bursaries.

This period characterised by target setting and targeted ‘Recreation Welfare’. Some communities were unhappy and recreation was seen as a way to support these communities.

„1981 – Brixton Riots

„1982 – GB Sports Council strategy – Sport in the Community: The next ten years

• „This was the first policy to set participation targets, which increased resources (funding) to sport.

• „Research showed that participants tended to be white, male, middle-class, car-owners, able-bodied, and relatively young.

• Sport in the Community: the next ten years:

  • Move away from subsidising facility building.

  • Targeted under-participating groups, especially unemployed.

  • Argued for partnership working, especially Local Authorities, Schools, sports clubs, voluntary groups.

  • Largest single financial commitment (45%) was to elite sport.

• „Sport in the Community: into the ‘90s:

  • Major focus on women and young people (13-24) as target groups.

„1989 – Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT)

• Private sector organisations started to become more involved in sport. They could increase the number and quality of sporting facilities and provision, but this increased the cost of participating in sport.

• The government would sell contracts with strict guidelines to private sector organisations to achieve their objectives (e.g. they would put out a contract for a company to build and manage a gym in a local area, but there would be strict guidelines around membership costs. The contract may include government grant money towards the building of the facility).

  • Think of train companies when trying to understand CCT. They provide the service and charge fees, but they have conditions and a time-frame. They bid for a contract which the government gives out as they don’t want to do everything themselves. The belief is these organisations will provide a better service (although usually at a higher cost). The same happened in sport from 1989 to the current day.

(Green & Houlihan, 2005).

• 1992 – Department of National Heritage (DoH) established.

• „1994 – National Lottery introduced.

  • „Sport was changing, National Governing Bodies needed to adapt, and the National Lottery certainly helped.

  • „Launched November 1994, intended to fund 5 ‘good causes’:

    • Arts.

    • Charities.

    • Heritage.

    • Millennium projects.

    • Sport.

  • „Originally intended to fund new, and refurbish older sports facilities from local to national level.

  • The government therefore avoided spending their own funds.

  • „According to King (2009: 59), it was ‘arguably the single most important factor underpinning sport policy at both the elite and welfare ends of the continuum.’

• „1995 – Sport: Raising the Game.

  • Government policy to improve sport in this country (elite and community).

• „1996 – GB places 36th at Atlanta Olympics (disastrous!! Appalling!! Something must change!!).

• 1997 – GB Sports Council (which focused on all sport in GB) was replaced by Sport England, Sport Scotland, Sport Wales and Sport Northern Ireland (these focused more on community sport).

• „1997 – UK Sport established (elite sport focus).

  • World Class Pathway (WCP) created.

• DoH renamed Department of Media, Culture and Sport (DCMS).

This period was characterised by consolidation of elite sport, which propelled up the political agenda.

„Labour came to power in 1997 and sport became increasingly more interventionist (government became more interested and more hands on). This did lead to ‘policy overload’ as the government changed their focus for sport in this era. „Sport was being seen as a tool in social and economic regeneration and social inclusion and was being valued for its perceived benefits to society. They also eEstablished new Department of Culture, Media and Sport (sport now in the title of a government department to signify its increased attention).

• „2000 – Sporting Future for All.

• 2002 – Game Plan.

  • „The most detailed expression of government sports policy to date.

  • „50+ recommendations linked to targets, but specific focus on sport and health.

  • „Many interventionist strategies.

  • „Central role of sports development personnel.

  • „Helped to create many sports development officer posts in various levels of sport and physical activity all over the country.

• „2003 – London wins rights to host Olympics.

• „2006 – UKSport adopt “No Compromise” strategy.

• „2008 – Playing to Win: A New Era for Sport.

  • „‘To engage a million more people in regular sport participation.’

  • „‘To produce a seamless ladder of talent development from school to the elite level, with opportunities for more competition and more coaching at each level.’

  • „‘To ensure every member of the sporting family, and every part of Government, plays its part.’

  • „Distribution of majority of National Lottery money devolved to (a few) National Governing Bodies, therefore their influence will increase.

  • „Focuses on 3 areas: PE and sport for young people; elite sport; community sport.

  • „Strong partnerships at national and local level to enable sports projects to thrive.

„The policies in this era moved from sport for all with a focus on social inclusion and the wider benefits sport can bring, towards competition, elitism and sport for sports sake after we won the rights to host the Olympic Games.

• This period can be characterised as increasingly ‘sport for sport sake’.

• „2010 – Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport.

  • Addition of ‘Olympics’ into government department title to demonstrate the importance of this.

• „2012 – London hosts Summer Olympic Games – 3rd Place (26 gold /17 silver /19 bronze).

• „2012 – Creating a sporting habit for life: a new youth sport strategy.

  • London 2012 legacy was aimed at inspiring a generation to be more active and to take part in sport.

• „2016 – 2nd place in Rio Olympics medal table following record investment into elite sport.

  • Very rare achievement. Most countries invest heavily into sport in the period leading up to hosting the Olympics, then cut their elite sport funding after. There are also benefits of hosting which could lead to more medals (e.g. home crowd and more athletes), therefore it’s common for a country to drop down the medal table after hosting, not to go up.

  • This demonstrates how elite sport remained a high priority in the UK, however participation numbers didn’t achieve set targets from the London 2012 legacy (too much focus on competitive sport and elite sport??)„.

• 2015 – Sporting Future: A New Strategy for an Active Nation

  • Recognition that competitive sport wasn’t increasing participation as expected.

  • Recognition that physical activity is important for active lives and therefore now captured together with sport – sport and physical activity.

Are we witnessing the development of sport or the development through sport…?

• „Sport development has emerged over the past 50 years.

• Sport development has witnessed periods of interest and enthusiasm as well as neglect and disdain.

• Sport development has traditionally sat on the periphery of governmental interest.

• Sport development’s evolution suggests a number of common themes