United Kingdom sports policy - Essay Example

UNITED KINGDOM (UK) SPORTS POLICY - AN APPRAISAL Introduction Sports is a fundamental human activity which is related to leisure, physical and mental well being of individuals as well as equity in society in general. Sports have been defined as a physical activity which is governed by a set of rules or customs and one which is often engaged in competitively. It involves some physical exertion and skills and also acts as an active pastime as well as recreation. (Sport, 2004). It has to be governed by a set of rules as there is competitive interaction between people or within the community. Sports have been promoted in the United Kingdom as a modern public sector service by successive governments. (Henry. 2001, 19). Being a competitive activity between individuals, groups and states, it is but natural that sports will come within the purview of state policy for smooth promotion as well as to ensure steady growth of sporting abilities in the country to generate a strong feeling of nationhood through better performance in international competitions. Governments thus invariably indulge in formulating sports policies that will earn laurels for the individual and the country in the international arena. Sports policies are also deemed significant to ensure equity in dispensation to afford equal opportunities for weaker sections of society. Notwithstanding the above, it is commonly noticed that public policy is influenced by practical politics, power relations, resources and technical considerations. (Veal.2002, 11). United Kingdom has been at the forefront of sports over the years. The famous quote attributed to the Duke of Wellington that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the sports fields of Eton and Harrow has justifiably highlighted the importance of sports in British national life. The UK sports policy is contained in Game Plan: A Strategy for Delivering Government's Sports and Physical Activity Objectives developed by the UK Strategy Unit under the British Prime Minister's Office published in 2002. (Game Plan, 2002). The policy and strategy laid down in this document has been followed up rigorously and is reviewed every year. The salient facets are discussed as per succeeding paragraphs. Game Plan: A Strategy for Delivering Government's Sports and Physical Activity Objectives The importance to sports policy in general and the policy document in particular is evident with the Foreword being written by the Prime Minister Mr. Tony Blair. Mr. Blair highlights the significance of sports as a powerful tool to achieve a number of goals for governments and the need for being adequately equipped to take advantage of the means for nation building. (Game Plan, 2002). The Report has been focused as per Blair on the importance of increasing grass roots participation in sports for health benefits so that the current health costs of 2bn a year or 54,000 lives lost prematurely could be cut down. A government - sports bodies partnership is sought to be created to achieve these aims. (Game Plan, 2002). The Prime Minister has also highlighted the need to cut down on sports bureaucracy. The focus is on the younger generation and it is envisaged that at least 75 percent youth should participate in sports in the coming years. The Secretary Of State RT Hon Tessa Jowell has also emphasized the need for greater focus on participation in sports as only 32 percent of adults in England were doing more than 30 minutes of moderate exercise five times a week which is the recommendation of health professionals. (Game Plan, 2002). The disparity in the population with limited participation by the lower income groups and fall in involvement with increasing age has been noted with concern. Ms Jowell has bench marked British performance with nations as Finland and Australia which have a large participation in sports and also one which is increasing with age. Britain's performance has been highlighted as the best in Olympics since 1920, with world champions in more than 50 sports but most of these are not in sports carrying a high profile public image. (Game Plan, 2002). The report has highlighted the role of the government in sports as that of widening the opportunities to participate, to develop talent and enable sportsperson to compete at the highest level. (Game Plan, 2002). The Report highlights the manner in which governments could add value to sports. The key objectives recommended for the government are two fold, a major increase in participation in sports and physical activity because of the significant health benefits and to reduce the costs of inactivity and a sustained improvement in performance in international competitions particularly in sports with high public awareness, so that it creates a feeling of feel good nationalism. (Game Plan, 2002). The key recommendations made by the report are in four areas, which include grass roots participation, high performance sports, hosting of mega sports events and delivery. (Game Plan, 2002). Grass roots participation implies undertaking a wide range of activities with a particular focus on the economically weaker sections, the youth, women and the older people. The barriers to participation in sports by this community to include lack of time, cost, information and motivation are planned to be overcome by provisioning adequate facilities for active participation. (Game Plan, 2002). The policy on high performance sports identifies the need for better prioritization for funding of sports at the highest level, improved development of talented sportspersons by providing them funding and delivery of high service. (Game Plan, 2002). Mega sporting events are to be hosted after due evaluation of the benefits that accrue from the same including the need for better government involvement. An important facet considered is that of delivery to ensure that the least money goes to sustaining the sports bureaucracy and more goes to the end user. For this purpose it is said that the public, private and voluntary sectors should work together. (Game Plan, 2002). Critique of UK Current Sports Policy The politics of leisure policy includes all actions of the government and not just the stated intentions and performance of the distributive role in allotment of funds. (Henry, 2001, 4). The responsibility of the government in making public policy is underlined by the fact that government is accountable to the public being an elected body. While the approach to provision of sports to the public is frequently mixed. (Veal, 2002, 1). This has also been the approach of the UK sports policy which sees a combination of public, private and voluntary organizations participating in sporting activities in UK, with the government playing a coordinating role. In UK the labour government is said to have systematically promoted sports as a leisure, modern, public sector service. (Henry, 2001, 19). The control of resources is intended to be democratic and egalitarian intent as genuine sports for all. (Henry, 2001, 19). This is evident in the sports policy being followed by the UK, where there is positive discrimination for the weaker sections of the society and the intent is to get maximum population in the sports grid. Particular attention is being paid to those who are considered as the target groups, youth, women and people in the older age group. This policy ensures that the egalitarian model spoken of by Henry is adapted by UK. Public policy is no doubt influenced by practical politics, power relations, availability of resources and technical considerations. (Veal, 2002, 11). This is once again reflected in the UK policy. The emphasis on sports to impact on a large segment of the population particularly the weaker section has more than an altruistic motive. By engaging a large body of people in such activity, their active cooperation in sponsoring the overall government agenda can be achieved at very low costs. Greater participation is also sought to ensure that higher costs on health services can be reduced. Public policy does not operate in a vacuum. It is denoted by a set of values. (Veal, 2002, 35). These values are dictated by the human rights, citizen rights, human needs and their complex interaction which is reflected in the public policy. (Veal, 2002, 11). This is evident in the UK policy as well. The values of promoting a healthy nation and attaining higher national standing in competitive sports has been reflected as one of the principal aims of the policies. The purpose of the policy document, "Game Plan" was to upgrade the overall awareness of sports in UK with a view to seek greater participation in sports in general and also to improve the performance of UK sportsmen in international sports events of higher visibility. This has been evolved as a sequel to the policy which was published in 2001, "A Sporting Future for All" which has now been translated into clearly articulated goals and objectives. (Game Plan, 2002). The need has also been felt to evolve a result oriented strategy in terms of better distributive outcome from the budgetary spending on the critical area of sports and public health. The strategy needs to be considered in the larger light of the overall context of sports in UK which are a part of the ministry of culture and media. The policy is in line with the overall UK government's theme of building a healthier society by greater participation of people in sporting activities. An appraisal and evaluation of the sports policy has indicated that quality and quantity of sports and physical activity in the UK is lower than what it should be and the response has not changed over the recent years. While the performance of UK in international sports is said to be reasonably high, the key weakness is the fragmented nature of funding which has denied substantial benefits accruing to sportsmen from a public spend to the tune of 2 Billion every year. The trickle down effect wherein the money reaches the end user is said to be poor. The governments interaction with the varied sector through which sports and physical activity is delivered is also said to be complex, thereby denying synergy. Government intervention has been sought purely from the point of view of correcting inefficiencies in provision, addressing inequity of access or opportunity without replacing what can be done by the private or voluntary sectors. The time period set for achieving the results is over 20 years which is considered realistic as there would be a requirement of substantial behavioral changes that need to be brought about in the populace. The strategy to be adopted is said to be holistic addressing a number of areas simultaneously. A cross departmental Sport and Physical Activity Board is said to be established to achieve this aim. More public money is to be given to high visibility sports rather than the prevalent policy to fund those sports where more number of medals can be won but which lack public interest. The investment strategy is thus attempting to adopt a portfolio approach. (Game Plan, 2002). A systematic approach to talent identification and development has also been proposed to ensure that more young athletes can reach the elite level. The policy has also emphasized on better funding related to service delivery. This will include measures such as funding of sports separately at the UK and at the devolved level based on a specific priority which is drawn up at the national level, development of one stop approach to funding at the grass roots level, better cooperation and coordination between the home countries through the sports councils and cabinet and so on. (Game Plan, 2002). Stream lining support and conduct of mega events is also proposed. In supporting major events, it is proposed that government should be involved at the earliest stage, from the beginning to the proposed mega event and include the cultural as well as sporting events after assessing the potential and should oversee investments. (Game Plan, 2002). The key issues involved include improvement of delivery. These developments are to be undertaken after improving the organization and the delivery mechanism of sports and physical activity in the UK. An organizational reform is proposed to ensure that the overall management system will improve. Accountability with the funding bodies is to be established by the central government and better coordination is envisaged between various departments. (Game Plan, 2002). The need for strategic planning in a public activity is undeniable. In the case of sports and leisure activities while a majority of such activity will be taken up by the private sector, the role of the government is principal in providing a broad perspective and programme for implementation in attaining the major goals. (Veal, 2002, 88). Government agencies as Sport England and UK Sport are to act as investors rather than the deliverers of services. Sports product delivery by these bodies would be restricted thereby saving the money spent on the actual delivery of products by these agencies and greater funding going to sports persons. (Game Plan, 2002). The overall role of the government is underlined as a partner with the voluntary and private sectors. (Game Plan, 2002). One of the key issues stated in the policy is to get the public money down to the athletes and sports persons who are the key performers and who should be the end beneficiaries of funding. While a number of policy measures have been indicated, the manner in which this is to be achieved has not been covered. Thus this goal is likely to remain one that will be as Henry indicates one of stated intentions. (2001, 4). Policies should be able to translate stated intentions into actions and only then will be regarded as complete. Apart from the standard measures, a broad ranging policy as indicated by, Game Plan, needs to explore all avenues for increasing popularity of sports as also generate revenue. Sports tourism is a lucrative possibility for the same, particularly with the UK holding many key international sports events every year such as the Wimbledon, Epson Derby and so on. A policy is increasingly required to identify the role of sports tourism and achieve integration between the two diverse sectors of sports and tourism. (Weed, 2003, 17). No such attempt has been made in the UK policy. This would have ensured that there is resource generation from within by the sports industry in UK. Spelt as a government policy there would have been greater emphasis towards the same which has been lost due to non inclusion. As also though falling in the realms of the culture, sports and media ministry in UK, there are no policy linkages which have been established between these three key areas, which would have also benefited from a synergistic relationship. The key proposal is outlined in the government vision for sports which is stated as, "to increase significantly levels of sport and physical activity, particularly among disadvantaged groups; and to achieve sustained levels of success in international competition". (Game Plan, 2002). The policy has provided adequate background to support these proposals and has even identified the bench marks which need to be emulated, such as Finland for mass participation in sports and Australia for better results in high visibility sports. These are no doubt laudable goals for a nation as it is attempting to achieve a dual elitist as well as egalitarian agenda, thereby meeting the aspirations of both the spectrums of society as well as ensuring an effective projection of UK as a sporting nation the World over. However the detailed strategy for implementing the proposals appears to be fairly weak and apart from the standard measures as creating national bodies for overseeing implementation and better linkages between the authorities conducting sports, effective measures have not been indicated. The principal stake holders in a sports policy are the general public in Britain and the sportspersons. The policy is designed well to meet the aspirations of both these primary stake holders. The creation of additional facilities for sports and the higher levels of incentives proposed for sports persons in the policy will enable delivery to the core community. This is also in line with the European Charter on sports. As against national policy on sports, the policy of groups of nations as the European Union are said to be more holistic and less devoted to competitive nature of national sports. Thus the European Sports Charter 2001 Revised has set out the basic goals as enabling every individual to participate in sports and notably to ensure that young people have the opportunity to receive physical education instruction, opportunity to acquire basic sports skills, safer and healthy environment and cooperation within the appropriate organizations and a chance to improve performance. The protection of the moral and ethical basis of sports, human dignity and safety and restricting abusive policies and practices is also one of the major goals identified in the Charter. (European Charter, 2001). The policy principally reflects the ideology of the Labour government in Britain. It has constantly strived to use sports as a means of spreading its egalitarian message through the community. It has apparently succeeded in devising a document which should see the spread of sports as a communiqu of national unity, better health and greater availability of facilities to a wide cross section of society. Thus the policy can be stated as an explicit one of social inclusion, enhancement of national prestige and image, sustaining the environment, promotion of health and in an implicit way, social control and crime reduction whereby it is involving greater participation of the youth and people from the economically weaker sections in participation in sports. The policy is seen to be more distributive rather than regulatory in nature as the Government role is identified to be that of facilitating rather than actually conducting sports activities. This supervisory role for the government is well suited for development of sports and leisure as these are better conducted by voluntary bodies and private organizations. The involvement of the state has been considered essential only to promote greater community participation and to focus on achievement in sports at the international level which would generate more national pride and unity. There are adequate oversight arrangements which have been made and the achievements in the field of sports are being monitored on a regular basis in UK. A yearly report on progress made is required to be published. Yearly reports are being published and are available in the public domain. This denotes an effective mechanism for follow up and monitoring policy implementation. On the whole, the implementation of Game Plan in UK is generally in line with the stated policy. References 1. Game Plan: A Strategy for Delivering Government's Sport and Physical Activity Objectives. 2002. Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office. London. 2002. 2. Henry, I. (2001) The Politics of Leisure Policy. (2nd edition) Macmillan. 3. Sport. 2004. The American Heritage. Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Houghton Mifflin Company. 4. The European Sports Charter (1992) revised (2001). http://www.sportdevelopment.org.uk/html/eucharter.html. (29 July 2006). 5. Veal, A.J. (2002) Leisure and Tourism Policy and Planning. (2nd edition) CAB 6. Weed, Mike. Bull, Chris. 2003. Sports Tourism: Participants, Policy and Providers. Elsevier. Read More