Why Do Government Use Sport to Obtain Wider Social Objectives?

...

The conservative government, led by Margret Thatcher came to power in 1979. Thatcher’s opinion of sport varied as Houlian and White (2002, p.28) claim there was a period where sport was seen as a “quick fix solution to urban unrest” and then to a cause of “national embarrassment”, perhaps the reason for sport being on the backburner during this time may be down to the fact that the Thatcher Government promoted the idea of privatisation. Even though Thatcher’s dislike of sport was evident, the use of sport to obtain wider policy objectives was still implemented, most notably through the establishment of the Action Sport programme in 1982. The Action Sport programme was introduced in the inner cities in the west midlands and in London, it predominately targeted boys from black and ethnic minorities (Collins, 2010) also facilitating women (Glyptis, 1985), with the aim of reducing long term unemployment as a result of the anti-social behaviour, furthermost because of the riots in the West Midlands, Liverpool and Brixton (Trimble et at, 2010, p.46). Trimble et at (2010, p.47) criticised that even though the work was positive it failed to create links with the community. This would suggest that because the primary objective was non-sport related, the long term development of community sport was deemed unnecessary. This view is expressed in the work of Bloyce and Smith (2010, p.39) as they suggest that it was of concern to sport development workers and the Sports Council that the partnerships that existed with varying organisations for the reason that the policy goals along with their priorities where elsewhere other than sport, although it comes to no surprise granting that the programme was implemented as a result of wider social happenings. Although the programme contributed to broader social goals Taylor (2013) supports that the promotion of Action Sport sustained the growth of facility building turned out to be a strong indication that sport development was no the up rise.

It was also in 1982 that the publication of Sport in the Community: the next ten years was introduced, which was aimed at increasing participation at targeted groups. The Government deemed the creation of new facilities and community participation in using the provided facility’s would acts as “diversions” (Polly, 1998, p.22) towards what would seem to be anti-social behaviour, which at that point in time would have been high on the list of Government priority’s after the inner city riots. The drive to encourage participation at targeted groups, mainly the unemployed and the youth, was seen as a solution to anti-social behaviour.

As the time period from 1982 to 1991 was aimed towards targeting and evolution of sports development there was pressure on the justification and financial performance on being able to produce and for fill sporting strategies that would produce an increase in long term participation along with development for elite level athletes. As a result of financial inefficiency, that had effected facility development in previous years there was a need for amendment that would ease the Governments financial involvement and give a greater deal of financial responsibility to the private sector, therefore Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) was introduced, it allowed for greater “financial efficiency” (Jones, 2011, p.532) by giving private investors an opportunity to develop them self’s with in the sporting industry, mainly in the running of leisure centres.

Following on for the sport in the community: the next ten years publication the Sports Council, in 1988 published a follow-up strategy, Sport in the Community; into the 90s, which still held deliberation on target groups, this time it was intended towards women and youth along with a slight identification on promoting performance and excellence through generating elite athletes (Bloyce and Smith, 2010). The appointment of John Major as Prime Minister in 1990 saw a noticeable shift in policy priorities as there was an imposing deal of emphasis on schools, performance and excellence (Phillpots, 2011). In recognition of the mid 1990s, it was a time that sport development and primarily youth sport had advanced, in 1994 the establishment of the National Lottery, which would later become one of the most influential event that would positively affect the funding of sport, although it would also create a great deal of tension between grassroots sport and elite sport. Green and Houlihan, (2005) suggest that elite policy priorities have been influenced by two major factors that shape new policy’s, one of the influences was the introduction of the national lottery fund in 1994 which allowed sport, in particularly elite sport to benefit from the funding, the second influence was the raising the game policy statement.

The publication of Sport: Raising the Game in 1995 was a way of executing the ambition of reducing the decline of sport participation in school and to “re-establish competitive sport in schools” (Trimble et al, 2010, p.5) The policy focused around youth and school sport and a trivial application to performance and excellence, however it has been criticised by Trimble et al (2010, p.5) and Phillpots (2011, p.133) as having a limited empathies on mass participation and wider community participation, and Collins (2010, p.25) also criticised the publication for not giving paramount acknowledgement to local authorities, Bloyce and Smith (2010, p.46) have concluded that local authorities, whom reasonability it was to promote mass participation and sport for all, where not given recognition because there was a clear empathies towards elite sporting success and development.

As a result of the policy shift towards elite development, 1997 saw the restructure of the Sports Council into the establishment of the UK Sports Council and the English Sports Council, both responsible for achieving different objective. The UK Sports Council was accountable for developing performance and excellence through the United Kingdom, whereas the English Sports Council was accountable for the development of sport in England which involved the sustaining and developing participation throughout various stages of the sport development continuum (Bloyce and Smith, 2010). The election of the labour Government the same year also withdrew the Department of National Heritage and substituted it with a new body, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Due to the fact that it was the first time sport had featured as part of a title in a British Government department, it can be seen that Government intervention in sport was becoming seemingly apparent.

The election of the labour Government in 1997, produced a new way of looking at sport through the process of “Joined up thinking” (Bloyce and Smith, 2010, p.49),