Critically examine how Government's attitude and policy towards sport has changed and evolved over the last 25 years.

How do we define the concept of sport? Usually the words leisure, play, free-time, competition and physical activity spring to mind. However, researchers generally struggle to agree on a generic definition of what constitutes sport. Coakley (2004) however defines sport as an
“institutionalised and competitive range of activities that involve vigorous physical exercise or the use of relatively complex physical skills by individuals whose participation is motivated by a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors”.
Sport is undoubtedly one of the greatest passions of recent times. Watched and played by millions around the world, modern sport has become an inherent aspect of life. Whether it is the Wold Cup Finals, the Olympics, the Six Nations Rugby or the Ryder Cup, we can now all enjoy sport from the comfort of our own homes whereby interactive television increasingly helps create the artificial feeling of having been there without actually having to leave your favourite armchair. (Boyle and Haynes, 2000)
Contemporary sport is ultimately ‘big business’. In global terms, sport is a rapidly growing industry accounting for around 3 per cent of the overall world trade, of which the US retains a 48 per cent share and the UK a 36 per cent share and whereby sports sponsorship alone generates around $15 billion per annum and where the sale of television rights itself can generate up to $50 billion annually. (Maguire et al, 2002) Or as Polley (1998: 76) puts it:
“The volume of money that has become involved, the importance of that money to individual clubs and sports, and the constant need to maximise the potential income, has ensured that sports have had to become much more business-like”.
Sport is ultimately a microcosm of the wider social environment in which it exists and this is why today, sport subscribes to a more capitalist system of living. However, despite the financial imperatives, there are other ways in which sport can benefit us. Participating in sporting activity brings with it many health and fitness benefits. Governments have generally agreed that regular exercise through sport and other physical activities is essential in maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Moreover, they have generally sought to promote sport and physical activity as a stepping stone for a fit and healthy nation. (Robson, 2001 cited in Hylton, et al 2001) In light of this it should be understood that sport is indeed linked with government and politics on some level or another. Sport reflects the ideology of the society in which it exists or as Ponomaryov (1981, cited in Coghlan,1990: 126) suggest “sport is part of the social superstructure and therefore strongly influenced by the prevailing socioeconomic system-not something in itself and not divorced from politics”.
Therefore, this essay seeks to examine the ‘changing politics of sport’. (Allison, 1993) Firstly, it will look at sport under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government. Subsequently, it will discuss the policies of her party’s successor, John Major. And finally, it will look at New Labour’s attitude towards sport under Tony Blair. Over this 25 year period there have been much continuity and changes in the government’s attitude and policies towards sport. This essay ultimately aims to put these issues on the table and suggest how sport has moved into the 21st century.
Political ideologies are what ultimately determine public policies and attitudes. And in terms of sport, the major differences in political opinion over the last 25 years are what have determined public policy within this area. (Kew, 1997)
If we begin by looking at Margaret Thatcher’s Tory government in the late 70s to early 90s, it is clear to see that sport was not placed very high on her parties public policy ladder. (Houghlihan and White, 2002)
Upon coming to power in 1979, Margaret Thatcher and her government began a policy intervention at both national and local level. This was not however directed solely at sport, but would indeed impact upon sport in a most profound way.
The Conservative party were committed to ‘rolling back the state’ whereby they were allowing the free play of market forces within the public sector. Subsequently, this meant a reduction in the governments public spending, including spending on sport and leisure. Furthermore, the Tories took more control of central government over local government spending again creating drawbacks for the sports and leisure industries. Their justification for such measures was simply that they wanted to ‘break the longstanding traditions of state paternalism’. To put simply, leisure as a right of citizenship was to be replaced with leisure as a social and economic tool. (Clark and Critcher, 1985: 141/42)
The most influential policy implemented by the Tory administration from 1979 onwards was the introduction of Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT). This legislation was targeted at a wide range of local government services including the management of sport and leisure facilities. The act ultimately sought to encourage commercial sector involvement in the running of public sector institutions. Privatisation or the principle of market forces came to be an inherent aspect of Conservative policy. Nonetheless this proposal for the most part fell flat on its feet since only a small amount of contracts were won by commercial operators. (Hylton, et al, 2001).
Nonetheless, the CCT policy was starting to show on the economy. Owners of sports clubs and facilities were aware that they would need to attract, retain and nurture their customers while maintaining and innovating their services at the same time in order for their organisations to operate effectively. Under this CCT act this proved to be virtually impossible and these owners were aware that there would indeed be serious repercussions.
Subsequently, the recession that hit the economy in the early 90s could be accounted for, on some level or another, to the CCT act. The strict policy of CCT across a wide range of services, including sport itself ultimately resulted in the over emphasis on quantity in financial terms instead of quality in relation to the health and welfare of the nation. “There is evidence that the policy (CCT) has resulted in a reduction in sports development activity and a preference for activities that generate a more rapid return on investment”. (Sports Council, 1993; 5, cited in Hylton et al, 2001: 28).
Overall, CCT represented the tool by which the conservative government hoped to force the market disciplines of the private sector upon those in the public sector in an effort to maximise income. Although this was indeed painful for all providers of public services, it was even more so for the sports sector whose remit of ‘sport for all’ usually meant sport for free, which was increasingly coming under fire from free market pressures. (Hylton et al, 2001).
In terms of the national sporting sentiment at the time, probably one of the most profound debates during the Tory government was the question of hooliganism. This played a huge part in British working class life and was largely reflected through football. Neil Macfarlane, the then minister for sport suggested that “during my four years as minister of sport the greatest problem I ever encountered was the behaviour and control of English soccer fans in this country and abroad”. (Coghlan,1990,149). This was indeed McFarlane’s big test. Unfortunately, it has been argued that he did not handle it so well and the national press began to question whether there was in fact a need for a minister of sport in the working relationship between central government and sport. Subsequently, upon ministerial change in 1985 he was relieved of his duties. (Coghlan, 1990)
Nonetheless not all was bad. For example the White Paper of 1987 highlighted willingness by the government to foster its recreation policy aims. The sports council was to receive an increase in expenditure in the inner cities and other stress areas from a 20 per cent grant to a 30 per cent grant, which equated to some 11 million at the time. Moreover, schemes were introduced to encourage an increase in participation such as Action Sport Programme which aimed to provide for 1100 sports leaders who worked with disadvantaged groups in the inner cities. (Treasury, 1987, cited in Henry, 1993) Furthermore, according to a government white paper, public sector leisure expenditure for the sports council itself rose from 15 million in 1979 to 41.9 million by 1990. (Cited in Henry, 1993: 68).
Sport and recreation were ultimately used to reinforce the values of family and community in this period; however it only focused on the poor inner city population and made assumptions that sport and recreation was already a product of the suburban middle classes.
Upon the arrival of John Major in 1990, things seemed to look a little bit better for sport. Major himself was a keen sports enthusiast with a passion for cricket and dedicated more time to sport than his predecessor. (www.timesonline.co.uk)
In terms of education Major suggested that physical education and school sport should be part of a ‘well rounded’ education. The introduction of the party’s ‘Raising the game’ policy in 1995 emphasised the importance of physical education and extra curricular school sport. The place of physical education within the academic curriculum was under scrutiny at this time, however Major’s personal standpoint ensured that PE would remain part of the curriculum. “Sport is one of the best means of learning how to live alongside others and make a contribution as part of a team”. (Department of National Heritage, 1995)
Furthermore, according to a national study undertaken by Harris in 1993 99 per cent of secondary schools in England offer some form of extra curricular school sport. Similarly, the sports council for Wales undertook a national survey in 1995 and concluded that 98 per cent of secondary schools offered extra curricular school sport. (Cited in Penny and Harris, 1997)
Moreover, around this time the sports council declared its aim to get 4 million people taking part in outdoor sports and 3 million more in indoor sports before the end of the decade, with the main target on the school leaving population. Major’s theory was that by introducing sport to young kids through the formal educational setting, kids would then be attracted to sport after their school careers were over. The sports council boldly stated for the first time that sport was indeed part of a ‘self-administered preventative medicine’ and argued that sport and physical activity were helpful in preventing heart disease and other mental and physical diseases. (Collins and Kay, 2002)
One of the most exciting sporting events of the decade which occurred during Major’s reign was the European Football Championships in 1996 (Euro 96). England’s bid to host the event was successful and was an excellent opportunity to place sport high on the political agenda. However, some commentators have argued that the event could have been organised more thoroughly and that the government could have been more enthusiastic towards the event. Speaking in parliament on the eve of the event one MP, a Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) suggested that “The £100,000 that the Government have provided to help the eight cities celebrate that great event is insignificant compared with the income that the Government will receive in taxation. Euro ’96 remains a great opportunity to promote different parts of this country throughout the tournament. It is typical of the Government that they have failed to respond imaginatively”. (www.publications.parliament.uk)
In spite of this however, others would disagree and suggest that event was indeed a major success. In economic terms Euro ’96 the most successful sports event ever to be held in England. In total over 280,000 visiting spectators and media came to the UK to attend Euro’96 matches, spending approximately £120m in the eighthost cities and surrounding regions. London enjoyed the biggest impact, £34m in additional expenditure generated by overseas visitors associated with Euro 96. In the North West of England overseas visitors generated an additional £16.3m in the regional economy in addition to the £10.3m and £6.7m generated in Manchester and Liverpool respectively. If additional domestic tourism expenditure is included, the total economic impact induced by all spectators, media and officials in the eight host cities as a result of Euro 96 is estimated at £195m. (Dobson, Gratton, and Holliday, 1997)
Although they did not win the tournament, England gripped the sporting nation with their performances. The event did prove to be a major sporting spectacle epitomized by the Scotland v England match. It was to be however the last sporting spectacle under John Major’s Conservative government.
The leaderships of Major and Thatcher conditioned sport through more than a decade. This period gave the nation may fine successes in international sport, i.e. England reaching the semi finals of world cup in 1990 and their triumphs in Euro 96. However there were indeed some notable failures, none more so than on the home front where English football fans were constantly in the media spotlight with their hooligan behaviour. However many commentators suggest that in the period 1980-97, sport was seen as having wider implications for society. Sport was seen as contributing to health, social enjoyment and welfare, and that it had indeed made a considerable impact to the economy. In a report published by the sports council in 1986 ‘The economic impact and importance of sport in the United Kingdom’, the Henley Centre for forecasting showed that sport provided 376,000 jobs which was more than the motor manufacturing business and the gas and or agricultural industries. Furthermore, consumer expenditure was in excess of £3000 million and the treasury raised £2000 million through various forms of taxation associated with sport. (Houghlihan and White, 2002)
In other words, as suggested at the outset, sport is ultimately big business and this appeared to be no more different between 1980-97 under the reigns of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. However, let us now turn our attention to modern day Britain.
Upon their landslide victory at the 1997 General Election, Tony Blair and his New Labour government brought massive changes to the way in which sport was perceived. Firstly, they abolished the old Tory theory of a free market economy and placed sport high on their agenda for change. They introduced a scheme called ‘best value’ which promoted sport as an activity free for all based on Labours principles of social inclusion. (Houlihan, 2002) Furthermore, they invested in sport not only as a sports policy but as “ahealth policy, an education policy, an anti-crime policy, and an anti-drugs policy” (Blair, 2005, DCMS). Sports development was a key area for the New Labour government. For example, in order to combat social exclusion the Policy Action Team 10 were set up (PAT10) who believed that because of its “wide popularity and inherent properties, sport can contribute to neighbourhood renewal by improving communities performance on four key indicators: health, crime, employment and education” (www.sportdevelopment.org.uk)
The Department of Culture, Media and Sport was set up to “improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities”. (www.culture.gov.uk)
The department have indeed been successful in their remit since the leisure industry now accounts for over a quarter of all consumer spending, provides ten per cent of total employment and brings in £20 billion per annum in foreign exchange. Furthermore, the DCMS estimate that sports accounts for over £13 billion of consumer expenditure and sport-related employment is over 435,000. (www.communities.gov.uk)
Furthermore, in 2002 a joint venture between the Social Inclusion Unit and the Department of Culture Media and Sport saw the publication of Game Plan, a strategy for delivering the government’s sport and physical activity objectives. This became a landmark document for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was the first ever government document authorised by two separate government departments. It was larger and more comprehensive than any other sports policy document and it attempted to provide a rationale and an action plan for the development of sport itself. Ultimately “Game plan articulated a clear statement that the government perceived sport and physical activity as a potential social instrument to reduce the inequalities of opportunities for people to participate in the social structures in British Society” (www.sportdevelopment.org.uk)
Similarly following on from Game Plan in 2002, the government put forth some more sporting propositions. The National Framework for Sport was published in 2004 which set out the future prospects of British sport. The framework sets out a vision of England becoming the most active and most successful sporting nation in the world, with an agenda to widen and increase the base of sports participation, an agenda for success on the international sports stage and an agenda for reform in order to create effective delivery structures. (www.sportdevelopment.org.uk). This is all well, however it only focuses on the future prospects of England. What about the other countries those make up the United Kingdom?
Let’s take Scotland. Scotland has its own devolved government. The Scottish Executive under the leadership of First Minister Jack McConnell take responsibility for promoting sport and recreation at the nation. In order to build new facilities etc the Executive receive tremendous help from Sport Scotland, a national agency for sport in Scotland. Funded through the National Lottery Sports Scotland’s main aim is to develop sport and physical activity throughout Scotland. Through this subsidiary the Executive have built many new leisure clubs, refurbished older leisure clubs, developed equipment in schools etc. Sports Minister Patricia Ferguson suggests that “having facilities that are fit for purpose can help realise our sporting ambitions. The Scottish Executive and its partners are investing tens of millions of pounds in new sport facilities across Scotland”. (www.sportscotland.org.uk)
Furthermore, Scotland is amidst the prospect of hosting the Commonwealth Games in 2014. Patricia Ferguson again suggests that “the prospect of Glasgow hosting the 2014 Commonwealth Games can only boost interest and participation in sport”.
(www.sportscotland.org.uk)
Overall it is clear to see that sport has become a key area for governments over the last 25 years. As Coghlan (1990: 142) suggests, “sport and politics will continue to mix, the debate must always be not ‘whether’ but ‘how’ they should mix in Great Britain so that the interests of sport and the government of the day coincide and do not conflict”.
While Margaret Thatcher and her ‘free market’ Conservative government paid little attention to the role of sport in contemporary society throughout the 1980s, her successor John Major ensured that sport remained part of a well rounded education and lifestyle in the early 1990s. Since 1997 Blair and his New Labour government have grabbed sport by the neck and transformed it, through various government acts, into an activity that has now become ‘free for all’. Sport has indeed become an integral part of life for an increasingly large number of the population. But what about the future? The International Olympic Committee’s decision to award the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympics Games to London was a tremendous honour and achievement and a wonderful tribute to the skill and passion of all those involved in the bid. The UK now has a once in a lifetime opportunity to stage the greatest show on earth and to transform its sporting, cultural and social landscape once again. (www.culture.gov.uk)