Annual conference 2011
Sport under pressure: the sustainability of sport in times of austerity,
University of birmingham
The 5th Annual Political Studies Association Sport and Politics Specialist Annual Conference took place on 18 March 2011 at the University of Birmingham, hosted by the Department of Sport Pedagogy.
The event attracted over 40 delegates and three keynote speakers, Professor John Horne (University of Central Lancashire), Margaret Talbot (President, International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education) and Professor David Kirk (University of Bedfordshire) These contributions were supplemented three panel sessions exploring, Sport Policy under Pressure, Physical Education and Youth Sport Policy and the Impact of Austerity on Sport.
In choosing these themes for the day, the proceedings directly confronted the manifold problems experienced by Sport in England and Wales in a climate of severe recession. In considering the difficulties that exist around sport not being a statutory responsibility of local government many of the contributors focused on the knock-on impact of lack of funding with respect to sport participation levels, the over-emphasis on elite sport and the difficulties that pervade the development of school sport and its future planning and development.
Professor John Horne began proceedings with a keynote presentation on 'London, the Olympic Games and the Politics of Austerity'. The presentation was a historical overview of London's Olympic legacy - largely a legacy of running the event in times of austerity. Horne began his presentation with a perceptive quote from Klaus Kunzmann - "Each story of regeneration begins with poetry and ends with real estate.” Horne said that the discourse of ‘disaster capitalism’ was being used to embed the hypercommercialism of the Olympics, with new retail opportunities adjacent to the Olympic site being a sign of an accelerated capitalism which was equally unsustainable as the Games themselves. What is needed, he rallied, was an Olympics that moved from corporate partnership and massive infrastructural development, to one that is sympathetic to civic freedoms, democratic citizenship and participation, local accountability, and environmental sustainability. The IOC needs to be more reflective of these agendas rather than ‘keeping calm and carrying on’.
The event attracted over 40 delegates and three keynote speakers, Professor John Horne (University of Central Lancashire), Margaret Talbot (President, International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education) and Professor David Kirk (University of Bedfordshire) These contributions were supplemented three panel sessions exploring, Sport Policy under Pressure, Physical Education and Youth Sport Policy and the Impact of Austerity on Sport.
In choosing these themes for the day, the proceedings directly confronted the manifold problems experienced by Sport in England and Wales in a climate of severe recession. In considering the difficulties that exist around sport not being a statutory responsibility of local government many of the contributors focused on the knock-on impact of lack of funding with respect to sport participation levels, the over-emphasis on elite sport and the difficulties that pervade the development of school sport and its future planning and development.
Professor John Horne began proceedings with a keynote presentation on 'London, the Olympic Games and the Politics of Austerity'. The presentation was a historical overview of London's Olympic legacy - largely a legacy of running the event in times of austerity. Horne began his presentation with a perceptive quote from Klaus Kunzmann - "Each story of regeneration begins with poetry and ends with real estate.” Horne said that the discourse of ‘disaster capitalism’ was being used to embed the hypercommercialism of the Olympics, with new retail opportunities adjacent to the Olympic site being a sign of an accelerated capitalism which was equally unsustainable as the Games themselves. What is needed, he rallied, was an Olympics that moved from corporate partnership and massive infrastructural development, to one that is sympathetic to civic freedoms, democratic citizenship and participation, local accountability, and environmental sustainability. The IOC needs to be more reflective of these agendas rather than ‘keeping calm and carrying on’.
Horne’s provocative intervention was followed by a panel on ‘Sport policy under pressure’. Barrie Houlihan (Loughborough) challenged some assumptions about sport in a time of austerity. Even though the previous 15 years were good for sport in terms of the distribution of funding, the political effects, he argued, are stark. The government was increasingly instrumental about its uses of sport and even though the sport lobby became stronger, policy continued to be shaped by ministerial whim rather than through the interplay of policy actors. Houlihan said that community sport in particular is susceptible to this policy environment as the government has abandoned social inclusion agendas. In contrast, elite sport is strongly protected because governments have engaged in a “sporting arms race”. Yet, he asked, which government would have the bottle to settle for a lower position in the medal tables? Turning to the Big Society, Houlihan laid out some key parallels to ‘community action’ in the 1980s and predicted the decline of the sport development sector and further facility closures. Nevertheless, he concluded, this period of austerity is revealing for showing us the strength of the sport lobby, changing motives of government involvement in sport, the relationship between Big Society and voluntary sport, and the role of Community Sport Partnerships.
Spencer Harris (Hertfordshire) presented research that looked at the management practices of voluntary sports clubs. He argued for a need to understand the hetereogeneity of club types in implemening sport policy. A bottom-up perspective was required to look at the capacity of clubs, their rationales and aspirations and how they work with National Governing Bodies. This is a particularly pertinent approach, he contended, considering the removal of sport development from many local authorities and, consequently, a weakened local strategic knowledge of voluntary sports clubs and their activities. Further analysis is required to help us understand the organisational histories and practices of voluntary sports clubs.
Jane Booth from the Professional Golfers’ Association made the case for an evidence-based approach to implemening changes in coaching education. She outlined the PGA’s strategy Right Coach Right Place Right Time and the steps required in managing change and delivering a more customer-focused development that matched the needs of individual golfers. She said that NGBs need to listen to current policy debates though also had a responsibility to be a source for continuity.
Fiona Carmichael (Birmingham) outlined some pilot research into older people and participation in physical activity. Her statistics revealed an ageing population and early exit from employment. A major finding was the relationship between participation and employment. Carmichael looked at the barriers and enablers to participation and sent a stark message about the impact of the recession on physical activity rates, particularly for the unemployed and early retirees who lose significant social networks at work that can be instrumental in the ability to lead a healthy and active lifestyle.
Jane Booth from the Professional Golfers’ Association made the case for an evidence-based approach to implemening changes in coaching education. She outlined the PGA’s strategy Right Coach Right Place Right Time and the steps required in managing change and delivering a more customer-focused development that matched the needs of individual golfers. She said that NGBs need to listen to current policy debates though also had a responsibility to be a source for continuity.
Fiona Carmichael (Birmingham) outlined some pilot research into older people and participation in physical activity. Her statistics revealed an ageing population and early exit from employment. A major finding was the relationship between participation and employment. Carmichael looked at the barriers and enablers to participation and sent a stark message about the impact of the recession on physical activity rates, particularly for the unemployed and early retirees who lose significant social networks at work that can be instrumental in the ability to lead a healthy and active lifestyle.
Margaret Talbot (President, International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education) gave the second keynote on the highly charged policy processes involved in moving physical education and sport onto the political agenda. Drawing from her years of experience she revealed the micro dynamics which intervene. Her main claim was that policy is not always about evidence-based advocacy but ‘policy entrepreneurship’ requiring champions to make the case and fight the cause. Through two examples – physical education on the school curriculum and charitable status for community amateur sports clubs - she revealed the length of campaigns and work of policy entrepreneurs to secure government concessions. She ended with a stark warning about child health – that this could be the next major campaign for the sport and physical education lobby to get behind, but there is a lack of clarity about physical activity’s role in health promotion, a lack of policy entrepreneurs, a situation further complicated by the need for long-term strategies which are unpopular with ministers, and multi-agency multi-department approaches which are unpopular with civil servants. More funding and effort is required, she ended, for critical research that could bring a paradigm shift in policy agendas.
A second panel followed Talbot's keynote on physical education and youth sport policy which was chaired by Prof Kathy Armour (Birmingham). Ed Pitt (Liverpool Hope) presented ‘Waving a white flag? Examining developments in school sport ideology and the implications for coaching and educational provision’. This paper reported on a small number of semi-structured surveys Pitt had completed with teachers in North West England. He outlined some problems involved in the shift towards a competitive school sport model, including balancing educational demands (will sporty kids be taken out of academic lessons? Will ‘sporty’ participants be selected for the school team to the detriment and marginalization of the less talented or physically able? Will there be an overfocus on mainstream team sport at the expense of other ativities? These are speculative warnings of the shape of things to come.
Cathy Devine (Cumbria) provided a paper on the marginalization of the movement culture of girls and women. She argued that this was an unintended consequence of the shift from PE to competitive sport, effecting a ‘sexual division of play’. This amounted, she argued, to a ‘gendered sporting citizenship’ where inequalities of power and sexual divisions in sport featured strongly. What is needed, she argued, is a ‘universal movement of citizenship’ as a human right. and concluded that academics should look toward the possibilities of judicial intervention into the (gendered) apartheid of physical culture.
Marc Keech (Brighton) presented work on youth sport and London’s 2012 Olympic legacy. He provided an analysis of the ways through which rhetorical commitments made towards youth sport during the bidding process to host the 2012 Olympics have since been acted upon (or not), and an evaluation of the capacity of relevant agencies to fulfil legacy plans. Keech argued that whilst policy emerged from speculative proposal into quasi-legislative action, the openness of debate has been transcended and accepted, and transmitted meanings over the Olympic's youth legacy have become more fixed and closed.
Hyunwoo Jung (Bedfordshire) identified the physical cultural discourses that informed the PESSCL - Physical Education, School Sport and Club Links - strategy over the last decade. His content analysis of press reports of sport and PE policy over a decade identified five major discourses – health and obesity; sport; Olympic legacy; active citizenship and volunteering; and leisure and lifelong participation. He concluded that researchers need to focus on the work of agents and agencies that recontextualise the physical culture field in order to gain a better understanding of the nature of school sport policy making and its delivery.
Chris Mackintosh (Nottingham Trent) looked as responses to the Comprehensive Spending Review from the PE and school sport community in Nottinghamshire. His findings revealed a politicization of sport development, with some resistance to government agendas and cuts being shown in the county. Mackintosh reported on a postal survey to all primary and secondary schools in Nottinghamshire, the responses from which revealed fears over the collapse of community sports links and a demise in the professional role of teachers and school sports coordinators. He identified hidden impacts in primary education – loss of coaches and school sports coordinators – lack of event planning; and likely shifts including the subcontracting of coaching; privatization; and, the possibility of Trust formation. These are worrying times, he ended, but encouraged delegates to work with local practitioner communities not only to understand the forms of resistance but to add a critical voice between academia, policy makers and local practitioners.
David Kirk (Bedfordshire) gave the final keynote – Challenges facing School Sport Partnerships in an era of austerity and uncertainty: taking the longer view. He argued that there is an absence of a long term memory in physical education. A sense of perspective was necessary to challenge the burnout and cynicism in current educational thinking. He identified three challenges for SSPs – 1) to view them as evolving entities 2) to recognise their uncertain future in the current economic climate 3) to consider other impacts of austerity measures, including redundancies, a redefinition of roles, and perhaps lack of access to schools for NGBS. Kirk prescribed the need for sustainable curriculum renewal involving practitioner networks and a models-based approach to PE, which could provide opportunity for local action based around innovative curriculum areas – e.g. health-based PE; dance education; meditative and martial arts.
The final panel was on the impact of austerity on sport. Mike Silk, Anthony Bush and Haydn Morgan (Bath) provided some meta-level reflection on the state of sport and the social sciences. They argued that changes in higher education – the REF; the turn towards evidence-based research and policy; the persistence of scientism - made critical social sciences of sport vulnerable. They proposed a physical cultural studies to overcome this approach, informed by the work of Norman Denzin and Henry Giroux.
A second panel followed Talbot's keynote on physical education and youth sport policy which was chaired by Prof Kathy Armour (Birmingham). Ed Pitt (Liverpool Hope) presented ‘Waving a white flag? Examining developments in school sport ideology and the implications for coaching and educational provision’. This paper reported on a small number of semi-structured surveys Pitt had completed with teachers in North West England. He outlined some problems involved in the shift towards a competitive school sport model, including balancing educational demands (will sporty kids be taken out of academic lessons? Will ‘sporty’ participants be selected for the school team to the detriment and marginalization of the less talented or physically able? Will there be an overfocus on mainstream team sport at the expense of other ativities? These are speculative warnings of the shape of things to come.
Cathy Devine (Cumbria) provided a paper on the marginalization of the movement culture of girls and women. She argued that this was an unintended consequence of the shift from PE to competitive sport, effecting a ‘sexual division of play’. This amounted, she argued, to a ‘gendered sporting citizenship’ where inequalities of power and sexual divisions in sport featured strongly. What is needed, she argued, is a ‘universal movement of citizenship’ as a human right. and concluded that academics should look toward the possibilities of judicial intervention into the (gendered) apartheid of physical culture.
Marc Keech (Brighton) presented work on youth sport and London’s 2012 Olympic legacy. He provided an analysis of the ways through which rhetorical commitments made towards youth sport during the bidding process to host the 2012 Olympics have since been acted upon (or not), and an evaluation of the capacity of relevant agencies to fulfil legacy plans. Keech argued that whilst policy emerged from speculative proposal into quasi-legislative action, the openness of debate has been transcended and accepted, and transmitted meanings over the Olympic's youth legacy have become more fixed and closed.
Hyunwoo Jung (Bedfordshire) identified the physical cultural discourses that informed the PESSCL - Physical Education, School Sport and Club Links - strategy over the last decade. His content analysis of press reports of sport and PE policy over a decade identified five major discourses – health and obesity; sport; Olympic legacy; active citizenship and volunteering; and leisure and lifelong participation. He concluded that researchers need to focus on the work of agents and agencies that recontextualise the physical culture field in order to gain a better understanding of the nature of school sport policy making and its delivery.
Chris Mackintosh (Nottingham Trent) looked as responses to the Comprehensive Spending Review from the PE and school sport community in Nottinghamshire. His findings revealed a politicization of sport development, with some resistance to government agendas and cuts being shown in the county. Mackintosh reported on a postal survey to all primary and secondary schools in Nottinghamshire, the responses from which revealed fears over the collapse of community sports links and a demise in the professional role of teachers and school sports coordinators. He identified hidden impacts in primary education – loss of coaches and school sports coordinators – lack of event planning; and likely shifts including the subcontracting of coaching; privatization; and, the possibility of Trust formation. These are worrying times, he ended, but encouraged delegates to work with local practitioner communities not only to understand the forms of resistance but to add a critical voice between academia, policy makers and local practitioners.
David Kirk (Bedfordshire) gave the final keynote – Challenges facing School Sport Partnerships in an era of austerity and uncertainty: taking the longer view. He argued that there is an absence of a long term memory in physical education. A sense of perspective was necessary to challenge the burnout and cynicism in current educational thinking. He identified three challenges for SSPs – 1) to view them as evolving entities 2) to recognise their uncertain future in the current economic climate 3) to consider other impacts of austerity measures, including redundancies, a redefinition of roles, and perhaps lack of access to schools for NGBS. Kirk prescribed the need for sustainable curriculum renewal involving practitioner networks and a models-based approach to PE, which could provide opportunity for local action based around innovative curriculum areas – e.g. health-based PE; dance education; meditative and martial arts.
The final panel was on the impact of austerity on sport. Mike Silk, Anthony Bush and Haydn Morgan (Bath) provided some meta-level reflection on the state of sport and the social sciences. They argued that changes in higher education – the REF; the turn towards evidence-based research and policy; the persistence of scientism - made critical social sciences of sport vulnerable. They proposed a physical cultural studies to overcome this approach, informed by the work of Norman Denzin and Henry Giroux.
Our organisers and keynote speakers
(L-R) Lesley Philpotts, Jonathan Grix, David Kirk and Margaret Talbot
Andy Adams (Southampton Solent) looked at the political opportunity structure provided by the Big Society. Focusing on voluntary sports clubs, he looked at the strategic and market opportunities under BS and provided a conceptual political opportunity structure framework for understanding voluntary sports clubs in England under New Labour and the Coalition Government. He argued there were important continuities between New Labour's approach to sport, social inclusion and active citizenship and the nascent policies emerging from the Coalition Government. Opportunities were noted for the voluntary sport sector – including a more active social enterprise and community action (rather than community development) function. But these opportunities, he argued, will vary for each club, sport and locality.
Neil King (Edge Hill) looked at the strategic and operational responses to cuts by local authorities. His preliminary survey-based investigation revealed themes that are being hit by the cuts such as funding restrictions, the decline of community sport, and service mergers between local authorities. More theoretically, King outlined future directions for local authority delivery in particular the emergence of an enabling state that adjudicates between various delivery agents where local authorities would be driven to become ‘stewards’ rather than providers – perhaps maintaining a (crucial) critical overview of the impacts of private or voluntary delivery on commitments to social justice and public access to services.
Mike Collins (Gloucestershire) completed the day's proceedings with a forthright message about the need for the academic community to work more closely with practitioners and policy makers. The impact of the cuts, he revealed, would polarise British society and worsen the social inequalities therein, with many of these inequalities likely to be expressed through sport. Without the evidence and the will to resist the sports policy arena could do little to affect changes in sporting provision; a situation that may lead us back to the 1970s. There was a need, he argued, for a critical voice to challenge the short-termism of sport policy making under the politics of austerity. This was a rousing message upon which to end the conference, though his talk may be more remembered for the delivery of the immortal line - 'obesity is the elephant in the room'.
Although the tone of much of the day was highly critical of the coalition government, delegates were rallied into responding through co-ordinated community action to the injustices of current policy thinking. This idea was mulled over at the end of the day by the conference delegates who enjoyed a wine reception kindly sponsored by Routledge.
Congratulations to Lesley Philpotts and Jonathan Grix for organising a very stimulating day.
Neil King (Edge Hill) looked at the strategic and operational responses to cuts by local authorities. His preliminary survey-based investigation revealed themes that are being hit by the cuts such as funding restrictions, the decline of community sport, and service mergers between local authorities. More theoretically, King outlined future directions for local authority delivery in particular the emergence of an enabling state that adjudicates between various delivery agents where local authorities would be driven to become ‘stewards’ rather than providers – perhaps maintaining a (crucial) critical overview of the impacts of private or voluntary delivery on commitments to social justice and public access to services.
Mike Collins (Gloucestershire) completed the day's proceedings with a forthright message about the need for the academic community to work more closely with practitioners and policy makers. The impact of the cuts, he revealed, would polarise British society and worsen the social inequalities therein, with many of these inequalities likely to be expressed through sport. Without the evidence and the will to resist the sports policy arena could do little to affect changes in sporting provision; a situation that may lead us back to the 1970s. There was a need, he argued, for a critical voice to challenge the short-termism of sport policy making under the politics of austerity. This was a rousing message upon which to end the conference, though his talk may be more remembered for the delivery of the immortal line - 'obesity is the elephant in the room'.
Although the tone of much of the day was highly critical of the coalition government, delegates were rallied into responding through co-ordinated community action to the injustices of current policy thinking. This idea was mulled over at the end of the day by the conference delegates who enjoyed a wine reception kindly sponsored by Routledge.
Congratulations to Lesley Philpotts and Jonathan Grix for organising a very stimulating day.
