Is hosting the Games enough to make a nation more athletic?
On Monday, October 21, Paris unveiled the logo for the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games, which features a woman’s face and is intended to symbolize “more open, more participatory, and more inclusive” Games, according to the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games Organizing Committee (Cojop).
Simon Gérard, Coventry University; Andrew Jones, Coventry University; Ian Stuart Brittain, Coventry University and Sylvain Ferez, University of Montpellier
Paris 2024
Behind this ambition lies the hope of increasing participation in sports, particularly among young people and underrepresented groups. This argument is often used to justify hosting major sporting events. When London hosted the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012, the government hoped to “inspire a generation.”
But is it really that simple? Does hosting the Games automatically lead to an increase in sports participation within the host nation? In recent years, several studies have shown that the British government’s target was not met.
Sports participation has not increased significantly or sustainably in the country since 2012.
How can this observation be explained? To answer this question, we examined the impact of the austerity measures implemented by the British government in the late 2000s. To what extent did these measures influence the legacy of the 2012 London Olympics in terms of sports participation, particularly with regard to their impact on English amateur sports clubs?
The Impact of Austerity Measures on the English Sports Movement
The impact of austerity measures on sports participation in the United Kingdom has recently been the subject of several academic and journalistic studies. Researchers have shown that the growing structural inequalities generated by these measures have had a negative effect on sports participation, affecting people living in poverty more severely; this phenomenon is exacerbated by factors such as gender, disability, age, and ethnicity.
For example, young people from low-income families (less than £16,000 per year, or €18,600) are half as likely to be members of a club, participate in competitions, or serve as coaches. Their chances of volunteering are 25% lower.
Another study found that programs aimed at increasing participation in sports were under threat, while those designed to expand participation among various underrepresented groups (such as women, young people, and people with disabilities) were on the verge of being eliminated.
A recent study notes a shift in sports services from the public and nonprofit sectors to the private and commercial sectors.
Drawing on this research, our study seeks to understand the mechanisms through which austerity policies have impacted amateur sports clubs, thereby affecting the achievement of the goals for increasing sports participation that were expected from the organization of the London 2012 Games. To this end, a series of interviews was conducted with leaders of amateur sports clubs in central England. We also examined the evolution of the main sports policies and strategies implemented by successive governments in the United Kingdom.
A changing socioeconomic environment
In 2003, when the British government decided to back London’s bid to host the 2012 Games, the United Kingdom was experiencing a long period of economic stability. In addition, the ruling Labour government was investing heavily in the public sector at the time, particularly in various programs to promote participation in sports. The financial crisis of 2007–2008 changed everything. It led to a significant increase in the public deficit, which reached 156 billion pounds (181,365 euros) in 2009.
The following year, the election of a coalition government formed by the Conservatives and the Social Democrats marked a turning point—not only in terms of ideology regarding the role of the state, but also politically—with a series of fiscal austerity measures and cuts to public investment.
Local government budgets have been slashed, leading to a reduction in the sports facilities provided or supported by public services. The Local Government Association estimates that local governments spent £1 billion (€1.1 million) on sports in 2014, compared to £1.4 billion (€1.6 million) in 2009–2010. Another study reports that the number of sports facilities (swimming pools, track and field tracks, tennis courts, etc.) fell from 80,942 in 2012 to 78,270 in 2016, a trend linked to job losses and reduced operating hours or a decrease in the range of sports activities offered. These budget cuts have had repercussions for amateur sports clubs, as one of the interviewed leaders noted:
“I know from experience that things are pretty tough for local authorities right now, and that makes things difficult for us too, since we depend on them for access to the [community] pool.”
In addition, several flagship programs were canceled by the Conservative government, such as the “free swimming” program designed to encourage participation among those under 16 and over 60.
Hugh Robertson, then Minister of Sport and the Olympics, suddenly described the program “as a luxury we can no longer afford.” This shift in policy also affected sports clubs, as the head of a swimming club noted:
“It was great when the Labour government provided free swimming lessons, but when that was cut, there’s no doubt it had a major impact on us.”
Paradoxes at the Heart of the Legacy of the 2012 London Games
More broadly, our findings point to deep contradictions between austerity policies and the goals of promoting participation in sports championed by the London 2012 Games.
Just as the budget for the Games was revised upward to 9 billion pounds (10.4 million euros)—with the government refusing to accept “Austerity Games” —funding for local sports clubs and programs promoting participation in sports was significantly cut.
This contradiction, which lies at the heart of the legacy of the 2012 London Olympics, is highlighted by all the sports leaders interviewed. The president of a swimming club notes:
“I’ve been involved in [local community sports] for over 20 years, and the situation is worse than it’s ever been.”
Another executive is quick to add:
“We’re losing our pool, and yet they talk to us about the Olympic legacy! Is that what the Olympic legacy is all about?! Our situation is much worse than it was in 2012! So I don’t think there was any legacy…”
At least two conclusions are clear. Even though the British government has announced the end of austerity measures, their effects will not disappear overnight.
British sports clubs need a stable economic and political environment that is conducive to their activities and that promotes not only increased participation in sports but also its expansion to segments of the population that have been largely inactive until now.
Finally, hosting major sporting events cannot contribute to the growth of sports participation without clear and sustainable policies to support the local sports community. The Paris 2024 Organizing Committee has been warned!
Simon Gérard, Lecturer in Sport Management, Coventry University; Andrew Jones, Research Assistant, Coventry University; Ian Stuart Brittain, Research Fellow, Centre for Business in Society, Coventry University and Sylvain Ferez, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Montpellier
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.