Why Do Government Use Sport to Obtain Wider Social Objectives?

Why do Government use Sport to obtain wider social objectives?

This analytical portfolio will provide a comprehensive outlook on sport policy, centring on certain policy’s that have affected the evolution of sport development. The intention of addressing sport policy’s and the involvement of central government within sport is to be able to comprehend that sport and community development is more than just providing sporting opportunities to a community. There is an emphasis with in this Portfolio on how social issues cause the government to intervene with sport, and it becomes apparent that sport does not operate in a vacuum and it is merely shaped by the events of society and how sport can also have an effect upon society. The National Occupational Standards for sports development is a framework which identifies a number of areas that underpins sports development to provide a structure in ultimately turning policy into practice, this frame work will provide context to the portfolio as it is a result of previous events that will be later discussed.  

The tendency of Government involvement in sport

In order to understand the ways in which the Government have used sport development as a vehicle to attain broader social objectives, the portfolio will involve an extensive look at major mile stone events that have shaped the way that sport development is perceived and the social concepts that sport policy is blinded by. Subsequently an understanding of existing social issues that are still apparent in sport, despite the issues having been at the forefront of sport policy.  

The reason that government in England show interest in sport is because sport can contribute to social policy objectives for instance Houlihan (2011, p.15) presents a number motives that include,

 “ to exercise social control over section of society, to control/outlaw particular sports, to engineer social integration at community and/ or nation level, to improve health, to contribute to economic development, to boost national morale and to send diplomatic signals”,

It is clear to see that a number of these objectives can be achieved through centralising elite sport policy, for instance central Government prioritise elite sport, practically on an international stage, as it tends to generate a greater sense of recognition on the political stage (Grix and Carmichael, 2012). Nonetheless on the other hand some of them can be achieved by aiming them towards community development, which is what this portfolio will focus upon.

Political proceedings in relation to sport & sport policy

To begin with a synopsis of major political proceedings in sport development is required within this portfolio as a timeline, even though it is not an exhaustive one, provides the building blocks in understanding how sport development has progressed into a means of achieving wider social objectives, as the reasoning for government intervention becomes apparent through increase in concern for sport policy.

Prior to the 1960s and 1970s central government had little dealings with in the provision of sport, with “many MPs seeing it as a past time and something government should avoid” (Collins 2008, cited in Trimble et at, 2010, p.5).

The Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR) was one of the key organizations to play a role in making available sport policy in Britain; the CCPR was an independent voluntary body that represented a vast array of governing bodies in the promotion and development of sport (Bloyce and Smith, 2010, p.30). It was the CCPR that appointed John Wolfenden as the Chair of the committee, which lead to the 1960 Wolfenden Report. According to Trimble et al (2010, p.5) the Wolfenden Report was the “first significant independent report on sport in the community”, the report was geared towards examining the “organization and administration” (Bloyce & Smith, 2010, p.30) of sport with in the United Kingdom, the report concentrated mostly on young people and the development of more sports facilities. According to Bloyce and Smith (2010, p.31) the report concluded that sport is being used as “a vehicle of social policy” that can minimise anti-social behaviour along with crime with in young individuals, suggesting that it sport can play a part in helping address social problems, which in turn would make sport an area of government focus. It was from this report that a Sports Development Council was recommended to be established to address the promotion of sport in addition to issues involving the development of sport.

The Conservative Government declined the proposal to introduce a new independent Sport Development Council as the Conservative Party apprehended the view that the Government should adopt an “arm’s length” approach to dealing with sport (Bloyce& Smith, 2010, p.32), although the appointment of Lord Hailsham in 1962 as a “Minister with special responsibility for sport” (Polley, 1998, p.21)showed an “indication of the growing political recognition of, and interest in sport” (Bloyce & Smith, 2010, p.32).

However some years later in 1965, after the election of the labour government in 1964, that the Advisory Sports Council (ASC) was set up by Harold Wilson, the newly elected prime minister, with its role involving working with the government to provide assistance among “statutory bodies and the pre-existing largely voluntary sports sector” (Downward, 2011, p. 548). In 1966 the ASC implemented the Council of Europe’s sport for all slogan (Trimble et at, 2010, p.4), the willingness of the labour government to promote the sport for all campaign showed the association of using sport to attain wider political goals. Houlihan and White (2002, p.24) have mentioned that the sport for all campaign had concealed the original tension between the community welfare view of sports development, which entailed the outlook of development through sport, compared to the view that sport development is the development of sport.    

The replacement of the ASC in 1972 was declared to make way for a Sports Council that would have executive powers other than advisory powers, with Houlihan and White (2002, p.20) suggesting that this showed an indication that the attitude of the Conservative government towards sport was changing. The main priority of the Sports Council at this time was to improve upon and increase the range of facilities that would in turn create the opportunity for a growth in the participation rate.

1975 saw the first government policy in sport to be published entitled Sport and Recreation (Trimble et al, 2010), to take it at face value it would suggest that although the government had an increased involvement since the Wolfeden report, many still seen sport as a past time. It was around this time that the Government began to accept sport and leisure as a genuine are of public policy, the reasoning for this as Bloyce and Smith (2010, p.29) have implied was because of the “growing social significance of sport”. From this Government white paper on sport, Bloyce & Smith (2010, p.36) have stated that the Government had illustrated the difference between sport and recreation, with sport considered as the “performance and excellence dimension” and recreation concerned around “mass participation”, with a clear distinction in terms of what constitutes as sport or recreation there is a relativity large scope on the type of intervention the government perceives as beneficial, although each aspect on a continuum would provide means of achieving social objectives. With the publication of the White Paper there was an increasing emphasis placed upon the Sports Council from the Government to use sport as a vehicle for community development that would achieve non-sport related objectives (Houlian & White, 2002).