SPORTS AND POLITICS

Sports Policy and Politics



Sports Policy and Politics

Introduction

The sport policy sector may be less well-known than other, more established policy sectors, but its political salience has grown steadily since the 1960s, and, in particular, in the last two decades. Both grassroots, including school and community sport, and elite performance sport have risen sharply up the political agenda. Since the Labour party came to power in 1997, 'Sport' has featured, for the first time in British politics, in the title of a Government Department. The decision in 2005 to award London the 2012 Olympic and Paralympics Games has added impetus to a process already underway: sport has become a cross-departmental policy area that appears to offer Government a multitude of benefits, thus acting as a valuable political resource. Benefits claimed for sport range from tackling obesity - and hence reducing the burden on the National Health Service - addressing social exclusion, the generation of social capital and contributing to citizens' general well-being.

Sport policy in the UK would appear, on the surface, to live up to the claims of the governance narrative, as a vast array of agencies, NDPBs (Non-Departmental Public Bodies), associations, charities and non-Governmental bodies are involved in its delivery. On closer inspection, however, most National Governing Bodies of sport (NGBs) are hidebound to their paymasters, the UK Government, and in effect this frames the manner in which sports are governed, the priorities they set and the decisions they make. In seeking to illustrate this point an example from elite sport of the resource dependence of the majority of National Governing Bodies of Sport to Government's elite sport funding agency, UK Sport, which itself is directly responsible to DCMS. In managing the performance of NGBs, under-performing sports are picked up by UK Sport's series of ''Funding Release Triggers'' that will ensure that the planning and governance of all the governing bodies is carefully monitored. Those not able to meet the criteria over a range of key issues will have performance funding withheld as they modernise their practices and performance systems.

Discussion and Analysis

Much has been made by political scientists of the shift in British politics and public policy delivery from 'big' Government to governance through networks, a wide array of 'partnerships' and para-statal bodies. In particular, the change to governance is said to have led to the erosion of central Governmental power and with it, the state's ability to determine and deliver policy (Bevir and Rhodes, 2006, 2008; Skelcher, 2000). Further, links and partnerships between Government, civil society, business and non-Governmental actors are established and, ultimately, service delivery is not only improved, but is more democratic than the previously hierarchical mode of governance. The days of 'big' Government are over and the commanding, hierarchical state has been replaced by the facilitating role of governance through partnerships and networks. Such a conceptualisation of British Politics has gained much ground in political and policy studies, to the extent that it has 'increasingly becoming the new orthodoxy' in these ...