Memorandum submitted by UK Sport
2005 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS IN ATHLETICS, PICKETTS LOCK
AND THE STAGING OF FUTURE EVENTS IN THE UK
INTRODUCTION AND
BACKGROUND
1. The United Kingdom Sports Council (UK
Sport), welcomes the opportunity to provide the Select Committee
with written evidence on the issue of the 2005 World Championships
in Athletics and addresses the following three points as requested:
— Our view on the options available
to the Government with regards to 2005.
— To assess the implications of Picketts
Lock on the staging of future events in the UK.
— To determine the lessons to be learned
from the Picketts Lock process.
2. UK Sport was established by Government
to be the lead agency for the attraction and staging of major
events in the UK. UK Sport has agreed a national policy and strategy
for the hosting of major events with the support of the home country
sports councils and the endorsement of Government. In this we
co-ordinate the work with the national governing bodies, cities
and local authorities. Examples have been provided in previous
evidence but recent work includes the Rugby World Cup and the
SFA bid for the European Football Championships. This Strategy
includes the so-called "mega-events" of the Olympics,
FIFA World Cup, Commonwealth Games and World Championships in
Athletics (WCA). Previous evidence has explained the decision
of Government to divide responsibilities between UK Sport and
Sport England as it relates to these four biggest sport events.
This separation of responsibilities has undoubtedly contributed
to the lack of consistency, co-ordination and continuity in dealing
with the development of proposals for this important event.
3. UK Sport has developed and continues
to refine a leading industry-based knowledge and understanding
of major events supported by its Major Events Steering Group comprising
leading practitioners in the field. This experience has been a
key ingredient in the successful staging and delivery of 35 events
and 11 bidding exercises of World and European standard since
we assumed this role in 1998. As the Committee acknowledged in
its report in March 2001, this admirable record is sometimes overshadowed
by our failure to attract certain high profile events such as
the World Cup and the Olympics. The clarity of our responsibility
for these events has assisted greatly in their success with confirmed
funding and additional support services improving the quality
of delivery.
4. UK Sport was responsible for the assessment
of the bid and operational viability of the WCA that were to be
staged in 2003 in Wembley. Sport England was responsible for consideration
of support for the staging costs and any capital development required.
On the basis of an extensive examination of the bid proposal which
was based on a track being installed in the re-developed Wembley,
UK Sport agreed a Lottery grant of £260,000 towards the bid
costs having received an assurance from Sport England that they
supported an "in principle" contribution to the staging
costs of the event of £15 million. This was the assessed
level of public support needed for the operational costs of the
event at Wembley excluding the installation costs of the platform.
The subsequent failure of the Wembley re-development causes a
review of alternatives concluding with the proposal for Picketts
Lock in the Lee Valley. UK Sport supported this decision on the
understanding that the required funding package could be assembled
and that the necessary infrastructure improvements could be delivered
for 2005. Government's representatives involved in the selection
process gave this assurance.
5. The detailed development of the Picketts
Lock stadium and its assessment did not involve UK Sport, it being
a responsibility of Sport England to lead in accordance with the
Government's division of responsibilities. Thus, whilst having
the strategic national responsibility for major events, UK Sport
was not in a position to assume this lead responsibility with
regards to the WCA. We have continued to monitor the situation
and have provided regular advice to the Government with regard
to the importance of this event to the national strategy—endorsed
by Government—for the staging of major events over the next
12 years. The loss of this event seriously damages this Strategy
and undermines our ability to secure any events in an openly competitive
situation.
UK SPORT'S
VIEW ON
OPTIONS AVAILABLE
TO THE
GOVERNMENT WITH
REGARD TO
2005
6. In its previous evidence UK Sport provided
the Committee with details of its role with regard to major events
and its strategy for securing events for the UK as a whole. This
strategy has been operational for nearly three years and we have
been building considerable experience and knowledge which is being
shared across bidding and staging consortia across the UK. Securing
and staging of the World Championships in Athletics—one
of the most significant international sports events in the world—has
been integral to this strategy. This event provides a key platform
in our strategy to demonstrate organisational and technical competence
to the international community. Without staging this event, it
would be impossible to mount a credible Olympic bid at some time
in the future. As such we are disappointed that a London solution
could not be found thereby providing a modern, leading edge athletics
stadium that could be used as part of the facility mix for a London
Olympics.
7. Following the most recent Major Events
Steering Group (MESG) meeting (3 October 2001) Members mandated
the Chairman, Adrian Metcalfe OBE to write urgently to the Secretary
of State about the rumoured decisions of the Government to pull
out of Picketts Lock. The letter outlined the serious concerns
of the MESG and the potential implications to the UK and UK Sport's
Major Events Strategy, were London to withdraw from hosting the
WCA. The MESG was fully aware of the strategy of the IAAF to see
its world championships hosted in a series of major world cities
as part of their global marketing plan in association with new
sponsors. As such, it was convinced that any other city in the
UK would not find favour with the IAAF. Having excellent contacts
with the IAAF also meant that Members were aware that the IAAF
had taken Government undertakings to deliver a stadium in London
for the Championships, as a guarantee they would happily accept
without a written contract. This information had been shared with
the Government on a number of occasions. The Group felt it imperative
to express these views, as it had not been involved in the event
decision-making process since it had supported the successful
bid in 1999.
LOOKING FORWARD
8. In UK Sport's view, the possible options
available to the Government are as follows:
— Find another site in London.
— Seek to exchange the event for 2007.
— Put a bid in for another UK city.
— Accept the event has been lost.
9. As has already been reported to the Committee,
an exhaustive exercise was undertaken to review possible site
options in London for an athletics stadium. Having rejected Twickenham
for a number of reasons, Picketts Lock was considered the only
option worth pursuing. It would therefore be fair to assume that
there are currently no other viable sites when looking at planning
permission, transport infrastructure, the footprint required and
the limited timescale now available.
10. It is questionable as to whether the
WCA could be moved to 2007 since the event has already been moved
once by the kind permission of the IAAF (originally scheduled
for 2003). In light of the open criticism of the handling of this
event by the media and the known interest of other cities such
as Budapest and Berlin, it is almost certain that they would not
allow this. This rejection would create further embarrassment
and seriously damage and undermine any aspiration for hosting
the World Cup or Olympics in the short or medium term.
11. At meetings held between the Government,
UK Athletics and the IAAF in advance of the recent World Half
Marathon in Bristol, it was made clear that the event was awarded
to London and that should another city in the UK wish to bid it
would have to do so as part of an international competition. Whilst
certain alternative cities have been examined as part of the Carter
Review, UK Sport was not part of this exercise—despite our
strategic responsibility along with the national governing body
for the sanctioning of bids. Indeed, it is a policy of UK Sport
(supported by the Home Country Sports Councils) that no bid requiring
lottery or exchequer support should go forward with UK Sport endorsement.
UK Sport would wish to undertake a proper feasibility evaluation
as to whether any new bid from the UK could be successful in the
current climate. We are sceptical that the MESG would be able
to support another bid based on the views expressed by the IAAF
since the decision not to proceed with a London solution.
12. In light of the conclusions made above,
the only viable option in our opinion would be to revisit Picketts
Lock. UK Sport was not consulted on the Carter Report, despite
having been involved in the preparation of the event's operational
budget and conducting a detailed evaluation of the three previous
World Championships. We have not therefore, been in a position
to comment on its conclusions in advance of their acceptance by
Government. It could well be possible to revisit the proposal
and determine whether any significant design changes could be
made to reduce costs. Further, Government could be asked to clarify
its willingness to ensure the necessary transport improvements
and meet any shortfall in capital costs. This, however, seems
a slim possibility in light of the rapidly approaching IAAF Council
meeting where a final decision on the 2005 event will be made.
13. The final option, and probably the most
regrettable but most realistic, would be to acknowledge that if
there is no viable London option, that the Championships have
been lost and the Government should therefore undertake an exercise
of damage limitation. UK Sport's views of the long-term ramifications
of such a decision have been well advanced in this submission.
The British Olympic Association who has indicated that discussions
with the new International Olympic Committee President, Jacques
Rogge, tend to confirm the view that a future British Olympic
bid would be seriously undermined by the failure of the WCA and
therefore concurs with this view.
ASSESS THE
IMPLICATIONS OF
PICKETTS LOCK
ON THE
STAGING OF
FUTURE EVENTS
IN THE
UK
14. From an external perspective, the international
sporting community will now be questioning the UK's desire to
stage major events. If we are unable to successfully stage the
World Athletics Championships, the third largest event behind
the Olympics and the Football World Cup, then should we even be
considered as an option of hosting the first and second largest
World Class Events. As stated previously the ramifications for
not hosting these Championships will be damaging for several years
to come.
15. With regards to the 2012 Olympic aspiration,
UK Sport would suggest that we now have a potential weakness that
could be exploited by our competitors. Delivery of Government
promises is a key to any successful bid, as the role of Government
is central to the ultimate success of a Games. Whilst the logic
of such a decision may be clear to Government, international perception
will be that sport is not taken as seriously in the UK and that
Government is disposed to renege on commitments. It is now difficult
to judge whether the UK can overcome these serious disadvantages
with any bid, immaterial of its technical quality, and justify
the high costs of mounting a bidding campaign.
16. In broader terms, the impact on our
ability to secure other World and European level events is unlikely
to seriously be damaged except in very competitive situations
where, as stated above, our competitors can exploit our history
to their advantage. Clearly any event that requires a new facility
to be constructed could not go forward with watertight guarantees,
that it will be built or better still, that it be constructed
prior to any bid.
DETERMINE THE
LESSONS TO
BE LEARNED
FROM THE
PICKETTS LOCK
PROCESS
17. UK Sport believes that there are critical
lessons to be learned from Picketts Lock. Firstly there needs
to be a co-ordinated world class facility strategy for the whole
of the UK. This needs to address both the needs of a national
wishing to compete on the international stage for world's biggest
events with the ongoing domestic viability of costly facilities.
Devolution has raised the issue of home nation national facilities
but UK Sport would argue this needs to be seen within the context
of an overall national plan that limits costly duplication. Such
a plan needs to marry the aspirations of individual communities
with the known quality and locational preferences of the international
federations who ultimately award events to a city or country.
18. It is UK Sport's belief that there needs
to be one lead Government agency for major events in order to
allow "joined up thinking" and ensure proper co-ordination
across the diverse demands of a large scale sporting event. Such
an agency should be a key stakeholder in their staging, both in
terms of the facility development and the organisational logistics.
It the Government was to acknowledge one recognised agency, it
will need to have the ability to access or pull down appropriate
levels of funding. Bearing in mind the experience of the IAAF
contract we would also contend that it would need to be able to
sign contracts on behalf of the Government to provide the necessary
guarantees or underwriting to the international federation. Such
an agency needs to be supported by professionals who understand
the business of major events and are in a position to advise on
the best ways of capitalising on the potential events provide
to the country. It would not be appropriate in our view to take
this responsibility inside Government.
19. The Major Events Steering Group of UK
Sport has a wealth of expertise in securing, promoting and running
events, and should be utilised both by organisers and the Government.
Our experience to date has demonstrated how this input can improve
the delivery of events and increase the positive impact they have
in a number of fields. Having been established to fulfil a strategic
and support role, UK Sport and its MESG should be empowered by
Government to fulfil a proper national co-ordination and development
role in major events.
20. Credibility is an intangible, but vital
quality for any nation wishing to secure the right (and in many
international federations eyes, the privilege) of hosting major
events. We have clearly learnt the lesson that such credibility
takes time to establish and hard work to maintain but can be destroyed
very quickly when promised commitments are not delivered. If the
system is not prepared to deliver on promises made at the bid
stage, we should not bid in the first place. The fact that undertakings
were given by the Minister of Sport, the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport and endorsed by the Prime Minister, made
it imperative the Government deliver in the eyes of the international
community. There has been confusion in the minds of the IAAF about
changes in the Government's position following changes in ministerial
office.
21. It must be acknowledged that in order
to stage any event of this scale that the costs involved will
be considerable. This needs to be recognised by any key stakeholder.
It also needs to be recognised that any event of this scale requires
a strong transport and accommodation structure and this requires
significant investment. There needs to be a greater sense of willingness
to work with, rather than against, such events, to ensure their
success for the benefit of the country as a whole.
17 October 2001
| 
