APPENDIX 11
Memorandum submitted by UK Athletics
INTRODUCTION
1. UK Athletics welcomes the opportunity to submit
evidence to the CMS Committee ahead of their inquiry into the
merits and prospects of a bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games in
London.
2. For many people, the Olympic Games are synonymous
with athletics; the home victory for Cathy Freeman in front of
110,000 supporters in Sydney being the enduring image of the 2000
Games for example. An Olympic medal is certainly the most prized
reward in athletics, and the prospect of British athletes competing
for the Olympic title on home soil for the first time in over
60 years is tantalising.
BENEFITS
OF
A
LONDON
BID
AND
GAMES
2003-2005:
3. The bid phase should see British sport as a whole
benefit from the acceleration of measures to modernise the relationships
between Government, its agencies (the sports councils) and the
governing bodies of sport. The experiences of the abortive London
2005 World Championships and the early stages of Commonwealth
Games preparation show the perils of unclear relationships and
changes to key personnel. The scrutiny to which an Olympic bid
will be subjected will quickly uncover such weaknesses and fatally
undermine London's prospects.
4. To maximise fully the 'home' advantage of staging
the Games in London, it will be necessary to increase investment
in our élite athletes—particularly targeting the
emerging élite aged 16 to 18 who will be our best medal
hopes (mid to late twenties in 2012). To ensure that athletes
peak in 2012, it would be necessary to start this additional investment
immediately. It would be dangerous to wait until 2005; whatever
the outcome of the bid, some benefit will be felt wherever the
Games are held.
5. Finally, as a show of seriousness, it is assumed
that the bid phase will also see some capital developments begin.
Clearly the choice of facilities to be developed will depend on
land availability and potential for meaningful use should the
bid fail, but, if carefully chosen, then London's sports facilities
should see lasting improvements even from the bid phase.
2005-2011:
6. Should the bid be successful, the years leading
up to the Games offer Britain an unparalleled opportunity to develop
our sporting culture and infrastructure. With a clear focus, and
modernised sporting structures, a coordinated programme can be
put in place from schools upwards to harness the interest and
enthusiasm that a London Olympic Games will generate.
7. At school level, as well as inspiring sporting
interest, the Olympics offer a cultural opportunity for international
linkages and exchanges with the competing countries alongside
the opportunity to learn from the values of the Olympic movement.
But it is the sporting benefits that are clearly of most interest
to UK Athletics: the staging of an Olympic Games in the UK makes
a statement about the seriousness with which Government treats
sport. This seriousness needs to be mirrored in its investment
in school sport, without which the opportunities offered by a
London Olympics will not be fully realised.
8. As previously mentioned, additional investment
in the élite athlete programme will be necessary to maximise
the medal haul in 2012. These programmes will inevitably be tuned
to deliver results in London, but during the years leading up
to 2012 we should see improved results at World, European and
Commonwealth levels.
9. There will clearly be major capital developments
taking place throughout the lead-in period, not just the competition
venues but also the vital facilities across the UK for training
and pre-Games holding camps for other competing nations. The benefits
to London sports facilities are obvious, but the benefits from
improving the existing network of élite sporting facilities
to use as holding camps are also important.
2012:
10. It hardly needs stating that a well-run Olympic
Games—as at Manchester 2002— would be a tremendous
experience for athletes, spectators, volunteers and officials.
11. In athletics terms, the home advantage would
be a tremendous inspiration to the GB team—hopefully pushing
the athletes to produce medal-winning performances. The statistical
benefits of competing at home are frequently cited in terms of
overall Olympic medal hauls—in athletics this effect is
even more marked, perhaps as a product of the atmosphere in the
stadium driving on the home team. This effect was evident in Manchester,
and with the right preparation, should be repeated in London.
Post 2012:
12. Without long-term benefits, it is unlikely that
Government would be persuaded that the Olympic Games represented
a good value for money investment. Others will make the regeneration
and tourism case, but as a sports governing body, we would anticipate
that with careful planning, London 2012 could leave a very healthy
legacy for British sport.
13. In performance terms, there would need to be
continued investment in the élite squads, but if the experience
of other Olympic host countries is anything to go by, there should
be a sustained improvement in performances in major events—perhaps
not quite reaching the peaks of the home performance, but certainly
well exceeding those achieved before staging the Games.
14. The facilities legacy is an obvious long-term
benefit. London has long been identified as lagging behind the
rest of the country in terms of sporting facilities at both community
and performance level. The Olympics offers the 'once in a lifetime'
opportunity to rectify this. To do so, the design briefs need
to be carefully considered to balance short and long-term needs—as
the Manchester Aquatics Centre did.
15. An often-overlooked benefit of staging mega events
such as the Olympics is the improvement to the sporting human
resources of the UK that would develop—both in the paid
sports administration sector and in the voluntary sector from
the vast numbers of volunteers that would be trained to deliver
a successful Games.
16. Perhaps most important long-term benefit,
though impossible to quantify, would be the generation of young
Londoners who will be inspired by the staging of the Games in
the capital to take an active part in sport, whether as a competitor,
coach, official or volunteer.
THREATS
TO
A
LONDON
BID
AND
GAMES
17. Previous CMS Select Committee inquiries and reports
have looked at Wembley, London 2005 and Manchester and reached
similar conclusions: that Government involvement in such projects
needs to be clear, consistent and unswerving—with Cabinet
representation to ensure co-ordination between Government departments.
It goes without saying that all this is true of an Olympic bid,
with the added threat that the scale of the Olympics dwarfs those
projects previously considered by the Committee.
18. Political commitment to a bid for London 2012
has to be cross party, at both national and London level, and
absolute. The damage done in international circles by withdrawing
from staging the 2005 IAAF World Championships in Athletics was
partly rebuilt by the spectacular success of the Manchester Commonwealth
Games. However, the IOC (and other bidding cities) will be looking
for weaknesses in political support, and Government backing must
be utterly unequivocal.
19. Public support for the Games will be determined
by the success with which they are staged. There is likely to
be public (and press) cynicism right up until the Opening Ceremony—this
was the case even in Australia. A strongly led Organising Committee
with full Government backing can ensure that the staging is slick,
but the vital added ingredient is British success. This galvanises
support from the public, whether inside the venues or watching
on TV, as Manchester proved. It is essential therefore to enhance
the support given to élite athlete support over the next
ten years to ensure British medalists —to not do so threatens
the public support for the whole event.
20. A long-term threat that should be considered
is that of the Olympic facilities being left in the ownership
of London boroughs. The threat of total 'white elephants' in usage
terms can be overcome with the right balance being struck between
Games and after-use in the initial design, but many of the facilities
are still likely to operate at an annual deficit. These are facilities
that would have London-wide benefits; to burden a local borough
with the cost of upkeep would be illogical and could threaten
their long-term use. The establishment of an Olympic trust to
own, or at least revenue fund, the facilities would seem sensible.
CONCLUSION
21. UK Athletics fully supports the BOA's proposal
to bid for the 2012 Olympic Games in London and also their stance
not to proceed with the bid unless it receives unequivocal Government
support. The benefits to British sport at all levels would be
widespread and long lasting. It is hoped that the CMS Committee
reach a similar conclusion and put their weight behind the potential
bid at this crucial time.
7 January 2003
| 
