Written evidence submitted by Business
In Sport and Leisure Limited
BISL represents the private sector in UK sport
& leisure.
1. BISL's submission to the Committee follows
the announced Terms of reference for the Inquiry by the Culture,
Media & Sport Committee, and in particular the questions—Whether
the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games will deliver a lasting legacy
of social, physical and economic regeneration; Ways of maximising
the value of the Olympic legacy both within the host boroughs,
London and across the UK; The use and management of the Olympic
Park and venues after 2012; Progress towards meeting targets to
increase grass roots participation in sport; The aim of leaving
a lasting legacy that improves cultural life; and How success
in delivering lasting legacy can be measured.
2. Overall Summary—BISL appreciates
the opportunity to give this evidence. We welcome the Committee's
inquiry, given the widespread doubts in our industry about a beneficial
2012 legacy—and we hope it is not too late. Our submission
concerns sporting legacy, both "soft" and "hard",
but not social or economic legacy. We include here specific advice
on soft legacy in particular.
— Between now and 2012, and in the vital
legacy years beyond the Games, everyone is clear that the public
purse will not ride to the rescue. Achieving a decent Games legacy—one
that justifies the huge national investment and effort in staging
the Olympic Games in London, and which satisfies the ambitions
and aims stated by the London team when they won in Singapore—demands
therefore private and voluntary effort on a large scale. But,
BISL and many private companies/organisations are frustrated by
the difficulty in getting involved and making a contribution.
— LOCOG, ODA and BOA are concentrating
effort, for understandable reasons, upon running a successful
event in 2012. The tangible steps taken on the vital soft legacy
so far are by Sport England, in its participation strategy, by
the Change4Life campaign and the Free Swimming programme—each
with strong Government support and funding.
— Legacy can be seen as a jigsaw, ie a
number of interconnecting pieces to make up a big, clear picture.
All the pieces are not yet assembled and no one is putting them
together. We require coordinated and effective action by all three
sectors, public, private and voluntary. To use another metaphor—the
2012 legacy machine has no clear driver and is not firing on all
cylinders. Time may be running out to achieve the laudable aims
set when the London bid was won, to get the right national return
on the huge 2012 investment of resources and effort and to make
the most of what remains a massive national opportunity for beneficial
change.
BISL SUBMISSION
3. Whether the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic
Games will deliver a lasting legacy of social, physical and economic
regeneration
The Committee is enquiring into a controversial
topic. With 2012 getting closer, there are widespread and severe
doubts about the legacy now likely to be achieved; though there
is considerable confidence in the delivery of a successful Games
event, which clearly is the driving priority for LOCOG, ODA and
BOA.
4. The Committee will distinguish between types
of legacy, as we do in this submission;—sporting legacy,
in terms of getting more people participating in sport more often—the
so called "soft legacy"; "hard legacy"—what
we assume the Committee means by "physical legacy" in
its terms of reference, ie new facilities for sport and the community,
from the 2012 Games; social legacy—we make no comment on
this; economic legacy—again, we make no comment in this
submission. But, we consider that action that achieves real soft
and hard legacy will deliver very real social and economic benefits
to the UK.
5. BISL perceives three clear facts around the
sporting and soft legacy debate:
(a) no previous Olympic Games has delivered a
sporting or soft legacy, in terms of more people doing more sport
as a result of hosting the Games;
(b) in winning the Games in Singapore, the London
team committed themselves memorably to delivering, for the first
time in Olympic history, a genuine soft legacy; but, no clear
targets were set; and
(c) no body or organisation has ever assumed
responsibility for this task.
6. At this stage, BISL only sees Sport England
(with Government and lottery funding) attempting to drive up participation
and thus helping to achieve the original Singapore mission of
soft legacy. BISL supports the Sport England strategy to increase
participation by working with partners. Already there are promising
partnership schemes in place between sports bodies (eg swimming,
squash, badminton) and private operators. On behalf of the private
sector, BISL is about to hold its first talks with Sport England
on how private companies, operators and facilities can make a
further and significant contribution to its current effort.
7. Up till now, we have been frustrated
in our attempts to play a supporting role toward national soft
legacy aims. Our members report similar frustration among many
local authorities across the country. In London, City Hall and
the Host Boroughs have taken significant steps in planning and
starting to initiate sustainable soft legacy developments; but
there is little evidence of this across the UK as a whole (and
indeed BISL member companies report frequently that outside of
the South East, legacy and the 2012 Games are considered irrelevant
and unimportant); and until such leadership and co ordination
is in place it seems unlikely that anything but a very short term
sporting legacy (eg like the annual "Wimbledon effect"
on tennis) will be delivered. There have been and are some good
initiatives, by central and local Government and sport Governing
Bodies but there is no co-ordination, and no central drive, around
a simple coherent theme with appropriate marketing, supported
by action programmes on the ground.
8. BISL believes there remains an important
opportunity to build upon the impact so far of Change4Life, Free
Swimming and the Sport England strategy—the only national
actions taken since London won the 2012 bid—through coordinated
and effective action involving all three sectors. Such effort
will benefit hugely from association with 2012 and with the Games
logos, but so far this has not been offered. We add further comment
under "Progress toward grass roots participation targets"
below.
9. Ways of maximizing the value of the Olympic
legacy both within the host boroughs, London and across the UK
and the use and management of the Olympic Park and venues after
2012
We assume this refers to what is called "hard
legacy". Here, BISL like others can see both attention and
progress, despite a mix of responsibilities. The Committee will
know that responsibility for hard legacy rests in four sets of
hands—ODA, who are building the facilities; the five Boroughs;
OPLC, who will own the facilities after the Games; and Sport England.
10. It still isn't easy to secure a private sector
input. BISL has pressed the LDA and now the ODA since autumn 2007
for more discussion of the use and effective management (in transition
and legacy modes) of the new sports facilities within the Olympic
Park. So far, all emphasis appears to be on the IOC and International
Federation requirements. But many sports are unable to deliver
an economically viable legacy programme in these facilities in
isolation—while the proposed 2012 facilities do still offer
significant opportunity for wider community and multi sport use.
So, we retain concerns about the management of Olympic facilities
post 2012—while welcoming the establishment of the Olympic
Park Legacy Company and also the significant steps taken by the
new City Hall administration—and see an urgent need to appoint
experienced operators for the 2012 sports facilities in order
that future use can be built into the final legacy designs. Some
ask, is the "new Wembley" story being replayed on a
different basis, this time with athletics as the unsustainable
centrepiece beyond the Games? The Eastlands solution in Manchester
might yet would be preferable, to keep the Park buzzing and potentially
produce revenues for sports development and other activity. BISL
will continue to press for urgent dialogue between 2012 bodies
and commercial operators with experience of successfully bringing
facilities on stream and engaging the community in the use of
leisure facilities. (We have a meeting pending with the Chair
of the Olympic Park Legacy Company).
11. Progress towards meeting targets to increase
grass roots participation in sport
A central plank of BISL's strategy in the last
10 years has been "Growing the Market" by increasing
sports participation alongside more facility provision. We regarded
the Singapore success as both a major achievement, on the world
stage, and a once in a lifetime opportunity to build the base
of sporting participation and facilities in the UK—with
lasting health, economic, sporting and community benefits, just
as the London team so eloquently expressed in Singapore. The London
2012 Games can still provide the opportunity and catalyst for
growing grass roots participation (although this global event,
even with the excitement of hosting elite sportspeople in top
class competition, will not by itself inspire a sustained increase
in grassroots participation). But, as already noted, there is
widespread frustration at the lack of national and coordinated
drive so far. We need a more proactive approach—coordinated
with providers from all sectors—to get the 2012 Games playing
a key part in national efforts on obesity levels, falls in participation
at age 16+, healthy living standards, etc. The UK legacy effort
requires change—in mindsets, in strategies, in programmes,
in operations. Starts have been made—some are important
and likely to work—but they are not yet part of a large
and compelling jigsaw picture.
12. BISL offers these specific comments on meeting
participation targets:
— Change is necessary—involving all
sectors. We shall not grow UK participation by following the same
policies and programmes we always have. The 2012 Games in London
present the opportunity for major change—perhaps, we will
never get a better chance.
— Awareness of the benefits of taking part
in sport and physical activity is not in itself sufficient motivation.
Everyone, especially the young, has a range of potential leisure
pursuits; changing behaviour remains a key marketing challenge.
Change4Life may be an important first step; but further and more
marketing effort is needed, if legacy aims are to be achieved.
Commercial sport/leisure has experience and expertise in marketing
(and the essential customer service approach)—and the capacity
to help young people move towards the Government's five hour offer
and to embed an active lifestyle by 16+. Can we for allocate some
PE/School Sport investment into developing easier access to facilities/opportunities
by young people in Year 11?
— High quality information/PR on local
opportunities can provide a part of the catalyst to activity.
Free swimming has been well publicised and encouraged many to
swim. Culture change is vital, in some sports in particular, because
now people look for good customer service. Swimming sets good
examples.
— Major sporting events provoke spikes
in participation. The "Wimbledon effect" fills tennis
courts in July each year. The separation of spectator and participant
is caused by logistics, crowd control, lack of space, etc, but
there are exceptions, eg ad hoc games of cricket with mini balls/bats
on match days, similar activity at rugby and soccer clubs. The
Olympic Park during Games time and the planned areas with big
screens round the country, offer great opportunities to make the
link between watching sport and taking part. Sport development
and coaching work, taster sessions, a festival approach, should
encourage more sustained participation. The commercial and voluntary
sectors have the expertise/experience to make such initiatives
work.
— Both assessment of local need and a review
of the use and capacity of all current stock (including not only
community and local authority facilities, but also those of the
educational, private and voluntary sectors) must be part of a
local authority's strategic plan under PPG17 (currently under
review).
— Given expenditure restraints, and economic
forecasts, significant new publicly funded community sports facility
provision is unlikely in the next two to four years. Yet securing
soft legacy, across the UK, will require facilities and opportunities
which need planning and funding. The options are—opening
up publicly owned facilities, eg in education, now inaccessible
to the community; exploiting the resources and skills of the private
sector (inc. finding innovative ways of developing new public
facilities and opportunities for activity); getting more community
use out of corporate facilities; and better use of the Building
Schools for the Future programme. The opportunity for effective,
professional satellite management of public facilities for local
use by sports clubs, commercial expertise, physical/cultural organisations
needs exploring.
— The UK has an ageing stock of poor quality,
energy inefficient, often poorly located, community facilities.
The multi sport hub is a replacement option, bringing partner
capital and sustainable cross subsidy. Sport Action Zones (eg
in North Lambeth, Southwark, Manchester) are starting to make
a difference to participation levels in socially excluded areas.
Their focus is on intervention and testing new forms of public,
private and voluntary partnership—the development of community
sport rather than building new facilities. The lesson is that
localised, small-scale intervention can work.
— Innovative use of any open space (eg
the success of estate-based work, the countryside, waterways,
green space and parkland) can play a key role in providing places
to get active and "play" sport. The challenge is to
make these informal environments safe and to develop strategies
to encourage and manage such spaces.
— Employers are already making flexible
working a reality—and this is important in allowing employees
time to build activity into their lives. Legacy with an Olympic
brand can stimulate more employer engagement.
13. The aim of leaving a lasting legacy that
improves cultural life
BISL believes that the legacy opportunity was
the key element that won hearts and minds to the London Olympic
bid—both here and overseas. We believe the right legacy
must be directed toward improving cultural life—but also
the nation's health, its community spirit, its overall sense of
well being. These are big goals and ideals. They are achievable,
via a global and "once in a lifetime" event like an
Olympic Games. So, we have the opportunity; it will not come round
again, or, is unlikely to; but we need a national and regional
and local effort, across sectors, which is not yet in place.
14. As an example, to secure this coordinated
drive for 2012 legacy BISL recommends, could a special group be
set up quickly, with the right remit and powers?—a project
group of 12 or so people, to deliver recommendations by a set
date; to be succeeded by a delivery group, to have systems/structure
in place by early 2012. The members of such a group might come
from or "represent" organisations handpicked for their
suitability, like Sport England, some sports governing bodies,
Local Authorities, Private Sector, and CCPR. There would be little
difficulty in running such a group at low cost, as we believe
members would readily volunteer.
15. How success in delivering lasting legacy
can be measured
BISL suggests the following answers:
(a) More and better facilities—in the
right places. Great strides have been made in the past decade
to create for the first time an audit of indoor and outdoor sports
facilities—a key contributor to soft legacy. This "Active
Places" was developed by the Leisure Database Company with
support from DCMS and Sport England. The number, type and age
of sports facilities is now available to the general public, sports
clubs and bodies via Sport England's Active Places website. It
can now be used to create complex models, whether of mass participation
events or the behaviour of individuals, so latent demand can be
anticipated across individual sports, matched against existing
capacity (and where actual participation numbers can be counted).
(b) More people participating in sport & leisure,
more often. The fitness industry has already taken advantage
of an existing supply demand model to monitor and estimate participation.
Fitness participation rates have doubled to 12% of the population.
Some participation data is collected and freely available but
not collated or analysed. We see importance in Sport England's
Active People Survey, with some reservations about how this can
measure activity changes in some sports and we support Sport England's
efforts to secure corroborative data to enhance the Active People
findings.
(c) Satisfaction surveys. Such surveys
can tell us how effective programmes are and enable policy and
programme makers to adapt where appropriate, because motivation
will ever be vital to securing long term behavioural change.
16. Business In Sport and Leisure (BISL)
is an umbrella organisation for over 80 companies/organisations
in the private sector sport and leisure industry. Members of BISL
listed on the London Stock Exchange and in private equity ownership
have a combined market capitalisation in excess of £30 billion.
The membership includes commercial contractors (eg operating local
government public sport and leisure facilities), private health
club operators, major sports governing bodies (including British
Swimming, the Lawn Tennis Association, the Rugby Football Union),
key consultancies (eg Deloittes, PriceWaterhouseCooper, PMP, Capita),
legal and accounting companies and academic institutions.
January 2010
|
