House of Lords - Grassroots Sport and the European Union

Grassroots Sport and the European Union - European Union Committee Contents

CHAPTER 3: Integrating Sport Into Policy Making and Delivery

28. Given the role sport can play in delivering a number of policy objectives, this chapter first looks at how successfully it is integrated, or mainstreamed, into policy making and delivery at both EU and Member State level.[42] We then examine the potential for enhancing the role of sport in delivering policy objectives.

Mainstreaming

29. The majority of our witnesses expressed a sense of frustration that the potential of sport was not sufficiently understood or exploited by policy makers and argued for improved and more consistent mainstreaming of sport. The Premier League felt that one of the primary obstacles to their projects addressing social issues was "the reluctance of respective spheres, particularly education and health, to accept that football and sport can have a positive impact."[43] Keith Newman of the EU Sports Platform, an organisation which aims to help the sports world better understand EU policy making, agreed that sport's potential was not "reflected in budgetary priorities or in sport's position in the priority list, not just in the European Commission but within most governmental and European bodies."[44] A number of witnesses felt this problem was most acute where projects were aiming at personal and social outcomes; health outcomes were better recognised.[45] As Sport Wales put it, "it is important that we seek to maximise the impact of sport by recognising the benefits beyond simply the health agenda ... the power of sport is not sufficiently recognised across public policy."[46]

30. It was felt that this was an area both where the EU needed to improve its own performance and where it could take action to promote and facilitate better policy making at Member State level. The LTA spoke for many of our witnesses when it suggested that "one way that the EU could help ... would be to promote the value of sport to the other areas of the EU."[47]

31. Mary Honeyball MEP felt that there was a genuine desire on the part of the Commission to promote the social value of sport.[48] Commissioner Vassiliou, when she met us in November 2010 to discuss the Youth on the Move initiative, was keen to stress the "social and educational benefits of sport" and its "ability to draw disadvantaged groups and people into a community."[49] The Commission highlighted the Disability Strategy and the Strategy for Equality between Men and Women as examples of where sport had been successfully integrated into policy making.[50]

32. Whilst the significant progress made by the Commission in mainstreaming sport was noted by those such as the International Sport and Culture Association (ISCA), the majority still believed that such integration was not yet routine.[51] Indeed, we have, in the course of scrutiny of EU documents, expressed our surprise at the lack of attention given to the potential of sport in, for example, the Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion and the Communication on Active Ageing.[52]

33. We also heard that there continue to be difficulties regarding access to sporting facilities and venues for certain groups with disabilities. For example, the Centre for Access to Football and the Association of Disabled Supporters argued that access to sporting facilities and venues needed increased consideration in EU legislation and guidance for the built environment.[53]

34. Similarly at a national level, many of our witnesses felt that a significant barrier to the potential of sport being achieved was due to the failure to mainstream. The Football Foundation viewed the Government's engagement with sport as "piecemeal rather than a coordinated cross departmental strategy, which limits its potential impact."[54] Hugh Robertson MP, Minister for Sport and the Olympics, accepted that nationally this was an area where there was "a huge amount of work to be done" and acknowledged that it was the issue in his remit which, if resolved, had the potential to bring about "the greatest long-term benefit."[55]

Research and data collection

35. There was general agreement amongst our witnesses that the evidence base for outcomes in the health sphere was the most well-established and understood by policy makers. Jennie Price, Chief Executive of Sport England, explained that "it's reasonably straightforward in the health area, because there is clear medical evidence that if you do physical activity five times a week for thirty minutes you get health benefits. Health professionals understand that; it's endorsed by the Chief Medical Officer."[56] It is also an area in which work has been undertaken to quantify the benefits, providing a compelling cost-benefit argument for increasing levels of participation. For example, the Chief Medical Officer has estimated that physical inactivity costs England £8.2 billion per year and the government-funded Culture and Sport Evidence programme has estimated that if Sport England were to achieve their aspiration of one million more people across the country doing 3 x 30 minutes of moderate intensity sport a week, it would save £22.5 billion in health and associated costs.[57]

36. However, the evidence base for outcomes in the social sphere was felt to be less well established and many of our witnesses believed this to be to a large extent responsible for the under-use of sport by policy makers. The Football Foundation ventured that "it may be the case that a considerable barrier to grassroots sport fulfilling its potential ... is not delivering the change but being able to adequately demonstrate achievements to make the case ... It is lack of good evidence that prevents many programmes from showing the true value of their work."[58] Sport England agreed, telling us that the social sphere lacked the "good, direct, causal evidence" which existed in the health sphere, making it harder to make a compelling case to policy makers for the use of sport as a tool in the delivery of policy. This was felt to be compounded by a lack of established quantitative data.[59]

37. The difficulties in measuring, and in particular quantifying, the effectiveness of sport in personal development for individuals and for some of the societal outcomes which are more difficult to define and capture were raised by a number of our witnesses.[60] This was also evident from a number of submissions which were often forced to rely on broad statements and anecdotal evidence. However, we were provided with some examples of methodologies which seek to capture such outcomes in a more systematic way.[61]

38. There was agreement amongst our witnesses that data collection and research into the types of social outcomes that sport can facilitate would assist in encouraging the use of sport across the policy spectrum at all levels and would incentivise Member States to improve rates of participation. This would also strengthen the ability of sport to attract funding, including from the structural funds. As Keith Newman of the EU Sports Platform told us, "crucial to any funding, whether it's a small amount now or a large amount in the future, is that you can measure the successful outcomes, not just in purely sporting terms, but in the other side benefits. That's important for the political argument and for the actual benefits that it will provide at grassroots level. I hope that will be looked at a lot more carefully by the Commission."[62] Sport England agreed that it would be valuable if "fundamental research looking at causality, which is very difficult to fund and put in place in each country separately, could be joined up across Europe."[63] Emma McClarkin and Mary Honeyball, members of the European Parliament's Culture and Education Committee, also agreed with the suggestion that data collection and research, particularly regarding outcomes in the social sphere, would be useful priorities for the Commission to adopt.[64]

39. The paucity of EU-wide data relating to sport and in particular the lack of standardised measurements, for example to measure participation, were also viewed as a limiting factor. A number of witnesses suggested that collecting comparable statistics would be a powerful incentive for Member States to improve their performance, as it had been in other areas such as promoting recycling.[65] Sport England believed that if such data demonstrated the link between levels of participation in sport and a better overall environment for citizens it would be "very powerful."[66]

40. The Commission Communication puts forward three proposals in the field of research and evidence gathering. These are to:

work with Member States to produce satellite accounts for sport. These measure the economic importance of a specific industry to a national economy;
support a network of universities to promote innovative and evidence-based sport policies;
study the feasibility of establishing a sports monitoring account in the EU to analyse trends, collect data, interpret statistics, facilitate research, launch surveys and studies, and promote exchange of information.

41. The Government commented that these proposals had the potential to address the evidence base relating to the social outcomes sport can deliver but acknowledged that this was an area where the Commission might need to be pressed to take specific action.[67] The Commission, whilst stressing their commitment to evidence-based policy making, also conceded that evidence around social returns was not addressed directly in the Communication, explaining that the Europe 2020 Strategy meant that "the emphasis of much of what we do is very much on the economic side of things at the moment."[68]

Sharing of best practice

42. A number of our witnesses drew attention to how the sharing of experience and best practice between Member States would add value to their work. Areas identified where this would be particularly beneficial included the societal outcomes of sport, how to increase participation, particularly among under-represented groups, and how research can best influence and be integrated into policy agendas.[69]For example, Mary Honeyball MEP suggested that the UK could learn lessons from the Scandinavian countries and Germany about increasing participation.[70] The Government agreed, particularly with respect to learning how drop-off rates in sport among older people could be reduced.[71] The EU Sports Platform noted that there was particularly good practice in some Member States in anti-racism work and gender and disability equality in sport which could usefully be shared.[72] Amongst all our witnesses, there was a sense that such exchanges represented an area of real added value on the part of the EU. For example, Emma McClarkin MEP expressed the view that "the exchange of best practice is what the EU can do when it is working at its very best."[73]

43. We consider the functioning of the various channels for the sharing of best practice and how these might be improved in order to exploit their potential fully in chapter 5.

44. We consider that the potential of sport to deliver on objectives across the policy spectrum, but particularly in the social sphere, has yet to be fully exploited by policy makers at both EU and Member State level.

45. Whilst the Commission has had some success in integrating sport into other policies, for example including it in the Disability Strategy and the Strategy for Equality between Men and Women, further work is needed to ensure it is consistently mainstreamed across the work of all relevant Directorates General.

46. It is also desirable that sport should be further mainstreamed into health, social and educational policies at Member State level. We consider this to be a policy of such significance that we recommend that the Commission draw attention to it by proposing a Council Recommendation for consideration and adoption by the Member States.

47. While we recognise that there exist different models of sport across the EU we consider the practicalities of mainstreaming to be an area where sharing best practice among Member States would be valuable. Member States could also usefully share information on their methods of increasing participation rates in sport, particularly among under-represented groups.

48. The Commission acknowledges the potential of sport in delivering social objectives. However, wider scale studies could usefully be undertaken on social returns. If these were to be convincingly demonstrated they would provide a compelling argument for sport to be further integrated into wider policy making and delivery at both EU and Member State level whilst also strengthening the case for financial investment. We recommend that social returns be specifically included in the Commission's work on evidence-based policy making and work with academia, both of which are action points in the recent Communication. We recommend that the Commission work with Member States and the relevant working groups to identify appropriate data sets in relation to both economic and social aspects of sport and subsequently facilitate work to analyse these.

42 'Mainstreaming' is an approach to policy making and delivery. In this case it involves ensuring that sport is taken into account, and integrated into, policies and programmes in relevant areas. These might include for example health, education, social inclusion and gender equality. It both helps ensure that sport is included where it can add value and prevents the development of policies which may inadvertently adversely impact upon the successful delivery of sport Back

43 GSEU 17 Back

44 Q 177 Back

45 Q 41 Back

46 GSEU 35 Back

47 Q 96 Back

48 Q 165 Back

49 Q 1, Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee evidence session on Youth on the Move Back

50 QQ 190-191 Back

51 For example GSEU 22, GSEU 1, GSEU 30 Back

52 http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/eu-social-policy-and-consumer-affairs-sub-committee-g/scrutiny-work1/correspondence-with-ministers/ Back

53 GSEU 25 Back