House of Lords - Keeping the flame alive: the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy - Select Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy

Keeping the flame alive: the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy - Select Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Contents

CHAPTER 4: HIGH PERFORMANCE SPORT

Background

180. The trend in Team GB's performance in terms of medal hauls is impressive. The below table shows the respective medal hauls of Team GB in the summer Olympic and Paralympic Games from a low base in Atlanta in 1996 to a high point in London in 2012. The table also shows comparative data for the teams from Australia, USA, China and Germany over the same period.

TABLE 1

Medal Hauls in recent summer Olympic and Paralympic Games

Year of Events	GB		Australia		USA		China		Germany
	Olympic medals	Paralympic medals	Olympic medals	Paralympic medals	Olympic medals	Paralympic medals	Olympic medals	Paralympic medals	Olympic medals	Paralympic medals
1996	15 (1)	122 (39)	41 (9)	106 (42)	101 (44)	158 (47)	50 (16)	39 (16)	65 (20)	149 (40)
2000	28 (11)	131 (41)	58 (16)	149 (63)	97 (40)	109 (36)	59 (28)	73 (34)	56 (13)	95 (16)
2004	30 (9)	94 (35)	50 (17)	100 (26)	103 (35)	88 (27)	63 (32)	141 (63)	48 (14)	78 (19)
2008	47 (19)	102 (42)	46 (14)	79 (23)	110 (36)	99 (36)	100 (51)	211 (89)	41 (16)	59 (14)
2012	65 (29)	120 (34)	35 (7)	85 (32)	104 (46)	98 (31)	88 (38)	231 (95)	44 (11)	66 (18)

The number of gold medals is in brackets.

181. The challenge for Team GB, and the organisations which support it, is to sustain the 2012 performance at the next summer Games, in Rio de Janeiro in 2016. Should Team GB increase or even match its 2012 gold medal haul, it would be the first team to improve on its host Games, although other teams have managed to increase their overall tallies at subsequent Games.

The genesis of success at London and Beijing

182. A strong funding platform is not by itself a guarantee of medal success, but is a key prerequisite, as Sir Clive Woodward told us, money had largely gone to the sports with the greatest chance of success, and over a period which allowed them to put plans in place.[52] The National Lottery was established in 1994 by Sir John Major, and the money for sport comes largely from the Big Lottery Fund, allocated by UK Sport. The longer term nature of the funding allowed some sports to plan towards future Games, as Ian Drake of British Cycling told us:

183. UK Sport's analysis of the factors which led to success in 2008 and 2012 was as follows:

"The long term nature of the strategic investment in the UK's high performance system has ensured that the UK has been able to recruit, retain and develop world class experts. Key factors include:

· clear and agreed outcome goals

· world class coaches

· a performance management system that tracks progress, identifies, prioritises and addresses challenges and encourages sharing and collaboration across sports

· the continued evolution of the use of performance intelligence

· greater focus on athlete profiling

· better and more aligned talent pathways

· better resourced Paralympic campaign

· improved standards of leadership, governance, financial management and administration in sports

· better World Class Coaching, and increased focus on the Elite Training environment for our athletes."[54]

184. The reasons for success are however not solely financial, but, as evidenced by the BOA in its work with the national governing bodies, its objective was to become a world leading, professionally managed organisation; performance driven and athlete-centric in all its activities. By so doing it could best help the athletes to podium success and leave a legacy on which to build after 2012. Sir Clive told us that leadership and coaching were critical in the most successful sports over the period: swimming, cycling and rowing: "I always come back to the person heading up the sport, and here I am talking about the head coach and the performance director. Sir David Brailsford, David Sparkes and David Tanner, just to name a few in the various sports".[55] The BOA and the BPA were at the same time "bringing the whole team together" and instilling common standards of excellence in coaching and performance.[56] Ian Drake told us of the added value which this produced:

Niels de Vos of UK Athletics reinforced the point that with ultimate performances, the funding, where

185. UK Sport introduced a more athlete-centred approach, which is now being adopted by other sports, known as Performance Lifestyle, building on the Australian Athlete Career and Education programme, which helped to address some of the issues in athletes' lives away from the track to give them the maximum opportunity to perform. In the same way the BOA's Friends and Family scheme, was described by Niels de Vos as "enormously helpful to athletes in the home Games in taking away some of the pressures of the particular performance lifestyle of the competition athlete; it took away some of the stresses and strains that families might put on, but also enabled them to help when they were able and willing to do so".[59] This inquiry has not received any evidence from athletes, save for those former athletes who now occupy administrative roles. This goes against the trend in recent years, which has seen the development of a number of athletes' commissions within sports governing bodies, to allow athletes a greater voice in decision-making and planning, which has previously been the exclusive preserve of administrators.

186. The production line, or performance pathway, for talented athletes has also been critical. This ladder of opportunity has recently been manifested in the Talented Athlete Scholarship Scheme (TASS), established by Dame Tessa Jowell in 2003. Graduates of the scheme yielded 19 medals at the Beijing Olympic and Paralympic Games and 44 at the London Olympic and Paralympic games. There is currently a debate about the future of the scheme.

Prospects for continued Olympic success?

187. Maria Miller MP defended the target of increasing the medal haul as a positive aspiration, whether or not it was realistic "I am not sure, if you had looked at Atlanta in 1996 and saw that we were 36th in the medal table, you would have believed that some short years later London 2012 would happen and we would be third in the medal table. People would have found that quite difficult to believe at that point."[60]

188. John Coates, President of the Australian Olympic Association and a Vice-President of the IOC, suggested that improving the medal haul at the Rio Games would be difficult, not least because "Competing at home is a tremendous advantage. It will be very hard for you to get the same number of medals, but I am sure that you will be in the top five at the next Games. It will be a much more difficult Games for you and for Australia, because we are not used to competing in Brazil. The Americans will be much better in that time zone."[61] Sir Clive Woodward pointed to the reduction in resources at the BOA and departure of many of those who had played a key role in improving performance: "from the BOA's point of view, for various reasons there is just not the manpower now to deliver what I think is required for what we saw in London, which I thought was excellent, and to a certain degree in Beijing".[62]

189. In addition, other countries looking to improve their relative performance were now investing in the best coaches, and would anticipate improving practices and performance. Darryl Seibel of the BOA told us that:

Prospects for continued Paralympic Success?

190. Tim Hollingsworth, CEO of the British Paralympic Association, highlighted the strong performances of Team GB at the last three Games:

191. Perhaps in an even more marked way than with Olympic sports, developing international competition also posed a threat to improving performance. As Tim Hollingsworth told us:

192. The Paralympics have historically been less competitive in terms of the numbers of nations participating with internationally a significantly lower level of resource dedicated to Paralympic athlete preparation. For this reason UK Sport has adopted gold medal targets for the Paralympic Games rather than medals of any colour as it does for the Olympics. However the Paralympic landscape is changing and competition is intensifying from one Games to the next. Team GB is heavily reliant on relatively few sports for medals. If the UK stands still it will be very quickly overtaken in the Paralympic domain and this is reflected in the fact that it slipped down the medal rankings by one place between Beijing and London.

193. International sporting competition does not stand still. In the build up to 2012, resources and expertise were marshalled behind the aim of continuous improvement in high performance sport with spectacular results. With a reduction in the expert personnel, and in some cases the recruitment of the same people by Team GB's international rivals, it is difficult to view the aim of improving the hauls of medals from the London Olympic and Paralympic Games as a realistic one. In our view this is particularly the case for the number of gold medals, by which almost all medal tables are ordered.

194. A feature of the development of Team GB's performances has been a greater emphasis by BOA, BPA and the governing bodies on supporting athletes and involving them in decisions, and this has had a welcome effect. In parallel, some governing bodies are developing athletes' commissions, which will help to ensure that athletes' views and ideas are taken into greater account in decision making.

195. We encourage all governing bodies of sports to consider establishing athletes' commissions so that athletes' voices can be heard. (Recommendation 8)

UK Sport's approach—no compromise

196. There were clear winners and losers with regard to London 2012 and Rio 2016 funding: Basketball, Handball and Volleyball are team sports that can be easily delivered in schools, clubs and communities across the country. These sports are mainly amateur with little commercial appeal in the UK but they are very accessible and are sports that can increase physical literacy in children and young people. However, despite this these three sports only received an investment of £13.1m from Sport England; UK Sport only invested £0.4m in the GB Volleyball team, which results in a total public investment of £13.5m.

197. Between them these sports had an investment of £15m for London 2012—Basketball received £8.6m, Handball £2.9m and Volleyball £3.5m—this was dramatically cut by £14.6m for Rio 2016, with only Volleyball receiving any investment (£386,753) at all. However, diving, water polo and synchronised swimming all had increases in their combined funding by £3.5m (27%) from £12.9m to £16.4m.

198. Liz Nicholl, CEO of UK Sport, defended the clarity of the no compromise approach and the degree of accountability it created for governing bodies. She told us that:

Maria Miller pointed out that reductions in funding do not always have a negative effect, and can galvanise improved performance as with Gymnastics in the wake of a poor Games in Athens in 2004, where a reduction "led to them focusing and re-energising their organisation and really using that impetus to achieve the fantastic result they achieved in London with four medals. Whilst it can be perhaps seen as tough love, it is that sort of approach that can really focus organisations to regroup, refocus their energies, and move forward".[67]

199. In practice, the no compromise approach has been compromised when confronted with the worse than anticipated performance of Team GB swimmers at London 2012. Rather than apply the approach strictly, which would otherwise have seen significant reductions in funding to swimming, UK Sport shortened the term of the funding package to one year and, following a post-Games assessment, British Swimming produced a revised strategy, the performance targets in which will be reviewed at the end of 2013.[68]

200. Sir Clive Woodward argued that the no-compromise approach should continue to be applied to "certain sports: if you give them substantial amounts of money, you expect a return." He identified however "another chunk of sports where you have to help develop those sports, where I think a certain amount of money, if you put in performance criteria, will mean that you see them move up." He described table tennis and volleyball as examples of such sports which:

201. Richard Callicott of the British Volleyball Association made a case for developing such sports arguing that "unless you can train and unless you can compete in international competition, you are never going to be in with a chance of medalling. It has to be a long-term process of investment over a sustained period, otherwise you are never going to be knocking on the door for medals."[70]

202. Baroness Campbell argued that the picture was broader than simply an argument about funding:

203. Andy Reed told us that:

204. John Coates added that a no-compromise approach should be focussed not just on medal returns but also on "requiring the sports to adopt better governance models and to account better for the funding that they receive. We have had some problems in Australian cycling recently, which are leading to a major shake-up there. Again, all our top five sports are on notice that unless they adopt some corporate governance improvements within a year, they are at risk of losing 20% of funding". Mr Coates said it was also important to have long term plans to take into account the vagaries of sport which can create underperformance in some events.[73]

205. Sir Clive Woodward and others also stressed the relative disadvantages of a medals-based no-compromise approach to the funding of team sports, which had fewer medals on offer and thus represented a thinner return per medal for funding committed. Looking at sports participation, team sports were often those which were most accessible for people, particularly of younger ages to play and compete in, and thus developing a participation base inspired by high performance success was threatened by the no compromise approach.

206. UK Sport's "no compromise" approach to funding Olympic and Paralympic sports governing bodies has been a key part of helping established high performance sports to do better in terms of securing medals in major competitions. However too strict an adherence to this approach, which is by its nature based largely on a retrospective assessment of performance, will develop a growing gap between the sports which already do well and those which have little realistic prospect of developing in the next few years. Unless it is moderated, and tied more strongly to performance pathways, this approach will fail to foster the long-term development of sports from grassroots level up.

207. The 2012 Games generated real enthusiasm for some sports in the UK which were not traditionally established and would have great potential for boosting participation should there be success at the elite level. Funding for many of these sports has now been taken away. Some of these sports, such as table tennis, are unlikely to yield significant medal hauls in the near future but role models funded to compete in major competitions would greatly assist the development of sports which are as easy to play and as straightforward and cost-effective to provide. A broader base of sports will allow for more inclusive participation as outlined in Chapter Three, and this will open up a bigger pool of talent. The task for governing bodies of sports will then be able to identify talent and create a ladder of opportunity for outstanding athletes eventually to achieve Olympic and Paralympic success, using schemes akin to TASS which has yielded obvious results.

208. We recognise the strength of the no compromise approach as a factor in the success of Team GB at the Olympic and Paralympic Games and we would not want to undermine the firm disciplines it has embedded. However, we believe it works best with those few sports with a strong tradition of medal success at recent Games. It is not a 'one size fits all' panacea.

209. For the majority of sports; including the winter Olympic sports, we call for the no compromise approach to be reviewed with a view to adopting a more flexible approach which would give more weight to other measures than recent medal success and forecasts; including support for the performance pathways, improved governance of sport and the scope for high performance athletes to inspire greater general public participation in the sport. (Recommendation 9)

Sports funding at grassroots and high performance levels.

210. As outlined in Chapters Two, Three and Four, funding which is derived from the Big Lottery Fund is allocated by DCMS to two distinct bodies, UK Sport for funding to elite Olympic and Paralympic Sport and Sport England for funding to grassroots sport, with equivalent allocations to the devolved bodies for the same purpose.

211. In July 2010 a project board, chaired by Sir Keith Mills, proposed that UK Sport and Sport England be combined. In January 2013, the then sports minister, Rt Hon Hugh Robertson MP announced that the merger of the two bodies would no longer take place. Instead, focus has been on finding greater synergies between the two bodies, including collocation by 2014 and pooling back-office functions.

212. Some witnesses have been critical of the division between UK Sport and Sport England leading to what the Youth Charter called a lack of "a clear and coherent strategic plan from grass roots to international levels".[74] Youth Charter told us that the lack of an overarching plan created a "fragmented approach" to the current structure of sports funding in the UK whilst New College Leicester suggested that the fragmentation of the sports system (education, community sport and elite sport falling within the remit of different bodies or departments) created a "lack of connectivity between the bodies that are responsible for the distribution of the funding for elite sport and participation".[75]

213. Rt Hon Maria Miller MP acknowledged that greater synergy between the two bodies was needed but told as that the Government could:

214. We endorse the Government's aspiration for greater synergies to be developed between UK Sport and Sport England, as well as the other Home Nations sports councils. It is too early to tell whether the current moves towards closer working have been successful. The Government are committed to reviewing public bodies regularly. The next triennial review of UK Sport and Sport England will take place in 2014-15 and this will be a good opportunity to see whether it goes far enough.

215. We recommend that consideration be given at the forthcoming review whether the closer working has delivered the hoped-for increase in coherence, or whether a full merger is necessary and practical. The review should give genuine consideration, not simply to whether the two bodies are fulfilling their remits, but whether the current structure is the possible best way to grow performance pathways from entry level to high performance sport. (Recommendation 10)

Cooperation between the BOA and the BPA

216. On 19 June 2001, a co-operation agreement was signed by the International Olympic Committee and International Paralympic Committee. This agreement aimed to secure the continued development of the Paralympic Games and to embed the by then established practice of "one bid, one city". It reaffirmed that the Paralympic Games from 2008 would always take place shortly after the Olympic Games, using the same sports venues and facilities.

217. This has provided a clear long term signal that the Olympic and Paralympic Associations should work closely together. Norway has integrated all governing bodies and National Olympic and Paralympic Committees into a single body for their sport. In the UK the position is different. Whilst cooperating closely, the BOA and BPA remain wholly separate bodies. In the run-up to the London Games, the BOA and BPA shared offices and pooled support services and facilities which included Team GB's headquarters. Looking nationally, most governing bodies of sports are working to integrate disabled and non-disabled programmes, with some, such as rowing, fully integrating competitions.

218. Baroness Grey-Thompson lauded the success of closer cooperation which had been fostered between the BOA and the BPA in delivering athletes to the Games and suggested that "In post-Games rationalisation there is probably more working together they could do." However she stopped short of suggesting a merger:

219. The level of cooperation by BOA and BPA was a great success in reducing the separation of the performances in the public's mind. This success could be built upon with opportunities to combine events as already happens in events such as the London Marathon. The level of maturity of the Olympic and Paralympic Games remain different. The Olympic sports have for some time been largely subject to intense competition in terms of the numbers of countries participating. As noted above, in paragraph 192, this picture is changing, and it may be that more similar approaches to managing and developing athletes will emerge over time. Nevertheless we believe that for now BOA and BPA should continue to cooperate, but retain their separate identities.

A Team GB football team?

220. As a founder member of the British Olympic Association, the English Football Association (FA) organised the first international tournament at the London 1908 Olympic Games with Team GB beating Denmark 2-0 in the final. The first women's tournament was at the 1996 Atlanta Games. The English Football Association remains affiliated to the BOA and under the Olympic Charter has collective responsibility with all British Olympic Sports to select, lead and manage Team GB to successive Olympic Games.

221. With the support of the BOA and the English Football Association a decision was taken to send a British women's team to the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing should they have qualified by finishing as one of the top three European sides at the 2007 World Cup in China. This they did but FIFA determined that England, the third best European team at the FIFA Women's World Cup could not participate because England competes at the Olympic Games as part of Great Britain.

222. At the London 2012 Games the BOA and the English Football Association reached agreement to field men's and women's teams at the Olympic Games for the first time in 52 years—and a women's side for the first time ever. Welsh players were on both squads and Scots on the women's squad. The Home Nations expressed serious concern that united British Olympic football teams would set a precedent that might cause FIFA to question their separate status in other FIFA competitions and on the International Football Association Board.

223. Robert Sullivan of the English Football Association described the strong performance of Team GB Olympic women's football team in London as "a real step-change in the exposure for women's football in this country", which "was probably for us the greatest immediate value that came out of the Olympic Games. That has really kicked on, and specifically it has kicked on with support from broadcasters, especially the BBC and BT Sport, for women's football, which has really gone up a gear."[78]

224. The English Football Association told us that it had "no intention" of fielding a men's team, to compete at future Olympic Games but that it was "committed to discussing the possibility of a future women's Team GB".[79] Responses from the Scottish[80] and Welsh[81] Football Associations suggest that they would oppose the submission of a women's team as well as a men's team.

225. It seems clear that there is no current will on the part of any of the Home Nations' football associations to field Team GB men's football teams in future. There may be a stronger case for fielding a Team GB women's team since this represented the apex of women's football and that London 2013 had demonstrated significant support for the clear potential women's football had to inspire greater participation in women's sport as part of the London sports legacy. However, the Committee were aware of the concerns of the Home Nations and their lack of confidence that, despite the assurances given for London 2012, their separate status on FIFA and their current representation on the International Football Association Board would remain under threat from within FIFA.

226. We urge the relevant governing bodies and the BOA, the IOC and FIFA to work towards providing all necessary assurances required to allow the BOA to continue to field a women's team at the Olympic Games, to take into account the views of the footballers and, subject to all the Home Nations Football Associations being satisfied with the assurances they receive, to field a men's team in the Under 23 tournament (with three overage players) that comprises the Olympic Football competition. (Recommendation 11)

Hosting future events

227. As indicated in the introduction to this report, the UK has a chequered history in seeking to host major sporting events, including the Games. In addition to the Olympic bids listed above, the UK has in the past two decades seen a failed bid for a FIFA World Cup and had to cancel its hosting of the 2005 World Athletics Championships which had been scheduled to take place at Picketts Lock. The difficulties associated with large scale projects such as the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium and the construction of the Millennium Dome created an air of scepticism both from the international sporting community and the British public.

228. David Luckes highlighted the challenge this history posed to the bid team externally, explaining that the bid "had to be coupled with technical competency. Going back to the Wembley story, there was the fact that we had had to hand back the 2005 World Championships in Athletics, which for the United Kingdom was probably an embarrassment, in many ways, in international circles. There was a lot of damage that had been done through that, and it was important that we showed credibility in terms of a bid that was not just visionary but also had roots in practicality and deliverability."[82] John Goodbody agreed that previous setbacks had left the UK "in a bad way".[83] Ken Livingstone said that the UK's poor track record also limited the Government's willingness to support a bid: "There was the fiasco of Wembley Stadium, which might not have been rebuilt. There was Picketts Lock. We had bid to host the World Championships and then forgotten to build the stadium on time, and of course there was the fiasco of the Millennium Dome. People did not really think this was credible. With the exception of Tony Blair, Tessa [Jowell] and me, no one in Government felt this had any chance of winning."[84]

229. The successful hosting of the Games, to time and budget, may have played an important transformative role in the UK's credibility and self confidence to host such events in future. In the Government's 10 point Sports Legacy plan, published in September 2012, the then Sports Minister listed the 19 major events which had already been secured[85], and three further events which were hoped for, although one of these, the IOC Youth Olympic Games in Glasgow in 2018, has since been unsuccessful. Liz Nichol told us of an ambitious programme of remaining bids:

230. A real achievement of the Games is the development of the expertise, international standing and self-confidence to bid for and secure future major sporting events. The record of successful bids for major events over the next decade is already impressive. Importantly, these future events will not all be based in or centred on London; and their hosting may prove the major positive legacy of the Games to the UK as a whole. The continuing programme of events will create a platform and a sequence of opportunities for the UK to develop further its expertise and its reputation for delivering major events and providing a whole host of related services. The wider economic legacy, including whether the Games will generate a sustained tourism legacy, is considered in Chapter Seven below.

52 Q 293 Back

53 Q 94 Back

54 UK Sport. Back

55 Q 293 Back

56 Ibid. Back

57 Q 94 Back

58 Q 95 Back

59 Q 100 Back

60 Q 477 Back

61 Q 369 Back

62 Q 283 Back

63 Q 42 Back