This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]

On: 17 October 2014, At: 12:05

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Leisure Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlst20

Changing policy priorities for sport in England: the

emergence of elite sport development as a key policy
concern
a
Mick Green
a
Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences , Loughborough
University, Loughborough , Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK E-mail:
b
Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences , Loughborough
University, Loughborough , Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK E-mail:
Published online: 20 Jun 2007.

To cite this article: Mick Green (2004) Changing policy priorities for sport in England: the emergence of elite sport
development as a key policy concern, Leisure Studies, 23:4, 365-385, DOI: 10.1080/0261436042000231646

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0261436042000231646

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Leisure Studies,
Vol. 23, No. 4, 365–385, October 2004

Changing policy priorities for sport in

England: the emergence of elite sport
development as a key policy concern
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

MICK GREEN
Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough
University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK (Email: m.j.green@lboro.ac.uk)
Institute
Leisure& of
10.1080/0261436042000231646
rlst100170.sgm
0261-4367
Original
Taylor
2004
MICKGREEN
0000002004
00 and Sport and
Studies
Article
Francis LtdLeisure Policy,
(print)/1466-4496
FrancisLtd (online)School of Sport and Exercise SciencesLoughborough University, LoughboroughLeicestershireLE11 3TUUKm.j.green@lboro.ac.uk

ABSTRACT This paper reviews the emergence of ‘sport’ as a sector of public policy interest from
the 1960s to 2002. Central to the paper is the manifestation of ‘elite sport development’ as a key
policy concern from the mid-1990s onwards. While the emergence of elite sport policy objectives is
the focus, the increased activity around sport at regional and sub-regional levels in England also
requires attention. The paper’s theoretical argument is that, in large part, the effect of policy is
primarily discursive; it changes the possibilities we have for thinking ‘otherwise’. In this respect, the
discursive construction of sport policy is problematized. Here, the literature addressing ‘policy as
discourse’ and, more specifically, that which analyses the ‘discursive strategies’ shaping school
sport and physical education policy is helpful in sensitizing us to the inherent power relations hidden
within the contours of sport policy debates. This analysis leads to questions surrounding opportuni-
ties for ‘alternative voices’ within a context of discursive activity that privileges elite performance.
In this regard, the study concludes by offering avenues of future research for the analysis of sport
policy processes.

Introduction
From the creation of the Great Britain (GB) Sports Council in the early 1970s, both
Conservative and Labour administrations have adopted an increasingly interven-
tionist role in the sport policy sector in England. Until the mid-1990s, policy
emphasis was largely directed towards mass participation initiatives, or what has
been termed, ‘Sport for All’, and the provision of facilities for sport and recreation
(cf. Coghlan and Webb, 1990; Houlihan, 1991, 1997; Henry, 1993, 2001). Yet, the
publication in 1995 of Sport: Raising the Game (Department of National Heritage,
1995) and A Sporting Future for All (Department for Culture, Media and Sport,
2000) in 2000, signalled a noticeable shift in policy priorities at a national level (cf.
Oakley and Green, 2001). Moreover, although the publication of Game Plan
(Department for Culture, Media and Sport/Strategy Unit, 2002) in late 2002 is a far
more wide-ranging analysis of sport and physical activity, and signposts the need
for major structural reforms, it also places significant emphasis on ‘improving
international performance’ (pp. 9, 115–147). In short, achievement on the interna-
tional stage is now a much more significant policy objective on the political

ISSN 0261–4367 (print)/ISSN 1466–4496 (online)/04/040365–21 © 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0261436042000231646
 366 M. Green

agenda. However, while ‘sport development’ has received increasing attention in

recent years (cf. Lentell, 1993; Collins, 1995; McDonald, 1995; Hylton et al.,
2001; Houlihan and White, 2002), the emergence of ‘elite sport development’ as a
discrete area of (policy) interest is conspicuous for its absence (for exceptions, see
McDonald, 2000; Green and Oakley, 2001; Oakley and Green, 2001; Green,
2003).
It is important to note that, although this paper has a focus on policy develop-
ments in England, the broad national policy shifts it identifies, in respect of sports/
athletes competing at the elite level (e.g. as Great Britain/Northern Ireland at the
Olympic Games and World Championships)1 also have resonance for the other
three countries (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) that comprise the UK. The
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

term ‘elite sport’ in this paper concerns those sports/athletes competing at the
Olympic Games and/or World Championships and does not address developments
within what might be termed fully professional sports, such as football, cricket and
rugby union. It is also important to recognize that, although the emergence of elite
sport policy objectives is the focus of the paper, we must not lose sight of the
increased activity around sport at regional and sub-regional levels 2 in England that,
while still in an embryonic stage of gestation, requires attention. Notable in this
respect, are the recent developments surrounding the regionalization of sport struc-
tures in England (cf. Sport England, 1999b) and the debates around school sport
and physical education (PE) policy (cf. Evans and Penney, 1995; Gilroy and
Clarke, 1997; Penney and Evans, 1997, 1999; Penney, 2000).
The first section of the paper provides an overview of the research strategy
adopted, including methods and theoretical assumptions. The second section traces
the emergence of sport as a significant sector of public policy interest through the
following time periods: the 1970s, 1980–1994 and 1995–2002. The selection of the
1970s as a starting point reflects the manifestation of sport as a distinct area of
public policy interest for central government; in particular the creation of the GB
Sports Council in 1972 (as well as separate Sports Councils for Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland during 1972–1973). For brevity, tabular format is used to
present: (i) key political/policy events (e.g. Acts, White/Green Papers, sport
policy-related documents, staging of major sporting events); (ii) organizational
and administrative implications; (iii) funding implications and, crucially (iv) the
key implications for elite sport development. The tabular summaries are further
supplemented by a brief discussion of the main ramifications emanating from the
series of implications described in the tables. The third section presents the find-
ings of the research, and discusses and theorises the key implications for elite sport
policy development and policy change in relation to the issues raised in the second
section. Here, the discursive construction of sport policy is problematized. The
fourth and final section draws some brief conclusions as well as suggestions for
areas of future research.

Research strategy and methods

The paper draws on data gathered through 14 semi-structured, in-depth inter-
views with key personnel in three national governing bodies (NGBs) of sport
 Changing policy priorities for sport in England 367

representing swimming, athletics and sailing, senior officials at the United

Kingdom Sports Council (UK Sport) – the quasi-governmental agency responsi-
ble for elite sport – as well as academics and analysts of the sport policy sector.
In order to elicit data on policy change, interviewees within NGBs were
selected on the basis that they had been involved at a strategic level of decision-
making over a number of years. In addition, contributions were sought from
actors who were either formerly involved with a specific sport and/or quasi-
governmental sporting organization, or have shown an interest, from an analyti-
cal standpoint, in investigating elite sport policy processes, both in general and
in respect of particular sports. These primary data are supplemented with analy-
ses of sport policy-related documents.
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

The study’s analytic strategy was based upon an approach that was iterative or
recursive; that is, the data collection and analysis proceeded concurrently, repeat-
edly referring back to and informing each other (cf. Blaikie, 2000; Bryman, 2001).
The paper’s theoretical standpoint draws on the ‘policy as discourse’ literature, in
general, (cf. Ball, 1990, 1993; Taylor, 1997; Bacchi, 2000) and, more specifically,
the body of work identified above with regard to school sport and PE policy. In so
doing, these insights draw attention to McDonald’s (2000) argument in respect of
English sports policy that ‘policy commitments do not exist in a political vacuum,
but emerge out of a deeper structure of norms, values and belief systems’ (p. 86);
comments that sensitize us to the inherent power relations hidden within the
contours of sport policy debates and, as Ball (1993) has argued in a discussion of
policy as discourse, that ‘struggle, dispute, conflict and adjustment take place over
a pre-established terrain’ (p. 15). The essence of this is that there are real struggles
over the interpretation and enactment of policies and, crucially, as Ball reminds us,
‘these are set within a moving discursive frame which articulates and constrains the
possibilities and probabilities of circumstances that we cannot, or perhaps do not
think about’ (p. 15).
The argument underlying this paper, then, is that over the past decade the chief
beneficiaries of these ‘real struggles’ are those actors and organizations involved
with elite sport development. In these terms, the paper’s theoretical argument is
that in large part the effect of policy is primarily discursive; it changes the possi-
bilities we have for thinking ‘otherwise’.

Emergence of sport as a public policy concern

1970s
The shift towards increasing central government intervention and away from
what has been termed a ‘voluntarist’ approach to sport (cf. Coalter et al., 1988;
Henry 1993, 2001) became more pronounced in the early 1970s (see Table 1).
Thus, in 1972, the Advisory Sports Council, which had been established in 1965,
was restructured and granted executive powers through a Royal Charter and
became known as the GB Sports Council. At this time, although a stated aim of
the Sports Council was ‘To raise standards of performance in sport and physical
recreation’ (quoted in Coghlan and Webb, 1990, p. 67), the focus was primarily
 368 M. Green

Table 1. Sport Policy: 1970s

Key political/policy Organizational and Funding implications Implications for elite

event administrative implications sport development

1972: GB Sports Ostensibly created as a Grant-aid to NGBs rose Despite rhetoric of

Council established ‘buffer’ between NGBs, considerably – from Sport for All, critics
voluntary organizations and £3.6m in 1972 to condemned funding to
government; key objective £15.2m in 1979 NGBs as elitist
at this time was mass
participation and facility
building

1973: House of Lords Set the agenda for Funding should be Emphasized broader
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

Report, Sport and subsequent debates focused less on category of ‘recreation’

Leisure (Cobham regarding links between
Report) social policies and sport
1975: White Paper, Confirmed sport and
Sport and Recreation recreation as a legitimate
element of the welfare state
– ‘recreational welfare’;
however, policies
increasingly targeted at
specific groups in society –
‘recreation as welfare’
‘identified demand’ and as against narrower
more on ‘latent demand’ conception of ‘sport’
Funding increasingly Many references made
diverted to areas of to elite sport and
deprivation, principally, national centres of
inner cities excellence

1977: White Paper, A A background of increasing
Policy for the Inner economic decline and
Cities unemployment sees sport
and leisure used as a means
to an end, rather than an end
in itself
Growing congruence No direct impact, but
between government funding allocations
and Sports Council increasingly directed at
policies (e.g. Urban wider social objectives
Programme objectives)

1979: ‘New Right’ Thatcher Government Sports Council See ‘Funding

Conservative Party emphasized greater degree
elected, with Margaret of accountability and
Thatcher as Prime corporate planning from
Minister sports organizations/
agencies
increasingly directed by implications’ in respect
government to account of NGBs; Thatcher
for use of funds by supported total boycott
NGBs of 1980 Olympic
Games – not realized

Adapted from Coalter et al. (1988), Coghlan and Webb (1990), Henry (1993, 2001), Horne et al. (1999),
Houlihan (1991, 1997) and Roche (1993). NGBs, national governing bodies of sport.

on encouraging participation and improving the provision of new sports facilities

for the wider community.
Out of these aims emerged the GB Sports Council’s Sport for All programme in
1972, six years after the government’s endorsement of the Council of Europe’s
Sport for All campaign and a year before the Cobham Report (1973) Sport and
Leisure , which argued for a more concerted policy towards mass sport
programmes (see Table 1). Interestingly, Houlihan (1991) notes that, at this time:
There was little discernible tension between the interests of the elite and of the mass, as there
was a consensus … that an increase in facilities was the first priority. (Houlihan, 1991,
pp. 98–99)
 Changing policy priorities for sport in England 369

It is also worth noting that it has been suggested that the Sport for All
campaign was never more than a slogan and that the government increasingly
directed the GB Sports Council to target its resources towards specific groups in
society (cf. Coalter et al., 1988; Henry, 1993, 2001). Thus, the notion of ‘sport for
all’ became ‘sport for the disadvantaged’ and ‘sport for inner city youth’ (Houli-
han, 1991, p. 99; see also Department of the Environment, 1975). It is important,
therefore, to locate these sport policy themes of the 1970s within the social, polit-
ical and economic context of the time. During this period, then, sport policy
should be viewed in the light of the broader political consensus surrounding the
maturation of the welfare state, the ideological pre-eminence of social democ-
racy, an economic context of growing affluence and an increasingly politicized,
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

professional and bureaucratized approach to sport, as manifest, for example, in

the creation of the GB Sports Council and Sports Councils for Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland (cf. Henry, 1993, 2001; Roche, 1993; Horne et al., 1999).
Thus, despite the supposed quasi-independent nature of the four Sports Councils,
government monies for sport and recreation in the late 1970s, and into the early
1980s, were increasingly targeted at ameliorating these wider social policy
concerns.

1980–1994
The GB Sports Council strategy document of the early 1980s, Sport in the
Community: The Next Ten Years (Sports Council, 1982), is categorized as a key
political/policy event (see Table 2) given the growing congruence described
above between government policy (with regard to urban deprivation objectives,
in particular) and that of the Sports Council. However, Sport in the Community
also had implications for elite sport. As Coalter et al. (1988) note, despite the
increasing emphasis on schemes for the recreationally deprived, the unemployed
and the socially deprived, the Sports Council’s largest funding commitment
remained at the elite level. Therefore, although we are concerned here with
changing policy priorities, it is also important to acknowledge that, despite clear
shifts in emphasis, a degree of continuity has permeated policy developments in
sport over the past two decades.
Moreover, the organizational and administrative framework for sport during the
1980s and into the early 1990s has been characterized by Roche (1993) as one of
continuing fragmentation and disharmony between the various bodies involved in
lobbying for sport’s interests. A central theme running through such observations
is that the organization and administration of sport policy has been bedevilled by
the lack of a coherent ‘voice’ for sport, exemplified in the perennial arguments
between a statutory Sports Council and the two main voluntary bodies in sport, the
Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR), which acts as the main forum for
the many national governing bodies of sport and the medical and physical educa-
tion professions (Horne et al., 1999), and the British Olympic Association (BOA)
(for more detail see, for example, Coghlan and Webb, 1990; Roche, 1993; Pickup,
1996). Interestingly, the structure of sport in the UK at this time was seen as
hindering developments at the elite level. For example, in 1988, a former Director-
General of the GB Sports Council argued that:
 370 M. Green
Table 2. Sport Policy: 1980–1994
Key political/policy Organizational and
event administrative
implications
1982: GB Sports Wide-ranging strategy
Council strategy, Sport reflected changes in the
in the Community: The late 1970s towards
Next Ten Years increased accountability,
specific target groups and
increasing links with
government policy (e.g.
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014
Action Sport)
1986: Rossi Committee Examined the basis of, and
Report justification for, the GB
Sports Council’s existence
1986 and 1987: Confirmed links between
Treasury White Papers, sport, recreation and
The Government’s government policy in
Expenditure Plans inner cities and other
‘stress areas’
1988: Sports Council Major focus on women
strategy, Sport in the and young people
Community: Into the (primarily the 13–24 age
’90s group) as target groups
1990: John Major Major’s appointment
replaced Margaret heralded a change in
Thatcher as leader of government’s approach to
Conservative Party and sport (see across and
Prime Minister below)
1992: Department of Reflected personal
National Heritage commitment of John
established Major; attempt to bring
together a fragmented
policy area
1994: National Lottery Crucial impact on sport
introduced and recreation, largely for
capital projects in early
years
Adapted from Coalter et al. (1988), Henry (1993, 2001), Houlihan (1991, 1997), Roche (1993) and Sports
Council (1982, 1988). NGBs, national governing bodies of sport.
Funding implications Implications for elite
sport development
Acknowledged that, Elite sector –
despite growing rhetoric administrative and
of welfarism, grant-in- coaching grants to
aid had been weighted NGBs, centres of
towards elitism excellence and sports
science – still in receipt
of major proportion of
Sports Council funding
Debates regarding Representing NGB
funding centred on how interests, the CCPR
grant monies were to be argued for more
used influence as to how
funding allocations were
spent
White Paper expenditure No direct implications,
plans frequently stressed but funding concentrated
how funds should be used on broader social policy
objectives
Dismissive of East Aim would be to help
European model of NGBs ‘develop and
making NGBs dependent implement their own
on government strategies’
Major supported a Major was also
National Lottery; sport supportive of debates to
one of five good causes improve performances at
to benefit (see below) international level;
linked to issues of
national identity
Further centralized Raised status of sport at
control of funding Cabinet level
allocations to sport
Sport to benefit from Arguably the single most
estimated additional important factor in the
£200m to £250m per UK’s development of an
annum by 1999 elite sport model (see
Table 3 and following
section in main text)
 Changing policy priorities for sport in England 371

…it is here on the cusp between casual participation and the quest for improved performance,
that the efficiency of a nation’s administrative structure for sport really matters…At more
modest levels of participation, plurality is an undoubted virtue. When, however, the provision
of crucial support services such as top level coaching; elite training facilities; including access
to consistent medical and scientific advice; or of opportunities for competitive experience are
seen to be uncoordinated, inconsistent in quality and financially wasteful, it is time to take seri-
ously the need for reform. (Pickup, 1996, pp. 172–173)
The reform called for by the Sports Council’s Director-General above is instruc-
tive given the policy responses in the early 1990s, due largely to the influence of
John Major, Conservative prime minister at the time (see Table 2); responses,
moreover, which signalled ‘an undoubted change in the government’s approach to
sport’ (Houlihan, 1997, p. 94). Two key changes were (i) the raising of sport’s
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

status within government through the creation of the Department of National Heri-
tage and (ii) the establishment of a National Lottery in 1994 which, arguably, has
been the single most important factor in transforming the landscape for the devel-
opment of elite sport, not only in England but also UK-wide.

1995–2002
In 1995, the Conservative Government published a comprehensive policy state-
ment Sport: Raising the Game (Department of National Heritage, 1995), which
indicated the withdrawal of central government and the Sports Councils from the
provision of opportunities for mass participation and focused, inter alia, on (i) the
development of elite performers and an elite sports academy/institute, (ii) devel-
oping the role of higher education institutions in the fostering of elite athletes,
and (iii) funding allocations to governing bodies, which would now be condi-
tional on the explicit support for government objectives (Houlihan, 1997) (see
Table 3).
In other words, following a period of some 30 years since ‘sport’ was considered
a discrete domain for government intervention, the mid-1990s can be viewed as a
watershed for the emergence of an organizational, administrative and funding
framework for sport at the elite level, which has impacted upon all four countries
of the UK. Moreover, it has been argued that the publication of Sport: Raising the
Game abandoned any pretence of an integrated and multi-dimensional approach to
sports development as conceived in the late 1980s by the GB Sports Council. This
centred on a sports development continuum of four tightly integrated elements:
foundation, participation, performance and excellence (Houlihan, 2000). Two
prominent and interrelated themes are at work here: (i) an increasing preoccupation
with elite sport development and (ii) the ongoing retreat of support for community
recreation. As Lentell argued in the early 1990s, ‘It seems that the [GB Sports]
Council is ending its “dangerous liaison” with the world of “Community” to re-
join the more comfortable world of “Sport”.’ (Lentell, 1993, p. 147) Against this
background, a Labour Government was elected in 1997 which published its own
strategy for sport, A Sporting Future for All (Department for Culture, Media and
Sport, 2000) (see Table 3).
Sport: Raising the Game and A Sporting Future for All have thus provided an
organizational and administrative framework for the shape and direction of sport
 372 M. Green
Table 3. Sport Policy: 1995–2002
Key policy/political Organizational and
event administrative implications
1995: Conservative Two key themes: (i)
Government policy development of elite
statement, Sport: athletes and establishment
Raising the Game of an elite training centre,
and (ii) youth sport and
schools
1996: Atlanta Performances in Atlanta
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014
Olympic Games increased pressure to
implement
recommendations for an
elite sport academy/institute
1997: ‘New’ Labour Introduction of ‘Best Value’
administration elected initiative aimed at
modernizing local
government services,
including sport and leisure;
social inclusion becomes
key policy direction; DNH
renamed as Department for
Culture, Media and Sport
1999: Sport England Twin objectives – local
strategy document, projects for all and to
Lottery Fund improve medal-winning
Strategy, 1999-2009 chances at international
level
2000: Labour Reiterated much of rhetoric
Government policy in Sport: Raising the Game;
statement, A Sporting linked to Best Value
Future for All objectives; 110 Specialist
Sports Colleges to be
created
2000: Sydney In lead-up to the Games
Olympic Games critics argued that there was
too much emphasis on elite
(Olympic) sports at expense
of other (minor) sports
2001: Elite Sports Called for increased co-
Funding Review operation between UK
Sport and Home Country
Sports Councils; and that
NGBs produce just one
integrated Performance
plan
Funding implications Implications for elite sport
development
Grants to NGBs now Substantial support for elite
conditional upon level, although funding
support for government implications were a
objectives concern
The World Class Low medal count (15 in
Programme introduced total and just one Gold);
in 1997 (using Lottery leads to increased pressure
monies) as part of for an elite sports academy/
strategy to improve institute
elite performances
Increasing policy Continued support for elite
rhetoric linked sport sports institute – network
funding to social of centres (known as
inclusion objectives UKSI) operating from
1999; UK Sport Council
created as part of
reorganization of Sports
Councils* – and distributor
of Lottery funding from
1999
Two key strands: Further confirmation of
Community Projects support for elite level
Fund (£150m) and
World Class Fund
(£50m)
NGB funding now NGBs required to produce
directly linked to national talent performance
performance targets plans identifying pathways
from grassroots to
international level
Lottery monies (World Greatly improved
Class Fund) highlighted performance by GB/NI
as major factor in team – 28 medals won (11
improved performances Gold); helped to legitimize
in Sydney central government support
Recommended Three-tiered World Class
rationalization of three- programmes to be
tiered World Class rationalized into one;
funding programmes; greater focus on coaching/
called for extra £10m coach education; more
Exchequer funding for effort to be placed on talent
World Class identification and
Performance level development systems
 Changing policy priorities for sport in England 373

Table 3. Sport Policy: 1995–2002 (continued)

Key policy/political Organizational and Funding implications Implications for elite sport
event administrative implications development

2002: The Coaching Recommended the Extra funding to be A more structured

Task Force: Final professionalization of
Report coaching; coach
development, employment
and deployment require
major revisions; the role of
Sports Coach UK to be
reviewed
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014
allocated to develop, approach to elite sport
train, educate and recommended, with the
employ more full-time provision of more full-time
coaches coaches working with elite
performers

2002: Game Plan: A Major government review Recommendations Further prioritization of

Strategy for of all levels, structures and included ‘simplifying funding to NGBs
Delivering financing of sport; the fragmented funding recommended, based on a
Government’s Sport symbiotic links between arrangements’ for sport ‘twin-track’ approach,
and Physical Activity sport, education and health incorporating likely medal-
Objectives policy emphasized winning success as well as
popularity of the sport

*Under the revised system, the GB Sports Council disappeared and the newly established English Sports Council
(Sport England) assumed responsibility for the development of sport in England. While the Sports Councils for
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland remained virtually unchanged, another new organization – the UK Sports
Council (known as UK Sport) – took responsibility for issues that need to be dealt with at UK (primarily, elite)
level. Adapted from DNH (1995), Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2000, 2001, 2002), Department for
Culture, Media and Sport/Strategy Unit (2002), Oakley and Green (2001), Houlihan (1997), McDonald (2000),
Sport England (1999a,c, 2002) and UK Sport (2000, 2001, 2002). NGBs, national governing bodies of sport;
DNH, Department of National Heritage.

policy into the 21st century. It is worthy of note that, although these publications
are from different sides of the political spectrum, they demonstrate a striking note
of unity on the twin emphases of school (youth) sport and elite development.
However, as Houlihan (2000) notes, since 1997, the Labour Government:
…has begun to make good its policy commitments in the area of sport, but it is notable that
there has been far greater progress in addressing the issues associated with the elite end [italics
added] of the sports continuum. (Houlihan, 2000, p. 175)

Although there is evidence of policy continuity across these two documents, it

is important to note that A Sporting Future for All can be distinguished, ideologi-
cally, from Sport: Raising the Game . The former is illustrative of the Labour
Party’s modernizing, reform agenda (Department for Culture, Media and Sport,
2000), whereas in the Foreword to the latter, Prime Minister John Major invoked
(traditional) Conservative values in stating that ‘Sport is a central part of Britain’s
National Heritage’ (quoted in Department of National Heritage, 1995). Indeed,
Sport: Raising the Game has been subject to the critique that it reflected ‘the
[Conservative] government’s privileging of elitism, nationalism and cultural resto-
rationism within the arenas of PE and sport policy’ (Penney and Evans, 1997, p.
24; see also Gilroy and Clarke, 1997; Penney and Harris, 1997).
 374 M. Green

The most prominent policy commitments in the late 1990s were the develop-
ment of an elite sports institute network, albeit after a period of confusion and
disagreement over its precise nature and function (cf. Theodoraki, 1999) and
the establishment of a three-tier (Performance, Potential and Start) World Class
Lottery Fund3, which supports elite athletes at different levels in the quest for
increased medal counts at major international events. A UK Sports Council
(UK Sport) was established in 1997 and became the distributor of Lottery fund-
ing for elite-focused programmes and, during its first year of funding (July
1999–March 2000), this amounted to some £17 million being distributed to 24
sports at a UK level (UK Sport, 2000). Thus, two key elements underlying the
country’s nascent elite sport development system are the UK Sports Institute
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

(UKSI), based on the Australian decentralized institute network, and National

Lottery funding streams. Lottery funding is largely responsible for the construc-
tion of new facilities as part of the UKSI’s network development and the
support provided to athletes through the World Class funding streams (UK
Sport, 2002).
Talent identification and development of young people is a further important
element of the recent support for the elite level that closely parallels Australia’s
‘Talent Search’ programme (Campbell, 2000, p. 20). The relationship between the
UKSI, NGBs and clubs at grass roots levels is related to the issue of talent identi-
fication and the construction of ‘pathways’ to higher levels of competition (Hoey,
2000, p. 14). A key aspect of this organizational relationship was the proposal to
establish 110 Specialist Sports Colleges (SSCs) by 2003 (Department for Culture,
Media and Sport, 2000). Such establishments are not an entirely new idea (Tread-
well, 1987); what is new, however, is the attempt, finally, to incorporate such
schools into a planned, co-ordinated and integrated organizational and administra-
tive model of elite sport development. As Fisher (1987) noted in the late 1980s,
‘the identification of those with potential in sport and the structure for developing
that talent in an organised and co-ordinated way is something that has yet to appear
in a comprehensive fashion in the UK’ (p. 68).
Finally, the publication of Game Plan in late 2002 not only points to a major
shake-up of sporting structures across the UK but also that there is now an
explicit emphasis being placed upon the symbiotic, and overtly instrumental,
relationship between sport (and increased physical activity, in general), education
and health policy (Department for Culture, Media and Sport/Strategy Unit, 2002).
This has implications for sport development at regional and local levels. Of note
are the contemporary developments in respect of Sport England’s regionalization
of sport structures over the past two to three years, which reflect the Govern-
ment’s broader devolution agenda. Such developments have reinvigorated Sport
England’s regional offices and created a plethora of regional/local bodies with a
greater (e.g. Regional Sports Boards, County Sports Partnerships) or lesser (e.g.
Regional Assemblies, Regional Development Agencies, Cultural Consortiums)
degree of involvement in sport policy. As Sport England South West’s draft Plan
for Sport 2004–8 notes, regional bodies are being encouraged to focus on how
sport might contribute to concerns about health, education, crime reduction,
community cohesion and social inclusion, neighbourhood and community regen-
eration, and economic growth and sustainability (Sport England South West,
 Changing policy priorities for sport in England 375

2003). Also of note in the same document is that ‘As well as raising activity
levels, Community Sport should act as a “pipeline” for regional talent to develop
and achieve its potential’ (p. 8).
Such concerns have been largely driven by Game Plan which, while setting the
goal of increasing participation levels in sport and physical activity (a recurring,
but difficult to achieve, policy theme over the past 20 to 30 years), makes it clear
that if sporting organizations are to lever funding from government in the future
then the broader social ‘problems’ of increasing obesity levels, crime and social
cohesion must be addressed. This emerging agenda has raised a number of juris-
dictional concerns: concerns that appear to hinge in part on the detail of the role of
regional sporting bodies in meeting the broader social objectives identified above,
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

as well as their role in working with NGBs in promoting talented sporting perform-
ers. Indeed, minutes from a recent meeting of the East Midlands Regional Sports
Board (2003) reveal that:
…there was tension between the centre [e.g. NGBs] and the region on what was viewed as
delegation. There had been too much silo thinking and prescriptive funding in the past and it
was necessary to find a happy medium between the national dimension for [international
sporting] success and regional needs. (East Midlands Regional Sports Board, 2003, pp. 1–2;
italics added)

Although the issue of policy developments related to school sport and PE is

dealt with in more depth in the following section, it is worth noting here that the
publication of Learning Through PE and Sport (Department for Education and
Skills, 2003) discusses the launch of the PE, School Sport and Clubs Links
(PESSCL) strategy in late 2002; thus signalling a major investment in this area by
central government departments (primarily, the Department for Education and
Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport in conjunction with the
Youth Sport Trust, Sport England and the New Opportunities Fund). From April
2003, this investment amounts to ‘£459 million to transform PE and school
sport…on top of £686 million being invested to improve school sport facilities
across England’ (Department for Education and Skills, 2003, p. 1). However, as
one of the regional bodies involved with co-ordinating the implementation of this
policy has argued, Game Plan has ‘set very challenging targets for increasing
participation in sport from the current 33% once a week to 70% in 2020 5 times a
week’ (East Midlands Regional Sports Board, 2003, p. 1). Moreover, and perhaps
more interestingly, in debating the ramifications of Game Plan , the East
Midlands Regional Sports Board goes on to highlight some of the difficulties yet
to be resolved:
Due to this concentration on health, there were huge gaps [in regional/local delivery mecha-
nisms] of which sense had to be made and there was a debate about our role in encouraging
sport for its own sake or for social reasons and members should be aware of this tension. (East
Midlands Regional Sports Board, 2003, p. 1)

Although it is clearly too early to offer a more substantive analysis of Game

Plan , it is apparent that the UK as a whole is at a relatively early stage of develop-
ing a coherent system for elite sport development. Nevertheless, an organizational,
administrative and funding framework is clearly emerging, based on the following.
(i) The establishment of the UKSI and its attendant support services associated
 376 M. Green

with coaching programmes, sports science/medicine, physiology, psychology and

bio-mechanics; (ii) Lottery funding for programmes such as the elite athlete-
focused World Class Performance programme; (iii) talent identification and devel-
opment techniques and systems; and (iv) the establishment of Specialist Sports
Colleges.

Changing policy priorities and the discursive construction of sport policy

Given this overview of the changing policy landscape for sport from the mid-
1990s onwards, this section presents an analysis of findings from recent empirical
work (between 2000 and 2003) that investigated how three sports (swimming,
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

athletics and sailing and their respective NGBs) have embraced the policy devel-
opments and change outlined above. The analysis should be viewed as an intro-
ductory contribution to an under-investigated aspect in the literature: that is, the
discursive construction of policies related to sport development. The analysis
draws on related empirical work in respect of school sport and PE policy (cf.
Evans and Penney 1995, Gilroy and Clarke, 1997, Penney and Evans, 1997, 1999;
Penney, 2000), as well as extending the boundaries of this body of work in draw-
ing on the literature related to notions of ‘policy as discourse’ (Bacchi, 2000, p.
45; see also, for example, Ball, 1990, 1993; Taylor 1997; Bulkeley, 2000). In
addition, material from the Canadian sporting context during the 1980s (cf. Whit-
son and Macintosh 1988, 1989; Macintosh and Whitson, 1990) provides instruc-
tive comparative analysis that helps to inform more contemporary developments
in England.
Taken together, such insights are useful in that they help sensitise us to the ways
in which sport policy has been/is discursively constructed; the argument being that
such constructions underlie the privileging of certain interests while marginalizing
others. As Bacchi has argued, ‘The emphasis in policy-as-discourse analyses is
upon the ways in which language, and more broadly discourse, sets limits upon
what can be said’ (Bacchi, 2000, p. 48). One example of this type of approach is
Ball’s analysis of the discourse surrounding education policy under the Thatcher
Government which reveals ‘the way in which these emergent discourses were
constructed to define the field, articulate the positions and thus subtly set limits to
the possibilities of education policy’ (Ball, 1993, p. 48).
With these thoughts in mind, the publication of Sport: Raising the Game in 1995
and A Sporting Future for All in 2000, the introduction of National Lottery monies
in the mid- to late 1990s, and the subsequent requirement for NGBs to produce
planning documents (notably, World Class Performance, Potential and Start plans)
in order to elicit such monies, together represent a set of (structural) changes that
have qualitatively altered the terrain for sport policy debates in England, and more
broadly, the UK. The ramifications of such changes have, to date, been relatively
ignored by policy and sporting analysts (for exceptions, see McDonald, 2000;
Oakley and Green, 2001; Houlihan and White, 2002; Green, 2003). McDonald’s
analysis, which centres on English sports policy, is instructive. McDonald argues
that we are witnessing ‘a qualitative shift in the sports-participation culture away
from the egalitarian and empowering aspirations of community-based sporting
activity to an hierarchical and alienating culture of high-performance sport’
 Changing policy priorities for sport in England 377

(p. 84). Although there are some concerns regarding McDonald’s use of language,
in particular, the term ‘alienating culture’, which invokes Marxist notions of ‘alien-
ated labour’ (cf. Heywood, 2000, p. 49), his analysis at least draws attention to the
type of concerns raised by a former high-ranking official at the British Athletic
Federation (BAF), who suggested that:
The way athletics, and sport generally, is going, [what] we’re all trying to do is find talent and
hothouse it to the top…We don’t believe that any experience is, in a sense, intrinsically worth-
while anymore. Anything is only worthwhile if there is a big pay-off at the end. (Interview, 28
May 2002)

For the above-mentioned ‘big pay-off’, we can substitute ‘medals’ and, in partic-
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

ular, Olympic medals as the key policy outcome sought from the changes high-
lighted earlier. Moreover, the cluster of structural changes identified above
suggests that the context, or structural domain, for policy actors entering into sport
policy debates in the UK has perceptibly altered. As Lewis (2000) has argued more
broadly, ‘Macro-social structure exerts a causal influence because the course of
action that people choose to pursue is conditioned by the distribution of vested
interests and resources embodied in antecedent social structure’ (p. 265). At the
level of NGB interaction with the UK’s central government department for sport
(the Department for Culture, Media and Sport) and quasi-governmental sporting
agencies such as Sport England and UK Sport, for Lewis’s ‘vested interests and
resources’ we can conceive of these in respect of this paper as being contoured by
an increasingly apparent set of hierarchical, contractual, resource-contingent and,
perhaps most surprisingly in many cases, positive-sum relationships. The latter are
manifest in the reciprocal policy arrangements that permeate UK Sport’s drive to
modernize NGBs’ organizational and administrative activities and the strategy of
allocating Lottery monies to those governing bodies most able to produce medal-
winning outcomes at the Olympic Games and World Championships (for more
detail, see Green, 2003).
In the English sport policy sector, ‘the actions that people choose to undertake’
are increasingly shaped by the requirements of elite sport and, specifically, the
requirement to construct ‘pathways to the podium’ that serve to subdue alternative
voices within the sporting community. With regard to competition structures in
athletics, for example, Ward argues that:
…our whole fixture calendar is geared to those few … who carry the flag at major champion-
ships. About [0.]001 per cent of the athletic population at a reasonable guess. (Ward, 2002,
p. 50)

In other words, the months of August and September are left free of competition
for the benefit of elite athletes to compete at events such as the Olympic Games
and World Athletics Championships, which are typically staged during these
months. The paradox of this situation is that many of the elite athletes cited by
Ward above do not compete in the various athletics events currently held in April
and May. In short, there is no logical reason why these events might not be staged
later in the season. For a former public relations officer at the British Athletic
Federation, then, the structure of competition opportunities for athletes is increas-
ingly premised upon elite level objectives:
 378 M. Green

The sport’s competition structure is about the drive for medals. That’s what the government
wants. That’s what Sport England wants. So the whole thing is geared, and it has been in athlet-
ics, towards that because jobs are at stake…that’s not the way a sport should be judged, but it
is unfortunately. (Interview, 30 April 2002)

Alternative voices might also argue for sport’s intrinsic qualities in respect of
fun, play, and the enjoyment of sport without the overriding desire to succeed at
the highest level. Yet, for those charged with policy direction in swimming, it is
clear that elite sport objectives are now paramount. Indeed, a leading official at the
Amateur Swimming Association (ASA) and the Amateur Swimming Federation of
Great Britain (ASFGB) has stated, quite unequivocally, that:
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

…the government will only judge swimming by eight days in Athens [Olympic
Games]…success, is eight days in Athens. It isn’t five days in Manchester [Commonwealth
Games] this year. It wasn’t five days in Fukuoka [World Championships], when we came back
with seven medals. [That’s] all very interesting but if [we] come back with seven medals from
the Olympics…that’d get people sitting up and thinking. (Interview, 18 March 2002)

Yet, within the wider swimming community, there appears to be a residual

tension with regard to an increasing focus on the elite level. This is clear from
insights provided by a respondent who is not only an employee of the elite-focused
ASFGB, but who also has many years of experience at the sport’s grass roots
levels. This respondent suggested that the recent changes, which have ceded
control of National Lottery funding for elite level athletes and programmes to the
ASFGB, have resulted in an inevitable loss of power and control within the ASA
(Interview, 19 March 2002). It was also revealed that:
Up until recently, those at Harold Fern House…[ASA headquarters], the committee, they [used
to] set everything and all of a sudden the money is in the Lottery and they have no say in the
matter of how we spend it. (Interview, 19 March 2002)

Interestingly, ‘resistance’ to government and quasi-governmental requirements

to produce objective planning documents aligned to agreed outcomes was far less
evident in the sport of sailing. Indeed, the Royal Yachting Association (RYA) is
an organization that can be characterized as relatively compliant in its adherence
to such requirements. Thus, on the question of whether Sport England or UK Sport
are ‘too directive’ in their relationships with the RYA, a key member of the orga-
nization’s Racing Team argued that this is not the case, and that ‘with UK Sport,
in particular, we work really closely with them to ensure that they have a good
understanding of what we are trying to achieve and how we want to achieve it, and
that has offset any directives’ (Interview, 25 March 2002). An interesting perspec-
tive on this issue was provided by a senior official at UK Sport:
…paid staff in the RYA have tended to take the attitude that, well, there are some structures
and policies that we don’t necessarily like, but let’s just get on with it and stop whingeing and
make things work for the best in our sport…that’s not always the case in some of the other
governing bodies. (Interview, 28 October 2002)

These observations reveal the RYA as an organization that has embraced the
increasingly contractual agreements set out by funding agencies in relation to the
elite level with far greater enthusiasm and success than was evident in swimming
 Changing policy priorities for sport in England 379

and athletics. ‘Success’ here for both the RYA and UK Sport is, primarily, Olym-
pic and World Championship medals. There is, however, another, and perhaps
equally important, aspect of this positive-sum relationship; that is, UK Sport’s
drive to ‘modernise’ NGBs’ governance structures (Deloitte and Touche, 2003). In
short, UK Sport cite the RYA as an exemplar of organizational and administrative
acuity (Interview, senior official UK Sport, 28 October 2002), thereby, in turn
helping to legitimize its own programme of modernization in a policy sector
(sport) that has traditionally valued its autonomy, voluntarism and independence.
As Lewis maintains more broadly, in this sense, ‘the state [here, Department for
Culture, Media and Sport/UK Sport/Sport England] is able to set limits on people’s
interpretative activities which ensure that public discourse is dominated by narra-
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

tives and meanings which serve its own ends’ (Lewis, 2000, p. 262).
These observations have resonance with a related area of work in respect of
developments in school sport and PE policy. As Penney argues, ‘the dominant
conceptualisation of performance in contexts of physical education in England
remains notably narrow, centring on the acquisition of physical characteristics
associated with elite performance in selected sports’ (Penney, 2000, p. 139).
Thus, in the same way that the above discussion has signalled that the
discourses ‘framing’ (cf. Bernstein, 1996) sport development policy are increas-
ingly privileging elite sport contingencies, Penney maintains that, in schools,
‘the key reference points for recognition of learning are elite sport perfor-
mance…[and that] what is recognised and celebrated as “sporting excellence”,
is openly privileged in these visions and definitions of progressions and excel-
lence in learning in physical education’ (Penney, 2000, p. 141). Indeed, in rela-
tion to the impact of the 1988 Education Reform Act, Evans and Penney have
pointed to ‘the nature and significance of discursive strategies and the manipula-
tion of institutional structures to define what is to count as the “official peda-
gogic discourse” of physical education in state schools’ (Evans and Penney,
1995, p. 183). Moreover, Penney et al.’s (2002) analysis of the development of
physical education as a ‘connective specialism’ and the framework of ‘Sport
Education’ found that:
Even if individuals directly involved in provision desire changes that actively promote greater
equity, they may well face both internal and external pressures to continue to privilege estab-
lished dominant discourses and therefore maintain current patterns of provision, many of
which will be directed towards elite performance in sport. (Penney et al., 2002, pp. 62–63)

It is clear, then, that notions of discourse and discursive strategies warrant

further consideration in relation to the construction, deconstruction and reconstruc-
tion of sport development policy in England. In this regard, insights from the Cana-
dian sporting context are instructive. The ‘crucial role of discursive constructions
of particular issues in enabling and constraining policy change’ (Bulkeley, 2000,
p. 745) was signalled some 20 to 30 years ago in the context of Canadian sport in
respect of an analysis of the discursive (re-)construction of knowledge structures
of traditional physical educators in the 1970s. Indeed, in the late 1980s, Whitson
and Macintosh argued that ‘the new disciplines associated with “human kinetics”
are no longer about the education of human beings through physical activity.
Instead, they are primarily about the systematic and scientific production of
 380 M. Green

athletic performance’ (Whitson and Macintosh, 1989, p. 446). This is supported by

Macintosh and Whitson’s (1990) research into the Canadian sport delivery system
in the late 1980s:
…our interviews confirm that the pursuit of prominence on the world stage has tended to
push issues like gender equity and regional access into the background, and that the
discourse that today surrounds the Canadian sport system is one in which broader social
goals are routinely subordinated to the production of performance. (Macintosh and Whitson,
1990, p. 106)

These arguments, then, might also have utility in analysing the discursive
construction of what it means to participate in sport. In this respect, two rather
different conceptions have emerged from this study and would warrant such an
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

analysis: (i) the discursive construction of a paradigm of participation centring on

what Kidd (1988, 1995) has termed a ‘philosophy of excellence’ – dominant in
Canadian sport for the past 30 years, and an emergent paradigm in the UK over the
past 10 years (cf. Houlihan, 1997; McDonald, 2000; Green and Oakley, 2001;
Houlihan and White, 2002) and (ii) a quite different paradigm that (in Canada)
would draw on Kidd’s exhortations for a sporting ideal that reflected ‘the promise
of erotic, lyrical expression, in which the participant is the subject of his or her
activity [rather than] one of alienating regimentation’ (Kidd, 1995, p. 10) and, in
England, as well as the UK more broadly, on the following comments from a
former high-ranking official at the BAF, who argued for the:
…idea of participation for its own sake because it’s enriching to do things you’ve never done
before; the camaraderie of being around people trying things and failing and enjoying it. Being
successful sometimes is good in itself without any pay-offs…[but] the trouble is, now, there is
no place where you can have that dialogue because the kids themselves don’t want that
anymore…They want to know that they’re on somebody’s junior squad or that they’re on the
development ladder to go up to somewhere else…that’s the language of the age. (Interview, 28
May 2002)

As discussed, these observations draw our attention to an under-investigated

issue in English (and UK-wide) sport. That is, the extent to which current
discourses surrounding rational and performance-oriented sport policy come to
construct our experiences of sport at all levels and, therefore, whether we are in
danger of losing sight of ‘other’ meanings attached to sporting activities. Indeed,
on the issue of school sport and PE, Penney argues that:
It seems that the key reference points for recognition of learning are visions of elite sport
performance…‘Other discourses’, and particularly sociocritical discourses, and discourses that
acknowledge (and would therefore serve to promote) learning in physical education that may
be concerned with more generic skills, knowledge and understanding…seem grossly under-
played here. (Penney, 2000, p. 141)
Aside from the work already cited above in respect of school sport and PE
policy, there is further evidence emerging of research interests that may help to
inform future investigations into the possibilities for these other meanings and
discourses to be heard with regard to sport development policy. Research such as
MacPhail et al.’s analysis of the ‘the proposal that we listen to the voices of young
people in relation to sport and physical recreation’ (MacPhail et al., 2003, p. 57),
which revealed that young people:
 Changing policy priorities for sport in England 381

…are telling us that they do not support programmes that are dominated by these traditional
activities [major team games such as football, rugby and cricket]. In school programmes, in
particular, they want to experience the more ‘exotic’ activities that may not be readily accessi-
ble in their local communities. (MacPhail et al., 2003, p. 68)

MacPhail et al.’s observations highlight ‘The gap between school and club
provision’ (p. 68), which is at the heart of the PESSCL strategy discussed above
(cf. Department for Education and Skills, 2003). It remains an empirical question,
however, as to whether the creation of ‘school sport co-ordinators’ and the ‘School
Sport Alliance’ (cf. Flintoff, 2003, p. 243) – an attempt to ‘join up’ the work of
central government departments with other interested bodies – as one aspect of this
strategy, brings about positive outcomes in this respect. Alongside these critiques
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

of school sport and PE policy, Bacchi’s (2000) work in Australia is also useful in
drawing attention to the substantive concern of this paper, namely to problematize
the discursive construction of sport development policy (see also Taylor, 1997).
Bacchi is concerned with the notion of ‘policy as discourse’ (p. 45), while drawing
our attention to ‘the ways in which issues get represented…[which] produces a
focus on language and on “discourse”, meaning the conceptual frameworks avail-
able to describe social processes’ (Bacchi, 2000, p. 46). Here, the notion of ‘policy
as discursive activity’ (p. 49) is highlighted; a qualitatively different approach
than, for example, Bachrach and Baratz’s (1962, 1970) early work on non-decision
making and Kingdon’s (1995) more recent multiple-streams approach that seek to
explain why some issues make it to the political agenda and others do not.
Thus, for Bacchi, the starting point for a policy as discourse approach ‘is a close
analysis of items that do make the political agenda to see how the construction or
representation of those issues limits what is talked about as possible or desirable,
or as impossible or undesirable’ (Bacchi, 2000, p. 49). Future research centring on
such approaches would incorporate an analysis of the discursive construction,
deconstruction and reconstruction of the various discourses that permeate sport
development policy and, as Ball reminds us in relation to education policy, where
‘we need to appreciate the way in which policy ensembles, collections of related
policies, exercise power through a production of “truth” and “knowledge”, as
discourses’ (Ball, 1993, p. 14). Moreover, such an analysis would sensitize us to
‘the ways in which the multifarious uses of language intersect with power’
(Thompson, 1987, p. 517; see also Penney and Evans, 1999, pp. 111–123).

Conclusions
This paper has drawn attention to the gradual emergence of sport as a significant
sector of public policy interest over the past 20 to 30 years. The changing policy
priorities for sport have also been highlighted and problematized, particularly
from the mid-1990s onwards, with elite sport development emerging as an
increasingly significant area of interest for governments on both sides of the
political spectrum. The subtle framing of discourse by government and govern-
mental agencies, such that the discursive context within which sport policy has
developed in recent years, has thus perceptibly altered. In this regard, today,
‘winning medals is just as important as getting people to take part in sport’ (UK
Sport, 2002, p. 8). Empirical examples from the sports of swimming, athletics
 382 M. Green

and sailing have revealed that this subtle framing of policy discourse has resulted
in elite sport objectives assuming increasing priority over ‘other’ conceptions of
sports participation. Similar examples have also been revealed in respect of
school sport and PE policy.
Is there room, then, for alternative voices within this context of discursive activ-
ity that privileges elite performance? Perhaps the launching of the PESSCL strat-
egy, the creation of the School Sports Alliance, the broader social objectives set
out in Game Plan and the ongoing regionalization of sport structures offer hope of
a future policy landscape that creates opportunities for individuals to think and act
otherwise, outside the frame set by the discursive strategies around elite perfor-
mance that have been discussed above. In this regard, and to conclude, two issues
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

in particular warrant further research. First, insights emerging from the signifi-
cance and outcomes of the discursive construction of elite sport in Canada (cf.
Whitson and Macintosh, 1988, 1989; Macintosh and Whitson, 1990), and school
sport and PE in England (cf. Evans and Penney, 1995; Gilroy and Clarke, 1997;
Penney and Evans, 1997, 1999; Penney, 2000), require further attention in respect
of sport development policy across the UK. Secondly, perhaps we should look with
a more critical eye to experiences in Canada where, until more recently, questions
have been raised in respect of concerns that an over-emphasis on elite sport merely
serves to silence alternative voices (cf. Kidd, 1988, 1995; Donnelly, 1996), whose
interests do not rest on the seemingly inexorable drive towards what Whitson
(1998) has termed, the ‘normative legitimation of the calculating pursuit of
victory’ (p. 1). Indeed, following Penney (2000), whether or not challenges to the
dominance of these (elite sport) discourses emerge is not merely to be ‘left to
chance’ but a matter that stands as an important theoretical and practical task for
policy-makers and practitioners involved at different levels of sport development
across the UK.

Notes
1. Some clarification is required with regard to the use of the terms United Kingdom (UK) and Great Britain
(GB) in the paper. First, no other country competes internationally at two different levels: sometimes as UK/
GB, and sometimes as the Home Countries (see also note 3 below) separately. This means that there are five
Sports Councils in the UK, four of which deal with elite sport and grass-roots sport (the four Home Country
Sports Councils) and one of which deals with elite sport at a UK level (UK Sports Council, known as UK
Sport). All five both fund and provide services. Second, the terms UK/GB are often conflated in sport policy
documents, where the term GB signifies Great Britain and Northern Ireland: the nomenclature used, for
example, at the Olympic Games. However, in more general usage, the term GB stands for England, Scotland
and Wales. Third, space precludes an in-depth analysis of elite sport development specific to Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland. However, while this paper has a UK/English focus, much of the discussion in respect
of elite sport policy in the UK pertains to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland through policy direction
generated by UK Sport.
2. For more (historical) detail on sub-national levels in the UK, see Coalter et al. (1988), Henry (1993, 2001),
Houlihan (1997), and Houlihan and White (2002) for coverage of more recent changes.
3. World Class Performance (WCP) programme funding is distributed by UK Sport, while the four Home
Country Sports Councils (in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) award Lottery funding through
their own ‘talented athlete’ programmes to Home Country-based sports, and to those sports which aspire to
compete at the Olympics/Paralympics in the future. In the latter scenario, the Home Country programmes
underpin the UK WCP programme – see UK Sport (2002) for a more detailed elaboration of these funding
programmes.
 Changing policy priorities for sport in England 383

References
Bacchi, C. (2000) Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse: Studies in the
Cultural Politics of Education 21(1), 45–57.
Bachrach, P.S. and Baratz, M.S. (1962) Two faces of power. American Political Science Review 56, 947–952.
Bachrach, P.S. and Baratz, M.S. (1970) Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, New
York.
Ball, S.J. (1990) Politics and Policy-Making in Education: Explorations in Political Sociology. Routledge,
London.
Ball, S.J. (1993) What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education 13(2), 10–17.
Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. Taylor & Francis,
London.
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing Social Research: the Logic of Application. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bulkeley, H. (2000). Discourse coalitions and the Australian climate change policy network. Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy 18, 727–748.
Campbell, D. (2000). Golden goals. Observer 24 September, pp. 20.
Coalter, F., Long, J. and Duffield, B. (1988). Recreational Welfare, Gower, Aldershot.
Cobham Report (1973) Second report of the select committee of the House of Lords on sport and leisure (Select
Committee report), HMSO, London.
Coghlan, J. and Webb, I.M. (1990) Sport and British Politics Since 1960. Falmer Press, London.
Collins, M. (1995) Sports Development, Locally and Regionally, ILAM/Sports Council, Reading.
Deloitte and Touche (2003) Investing in change – High level review of the modernisation programme for
governing bodies of sport, Deloitte & Touche, London.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2000) A Sporting Future for All. Department for Culture, Media and
Sport, London.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2001) Elite Sports Funding Review, Report of the review group,
chaired by the Right Honorable Dr Jack Cunningham MP, Department for Culture, Media and Sport,
London.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2002) The Coaching Task Force – Final Report, Department for
Culture, Media and Sport, London.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport/Strategy Unit (2002) Game Plan: A Strategy for Delivering Govern-
ment’s Sport and Physical Activity Objectives, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, London.
Department for Education and Skills (2003) Learning Through PE and Sport: A Guide to the Physical Educa-
tion, School Sport and Club Links Strategy, Department for Education and Skills, London.
Department of the Environment (1975) Sport and Recreation, White Paper, Cmnd. 6200, HMSO, London.
Department of National Heritage (1995) Sport: Raising the Game, Department of National Heritage, London.
Donnelly, P. (1996) Prolympism: Sport monoculture as crisis and opportunity. Quest 48, 25–42.
East Midlands Regional Sports Board (2003) Minutes of the East Midlands Regional Sports Board (7 July), East
Midlands Regional Sports Board, Nottingham.
Evans, J. and Penney, D. (1995) Physical education, restoration and the politics of sport. Curriculum Studies
3(2), 183–196.
Fisher, R. (1987) A question of excellence. British Journal of Physical Education 18(2), 66–68.
Flintoff, A. (2003) The school sport co-ordinator programme: Changing the role of the physical education
teacher? Sport, Education and Society 8(2), 231–250.
Gilroy, S. and Clarke, G. (1997) Raising the game: Deconstructing the sporting text – from Major to Blair. Peda-
gogy in Practice 3, 19–37.
Green, M. (2003) An analysis of elite sport policy change in three sports in Canada and the United Kingdom,
unpublished PhD thesis, Loughborough University, Loughborough.
Green, M. and Oakley, B. (2001) Elite sport development systems and playing to win: Uniformity and diversity
in international approaches. Leisure Studies 20(4), 247–267.
Henry, I.P. (1993) The Politics of Leisure Policy, Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Henry, I.P. (2001) The Politics of Leisure Policy, 2nd edn, Palgrave, Houndmills.
Heywood, A. (2000) Key Concepts in Politics. Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Hoey, K. (2000) A sporting future for all: The Government’s new sports strategy. FHS 8(July), 13–15.
 384 M. Green
Horne, J., Tomlinson, A. and Whannel, G. (1999) Understanding Sport: an Introduction to the Sociological and
Cultural Analysis of Sport. E. & F. N. Spon, London, New York.
Houlihan, B. (1991) The Government and Politics of Sport. Routledge, London.
Houlihan, B. (1997) Sport, Policy and Politics: A Comparative Analysis. Routledge, London, New York.
Houlihan, B. (2000) Sporting excellence, schools and sports development: The politics of crowded policy
spaces. European Physical Education Review 6(2), 171–193.
Houlihan, B. and White, A. (2002) The Politics of Sport Development: Development of Sport or Development
Through Sport? Routledge, London, New York.
Hylton,K., Bramham, P., Jackson, D. and Nesti, M. (eds) (2001) Sports Development: Policy, Process and Prac-
tice. Routledge, London.
Kidd, B. (1988) The philosophy of excellence: Olympic performances, class power, and the Canadian state, in
Philosophy of Sport and Physical Activity: Issues and Concepts (edited by P.J. Galasso), Canadian Schol-
ars’ Press, Toronto, pp. 11–31
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

Kidd, B. (1995) Confronting inequality in sport and physical activity. Avante 1(1), 3–19.
Kingdon, J.W. (1995) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, 2nd edn, HarperCollins, New York.
Lentell, B. (1993) Sports development: Goodbye to community recreation? in Body Matters: Leisure Images and
Lifestyles (edited by C. Brackenridge), Leisure Studies Association, Eastbourne, pp. 141–149.
Lewis, P.A. (2000) Realism, causality and the problem of social structure. Journal for the Theory of Social
Behaviour 30(3), 249–268.
McDonald, I. (1995). Sport for all – ‘RIP’. A political critique of the relationship between national sport policy
and local authority sports development in London, in Policy and Politics in Sport, Physical Education and
Leisure (edited by S. Fleming, M. Talbot and A. Tomlinson), Leisure Studies Association, Eastbourne, pp.
71–94.
McDonald, I. (2000) Excellence and expedience? Olympism, power and contemporary sports policy in England,
in Issues and Values in Sport and Leisure Cultures (edited by M. Keech and G. McFee), Meyer & Meyer,
Oxford, pp. 83–100.
Macintosh, D. and Whitson, D. (1990) The Game Planners: Transforming Canada’s Sport System, McGill-
Queen’s University Press, Montreal.
MacPhail, A., Kirk, D. and Eley, D. (2003) Listening to young people’s voices: Youth sports leaders’ advice on
facilitating participation in sport. European Physical Education Review 9(1), 57–73.
Oakley, B. and Green, M. (2001) Still playing the game at arm’s length?: The selective re-investment in British
sport, 1995–2000. Managing Leisure 6, 74–94.
Penney, D. (2000) Physical education, sporting excellence and educational excellence. European Physical
Education Review 6(2), 135–150.
Penney, D., Clarke, G. and Kinchin, G. (2002) Developing physical education as a ‘connective specialism’: Is
sport education the answer? Sport, Education and Society 7(1), 55–64.
Penney, D. and Evans, J. (1997) Naming the game. Discourse and domination in physical education and sport in
England and Wales. European Physical Education Review 3(1), 21–32.
Penney, D. and Evans, J. (1999) Politics, Policy and Practice in Physical Education, E. & F. N. Spon, London.
Penney, D. and Harris, J. (1997) Extra-curricular physical education: More of the same for the more able? Sport,
Education and Society 2(1), 41–54.
Pickup, D. (1996) Not Another Messiah: An Account of the Sports Council, 1988-93, Pentland Press, Edinburgh.
Roche, M. (1993) Sport and community: Rhetoric and reality in the development of British sport policy, in
Sport, Culture and Politics (edited by J.C. Binfield and J. Stevenson), Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield,
pp. 72–112.
Sport England (1999a) Best Value Through Sport, Sport England, London.
Sport England (1999b) Consultation on Regional Statements for Sport 1999/2000, Available at: http://
archive.sportengland.org/whatwedo/research/strategic/briefs/regional_brief.htm (accessed 21 November
2003).
Sport England (1999c) Investing for our Sporting Future: Sport England Lottery Fund Strategy 1999–2009,
Sport England, London.
Sport England (2002) About Us, Available at: http://www.sportengland.org/about/about_1.htm (accessed 22
January 2002).
Sport England South West (2003) South West Plan for Sport 2004–8, Available at: http://www.sportengland.org/
downloads/southwest/South-West-Regional-Plan-2004.pdf (accessed 11 February 2004).
Sports Council (1982) Sport in the Community: The Next Ten Years, Sports Council, London.
 Changing policy priorities for sport in England 385
Sports Council (1988) Sport in the Community: Into the ’90s, Sports Council, London.
Taylor, S. (1997) Critical policy analysis: Exploring contexts, texts and consequences. Discourse: Studies in the
Cultural Politics of Education 18(1), 23–35.
Theodoraki, E. (1999) The making of the UK Sports Institute. Managing Leisure 4(4), 187–200.
Thompson, J.B. (1987) Language and ideology: A framework for analysis. Sociological Review 35, 516–536.
Treadwell, P. (1987) Giftedness and sport in schools: A comparative perspective. British Journal of Physical
Education London: 18(2), 63–65.
UK Sport (2000) Annual Report 1999–2000, UK Sport, London.
UK Sport (2001) Annual Report 2000–2001, UK Sport, London.
UK Sport (2002) UK Sport Lottery Strategy 2002–2005, UK Sport, London.
Ward, T. (2002). Follow the sun. Athletics Weekly 50, 15 May.
Whitson, D. (1998) Olympic sport, global media and cultural diversity, in Global and Cultural Critique: Prob-
lematising the Olympic Games (edited by R.K. Barney, K.B. Wamsley, S.G. Martyn and G.H. MacDonald),
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 12:05 17 October 2014

University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, pp. 1–9.

Whitson, D. and Macintosh, D. (1988) The professionalization of Canadian amateur sport: Questions of power
and purpose. Arena Review 12(2), 81–96.
Whitson, D. and Macintosh, M. (1989) Rational planning vs regional interests: The professionalization of Cana-
dian amateur sport. Canadian Public Policy XV(4), 436–449.