UK General Election Sports Minister’s Debate

by David King, Director, APCO Online, EMEA

The position of Sports Minister in the UK is not a cabinet level position, but considering the impact of sport on contemporary Britain, both through professional sports and the London 2012 Olympics, it is a position of considerable interest in the discussion surrounding the upcoming general election.  Speaking before representatives of UK Sport, Sport England and twenty national sport governing bodies, Thursday’s pre-election debate featured Sports Minister Gerry Sutcliffe and shadows Hugh Robertson for the Conservatives and Don Foster for the Lib Dems.  What was most evident was that there was very little debate and lots of agreement on the top sports issues facing the country.

Hosted by BBC Radio 5 Live at the grounds of Wembley Football Club, the debate was split into three segments with the first focusing on the state of football in Britain following the resignation this week of Ian Watmore, the fourth head of the Football Association in eight years.  All three strongly agreed that professional football is at a critical juncture, or as Don Foster put it, ‘drinking in the Last Chance Saloon’.  With several clubs facing administration and convoluted ownership and debt structures for others the gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ is growing exponentially, and all agreed that four key elements are needed to pull football back from the brink: a ‘fit and proper persons’ test for club owners, financial transparency, better oversight of debt levels carried by clubs and governance of the sport at a  professional and national level. In addition, all felt it important that players understand their responsibility to the public as role models when it comes to off-field behavior. Representatives from supporter groups argued strongly for greater government intervention, but all three seemed to agree that the Football Association must get a grip on the sport and clean its own house before government intervention becomes necessary.  The supporters groups had a strong and vocal presence and on the day Sports Minister Sutcliffe said he felt supporters should be given a stronger voice in the governance process for professional clubs.  Interestingly, by Monday it was part and parcel of the Labour election manifesto.

The second segment dealt specifically with funding and support for Olympic sports and grassroots development in the run up to London 2012, the Olympic legacy and future funding for those sports post-2012.  The question posed was whether the 26 million pounds of funding for British Tennis, based on their recent collapse, is a sign that funding is being wasted, and all defended the approach that grassroots and elite performance programmes must be supported even when there are defeats.  Putting funding into context for Olympic athlete funding, there is a sharp drop-off in the amount of investment in medal-potential athletes. Hugh Robertson reminded the group that it was John Major’s Lottery funding initiative that put in place the structure that funds sport in Britain, while Gerry Sutcliffe stressed that it has been the Labour government of the past 13 years that has provided more and better funding through a mix of Exchequer, Lottery and private sources. Predictably, Don Foster charged that the Tories under Major didn’t go far enough and that Labour had actually decreased funding for sport in real terms, including the sell-off of school sports grounds.  Despite a bit of bickering and positioning around details, as representatives from various national governing bodies pressed them on future funding plans, all three were in complete agreement that funding levels should continue after London 2012 to ensure that the investment in the country’s Olympic athletes and infrastructure does not go to waste.  As the discussion moved on to sport in schools cracks began to show in the party positions but all agreed to commit to an increase in school participation in sport from the earliest level.

In the final act of the not very dramatic debate, the state of cricket took centre stage provoking traditional party positions.  The big question?  Should Test and Ashes matches be on terrestrial television available to all, or on pay/subscription services as it now stands.  The Labour and Lib Dem positions were identical, favouring free-to-air viewing.  Hugh Robertson was quick to point out that 80 per cent of cricket’s revenue comes from broadcast rights, and compelling the sport to provide its premier events to all under government mandate could put the existence of the sport at risk. The England Cricket Board strongly defended their position that they should be able to market their viewing rights to the highest bidder without interference, and that those viewing rights should include ‘highlights’ footage available to terrestrial broadcasters. The loss of revenue would devastate County and grassroots cricket right across the country. Representatives of the smaller Olympics sports put forward the idea that the public would be better served if the taxpayer funded BBC were to spend more time broadcasting less promoted sports such as basketball, fencing and gymnastics.

The balance of the debate centered on ‘legacy’, what the long-term benefit will be from the investment in Olympic and grassroots sport and what the impact from events surrounding the Football Association might be on the country’s competitiveness and ability to win the 2018 World Cup rights.  All felt that successful British results in Beijing and the anticipation of improved performance in 2012 would easily justify continued Olympic and grassroots funding for Rio 2016 and beyond.  Less certain were the views on football’s current woes, and representatives of the supporter’s groups were vocal in their insistence that intervention was necessary to save the sport.

No matter who wins the election, one should not look for sweeping changes in the nation’s sports policy.  Judging by the views of the respective party ministers, the winners will be Britain’s sports fans and participants.