2 YEARS ON EPQ 6

Oliver Sirr Oliver Sirrell - 2 Years On: Has The London 2012 Olympics Legacy Successfully Effected Participation In UK Sport?
2 Years On: Has The
London 2012 Olympics
Legacy Successfully
Effected Participation
In UK Sport?
Oliver Sirrell
Candidate Number: 3096
Centre Number: 62463
1

Abstract
This project is an investigation into the extent of the success of London 2012’s
Olympic legacy. It looks at how participation has changed post games as
compared to pre-games, delving into factors such as participation rates,
participation of various ethnic minorities, participation at grassroots sport,
school sport and elite sport. The purpose of the paper is to establish whether
the government’s ideal, ‘to inspire a generation’, was achieved or whether it
failed and to how far it failed /was achieved. With the aid of independent
research from reputable external sources, the project also considers how the
government and other organisations have or have not supplied provisions and
help for the appropriate sectors and how this has affected the overall
outcome.
2

Contents
Abstract: 2
Introduction: 4 – 5
Literature review: 6-20
Discussion – Participation Rates: 21-23
Discussion – Minority Groups: 24-26
Discussion – School, Grassroots and Elite
Sport: 27 - 29
Conclusion: 29 - 30
Review: 31 – 32
Bibliography: 33-34
Activity Log: 35-37
Presentation slides: 40 - 46
3

Introduction
The London 2012 Olympic Games was undoubtedly one of the most momentous
events of contemporary British history.
Despite the duration of such an occasion only just exceeding a fortnight - or four
weeks with the Paralympics included – the immediate impact on the UK’s society was
enormous.
Patriotism reached fever pitch as 50.2m people – 87% of the population – witnessed
at least 15 minutes of the historic sporting celebration,1
which was in its 30th incarnation.
204 nations took part in 302 events within 26 sports as golden idols such as international
phenomenons Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps as well as household heroes Jessica Ennis and
Mo Farah invigorated vivacious crowds in sold out stadiums.
This was the third time the UK had the privilege of holding the Games; the last time
being in 1948. The objective of that Olympics, which became known as the ‘Austerity
Games’, was to uplift a frail and dilapidated nation that had just arisen from greatest war of
all time.
Ron Godden was just thirteen years old when he ventured to Wembley Stadium
every day pursuing tickets. As a pre-pubescent who perpetually evaded death in wartime
London, he was enthralled to behold such a spectacle just three years after the traumas of
World War II.
In an interview with the BBC over 60 years later, Ron proclaimed: "I think it was a lift
for everybody because we'd been through such a terrible time. It really did lift the nation. It
was a great event, it really was."2
Evidently the 1948 Games had the capability to ‘inspire a generation’ post war, and
the UK’s senior figures, including PM David Cameron, Mayor of London Boris Johnson and
Lord Sebastian Coe, will be anticipative of a similar outcome with regards to the teenagers
of today becoming the sporting icons of tomorrow.
Aside from delivering a stellar international spectacle and boosting the economy,
one of the Games’ objectives was to leave a legacy on UK sport. In December 2010 the
1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/davidbond/2012/09/will_london_2012_change_britai.html, September
2012, BBC Sport. The BBC is a neutral and objective source who have the objective of delivering
unbiased news via TV, the internet and radio. During the 1980’s they were accused of left wing
biased because of their impartial stance on the Falklands War so, if this stance is true and still
lingers, then there may be some issue with their criticisms of the legacy as they may intend to paint
the right wing Conservatives, who are carrying out the legacy, as unsuccessful. However there left
wing stance was purely allegation and the BBC is seen the world over as a respected and reputable,
impartial and unbiased organisation.
2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/people_and_places/2012/newsid_8845000/8845900.stm
July 2010, BBC News London.
4

Department for Culture, Media and Sport issued an official ‘Plans for the Legacy From the
2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games’ document which decreed the aims for British sport
post Olympics. They aimed to focus on:
• ‘Harnessing the United Kingdom’s passion for sport to increase grass roots
participation, particularly by young people – and to encourage the whole
population to be more physically active.’
• ‘Promoting community engagement and achieving participation across all
groups in society through the Games’
• ‘Delivering a sporting legacy for young people, and bringing back a culture of
competitive sport in schools.’3
From this project what I aim to unearth is whether, 2 years on, people from a variety
of backgrounds, abilities and age groups, people like Ron, were indeed inspired to
participate more in sport and whether the aims of the Olympic legacy have come to fruition.
I want to determine whether The London 2012 Olympics legacy has indeed successfully
effected UK sport.
‘Legacy’ will be a pivotal word in my project, henceforth it is key that the word is
understood in its entirety. A legacy is ‘something handed down from an ancestor or a
predecessor or from the past’4
. In the context of this project, this could translate as the
effect (or the lack of) that the success of Great Britain’s athletes and the tournament as a
whole, left on the sporting scene of the UK.
Therefore to comprehend the extent of the effect of the Olympic legacy, I also need
to discover what initiatives the government and its divisions, like UK Sport, are
developing/have developed. Similarly, I need to learn how sport in Britain is being funded in
comparison with before the Olympics and in relation to other departments, such as the
military. Furthermore, I should compare the UK’s post-Olympic achievements with another
country that has recently held the event, such as Greece, Australia or China. The
performance of the UK’s elite athletes and teams after the Games will also help to convey
the legacy’s impact.
I am delving into this particular topic because I feel that it affects a significant chunk
of British society and because I am a teenager who has a very heavy interest in numerous
sports, whether they are domestic or international. I would be within the age range that the
government was targeting for ‘young people’ in 2012 so I am keen to observe whether sport
is now more accessible for people my age, as well as others. At university I hope to study
(sports) journalism with the possibility of venturing into the profession for a career. I feel
3
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78105/201210_Legacy_Publ
ication.pdf. December 2010, Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Pages 1-2. This source doesn’t have
any bias attached to it as it set out the aims of the government regarding the Olympics.
4
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/legacy there are no set definitions for any word and all words are
open for interpretation. In my case, ‘legacy’ can mean many different things but I found this
definition to be the most relatable, fair and apt version for my project.
5

that by intensely researching this topic and consequently developing a thorough and
definite conclusion I will be in a significantly enhanced position to realise my ambitions with
regards to further education and potential careers.
Literature Review
To gain an insight into what to expect from the outcome of my project, I have sought
after opinions, statistics and reviews from scholars surrounding my topic area. Although it’s
only been two years since the conclusion of the Olympic games, various investigations and
reports have indeed taken place and there is a fair amount of evidence for and against the
argument.
The most notorious example derives from the House of Lords which published a
legacy report on the 18th of November 2013. The account was both critical of the effect of
the legacy on UK Sport but also positive in some areas. The House of Lords is an
independent division of the government and its members are ‘appointed by the Queen on
the advice of the Prime Minister. Some non-party-political members are recommended by
an independent body, the House of Lords Appointments Commission’.31
They complement
and contend the work of the elected House of Commons and are a trustworthy source given
that members use their individual expertise for different issues, like sport, and are not an
organisation designed to signpost or manipulate information to make the government seem
successful.
Since 2005 there has been an increase in the number of people playing sport, so say
Sport England. 1.5 million more people are now participating than there was just under a
decade ago5
. This increase of one and a half million people represents 35.5% of the
population, totalling 15.6 million ‘16 and over’s’ participating in sport once a week.8
This is
an increase of 200,000 from summer 2012 to April 2014. Encouragingly, this figure rises to
16.6 million when the age group is expanded to include 14 and 15 year olds a well.
31
http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/members-and-their-roles/how-
members-are-appointed/ This source is reliable as it derives from a government website which is
merely presenting facts which hold no political basis.
5
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldolympic/78/7803.htm The House
of Lords is an independent division of the government and its members are ‘appointed by the Queen
on the advice of the Prime Minister. Some non-party-political members are recommended by an
independent body, the House of Lords Appointments Commission’. They complement and contend
the work of the elected House of Commons and are a trustworthy source given that members use
their individual expertise for different issues, like sport, and are not an organisation designed to
signpost or manipulate information to make the government seem successful.
8
6

Figure 1 - Once a week sport participation showing the overall trend for participation since
2006 -
https://www.sportengland.org/media/329203/01_1x30_overall_factsheet_APS8Q2.pdf
Crucially this the age group that is central to the Olympic legacy being
successful, 14-25, has 58.0% of its population participating in sport at least once a week.
This was 176,200 more than in October 2013 so the total was 4.83 million in April 20148
.
This figure is also more superior to the number of adults (26 and older) participating at least
once a week; 26% less of their population are participating once a week (11.75 million).
Key senior parliamentary figures such as Boris Johnson have tried to champion an
increase in participation too. In ‘Inspired by 2012: The legacy from the London 2012 Olympic
and Paralympic Games’(July 2013), A joint UK Government and Mayor of London report, The
Mayor points out that “We are seeing a sporting legacy, with 150,000 more Londoners
8
Sport Scotland, Sport Wales and Sport England are all sub-divisions of UK Sport, who are accountable
to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), having a very clear remit at the ‘top end’ of
Britain’s sporting pathway. UK Sport is responsible for investing around £100 million of public funds
each year – from both the National Lottery and the Exchequer, and its members comprise of home
country representatives and independent members, which meets every two months. Their
trustworthiness is questionable as investing such a large amount of money may lead to the distortion
of figures in order to make themselves seem like a successful and effective part of the government.
On the other hand they could be as eager to display negative statistics in order to create a basis for
improvement.
7

trying some kind of sporting activity since the Games.”5
This report has a tendency to be less
reliable as it stems from the people who would be very keen to portray the Games and the
legacy as a success, perhaps in order to boost popularity for their party, the Conservatives.
Furthermore, immediately after the Games 750,000 more 16 and overs were playing
sport at least once a week10
(October 2012.) There were fluctuations in the number after
October 2012 which saw a dip of 200,000 up until April 2013, mainly because of weather
conditions in a harsh winter, but the overall figure has remained fairly stable thereafter,
rising to 15.6 million as of April 2014. Nevertheless, these figures are still roughly 500,000
more than before the Olympics and around 1.5 million more than the year after it was
announced the Olympics was coming to Britain.8
The House of Lords report that it has
‘confidence the longer term upward trend will continue.’ 5
Despite this the House of Lords also reports that there is a ‘the lack of a clear legacy
plan for capturing the enthusiasm of the Games within all sports’ and that due to the
successes of Britain’s cyclists in the Tour de France, it is difficult to quantify whether The
Olympics was behind the variations in participation levels for noveau popular sports such as
cycling. Therefore the House of Lords commented that ‘the (overall) evidence does not
support a surge in participation in the immediate wake of the Games across the population
as a whole’, given that ‘The (initial) legacy aspiration was for a step change in participation,
with the inspiration of the Games leading to much greater participation by the general
public’.
The key statements also focused on the UK’s troubling obesity issues, claiming: ‘the
UK faces an epidemic of obesity and the promise of inspiring a new sporting generation was
a crucial and tantalising part of the legacy aspiration. A post-Games step change in
participation across the UK and across different sports did not materialise.’6
This was
supported by Baroness Grey-Thompson’s report into Physical Education in Schools decreed
that “we are facing a ticking obesity time-bomb and, unless we make sport and physical
education and school sport a core subject, we will still be here in 20 years’ time having made
little or no progress.”7
5
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224148/2901179_OlympicL
egacy_acc.pdf This report has a tendency to be less reliable as it stems from the people who would be
very keen to portray the Games and the legacy as a success, perhaps in order to boost popularity for
their party, the Conservatives.
10
8
5
6
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldolympic/78/7803.htm 18 November 2013
7
8

The House of Lords’ declaration also revealed how ‘the Paralympic Games provided
genuine inspiration for people with and without disabilities to take up sport but there are
barriers in the quality of the facilities available in clubs, which affect disabled people looking
to participate in sport.’ These barriers may explain the drop in 16 year olds with a long term
limiting illness or disability decreasing by 36,4008
from October 2013 – April 2014 to 1.63
million. This figure represents 17.8% of the disabled population; when compared with the
able bodied population, the figures almost doubles to 35.5%9
of the respective population
participating in sport once a week (1 x 30 minute moderate intensity exercise).
The Olympics and Paralympics have made more than half (56%) of people abroad
think more positively about how the UK views disability15
, and although ‘extensive media
coverage had a powerful effect on changing general public perceptions of disabled sport,
there was less clear evidence that there was a similar impact on the broader perception of
people with disabilities.’5
The effect of this on participation levels seems mixed as the Sport
and Recreation organisation stated that ‘findings from an online questionnaire show that
eight in 10 disabled people are considering taking part in more sport or exercise after
watching the Paralympic Games. Yet the findings from our survey suggest that this interest
has not yet been felt at a club level with nine in 10 (89%) clubs reporting no change in the
number of disabled people joining their club. Similarly, almost the same number (86%) have
noticed no change in the number of enquiries they have received from disabled people
wanting to take part. In addition, 96% have noticed no change in the number of disabled
people volunteering at their clubs.’16
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/baroness-tanni-grey-thompson-review-calls-4702004
This website/source would supposedly have no reason to be unreliable here as it is simply reporting
on an independent report. However, Wales typically votes Labour and the current polls suggest they
will, on a majority, vote Labour again. Therefore this source is more likely to favour Labour seeing as
it is a website which represents all of Wales. Labour are left wing and the report that was reported
on criticized/pressured the current, Tory, right wing government; therefore they may have
exaggerated some figures and may have added some subtle criticisms of the Conservatives into their
comments on Grey Thompson’s report, but ultimately this is unlikely. Essentially I see little reason
why this source would be unreliable.
8
https://www.sportengland.org/media/329203/01_1x30_overall_factsheet_APS8Q2.pdf page 2
9
https://www.sportengland.org/media/329203/01_1x30_overall_factsheet_APS8Q2.pdf page 1
15
http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/lobbying-and-campaigning/sport-research/UK-fact-figures
The Sport and Recreation Alliance is the organisation that is responsible for ‘the governing and
representative bodies of sport and recreation in the UK and represents 320 members – organisations
like The FA, the Rugby Football Union, UK Athletics’. They campaign and lobby for issues surrounding
these bodies but are not a governmental faction. Perhaps they could be liable to some bias in their
criticism of the Games in order to attain the attention of the State so more is done for grassroots and
elite sport
5
16
http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/web/images/Olympic%20and
%20Paralympic%20legacy%20survey_1.pdf
9

Figure 2- The same questionnaire also depicts the provisions available for the disabled population
-http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/web/images/Olympic%20and%20Paralympic
%20legacy%20survey_1.pdf
However overall participation varies significantly by local authorities. As the graphic
below shows, almost 50% of adults in St. Albans take part in sport at least once a week
whereas just over a quarter of adults do so in Boston, Lincolnshire. It also varies by region;
the South East and London have the highest participation rates of 36.9% and 37.2%
respectively, whereas participation is almost 3% lower in the West Midlands and the North
East.22
This could be because of the scope of the provisions available in each region, or the
average age of adults in each local authority; if the demographic is younger adults rather
than older adults, then it would be expected that the participation rates would be higher as
they may have fewer commitments, like children, full time work etc., therefore enabling
them to have more time for sport. The affluence of the area is another factor; if the
consensus are reasonably well off then they are more likely to spend disposable income on
participation in sport, consequently boosting the rates of participation.
All of the above and below statistics and info graphics are, however, subject to
scrutiny, as they are very selective. Their origins are trustworthy but the contents are up for
interpretation. For example Figure 2 perhaps deliberately shows all of the questions they
asked that were inferior on the ‘Yes’ side in order to portray a negative picture regarding
provisions for disabled people. They may not have included any of information they
collected which positively portrays provisions for disabled people, which are superior on the
‘Yes’ side, for example. Figure 3 is also a tad dubious; for the purpose of the info graphic
they have only included five local authorities, in order to show a range of participation rates.
While this is perhaps a fairer, more reasonable method to deploy, it is not entirely
representative and therefore the overall trend is undeterminable and it is impossible to
identify any potential anomalies. Similarly, Figure 4 is not completely representative.
Despite it providing a much broader and clearer range of information regarding
participation rates it does not include Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland, which are all
22
http://www.sportengland.org/research/who-plays-sport/local-picture/#
10

paramount in determining the extent of legacy from the Olympics. Therefore, the usefulness
of this source is fairly limited, despite its advantages.
Figure 3 – An info graphic showing adult participation by local authority. http://www.sportengland.org/research/who-
plays-sport/local-picture/#
11

Figure 4 - http://www.sportengland.org/research/who-plays-sport/local-picture/#
Scotland and Wales are included in the initial stats regarding overall participation but
the respective Sporting organisations for these nations also contributed to the House of
Lords report, saying they (Sport Wales) had reported "increases in swimming club
membership of around 30%, similar increases of around 20% to 30% in boxing, and hockey
organisations are suggesting a 40% increase in their membership" since the Games.’ Sport
Scotland also told the House of Lords that, ‘in the year of the Games, our national statistics
on participation increased for the first time in a long time. That increase has been
12

maintained this year and the frequency of existing participants has shown an increase."’5
Sport Scotland, Sport Wales and Sport England are all sub-divisions of UK Sport, who are
accountable to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), having a very clear
remit at the ‘top end’ of Britain’s sporting pathway. UK Sport is responsible for investing
around £100 million of public funds each year – from both the National Lottery and the
Exchequer, and its members comprise of home country representatives and independent
members, which meets every two months. Their trustworthiness is questionable as
investing such a large amount of money may lead to the distortion of figures in order to
make themselves seem like a successful and effective part of the government. On the other
hand they could be as eager to display negative statistics in order to create a basis for
improvement.
Although a decline in participation numbers in football and tennis of 100,000 (April-
October 2013) and 20,000 (same period)17
respectively, as well as criticism from the House
of Lords report which stated that UK Sport's "no compromise" approach ‘does not
sufficiently help emerging sports after some of which, such as handball or volleyball,
generated real enthusiasm at London 2012’18
, has led to a change in funding initiatives.
Football and tennis’ funding has been slightly cut while the ‘Inspired by 2012…’ Mayor of
London report claims that ‘a new school sports funding package, would provide £150 million
for primary schools for each of the next two years to improve physical education and
health.’19
A spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, said: “We are
completely committed to getting more young people participating in regular sport”. We are
investing £300 million over the next two years direct into primary school sport – that will
improve the coaching and experience children have. On top of that we’re investing over £1
billion of public money over four years to strengthen grassroots sport and upgrade facilities
in communities across England.”21
In an attempt to boost the range of sports played in schools The Department for
Education has also ‘invested in new initial teacher training programmes to produce a cadre
of primary teachers with a particular specialism in PE, developed in conjunction with sports
bodies.’ Furthermore the development of The School Games (the new national school sports
programme inspired by the Olympics) has promoted competitive sport in schools with over
13,000 schools participating in the competition in 2013.19
Although in January 2013 The Sport and Recreation organisation published a legacy
report which commented on the hopes many clubs had for improving grassroots sport and
5
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldolympic/78/7803.htm
17
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/25346493
18
19
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224148/2901179_Olympic
Legacy_acc.pdf
21
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/schoolsports/10255694/Blow-to-Olympic-legacy-
as-fewer-children-take-up-sport.html
19
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224148/290117
9_OlympicLegacy_acc.pdf
13

facilities amidst ‘a new wave of inspiration following the Games amongst both existing
participants and new joiners’16
. At the start of 2013 the organisation claimed that ‘across all
sports clubs in the UK, two in five (42%) say that they have seen an increase in the number
of people joining their club since the Games this year’. Quotes like ‘We are currently getting
new members each week as a result of BMX being part of the Olympics and more
information about local sports clubs being published in local newspapers and online’16
are
aplenty on the organisation’s website.
Despite this, they also comment on an underlying sense of dismay. ‘At grassroots
level a belief in a legacy is low and that even if more people express an interest in
participating, the financial and infrastructural resources needed to maximise this will not be
present.’16
The Sport and Recreation Alliance is the organisation that is responsible for ‘the
governing and representative bodies of sport and recreation in the UK and represents 320
members – organisations like The FA, the Rugby Football Union, UK Athletics’.32
They
campaign and lobby for issues surrounding these bodies but are not a governmental faction.
Perhaps they could be liable to some bias in their criticism of the Games in order to attain
the attention of the State so more is done for grassroots and elite sport.
The general feeling is that sports clubs cannot survive without increased funding and
provisions from higher authorities, after ‘further cuts to local authority budgets that will
inevitably lead to pressure on facilities and community sport programmes.’25 This anguish is
reflected in the table below. Figure 5 is a positive representation of data due to the
inclusion of numerous statistics. However, it does have its flaws. It intentionally attempts to
trick the readership into formulating a negative conception of grassroots sport and the
effect legacy has had on it by highlighting the ‘absolutely’ column and having the highest
percentages of ‘absolutely’ stats at the top of the graphic so that it is immediately obvious
to the audience, generating an inaccurate impression that clubs are in a state of disarray
due to lack of funding etc. In fact, the ‘not at all’ column matches the ‘absolutely’ column in
terms of the number of majorities it has. Furthermore, the higher ‘not at all’ stats are at the
bottom of the info graphic, so they are not immediately obvious to the reader and the
column isn’t highlighted. Therefore, despite some alarming information presented on the
lack of provisions clubs are getting, this table is wildly distorted in order to create a negative
impression of the extent of legacy, making it a less reliable source.
16
http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/web/images/Olympic
%20and%20Paralympic%20legacy%20survey_1.pdf
16 http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/web/images/Olympic%20and%20Paralympic%20legacy%20survey_1.pdf
16 http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/web/images/Olympic%20and%20Paralympic%20legacy%20survey_1.pdf
32
http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/about
14

Figure 5 -http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/web/images/Olympic%20and
The Telegraph reported that ‘a survey of 2,000 children found that almost three
quarters under the age of 10 said that the Games had not inspired them to take up a sport.
Just over half of 11 to 15-year-olds shared the same view’.21
After a ‘series of controversial
reforms to school sport introduced by the Coalition, including the abolition of the £162m a
year “school sports partnerships” scheme’21
there have been further reductions in
participation numbers amongst young people. For example, ‘one in seven boys also said
they have not taken part in any sport’ from August 2012 -2013, while ‘the proportion of
young children under the age of 10 doing gymnastics, going swimming and playing rounders
has also fallen significantly over the past year.’21
This has led to severe criticism from the
shadow sports minister Clive Efford after the scrapping of ‘previous targets requiring pupils
to take part in two hours of sport a week’, who said “The government had no intention at all
of delivering a sports legacy on the back of 2012.”21
21
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/schoolsports/10255694/Blow-to-Olympic-legacy-as-fewer-
children-take-up-sport.html
21
The Telegraph is a broadsheet newspaper which is pro Conservative. This means that they would
be expected to be bias in terms of presenting the Olympic legacy as successful in order to increase
support for the Conservatives. Although for the piece I have used from The Telegraph, they seem to
have removed this supposed bias in order to portray the legacy in a negative light. However, Clive
Efford is a Labour MP, a member of the rival party of the Tory government carrying out the legacy
policy. Therefore, his comments should be taken with a pinch of salt as he may deliberately have said
these things in order to gain popularity for his party at the next general election. In essence, though,
his comments are supported by figures from the right wing Telegraph.
21 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/schoolsports/10255694/Blow-to-Olympic-legacy-as-fewer-children-take-up-sport.html
15

The Telegraph is a broadsheet newspaper which is pro Conservative. This means that
they would be expected to be bias in terms of presenting the Olympic legacy as successful in
order to increase support for the Conservatives. Although for the piece I have used from The
Telegraph, they seem to have removed this supposed bias in order to portray the legacy in a
negative light. However, Clive Efford is a Labour MP, a member of the rival party of the Tory
government carrying out the legacy policy. Therefore, his comments should be taken with a
pinch of salt as he may deliberately have said these things in order to gain popularity for his
party at the next general election. In essence, though, his comments are supported by
figures from the right wing Telegraph.
Conversely, UK Sport has pledged ‘around £350million of National Lottery and
Exchequer funds into preparing Great Britain’s best athletes for Rio 2016 and beyond to
build on the outstanding success of London 2012.’ They aim to make the UK ‘the first nation
in recent history to be more successful in both Olympic and Paralympic Games post
hosting’.23
They will do this by funding ‘36 Olympic and Paralympic sports to protect and
enhance medal potential for Rio 2016 and Tokyo 2020’, although ‘seven sports have had
funding withdrawn and reinvested in other programmes after failing to demonstrate
realistic medal potential by Tokyo 2020’23
. Elite sport has also received a boost with the
securing of 22 major international events being staged at least partly in the UK by 2019,
covering 16 sports including disability sports. 19
Furthermore in the 2013 spending review, elite sport was ‘protected’ but the
‘Culture, media and sport department resource budget cut by 7%24
. There was also a ‘5% cut
for community sport’25
However, ‘in practice, the cut to the exchequer-funded portion of
Sport England's grassroots sport budget – which applies only to resource funding and not
capital projects - will amount only to a few million pounds. The majority of its £300m
annual budget now comes from the lottery following changes to the way that money is
distributed. The budget for elite Olympic and Paralympic sport will see £355m invested by
UK Sport over the four years to 2016, ensuring that elite sport thrives 25
’
UK Sport has responded to the criticisms from the House of Lords regarding their ‘no
compromise’ approach (which funds the sports that are most likely to obtain medals at the
next two Olympics) by suggesting they will place a greater emphasis on a wider range of
elite sports. Basketball had its funding stopped after a poor performance at the Olympic
23
http://www.uksport.gov.uk/news/uk-sport-targets-investment-to-protect-and-enhance-medal-potential-
for-rio-2016-and-beyond-040214
23 http://www.uksport.gov.uk/news/uk-sport-targets-investment-to-protect-and-enhance-medal-potential-for-rio-2016-and-beyond-040214
19
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224148/2901179_
OlympicLegacy_acc.pdf
24
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/26/spending-review-2013-the-key-points
25
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/26/osborne-s-spending-review-winners-and-losers-at-a-
glance
16

Games and with no imminent signs that basketball’s fortunes will improve by the next
Games. However, basketball is the second biggest team sport among 14-16 year olds in the
UK, and is played by nearly 218,000 people each week and the UK Sport Chief Executive has
realised the potential these stats incur. Liz Nicholl commented ‘(Perhaps) we should be
doing something differently. We're hearing quite a few comments from team sports,
particularly basketball, sports that are not funded by us in this cycle because they are more
than eight years away from developing medal potential. And so, the questions we will be
asking are: 'Should we dig deeper? Should we extend our remit? I think we are confident
that we could do that this time round. We have the capacity to do it, the knowledge and the
ability to be able to do that.’31
The Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation said ‘fundamental obstacles still block
the development of girls in sport’ and that ‘British women are held back by a culture that
urges them to be thin rather than healthy.’ The charity also stated that ‘women do not get
the same media coverage as men.’11
According to Sport England, as of April 2014, 6.84
million females aged 16 years or over (30.3%) played sport once a week, an increase of
588,800 compared with October 2006. During this period 7.23 million females aged 14 years
or over (31.4%) played sport once a week. 12
The same organisation also stated that 10.6%
more men partake in sport once a week, though. 13
The WSFF is a charity dedicated to
‘improving and promoting opportunities for women and girls in sport at every level. They
‘campaign to transform sport for the benefit of every woman and girl in the UK,
championing their right to take part in, and benefit from, sport: from the field of play to the
boardroom, from early years and throughout her life’. These negative statistics may derive
from the need to boost further awareness for their programme so there may be an element
of partiality in the production of these figures.
A report from Birmingham University elaborated on this. Dr Packer, from the
University said: "Despite the success of our female athletes both at the 2012 games and
since, women's sport, at least in the eyes of the print media we studied, remains a minority
sport. Until we change this perception, the levels of participation of girls and women in
sport will continue to suffer, as will public health as a result. While 39% of men do enough
exercise, just 29% of women do.”14
25
The Guardian is a typically left leaning publication whose readership is predominantly Labour and
Lib Dem voters. Therefore any comment made that is detrimental to the sense of success regarding
the Olympic legacy has to be taken with an element of caution as they may tend to be purposely
critical, as failure to create a legacy would generate a negative image for the Conservatives, who are
currently in Government and are the party who are on the other side of the political spectrum to
Labour.
31
11
12
13
https://www.sportengland.org/research/who-plays-sport/national-picture/
14
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/mar/13/womens-sport-newspaper-
coverage-birmingham-university
17

Young women’s participation rates have also taken a hit, with an official survey
claiming that ‘a quarter of girls aged between five and 10 said they had not taken part in any
sport over the past month, up from 17 per cent five years ago’ as of August 201321
.
Furthermore, ‘the proportion of girls aged 11-15 taking part in sport has fallen from 94.9 per
cent to 92.5 per cent, but has increased slightly among boys of that age group.’21
But of the 750,000 that started participating in sport immediately after the Games,
the majority of that growth (578,500) was driven by women.5
Sport England's data also
suggested that the ‘historic gender gap was narrowing between the number of men and
women playing sport regularly, down from 2.2 million in 2010/11 to 1.7 million last year
(2013). Sport England attributed this in part to the success of relatively young, high profile
women athletes in specific sports’,5
such as Jessica Ennis, Nicola Adams and Laura Trott.
Other minority groups have had their participation levels monitored too. Sport
England's participation figures for ethnic minority groups "generally show that they are well
represented", with 36.7% playing sport regularly, compared to the general population rate
of 35.2%. Within this overall positive picture, some groups are under-represented, "in
particular African, Caribbean and Asian girls, of which just under 26% play sport once a
week."5
However, since the House of Lords report was reported in November 2013, 66,400
fewer people from ethnic minority groups are participating one a week, totalling 2.78
million people.12
In 2013 Sport England ‘invested £1 million into Sporting Equals to help
more people from Black and Minority Ethnic communities get into sport.’ 26
There remains a significant socio-economic gap according to the House of Lords
report with "only 26.6% of people from lower socio-economic groups participate compared
with 41.3% from managerial and professional socio-economic groups."5
The Sport England
report also portrays a similar trend with the two most well off classes, NS – SEC 1 & 2, being
the only socio-economic classes to show an increase in once a week participation since
October 2012. The table below shows the full statistics for participation amongst different
socio economic groups. Figure six seems like a fairly trustworthy source because it
represents all classes in UK society. However, one criticism that is certainly applicable and
apt is that it doesn’t separate classes into individual groups, apart from SEC 3 and 4. This
then creates significant differences in the number of people surveyed representing each
21
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/schoolsports/10255694/Blow-to-Olympic-legacy-
as-fewer-children-take-up-sport.html
5 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldolympic/78/7803.htm
12
26
https://www.sportengland.org/our-work/equality-diversity/ethnic-minorities/
18

group and consequently it is more difficult to draw a firmer, more reliable conclusion from
the table.
Figure 6 - http://www.sportengland.org/media/329203/01_1x30_overall_factsheet_APS8Q2.pdf
For LGBT people, the effect of the Games has been minimal. Stonewall, ‘representing
gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals and groups, argued that London 2012 had done little to
address the barriers associated with sexual orientation and access to sport participation’.
This is shown by the fact that ‘two thirds of lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils saying they
don't like playing sport because of frequent homophobic abuse’.5
Stonewall added that
"measures introduced to promote sports participation amongst young people in the run up
to the Games, including the School Games, have failed to reach lesbian, gay and bisexual
young people."5
Like the WSFF, Stonewall is a charity designed to aid certain groups in
society. They are supposedly impartial, but again like the WSFF, they may have uttered their
stance on the effect of the legacy on LGBT people in order to make their campaign more of
a focus for the government and other high ranking groups/people.
It’s necessary to compare the sporting legacy left by the UK with other countries that
have recently hosted the games, namely Australia and Greece. The Telegraph stated in
August 2012, when it was assessing whether the UK could indeed leave a sporting legacy,
that ‘no Olympics host country has ever seen an increase in sports participation after the
Games.’27
Similarly, a report from the House of Commons for Culture, Media and Sport
which was produced in an attempt to predict the extent of the Olympics legacy claimed that
“No host country has yet been able to demonstrate a direct benefit from the Olympic
Games in the form of a lasting increase in participation.”28
The DCMS is a department of the
5http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldolympic/78/7803.htm
5http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldolympic/78/7803.htm
27
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/can-britain-convert-gold-into-legacy-8010170.html
The Independent’s comment that I used in my project does not contain any political bias. In fact,
given that the Independent is a typically centre left paper which is more likely to support the Lib
Dems than Labour or the Conservatives, the comment actually protects the Conservatives, who are
carrying out and the legacy and who are right wing, because the comment acknowledges the
difficulty of carrying out a legacy and therefore gives the Conservatives an excuse if the legacy
ultimately fails. Overall, this source is reliable as it seemingly attaches no bias.
28
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmcumeds/69/69i.pdf
19

government responsible for the Culture, Media and Sport. Their claim that that ‘no host
country…’ was produced before the Games and may have been fashioned in order to
alleviate the pressure on the government to deliver a legacy, so that what legacy they did
create post Games seemed like a triumph over other Games holding countries.
An academic study originating from Australia which was designed to track leisure
participation and policy in Australia found that ‘in 2001, seven Olympic sports had seen
small increases in participation, however nine had seen decline.’ 29
Subsequently the London
Assembly’s report found that ‘by 2009 the number of people exercising regularly fell by 13
per cent – beneath even the pre-2004 levels’ for Greece, despite there being a six per cent
rise in 2003.30
The author of the study said this: “What is evident from the statistics is that
the Games in Greece had at best only a temporary impact on participation in sport and
physical activity.”30
An earlier Games in Barcelona arguably did leave a legacy on Spanish
sport though, as ‘the proportion of the population which did some kind of physical or
sporting activity at least once a week grew from 47 per cent in 1989 to 51 per cent in 1995.
The percentage of women participating increased from 35 per cent in 1989 to 45 per cent in
1995.’30
No data could be found for participation levels in China after the Olympic Games in
2008.
29
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20063223205.html;jsessionid=D37EA33CBA49874839D192FE7C8484E9;
jsessionid=C8A10E3F83615E4B86383BA34248CFAE
This source has reliable credentials as it is an academic report from an author who would want to
present his findings as clearly and impartially as possible in order to gain critical acclaim for the
comprehensiveness of his work.
30
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/legacy_olympic_games_ever_increased_sports_participation-27735
This source is an adaptation of the Independent’s comment that ‘“No Olympics host country has ever
seen an increase in sports participation after the Games” so bias may occur in their attempts to
disprove the Independent, in which they ultimately do. Henceforth it is not wholly reliable, but given
the array of information on the website it is difficult to suggest that they have been extremely
hyperbolic or understated.
30https://fullfact.org/factchecks/legacy_olympic_games_ever_increased_sports_participation-27735
30https://fullfact.org/factchecks/legacy_olympic_games_ever_increased_sports_participation-27735
20

Discussion –
Participation Rates
Arguably, the key indicator of legacy of the Olympic Games relates to the changes in
participation rates, since the central objective was to ‘inspire a generation’ and henceforth
‘to encourage the whole population to be more physically active.’ Furthermore,
‘participation rates’ includes an array of people and situations, and isn’t exclusive to a
particular group or sport. Therefore, it is debatably the pivotal part of the discussion as I can
determine the general activity of the UK since the Games.
The 1.5 million8
rise in participation from just under a decade ago to 2012 is an
encouraging figure that suggests that the legacy started before it was even supposed to
have begun, and henceforth indicates that it is in full flow now. This is supported by the
750,00033
immediate post game increase in participation and the rise of a further 200,000
after the dip to 15.4 million8
in 2013. However, when calculated into percentages, the three
quarter of a million increase post Games is an increase of only 4.1%, and the increase of
200,000 from October 2012 to April 2014 is an increase of significantly less at 1.3%.
Considering 87% of the population (50.2m people) watched at least 15 minutes1
of the
Games these figures should be regarded as a disappointment and the House of Lords
reckoning that ‘A post-Games step change in participation across the UK and across
different sports did not materialise’5
can be deemed true.
Nevertheless it cannot be denied that there has been an increase of some kind in
participation rates, and this increase seems to be staying at a consistent level as the last five
recorded figures surmount 15.3 million people8
. The House of Lords, despite denying a step
change in participation, decreed that it has ‘confidence the longer term upward trend will
continue.’5
These are definite indications that a legacy is still existent and has the potential
to continue existing years into the future as it has so far only experienced one decrease in
participation rates since the Games came to a conclusion. This dip was due to a harsh winter
8
33
8
1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/davidbond/2012/09/will_london_2012_change_britai.html
5
8
5
21

but the ensuing rise back up to post Games levels further suggests that the legacy will
indeed have a long-lasting effect.
Figures 3 and 4 signal both negative and positive costs of the Games’ effect on
participation rates around the country. The former portrays a wide contrast in participation
rates in terms of local authorities, as there is a juxtaposition of almost 22% between
St.Albans and Boston, Lincolnshire indicating that the legacy wasn’t as significant in some
areas as it was in others. The latter graphic contradicts this, though, as it shows a difference
in adult participation rates of only 3.9% between the lowest (West Midlands, which is
geographically diverse in terms of urban/rural landscape) and the highest (London, which is
a very urban area). This signposts that the legacy was felt all over the UK and sufficient
provisions and opportunities were created and installed nationwide, and not solely in the
more populous, economically viable locations.
Given that “No host country has yet been able to demonstrate a direct benefit from
the Olympic Games in the form of a lasting increase in participation”27
, (with the exception
of Spain; although the Barcelona Games were 22 years ago, so it is on the periphery of being
classified as a ‘recent’ Games and consequently the circumstances and the environment for
legacy for this Games may be a little too different from the Games of the last twelve years),
then the UK’s increase in participation rates can certainly be regarded as an achievement
and consequently this gives the legacy more substance.
In terms of different sports it seems that participation rates have varied, inferring
that the legacy only reached select groups. Sports which prevailed at the Games, such as
Cycling, Basketball (now the ‘second biggest team sport’31
in the UK), BMXing, (‘we are
currently getting new members each week as a result of BMX being part of the Olympics’16
),
Boxing and Swimming has led to Sport Scotland saying; ‘in the year of the Games, our
national statistics on participation increased for the first time in a long time. That increase
has been maintained this year and the frequency of existing participants has shown an
increase.5
’ It is probably the combined successes of Tour de France and cyclists in the
Olympics that has led to a spike in cycling participation but nevertheless the overall rise in
said sports strongly suggests that the sports displayed at the Games had a direct impact on
the population. Given that in 2001 (one year after the Sydney Games), nine Olympic sports
had seen decline29
, it can be considered an accomplishment that participation figures in an
array of sports in the UK are being maintained and increased.
27
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/can-britain-convert-gold-into-legacy-8010170.html
31
16
5
29
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20063223205.html;jsessionid=D37EA33CBA49874839D192FE7C8484E9;
jsessionid=C8A10E3F83615E4B86383BA34248CFAE
22

However, this has had an adverse effect on the more conventional, mainstream
sports like football and tennis which, as previously mentioned, saw a decline of around
120,000 people in 201317
. Nonetheless this arguably reinforces the successes of the legacy
as these sports didn’t receive as much media attention at the games because of the lack of
medal gains in these sports, with the exception of Andy Murray in the Men’s Singles and
Mixed Doubles. Henceforth this again signifies that the population responded positively to
the typically less prominent sports that did achieve success at the Games, a clear indication
that there was an effectual legacy.
Young people were and still are an integral part of this proposed legacy. The
consensus from UK Sport’s Once a Week Participation graph is a positive one, as the figure
rises from 15.6 million to 16.6 million8
when the age band is extended to include 14 and 15
year olds as well. This is an increase of 3.5% in terms of corresponding populations, which
shows how teens and young adults are responding more positively than mature adults (only
32% of 26 and overs participate in sport once a week). Despite wanting ‘to encourage the
whole population to be more physically active’3
, there was certainly more of an emphasis on
promoting participation amongst young people; henceforth this data makes it apparent that
the legacy achieved at least one (that being the more important one) of its goals.
Delve further into participation amongst young people though and the figures are
worrying in regards to the activity of those below 14 years old. The Telegraph’s findings
depict a depressing image as ‘the proportion of young children under the age of 10 doing
gymnastics, going swimming and playing rounders has also fallen significantly over the past
year’ and ‘a survey of 2,000 children found that almost three quarters under the age of 10
said that the Games had not inspired them to take up a sport’21
. These stats are extremely
damning, and the comment ‘The government had no intention at all of delivering a sports
legacy on the back of 2012’21
, despite deriving from the Shadow Minister for Sports, appears
to have a good deal of accuracy about it. Perhaps young people under the age of 14 didn’t
have as much of an interest in experiencing/watching the Games, but even so, it appears
that the legacy only extended to the older section of the primary target audience.
Furthermore, Baroness Grey-Thompson’s report detailing the extent of child obesity in the
UK compounded The Telegraph’s dismal stats on the under participation of those below 14
years old, indicating that the legacy could in fact be next to non-existent in the next 10-20
years if action isn’t taken.
Ultimately for participation rates, it seems that a legacy has originated from the
Games. However, it is not a legacy that has had an enormous effect; instead, the legacy is
17
8
3
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78105/201210_Legacy_Pub
lication.pdf
21
21
23

quite slight and only extends to 14-25 year olds significantly, despite greater interests in a
range of sports and near parity in participation levels across the regions of the UK.
Minority Groups
Another of the Government’s key aims was to ‘Promote community engagement
and achieve participation across all groups in society through the Games’3
. This objective
relates to the welfare of an array of peoples as covered in the literature review, such as
disabled people, women, LGBT people, ethnic minorities and people from a range of socio-
economic backgrounds.
Given that an entirely separate, reasonably accessible Games was dedicated to
people with disabilities the development of an at least somewhat successful legacy on
disability sport in the UK should have been a certainty. This was achieved to a minimal
extent as the media coverage during the Games did have a ‘powerful effect on changing
general public perceptions of disabled sport’, leading to 80% of disabled people saying they
would consider taking up a sport post Games.16
However, ‘there was less clear evidence that there was a similar impact on the
broader perception of people with disabilities.16
’ This perhaps signals why 80% of disabled
people would only ‘consider’ taking up a sport instead of actually participating, and why the
figure for overall participation in the disabled population is essentially half of the percentage
of the overall population participating in sport at least once a week (17.8% compared to
35.5%). The figure for overall participation in the disabled community now stands at a
measly 1.63 million after a decrease of 36,400 from October 2013 to April 20148
, a distinct
indication that any legacy has now faded.
3
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78105/201210_Legacy_Pub
lication.pdf
16
16
8
24

Shockingly, the Sport and Recreation organisation have found that there are such
poor provisions for disabled people at sports clubs (as seen in figure 2 over half of all clubs
surveyed said that either their facilities, their equipment or their staff weren’t suitable) that
close to 90% of clubs16
haven’t seen an increase in the number of disabled people attending
sessions since the Games. This shows that the Government didn’t focus enough (or any) of
their energy on providing better provisions for the disabled at club level after the Games,
making the legacy for this people’s seem almost non-existent.
Perhaps it is proof that there hasn’t been a successful legacy on women’s sport that
women still feature in the minority section of the discussion. According to Chris Packer, this
judgement isn’t misguided as he said; ‘despite the success of our female athletes both at the
2012 games and since, women's sport remains a minority sport21
.’ The research conducted
into women’s sport in the Literature Review produced a patriarchal theme as it was evident
that there is still an expectation for women to be feminine, look feminine and participate in
typically feminine activities, supposedly explaining why over 10% more21
men take part in
sport once a week, and why under a third of women do sufficient exercise.
Despite evidence that the legacy successfully effected the 14-25 year old population,
it seems that it extended more to (pre-pubescent and early teenage) boys than it did girls.
This is troubling considering that female athletes received unprecedented levels of coverage
during the Games, with athletes such as Laura Trott securing gold medals at the young age
of 20 (which is a relatable age for young girls) at the 2012 Games. The 17% increase in the
numbers of girls 5 -10 doing no sport whatsoever from 2008 to 201321
is a figure that
strongly supports Baroness Grey – Thompson’s verdict of the incline of child obesity in the
UK, which in turn backs the notion that the legacy didn’t have any great effect on women’s
sport and that the Olympics failed to engage women, both teenage and adult.
However, this is wildly opposed by the fact that women counted for two thirds of the
750,000 increase5
in once a week participation immediately after the Games, which
continued after the Games as the difference between the number of men and the number
of women participating in sport decreased by 500,000 in 20135
, a year after the Games.
Henceforth, the efforts of older female medal winners such as Nicola Adams and Katherine
Grainger seemingly had a greater effect on the female population, with their inspirations
helping to overcome the lack of younger females participating in sport since the Games.
Ethnic minorities, LGBT people and lower socio-economic class’s participation rates
have fared poorly since the Games. Despite ethnic minority once a week participation being
16
21
21
21
5
5
25

higher than the overall population’s percentage, there are still certain ethnicities that are
under represented by about 10%5
when compared with the overall population’s percentage.
As mentioned in the literature review, these groups include girls of Asian and African
descent, who typically have strong and restricting religious beliefs that make it difficult for
them to feel accepted into sporting environments. Henceforth it seems that the legacy did
not fully extend to all ethnic minorities, but granted it would have been a very difficult task
to influence some ethnic minorities to rapidly change their customs.
Figure six portrays a negative image in the fact that the lower socio-economic groups
are nearly 15%8
behind higher socio-economic groups in terms of once a week participation
and the bottom four socio-economic groups’ participation levels since October 2012 have in
fact declined since October 2012. As seen in the table, these four groups accumulate to total
4 million, the second most out of all those surveyed. In addition, considering most of the
UK’s Athletics and Boxing athletes (two sports the UK performed well in at the Games)
originate from lower socio-economic backgrounds, it seems as though the legacy was not
great enough to effect a significant and vital portion of the population.
Stonewall’s evaluation of the Games’ legacy on LGBT people is very concise as
‘measures introduced to promote sports participation amongst young people in the run up
to the Games have failed to reach lesbian, gay and bisexual young people.’5
This seems to be
the case post Games, too, as over two thirds of LGBT people still suffer from homophobic
abuse playing sport, creating the impression that Games didn’t influence the population’s
tolerance of peoples of different sexuality/transgender, despite being a competition that
promotes themes of parity, equality and fairness and henceforth no significant successful
imprint could be made on said people’s participation rates.
To summarise the effect on minority groups, it appears that the legacy was
quintessentially non-existent for some peoples, while others (such as women, immediately
post Games and overall ethnic minorities) did see success in very positive numbers.
However the general idea generated from the research into the effect of the Games’ legacy
on minority groups was that not enough people from a variety of backgrounds were
captivated by the Olympics and ultimately several opportunities to increase participation
were missed.
5
8
5
26

School, Grassroots and Elite Sport
To consolidate the success of many of the UK’s top performing athletes the
government needed to invest heavily into School, Grassroots and Elite sport. The former
two will develop and present opportunities for the generation that was supposedly
‘inspired’ by the Games, while funding and creating initiatives for Elite sport will potentially
deliver more honours in the near future.
Grassroots sport involves local clubs that are often available to entry level young
people but predominantly adults of all genders, ethnicities and abilities. If the legacy was
successful then it would be at grassroots level that a lot of change, in terms of facilities and
provisions, as well as in terms of levels of participation, would be seen.
The January after the Games, the Sport and Recreation Organisation’s findings
concluded that ‘across all sports clubs in the UK, two in five (42%) say that they have seen
an increase in the number of people joining their club since the Games this year’16
after the
creation of ‘a new wave of inspiration following the Games amongst both existing
participants and new joiners’16
. These statements acknowledge the positive impact the
legacy of the Games had immediately after the Games as ‘a new wave’ suggests sports
participation in the UK was at a standstill before the Olympics. Henceforth, 42% can be
perceived as a positive figure in terms of the increase in participation in grassroots sport.
16
16
27

Although, the recognition that these figures can’t be maintained was depicted by
figure 5. The primary concern for the 450 that were surveyed was the costs associated with
running grassroots clubs, as well as the affordability of hiring facilities. The DCMS
supposedly invested ‘over £1 billion of public money over four years to strengthen
grassroots sport and upgrade facilities in communities across England,’ but evidently this
hasn’t been felt by club runners.
Conversely, the Government has introduced ‘further cuts to local authority budgets
that will inevitably lead to pressure on facilities and community sport programmes’25
and
the ‘5% cut for community sport’ in the 2013 budget which will amount to ‘only to a few
million pounds’. The negligence of the ‘only a few million pounds’ statement combined with
the fact that only around 20% of those surveyed saying they feared a lack of volunteers and
emergence of new members16
, it is clear that the Government have a relatively lax attitude
towards improving and developing Grassroots sport when there is still a relatively high
demand for sporting opportunities, which in turn has limited the impact of the legacy
greatly.
One area where the Government has invested heavily, with the aid of the Lottery, is
in school sport. From 2012 to 2014 the DCMS invested £300m21
, as well as developing their
School Games (where 13,000 schools participate),19
creating specific sporting teacher
training programmes and a further share of the £100m invested yearly by UK Sport.
Evidently the Government has focused a great deal more effort into School Sport, probably
because of the greater potential it holds. They realise that they will see more direct results
in terms of future success in upcoming events if they veer money into School Sport, which
will benefit young people, rather than if they directed it to Grassroots sport, where the
majority of participants are older.
This both contradicts and supports the notion that the legacy has successfully
effected UK Sport. It supports it as young people, as previously mentioned, were the
primary target post Olympics in terms of boosting participation rates, so by homing in on
School sport the Government is giving the legacy the opportunity to thrive. However, ‘UK
Sport’ encompasses all UK citizens and residents, regardless of ability, gender, age, ethnicity
etc. Therefore by limiting the effort they put into developing Grassroots sports, the
Government and the Lottery are effecting a greater range of people and conversely, are
restricting the chances of success the legacy has on UK Sport.
Funding into elite sport has been the obvious priority of the three, though. UK Sport
monitors top level sports and has responded well to criticisms from the House of Lords,
which claimed that their ‘no compromise’ approach was harming sports like Volleyball and
Basketball. As a consequence the UK Sport Chief Executive suggested they would change
25
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/26/osborne-s-spending-review-winners-and-losers-at-a-
glance
16
21
19
Legacy_acc.pdf
28

their approach to embody a greater range of sports. This will have an effect not only on elite
sport, but on youth sport too, which is a sign that the legacy is very likely to be successful in
the not too distant future.
Despite the cuts to seven sports in the build up to the next Olympic Games in Rio,
the intention to be the first nation in recent history to be more successful in both Olympic
and Paralympic Games post hosting was backed by the protection of elite sports in the latest
budget, as well as the £350m that will fund 36 different sports23
in the build up to the next
two Olympics. The securing of 22 international sports events by 201919
will also significantly
aid elite sport and will allow the UK’s athletes to perform at their pinnacle, enabling the
legacy to continue and be succeeded by legacies created by events of other sports.
Ultimately, it appears that the Government has identified that funding elite sport is
the key to continuing the legacy of the Olympic Games because it seems they anticipate it
will have a snowball effect. The unprecedented success of the UK’s athletes at 2012’s Games
led to the realisation that elite sport needed to be funded sufficiently, so that a high level of
performance from British performers is maintained. Consequently, this will open up more
opportunities for future generations to perform at the highest levels in future Games both
domestically and internationally because of the exceptional backing they have received.
Conclusion
In sum, the culmination of information and implications suggests that a legacy
was only somewhat detectable, to such an extent that may be seen as a
disappointment for the government overall.
The fact that participation rates, in general, have risen since the climax of the
Games, is incontrovertible. Overall participation has surpassed 15 million9
, an
undoubted achievement given that less than a decade ago the figure was
under 14 million. Although, considering 87%1
of the UK watched the Olympics,
a huge figure, the legacy supervisors will definitely feel that an enormous
chunk of the population was left untapped given that the post games rise of
750,00019
is only just over a 4% rise. In spite of this, a confident statement
from the House of Lords that the ‘long term upward trend will continue’5
,
along with figures suggesting that young people were behind the rise in
23
2http://www.uksport.gov.uk/news/uk-sport-targets-investment-to-protect-and-enhance-medal-potential-
for-rio-2016-and-beyond-040214
19
Legacy_acc.pdf
9
1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/davidbond/2012/09/will_london_2012_change_britai.html
19
Legacy_acc.pdf
5
29

participation numbers, are certain indications that the legacy wasn’t just a
temporary surge; instead, the Games will have a permanent effect on the UK’s
participation rates, indicating an overall indication of a somewhat successful
legacy in terms of solely participation rates.
‘Participation’ isn’t exclusively ‘participation rates’, though; it applies to other
areas, such as inclusion and the impact the legacy had on minority groups. In
this sense, the legacy is very underwhelming. Given a billion more people
(worldwide) watched the 2012 Paralympics than Beijing’s Paralympics four
years previously34
, it is very surprising and fundamentally quite frustrating that
disabled sports have failed to take off since the Games ended. It was always
going to be difficult for the government to capitalise on the general public’s
sporting enthusiasm because of the tens of millions of people that the general
public includes. However, the disabled population is significantly fewer and
considering 80%16
of this demographic claimed they would consider taking up
a sport post Games, the legacy has wholeheartedly failed in this instance given
that the disabled population’s participation rates have begun to fall. To
compound this, LGBT, ethnic minority and lower socio-economic groups have
also failed to experience a significant change in sporting prospects since the
Games, emphasising once again how the legacy has been rather
underwhelming and close to non-existent for minority groups. Women’s
sporting fortunes have fluctuated as they were chiefly responsible for the
750,00021
post Games rush in participation rates, but seeing as they are still
considered a minority (in a sporting context) by experts, then it is hard to
argue against the suggestion that the government has failed to deliver a
sporting legacy unto minority groups.
The last important factor which will help determine the extent of legacy is the
provisions and financial aid given to school, grassroots and elite sports. The
information gathered suggested that the support given to the former has been
mixed; while the monetary assistance can be deemed sufficient, various clubs
and groups have suggested that they haven’t received enough to make their
clubs practical to maintain. In comparison with elite sport, the difference is
quite staggering. It seems as though the government and their related
departments are putting most of their efforts into elite sport in the hope that
success in the subsequent Games’ will ensure public satisfaction and will have
34
http://www.insidethegames.biz/paralympics/summer-paralympics/2012/1011836-london-2012-
paralympics-watched-by-billion-more-tv-viewers-than-beijing-2008
16
21
30

a knock on effect for younger generations, making it easier for the government
to encourage participation in sport in the future. There’s no guarantee this will
work and it is not direct evidence of a successful legacy, but the provisions
distributed to elite sport will almost certainly ensure at least some success in
the next two Olympics. This makes the likelihood of a successful legacy from
the 2012 Games quite high, but ultimately it is soon to judge.
Overall, the extent of legacy on participation across UK sport has neither been
staggeringly successful nor entirely and completely inadequate; it has been
reasonable. The increase in participation rates has been encouraging, but this
is arguably nullified by the poor reaction to minority groups and grassroots
sport. Then again, the aid given to schools and elite sport is very promising but
essentially, it may take a few more years for the legacy to be judged as a
categorical success, and we should have a clearer indication by the time the
2016 games have concluded. For now, the London 2012 Olympic Games’
legacy on participation on UK sport has been satisfactory.
Review
In general, the project went fairly smoothly. There were no major mishaps or
problems that jeopardised the project and overall I found that completing the
project didn’t take as long as I had anticipated.
Given that my topic revolves around one of the largest international events to
have taken place in Britain in almost seventy years, there was copious amounts
of information on the internet regarding the issue. Even for the parts of the
subject which I thought would be hard to obtain information for, there was still
something on the internet. One complaint I would have is that there was a
sincere lack of published, recognised books which documented the effects on
participation and the entirety of the sources for this project originated from
the internet. Also, new information kept being published on the internet, as
well as new opinion pieces and surveys. Therefore I had to continually update
my project depending on which of the new information was relevant and
significant and what wasn’t.
Another issue that kept irritating me was footnotes and endnotes. Where I was
referencing a source that I had already referenced, I wasn’t sure whether I had
to reference it again or not. To remedy this I added endnotes instead of
footnotes in the discussion and conclusion part of the project. My teacher
31

deemed this too untidy so I spent a considerable amount of time creating new
and updating old footnotes to make it more comprehensive and neater.
The project was relatively easy to sort into different sections as it became clear
that there were different groups who had been affected by the Olympic legacy.
Despite there being various ‘minorities’ and numerous slightly different figures
on participation rates it was fairly obvious what overall group they should
eventually be encircled in. There was some overlap between groups, especially
in terms of women’s participation in sport, but this did not distort the overall
picture that I was trying to present. Instead, I think the cross referencing made
the project more professional as it often reinforced other
information/opinions.
Maintaining focus on the project was a consistent problem. Having had
deadlines for the project, I would often finish the section I was supposed to
hand in for the respective deadline a few weeks before the deadline and
subsequently have it marked. After having modified the project after receiving
suggestions from my teacher and ultimately finishing the section, it would take
me a sizeable amount of time to re-engage with my project, especially if the
deadline was just before half term. Consequently some sections were slightly
rushed in order to complete them for the subsequent deadline. Given I had
coursework in all of my other subjects simultaneously, it was often difficult to
dedicate extended amounts of time to the project. In spite of this, I managed
to successfully juggle my workload and often found myself committing to
completing a certain section every other week; in essence, I am content with
the amount of work I have produced from this project, and I feel it is of a
respectable quality, too.
Similarly, keeping engaged with the activity log was a persistent concern. I
found it an irrelevance whenever I completed it as it was very tedious and I felt
I could be spending my time better by enhancing my project. Furthermore,
what I was writing was information about menial tasks that couldn’t really be
expanded on, such as ‘wrote the introduction to my discussion’ etc. To solve
this I would ensure that I spent at least ten minutes at the end of each EPQ
session filling in my activity log.
Despite the copious information on the subject, however, I still found it quite
problematic to generate a worthwhile overall conclusion. A lot of the
information was contradicted by other information which made it harder and
harder to produce a firm ‘yes’ or ‘no’, closed answer. Eventually I decided that
the legacy had been of a ‘satisfactory’ standard in terms of delivering its
potential, which in fairness, is a fairly ambiguous and open summary. I feel that
32

considering everything that I have touched on though, this seems like the
fairest and most balanced deduction I could have made.
If I had more time on the project, or rather, if I didn’t have other educational
obligations, I would seek to broaden my project so that it encompasses a
greater scope of topics. For example, ‘Has the London 2012 Olympics Legacy
Successfully Effected Participation in UK Sport?’ could be altered so that it
focuses on more than just sport, and perhaps on the UK in its entirety.
Therefore the question could be changed to ‘Has the London 2012 Olympics
Legacy Had a Successful Effect on the UK?’ Given the wealth of information
regarding the Olympics on the internet, I’m certain that I could come to firm
conclusions regarding the economic, geographic and international impacts as
well as the sporting effects that the Olympics had on the UK. Perhaps if I have
the time in the future or if I choose a University course which is related to this
topic in some way then I will extend my research.
Bibliography
Websites
1.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/davidbond/2012/09/will_london_2012_change_britai.h
tml David Bond, September 2012
2.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/people_and_places/2012/newsid_8845000/884590
0.stm Catherine Donohoe & Laura Foster, July 2010
3.
1210_Legacy_Publication.pdf DCMS December 2010
4. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/legacy derived from Collins English Dictionary –
Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 2003
5.
Select Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy, November 2013
33

6.
Sport England April 2014
7. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/baroness-tanni-grey-thompson-
review-calls-4702004 Gareth Evans June 2013
8.
9.
11. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/20046223 BBC Sport October 2012
12.
13. https://www.sportengland.org/research/who-plays-sport/national-picture/ Sport
England April 2014
14. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/mar/13/womens-
sport-newspaper-coverage-birmingham-university Jane Martison March 2014
15. http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/lobbying-and-campaigning/sport-
research/UK-fact-figures Sport and Recreation January 2014
16.
http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/web/images/
Olympic%20and%20Paralympic%20legacy%20survey_1.pdf Sport and Recreation January
2013
17. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/25346493 BBC Sport December 2013
18.
Select Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy, November 2013
19.
901179_OlympicLegacy_acc.pdf Mayor of London July 2013
20. –
34

21. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/schoolsports/10255694/Blow-to-
Olympic-legacy-as-fewer-children-take-up-sport.html Steven Swinford August 2013
22. http://www.sportengland.org/research/who-plays-sport/local-picture/# Sport
England April 2014
23. http://www.uksport.gov.uk/news/uk-sport-targets-investment-to-protect-and-
enhance-medal-potential-for-rio-2016-and-beyond-040214 Sport England April 2014
24. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/26/spending-review-2013-the-key-
points Paul Owen June 2013
25. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/26/osborne-s-spending-review-
winners-and-losers-at-a-glance The Guardian June 2013
26. https://www.sportengland.org/our-work/equality-diversity/ethnic-minorities/ Sport
England April 2014
27. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/can-britain-convert-gold-into-
legacy-8010170.html Nigel Morris August 2012
29.
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20063223205.html;jsessionid=D37EA33CBA49874839D
192FE7C8484E9;jsessionid=C8A10E3F83615E4B86383BA34248CFAE Veal, A. J. 2002
30.
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/legacy_olympic_games_ever_increased_sports_participation
-27735 Full Fact August 2012
31. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/29791277 Dan Roan October 2014
32. http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/about Sport and Recreation 2014
33. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/20625689 BBC SPORT December 2012
34. http://www.insidethegames.biz/paralympics/summer-paralympics/2012/1011836-
london-2012-paralympics-watched-by-billion-more-tv-viewers-than-beijing-2008 Duncan
Mackay November 2012
Activity Log:
5/9/14 – Beginning of the project where I completed initial research into the 2012 Olympic
Games, the general history of the Games and relevant facts about the Games to get some
own knowledge before I started writing anything up. Given I watched a lot of the Olympics I
knew the winners and losers and the highlights and controversies but this research went
deeper, starting to look at the general impact the Games had on the UK. This proved
difficult as a lot of the information centred around the effects on the economy and the local
geography. To remedy this I used sport specific websites to conduct my research, such as
BBC Sport and the sports section of various newspaper websites. (Time taken: 1 and a half
hours.)
35

9/9/14 – Completion of the proposal form. In this I outlined what my title was, what my
project objectives were, why I am doing this project. My project objectives would form the
basis of the literature review section of the project and from this I will delve into my
discussion. I worried that my objective questions were too many ad would cover too much
for me to be able to complete my research in an efficient manner. As a result I eliminated
some of the less relevant questions. (2 hours)
11/9/14 – Research into the legacy and aims of the 2012 Olympics. Finding these was
difficult as several different government factions had variations of the aims of the Olympics.
Eventually I found three objectives which were very relevant to my project and seemed very
apt. – (4 hours)
14/9/14 – Started looking into the stats and figures regarding participation levels. Like with
the objectives I found it difficult to differentiate between what was relevant and what was
peripheral. Eventually I found UK Sport’s statistics which were comprehensive and detailed
and also supplied information on minority groups. – (3 hours)
16/9 - Document created with compilation of URL’s for research. This was necessary as I had
used a great deal of websites in the past few lessons and was beginning to lose track of
which were relevant and significant. – (1 hour)
21/9 - Document for actual project created with the title page generated. I also created a
contents page and selected a template for the design of the document. (1/2 hour)
23/9 – Research into government initiatives. This primarily included attempting to discover
how the government would create schemes for elite, school and grassroot sport as well as
secondly general schemes like how they intended to improve minority participation in sport.
This proved harder than I anticipated as there seemed to be more of a focus on investment
rather than schemes, but I found some eventually. – (3 hours)
28/9 – Revision of the project proposal form. I had to do this as I felt it wasn’t
comprehensive enough in the ‘reasons for choosing this subject’ section. Therefore I added
another two paragraphs giving it a more personal approach. – (1 hour)
30/9 – Writing of the introduction commenced and written. I had to start again after half an
hour because I felt that it had become too much of a narrative and had lost focus on the
bigger picture. I still think that it has a fair amount of narrative to it but not as much as it did
have. – (2 hours)
7/10/14 – Commencing of the literature review. Given the vast amounts of research I have
done this proved time consuming as I was unsure as to how to begin. I felt that the best way
to go about it was by loosely linking all of the information together but this proved too
difficult. Therefore I am constructing each paragraph in isolation from each other in terms of
relativity. – (3 hours)
9/10/14 – Despite having done a fair amount of research already I hit a stumbling block
when it came to writing about minority groups as I didn’t have enough information.
Therefore I gathered some more information from governmental websites and from UK
Sport and started writing about the effect of the Olympics on minority sports in my
literature review. (2 hours)
36

14/10/14 – Began some more research into success of the legacy of other countries to have
hosted the Games. This was essential as I needed to gather information in order to compare
to the success of the 2012 Games to determine how successful the Games were and realised
that all the information I had gathered would be rendered useless if I had nothing to
compare it to. – (3 hours)
16/10/14 – Continuation of the literature review. Writing of the first eight paragraphs is
complete and without too many hitches. Throughout this writing though I had to contend
with many administrative issues. My laptop lost battery and not all of my work saved so I
had to re do the majority of it. – (4 hours)
21/10/14 – Still continuing with the literature review, I wrote the next 10 paragraphs of the
literature review. Writing such a large amount all at once was a struggle as it was hard to
keep focus on the project with the distractions of social media and my phone. I had to turn
off my phone and other devices in order to maintain concentration. – (4 ½ hours)
22/10/14 – In this session I obtained several graph to compliment the completion of the
final 6 paragraphs of literature review. I felt that the work appeared too monotonous and
repetitive so I added graphs and stats to add a touch of variety to the project. Some of the
graphs were irrelevant so I discarded them and only added those which added meaningful
depth to the project. – (3 hours)
23/10/14- Completion of the first draft of the EPQ including the title page, introduction and
the literature review and submitted it to my EPQ Teacher. After having received some
feedback I made a few minor adjustments to some grammatical errors. (1 hour)
2/11/14- I began the creation of comments regarding reliability for certain sources added to
EPQ. I had forgotten to do this before handing the EPQ into my teacher and I was urged to
complete this in order to add reliability and consistency to my project so my information has
credibility. – (2 ½ hours)
18/11/14- In this lesson I started the creation of the plan for the discussion. Given this is a
decisive part of my discussion I felt a plan was necessary so as to give me a clear structure to
the discussion. The plan involved the order of the discussion and highlighting the
information in the literature review and sorting it into positives and negatives for each
section. (2 hours)
21/11/14 – Writing of the first section of the of participation rates section of discussion.
Despite the presence of the plan I found it difficult to adhere to the typical structure of the
discussion; instead I just wrote about the positives and negatives and failed to link them. (2
hours)
25/11/14 – In the last session I struggled to use connectives to link the positives and
negatives to make it more of a discussion. To remedy this I started to use said connectives
to intertwine the paragraphs and successfully completed the participation rates section of
the discussion. (4 hours)
2/12/14- Having reviewed the first part of the discussion I decided to edit the discussion,
removing a paragraph which I deemed too narrative and not analytical enough – (1 hour)
4/12/14 – In the next section I covered the minorities section of the discussion. Given I had
trouble finding information for this aspect for the literature review I also had troubles
37

2 YEARS ON EPQ 6

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 2 YEARS ON EPQ 6

Similar to 2 YEARS ON EPQ 6 (15)

2 YEARS ON EPQ 6