London 2012 legacy promises are only applying to some sports

By David BondBBC sports editor

Last updated on .From the section Sportcomments107

Cycling feels benefits of London 2012

Six months on from the London Games, the grand promise to inspire us to becoming a fitter, sportier nation seems to be on track.

According to Sport England's latest edition of the Active People survey, published just before Christmas, there's been a 750,000 increase in the number of people playing sport once a week in the last year.

Take it all the way back to 2006 - a year after London won the right to stage the Games - and you can see a very steady increase - 1.6m extra people.

This is not to be dismissed lightly but given the huge sums of public money invested over the last seven years one might argue that the dial should have moved more dramatically.

Drill into the data in a little more detail and the picture is not quite so healthy. Much of the increase in the last year came in a small number of sports - led by cycling, athletics and swimming.

Others such as rowing, gymnastics and basketball have barely registered an increase. After a year like 2012 that has to be deeply worrying for those politicians and administrators who vowed to inspire a generation.

A survey by the Sport and Recreation Alliance of all sports clubs found that while the Olympics did lead to a surge in interest in sports like gymnastics, a lack of facilities and coaching meant that interest couldn't be absorbed.

The challenge now will be to ensure facilities and coaching can be upgraded quickly enough to ensure any momentum is not lost.

The debate which has polarised sport in recent weeks has not focused on the grassroots but the elite level. While the Government has rewarded those sports like cycling which delivered medals in abundance in London, it has punished those who failed like basketball and volleyball by removing funding for the top athletes.

The legacy of London 2012 appears healthy - at first glance
The legacy of London 2012 appears healthy - at first glance

People like Sir Clive Woodward, the BOA's former director of elite performance, argue the Government and UK Sport have got it wrong and that by cutting off the supply of cash for those at the top they risk removing the role models needed to inspire people to get off their sofas and play sport.

Nonsense, says the Sports Minister Hugh Robertson, who told me this week: "Those sports that have failed should stop whingeing about it and take a long hard look at themselves, work out why they failed and put it right."

It's harsh but it's also the post London reality. Only those who succeed will be rewarded.

The risk for the Government is that by only backing winners they cut adrift other sports - especially cheap and accessible team sports like basketball - and remove that inspirational factor which was at the heart of the London philosophy.

Comments

Join the conversation

These comments are now closed.

107 comments

  • 64.
    Rob
    24 Minutes ago
    Give money to those who have proven they can win

    ------

    Ah, the old elitist approach. I think you've missed the point of the Olympics altogether. It's precisely those sports that we're not good at that need the investment. Successful people have far less need of it. It's about empowering people, not about creating an elitist legacy.

  • No offence David, but I can't help but think you wrote this piece some time ago as something to be put out in any week you had nothing else to write about.

  • If the money and effort focused on the Olympics had gone toward some kind of FDR style scheme to re-energise employment etc. there would be an obvious 'legacy'. As it is, only athletes, corpulent businessmen and jingoists gain (short-term) from the Olympics. It's not anti-sport or unpatriotic to question the legitimacy of the Games in these harsh times, it's a moral necessity.

  • The Olympics was never about "cheap and accessible team sports". It was first and foremost about money. Sponsorship deals, equipment sales, branding rights, multinational purveyors of sugary, fatty foods being official Olympic partners, a taxpayer-funded private business park in London - the sport was just the means to the end.

  • Middle aged people are not going to take up a sport off the back of the olympics. The money should be going to schools up and down the country to provide opportunities for kids to take up new sports. Sport in our schools is dire and needs serious investment to get children involved. Incidentally, fat middle aged men in lycra clogging up country lanes on expensive bikes is not sport.

  • The truth is David, there never was any legacy. Lord Coe has 'blindsided' the Government and taxpayers with the whole Olympics myth and although he will be considered 'as a God' by all the ex- sports stars who found work as pundits or co-commentators on TV etc ... as for the rest of us, nobody outside London and I expect many within, knew we would never see any return for our money, long long ago!

  • "The Legacy" of the Olympics was just part of Lord Coe's soft soap to sell London to the IOC.

    What about the Legacy of those London Council taxpayers who are still paying for the Olympics, the Stadium that no one knows what to do with, and the wonderful games makers ?

    And what of those sports that the BBC held in such high regard for a couple of weeks and then ditched like an ugly girlfriend?

  • doesn't make sense to give more money to the successful sports and deny money to those sports that are struggling because when they do "take a long hard look at it" they'll find that money is needed to improve the infrastructure for those struggling sports MPs prefer to be photographed with the likes of jess ennis than some kid who plays basketball

  • I still only see people paying soccer as before the Olympics.

    76. Little_Old_Me
    "The British public, as a whole, think the money was well spent."
    How many of those people in that survey were Londoners, (who along with the lottery), were the people who had to pay for the games via extra council tax (and still are until 2016 at least. Wish those who said it was worth it could pay me back.

  • @47 family guy

    "I'm getting fed up with BBC stories creating negative stories about the London Olympics"

    To be honest I'm fed up with the BBC Olympic storeis as well. They were unavoidable during bid, construction, build up, competition and review.

    THEN we had all the videos available until 13/1/2013.

    Then the "Best of" ...

    Now this!

    Any chance that we can, by a definitve date, get over it?

  • I thought the tag line from the Olympics was "be inspired", not "be paid", whilst it's great to have your sport (whatever it may be) getting more, there is some justification for paying to do it yourselves.
    Additionally if you want some extra income, sort out collecting the taxes from several overpaid sports people who go out of their way to avoid paying the correct amount.......

  • Is it about winning medals at major championships, or is it about encouraging people to,take up sport. Surely we need more than one centre like Loughborough, are athletes supposed to go and live there or commute.

  • The Olympics took millions from a pot which would normally have been available as grants to all sports which meant that my sport (cricket) among others found that grants were not available. Now we find that only sports which were successful at the Olympics are going to benefit from the "Legacy" (or "sutainability"). We lose out twice, and cricket is a true grass roots sport for youngsters.

  • Anyone who thought there would be any legacy was plain naive. There is no money to pump into sports even if the government wanted to. If we are in the situation where we have to sack 5000 armed forces personnel to cut costs where's the argument for putting money into sport. I didn't enjoy writing that last sentence but I think it's the reality check we all need.

  • whatever anyone thinks, informed, insightful or otherwise the truth is sport can and in this case the Olympics did inspire on an incredible scale with admiration of performance and achievement, It was fun. sadly the legacy is in doubt as our pathetic parasitic politicians jump the bandwagon
    here's a real legacy REDUCE VAT on the playing of sport so we can all be encouraged to participate

  • @88. kisscycles.

    Couldn't be anything to do with the Royals ?

  • It's enough to make you crack a rib, laughing.

    I live in Glasgow and have a 7 y.o son who is very sports minded. We pay for everything he engages in, swimming, football, golf etc.

    There are no indoor facilities that kids can use which are free of charge.

    The Commonwealth Games will be held in Glasgow in 2014 and I find the current situation with lack of facilities extremely disheartening.

  • Why are we increasing funding to the sports with huge sponsors already funding millionaire participants? Surely it is up to those sports to ensure that they run a workable business model to sustain themselves? Football do it (badly) why shouldn't cycling, tennis, athletics etc rather than have individual athletes take millions out for themselves while the sport begs for handouts?

  • There was never going to be a legacy. This was clear long before the games and became more and more obvious with the farce over the Olympic park. Sport in this country is being killed by the funding of winners. Is it any wonder sports turn a blind eye to drug cheats when millions of pounds and sports organisers jobs are resting on the number of medals?

  • David Bond. You couldn't go a week for years before the Olympics without his tales of doom and woe - how nothing would work and we wouldn't win a medal. Then on day one of the Olympics he could hardly contain his glee at the failure of Cavendish, although Cav's put down was legendary. He was still moaning for a couple of days about no gold medals. Then he went very, very quiet. Until now. Yawn.

Top Stories