Issue 31 Spring 2012 - Bases

Creating a legacy for physical activity and
health from the London 2012 Games
Profs Ken Fox FBASES, Stuart Biddle FBASES and Marie Murphy FBASES discuss why this Olympic promise
might be more of an Olympic dream.
A key ambition of the previous Labour government’s legacy
action plan (DCMS, 2008) was to help one million more people
to participate in sport and one million more people to become
physically active by 2012. The Coalition government has since
dropped the physical activity target, and recent data from the Active
People Survey suggest there is little chance of the sport goal being
met; only 111,800 more adults are participating in sport since
2007/8 (~11% of one million target; Sport England, 2011). So where
have things gone wrong? Were the original targets unrealistic? Have
strategies been inappropriate? Our experts in physical activity and
health provide comment.
Prof Ken Fox FBASES, Emeritus Professor
of Exercise and Health Sciences, FFPH,
University of Bristol
I understand the need to be bullish to win the
opportunity to host the Olympics. Announcements
such as “We expect the 2012 Olympic Games
to be an inspiration to our children and young
people, to get involved in sporting activity and engage with the
UK-wide cultural festival” (Tessa Jowell, 2005) were not surprising.
Above: Will watching the Usain Bolts inspire young people to be physically active on
a daily basis?
Daley Thompson’s passionate comment (2005) “I believe it will be
the best Olympics ever seen because we love sport like no other
nation. And the greatest thing to come out of the Olympics will
be the many generations of healthy children” was typical of the
time. However, neither could have really considered the long-term
implications of their statements.
A debate was staged at the 2006 BASES Annual Conference
about the health and activity legacy of the Olympics. Prof Joan
Duda and I were asked to present our view that the Olympics
would not work in terms of population levels of activity. We based
our case on an absence of recognisable psycho-social mechanisms
by which watching the Games might stimulate lasting behaviour
change in all but the already motivated athletic minority. Research
clearly shows that many young people and adults find traditional
sport participation unattractive, largely because it has been a
source of failure for them. Unless we can offer opportunities in
sport and activity that are personally rewarding through feelings
of competence, fun or social benefits then we are not going to
convince the health needy public to get moving. The successful
Sydney Olympics indicated no increase in physical activity among
the masses and a potential increase in sedentary time for men! Joan
and I were shocked to see that the final vote was for a positive
effect for the Olympics. Even among a group of objective sports
and exercise scientists blind faith won out over a largely evidencedbased
case.
At the following year’s Annual Conference I banged my drum
again and BASES issued a press release entitled “2012 Olympics
will have no health legacy, warns expert”. I remain a fervent sports
fan and occasional participant, but by this time it seemed clear that
the legacy team had no ideas other than more competitive sport
for tackling the enormous challenge of raising public activity levels.
Since then, Michael Gove has pledged to produce more competitive
sport in schools as the main plank to get kids more active and
healthy, while at the same time announcing further cuts in the
funding of initial teacher training in physical education. Leaders of
some excellent grass roots schemes to attract a broader range of
kids to sport and activity programmes are complaining of loss of
funds because of the vast amounts spent on preparing athletes and
staging the 2012 event. I am trying to resist the temptation of saying
“I told you so” but embarrassingly for the organising team, recent
data show a decline in activity in young people.
It might not be too late to do something positive if we build on
an idea that has so far fallen on very deaf ears. This field is plagued
by the naïve view that competitive sport is the only solution to
getting people active. What we need is a public health campaign
that capitalises on the massive world media circus of the Olympics
and that draws upon the success of our athletes. We need them
to espouse a prominent message that it’s OK to win a medal but
staying active for life, in whatever form that suits the individual, is
much more important and available to everyone.
Prof Stuart Biddle FBASES, Professor of
Physical Activity & Health, Loughborough
University
At the risk of sounding like the TV election
debates, I am tempted to simply say “I agree with
Ken!” The Olympics was doomed to failure as a
vehicle for promoting physical activity because
22 The Sport and Exercise Scientist n Issue 31 n Spring 2012 n www.bases.org.uk