Prof Fred Coalter

The problem with the Irish is that they have problems for all the solutions

Tried everything else...............
even a £10 billion ‘legacy’

In participation terms, we start from a low base…..
comparable countries have more people playing sport. Only 32% of adults in
England take 30 minutes of moderate exercise five times a week, as recommended by health professionals..... we are a long way behind the best-achieving nations: in Finland the participation rate is 80% and increases with age.
...... only 46% of the population participate in sport more than 12 times a year, compared to 70% in Sweden and almost 80% in
Finland
A benchmark for this could be Finland.
..........70% of population reasonably active by 2020

What is the issue?
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Netherlands
UK
France
Belgium
Luxembourg
Germany
Austria
Spain
Italy
Greece
Portugal
0
European Social Survey 2002
10 20 30
At least once per week
40 50
1-3 times per month
60 70
Less often etc
80 90 100

Why is this a problem?
100
90
Sports Participation in England 1987 - 2014
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
45
48 47
46
44
43
47
46
49
48
48
49 49
48
47
10
0
1987 GHS 1990 GHS 1993 GHS 1996 GHS 1999 GHS 2002 GHS 2005 GHS 2006 APS 2008 APS 2009 APS 2010 APS 2011 APS 2012 APS 2013 APS 2014 APS

Why is sports participation regarded as ‘low’?
• Social equity?
• Promoting sport?
• Excellence and performance?
..you can have a performance strategy based on good quality identification and structure that doesn’t necessarily have to link into mass participation ............ The reality is that there are some sports in which we can genuinely anticipate success on a world stage, but have to face the fact that they will never be mass participation sports ….
Externalities: core policy, bonus or rationalisation?
• Health/obesity, ‘social inclusion’............?
• Sport or PA?
• Once a week???????
’only a niche role for sport’

Explaining levels of sports participation
Structure   Agency

Consistent ‘associations’
• Age
• Sex
• Level of education
• Social class (taboo?)
National Statistics Socio-economic Classification
Goldthorpe: ‘New Labour vetoed any reference to class’

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
70
19
88
/9
0
19
90
/2
19
92
/4
19
94
/6
19
96
/8
19
98
/2
00
0
AB C1
19
99
/0
1
20
00
/0
2
C2 DE
20
01
/0
3
20
02
/0
4
20
05
/0
7

S o c i i a l l C l l a s s A B ( ( 1 8 % o f p o p u l l a t i i o n )
Proportion of Participants in Each Sport 1995-97
All Year Data: Sports with One Per Cent or More Participation
Skiing
Sailing/water sports
Tennis mountaineering
Hockey
Hillwalking/climbing/
Yoga
Squash
Rugby
Cricket
Badminto
38
38
32
34
36
38
41
41
40
42
Table tennis
Gymnastics
Athletics
Running/jogging
Multigym/weight tr aining
Cycling
Swimming (any)
Keep-fit/aerobics
Walking (2+ miles)
Basketball/netball/volleyball
Horse riding
Ice skating/ice hockey
Mar tial ar ts
Dancing
Tenpin bowling
17
16
15
14
21
21
20
20
25
25
29
28
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
Football (any)
Bowls
Snooker/billiards/pool
Fishing/angling
20 30 40 0
Base number: 3,521
10
48
50 60 70
Over-represented
Proportionately represented (±3%)
Under-represented
80 90 100
Per centage

S o c c i i i a l l l C l l l a s s s s C 1 ( ( ( 2 5 %
Proportion of Participants in Each Sport 1995-97:
All Year Data: Sports with One Per Cent or More Participation
Skiing
Cricket
Athletics
Squash
Hockey
Yoga
Tennis
Keep-fit/aerobics
Sailing/water sports
Running/jogging
Multigym/weight training
Basketball/netball/volleyball
Table tennis
Tenpin bowling
Gymnastic
Hillwalking/climbing/ mountaineering
Badminton
Swimming (any)
Dancing
Walking (2+ miles)
Cycling
Rugby
Ice skating/ice hockey
Golf
Football (any)
Bowls
28
28
26
28
29
29
29
28
28
30
30
30
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
33
33
33
35
35
33
33
39
39
Fishing/angling
30 40 0 10
Base number: 4,866
20 50 o f f f p o p u l l l a t t t i i i o n ) )
60 70 80
Over-represented
Proportionately represented (±3%)
90 100
Percentage

S o c i i i a l l l C l l l a s s s s C 2 ( ( ( 2 3 % o f f f p o p u l l l a t t t i i i o n ) ) )
Proportion of Participants in Each Sport 1995-97
All Year Data: Sports with One Per Cent or More Participation
Over-represented
Fishing/angling
Snooker/billiards/pool
Horse riding
Football (any)
Bowls
Ice skating/ice hockey
Tenpin bowling
Golf
Martial arts
Multigym/weight training
Dancing 23
23
23
24
24
24
23
25
27
28
28
27
8
Cycling
Table tennis
22
22
22
21
12
11
15
14
17
19
17
16
21
20
20
19
32
Walking (2+ miles)
Athletics
Swimming (any)
Keep-fit/aerobics
Basketball/netball/volleyball
Gymnastics
Running/jogging
Badminton
Rugby
Sailing/water sports
Squash
Yoga
Hillwalking/climbing/
Hockey mountaineering
Tennis
Cricket
Skiing
0 10
Base number: 4,352
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Proportionately represented (±3%)
Under-represented
90 100
Percentage

S o c i i i a l l l C l l l a s s D E ( ( ( 3 4 % o f f p o p u l l l a t t t i i i o n ) ) )
Proportion of Participants in Each Sport 1995-97
All Year Data: Sports with One Per Cent or More Participation
Proportionately represented (±3%)
Under-represented
0
4
8
12
11
13
14
14
15
15
16
15
17
17
19
21
21
19
21
23
23
24
24
26
26
28
29
29
32
30
32
10
Base number: 6,465
20 30
Fishing/angling
Snooker/billiards/pool
Bowls
Martial arts
Dancing
Football(any)
Walking (2+ miles)
Ice skating/ice
Tenpin bowling
Basketball/netball/volleyball
Swimming (any)
Cycling
Keep-fit/aerobics
Gymnastics
Running/jogging
Horse riding
Multigym/weight training
Golf
Badminton
Table tennis
Cricket
Athletics
Rugby
Tennis
Hillwalking/climbing/
Yoga mountaineering
Hockey
Squash
Sailing/water sports
Skiing
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
19
88
/9
0
19
90
/2
Source: sportscotland
19
92
/4
19
94
/6
19
96
/8
19
98
/2
00
0
19
99
/0
1
Male Female
20
00
/0
2
20
01
/0
3
20
02
/0
4
20
05
/0
7

Explaining levels of sports participation
Structure   Agency
Supply  

Consistent associations
Demand
Meaning/motivations
(i) Individualism/consumerism
• Age
• Sex
• Social class (taboo?)
• Education

Market segmentation and descriptive stereotypes
• Leanne the supportive single
• Ben the competitive male urbanite
• Elaine the empty nest career lady [sic]
• Individual ‘consumers’ maximising their utility?
• Sport as commodity?
• Structure and culture.............?

Explaining levels of sports participation
Structure   Agency
Supply  

Consistent associations
Demand
Meaning/motivations
(i) Individualism/consumerism
• Age
• Sex
• Social class (taboo?)
• Education
Social marketing
Theories of [
 rational] behaviour change
(Relapse is the rule not the exception)
Foster et al Understanding Participation In Sport
• Govt policies set out to ‘change attitudes’ or
‘cultures’ with only the most cursory analysis
• Well-meaning policies not rooted in realities of people’s lives

Well-meaning policies..........
It is evident ....
that government policies designed to increase sports participation have had limited success ................ Some have had success..within small communities or specific cohorts..........same level of success has not been apparent within the mass population. Nicholson et al
… clear that governments and researchers don’t know enough about the way in which ‘complex systems of organisations function to either induce or disrupt
sports participation patterns’.
Nicholson et al
Finland (S Collins)
It is impossible with any certainty to determine what effect national and local government policies have had upon achieving high levels of sports participation

So, why are they ‘better’?
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Netherlands
UK
France
Belgium
Luxembourg
Germany
Austria
Spain
Italy
Greece
Portugal
0 10 20 30
At least once per week
40 50
1-3 times per month
60 70
Less often etc
80 90 100

It’s all about clubs....
  

Finland
7,800: 1.5 million [c 19%)

Denmark
14,000 sports clubs: 1:400
3.2 million members (64%)

But, is it all about clubs?
Finland
• 15% of sporting activity in a sports club
• 1/3 ‘non-active’ members
Netherlands
Higher proportion who participate ‘regularly’  outside clubs
Denmark
4/5 participants in ‘non-organised locations’
Sweden /Finland
• Men are over-represented in club-related and competitive sport
• Women : Higher proportion of regularly/ intensively: non-competitive/non-clubcontexts
Important social institutions, but ............
• High levels of participation not via organised sport
• Women less likely to take part in competitive/organised sport
• Shift in types of activity  non-competitive/flexible/fitness etc

Does the answer lie in inequality?

UK
Inequality is the key



3-4
8-9

UK : 0.335
Finland 0.269
Sweden 0.234
Denmark 0.232.

Legatum Prosperity Index: 2010
79 variables
• Economic Fundamentals
• Democratic Institutions
• Health
• Governance
• Social Capital
• Entrepreneurship and Innovation
• Education
• Safety and Security
• Personal Freedom etc
1 Norway
2 Denmark
3 Finland
6 Sweden
9 Netherlands
13 UK

The Spirit Level: Inequality is the key
Poverty  Inequality: the extent of difference
Not absolute standards of living/rising incomes
Relative deprivation
Poverty  Poverty of opportunity/aspiration
Inequality: damages social relationships
• Status  denial of worth
• Social differences: Q of character/moral resolve/competence:
Chavs/scroungers
• More vulnerable to status anxieties  ‘respect’
‘Individual psychology and societal inequality relate to each other like lock and key’

Sport: more than market segmentation
They do not make rational considerations with respect to health consequences however important they might find these, but ...base their choices primarily on the consequences this has for their own identity , their relationships with others and the appreciation or rejection that this may bring to mind van Bottenburg et al
Exercise and sport are thoroughly social phenomena , which take place and find their meaning...within a broader societal context ... The choice to take part in sport, how, where, what and with whom is directly related to the issue of how people see and wish to present themselves.
....socio-culturally determined views and expectations also play a role here’

Social mobility and unequal societies
‘Social mobility is widely seen as a process via which people are sorted by ability ’
 social value/status/personal worth/ stigma

The higher the bar, the lower earnings mobility across generations.
   
UK: 40% of males will stay in same class as fathers
(e.g. not moving from unskilled to skilled manual)


Comparable Estimates of Intergenerational Mobility
1
0,9
1 No mobility
0 Total mobility
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,1
0
0,3
0,2
0,271
Britain
0,147
Finland
0,143
Sweden
0,143
Denmark
0,139
Norway

Level of educational achievement seems to be the most important determinant of sports behaviour.
Bottenburg et al




United Kingdom

1981
Degree completion by age 23 by parental income group: GB
Opportunity hoarding and the glass floor’
1993
Late 1990s
0 10
Richest 20% at aged 16
20 30 40
Poorest 20% at age 16
50

Education plus.......
Sports participation
Sweden/Netherlands
No difference between highest/middle levels of education
Finland
All educational levels more/less equal levels of sports participation

Women’s status
•
% of women in legislatures
• Male/female income gap
• % of women completing higher education
Women’s participation in ‘sport’
Sweden : + 5%
Finland: +2%
But not in clubs......
% of women on company boards
• Norway 29%
• Sweden 23%
• Finland 20%
• UK 11%

Community and equality are mutually reinforcing
Putnam





Norway, Finland and
Denmark and the UK are not comparable countries in any meaningful sense

‘ Individual psychology & societal inequality relate to each other like lock and key ’
Anonymity of mass societies
Unequal societies

Social status
‘meritocracy’: ‘ability’; superiority/inferiority
Chavs/scroungers/failures

Concern with social judgments/other’s evaluations
Self-esteem  social esteem
Greater inequality  importance of social status  anxieties

Social evaluation threats
Anxiety/depression
Self-esteem  insecure narcissism  ‘respect

Lack of trust
Inequality damages social relationships
More equal societies: collaborative/less status competition/anxiety
More inclusive/participatory
Social inclusion precedes participation?

Eton / Westminster/ St
Paul’s Boys School/ St
Paul’s Girls
Hills Road Sixth Form
College (Cambridge) send more students to
Oxbridge PA than 2,000 comprehensive schools/FE colleges
Haberdasher’s Askes’s Boys
School/ Reigate Grammar
School/Bristol University?

Well-meaning policies..........
Finland
• Two sports acts (1980/2003)
• Sports legislation/provision a central part of social policy
• Sports clubs highly subsidised
• Huge municipal facility provision
• Government directing investment to areas of need.
S Collins
Social democratic values inherent in Finnish society, such as egalitarianism, have supported and provided favourable environment for SfA policies...
the legislation merely recognise practices that were already in operation within Finnish sport’
Inclusive political cultures and inclusive definitions
Is sport epiphenominal ?

Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Netherlands
UK
France
Belgium
Luxembourg
Germany
Austria
Spain
Italy
Greece
Portugal
0
So, is this not an overachievement for ‘sport’?
10 20 30
At least once per week
40 50
1-3 times per month
60 70
Less often etc
80 90 100

6 stone weakling meets 400 pound gorilla

Fancy a bit of theory ?

Prof Fred Coalter



Degree completion by age 23 by parental income group
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1981 1993 Late 1990s
Poorest 20% at age 16 Richest 20% at age 16 Educational inequality

The Spirit Level: Inequality is the key
Poverty  Inequality: the extent of difference
Not absolute standards of living/rising incomes
‘Individual psychology and societal inequality relate to each other like lock and key’
Poverty 
Class 
Class 
Poverty of opportunity
Relative deprivation
Social status /status anxieties
Inequality: damages social relationships  worry about how seen/judged
 more vulnerable to status anxieties  ‘respect’
• The Hidden Injuries of Class
• Cultural capital
• Social capital
Community and equality are mutually reinforcing. Putnam
Social exclusion
‘ mechanisms that act to detach groups from the mainstream”
Giddens

Sports research 2010 - changing times, challenging perspectives’
The sports participation glass ceiling – myth or reality?
Re-thinking poverty, inequality and relative deprivation
Fred Coalter
University of Stirling

Basic sources
M van Bottenburg et al (2005) Sports participation in the European union
M Nicholson et al (Eds) Participation in Sport: International policy perspectives
R Wilkinson and K Pickett (2009) The Spirit Level: Why equal societies almost always do better

Sports Participation in the EU
Van Bottenburg et al (2005)
Tentative generalisations
1960s  1990s significant increases
Late 1990s 
• Stagnation: Finland/Netherlands/Belgium/Austria/Portugal/Spain
• Decline: UK/France
• Decline among young adults: Sweden/Denmark
• Decline in young adults time on sport: Netherlands/Denmark
Individualisation of ‘sports’
“swimming, cycling, walking and…fitness/keep-fit/aerobics are the most practiced sporting activities in almost all of the EU member states”

    

More equal countries almost always do better
• Social mobility as an index of class
• Education
• Status of women

So, why are they so much better than us?
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Netherlands
UK
France
Belgium
Luxembourg
Germany
Austria
Spain
Italy
Greece
Portugal
0 10 20 30
At least once per week
40 50
1-3 times per month
60 70
Less often etc
80 90 100

Prof Fred Coalter

1981
Degree completion by age 23 by parental income group: GB
1993
Late 1990s
0 10 20 30 40 50
Difference (educational inequality) Richest 20% at aged 16 Poorest 20% at age 16

Sport England’s problem
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Trends in participation in sport (% of adults 16 plus) 2005/6 to 2009/10
1 x30 moderate a week
3 x 30 moderate a week

50
45
40
35
30
60
55
57
45
34
1987
Trends in participation in sport – excluding walking
(at least once in last 4 weeks)
58
57
48
39
47
39
1990
All
1993
Men Women
1996
54
46
38
51
43
36
2002

Distribution of Income
Source OECD
   

Social Mobility
Cross-generational social mobility  greater equality/fairness/ social cohesion
 relationships weaken  aggregate sports participation increase
Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission
Alan Milburn