Sport Strategy - Performance sport what needs to change

The government’s Sport Strategy consultation has asked for views on high performance sport I would like to add some ideas about a change in direction that might further increase our international success.

Some considerations:

• All teams sports except Hockey had high performance funding withdrawn after 2012
• Nearly 40% of GB medal winners in the last three Olympic Games have been public school educated yet under 6% of the school population is in public schools
• GB have not won a “strength” (Weight-lifting, Wrestling, Athletic Throws) medal for many Olympic cycles
• England Netball have received over the last number of four year cycles over £18 million for high performance and still stand as third in the world in the same top four as for the last 12 years.
• Hockey are now winning European medals after four continuous cycles of funding
• The talent pool of English performance coaches is regarded by many sports as poor
• The UK Sport “no compromise” approach to funding has successfully funded sporting success but does not allow for long term investment in major world sports
• For me high performance needs four elements;
• Well-funded and support fit athletes/players
• High quality coaches with high level technical and scientific support
• High quality facilities
• High level regular competition

So what needs to change? In some cases no a lot. The no compromise approach to funding by UK Sport has been a great success for sports that are generally individually based and in many cases a link between excellent aerobically strong athletes with excellent scientific support and world leading technology. I cannot and wouldn’t criticise the marginal gains approach of Sir Dave Brailsford he is the other key component excellent single minded leadership. So that approach should stay and continue to support the successful individually sports.

However further consideration should be given to increasing the success in team and strength sports. These need a different approach.

Hockey’s recent success of becoming European Champions has been through strong leadership, mature coaching and a squad that spans at least 15+ years. All of the players have been through a long term cycle of support where near certainty of funding has led to an ability to grow a system and adult squads that can accommodate injury and still maintain a high standard.

Yet funding was withdrawn from other team’s sports just when change was starting to make a difference. The difference with Olympic team sports is the world plays them not just the Commonwealth! Over 200 national teams entre qualifying competition for Football, Basketball, Volleyball (the indoor game) and Handball. Compare this to cycling or rowing and they do not appear to reach 100 countries entering. So government should think again about a long term funding programme for team sports so we can compete at the highest level consistently. 

Alongside this investment should be made to improve the quality of our best inter-club competition in those Olympic and potentially Commonwealth team sports. This in the main shouldn’t be left to the governing bodies to run and organise but could be a franchised regional operation based on the major urban areas. The franchises should adopt the American model and equalisation to make sure completion is regularly at a high level. Franchises should be funded through government and other commercial sources. However the scale of these franchises needs to be multiple sport covering Basketball, Volleyball, Handball and potentially Netball. The Netball super-league is a model that could work for a number of indoor team sports and by bringing four sports into one franchise the economies and benefits of scale should enable the franchises to flourish.

To gain success at international level coaches are essential and we have not developed enough quality English coaches who are able to commit to coaching at the performance level. Some radical changes are needed to how we develop coaches. UKCC has pushed coaches down a route of being great coaching session coaches but not able to coach a game and learn and deal with instant decision making that can positively change the game. 

Very little cross sport exchanges are entered into either. I made a point of watching the Netball at the Commonwealth games last year and was tearing what little hair I have out at the way on three occasions England appeared unable and unprepared to deal with the last two minutes of a game. 

Throwing away a potential gold medal game and then losing out in the Bronze medal game due to in my view poor coach preparation. Apparently they practiced closing out the game the day before for the first time. I learnt way back as a basketball coach you need to practice the last two minutes running all possible scenarios for at least 20 minutes of every two hour in season training session. Just o example of where cross sport cooperation could work. Sport Science should also play a part in generically developing coaches. So we need to change the coaching system for coaches to learn and experience coaching the game and not just coaching drills.

I would like to see a change to how we identify and nurture athletes for the strength sports. Prior to the Olympic Games UK Sport led a successful recruitment for tall people. Let’s try the same for strong people and start to build hubs focused on strength and then guide athletes into Weight-Lifting, Wrestling or field athletics. These are multi-medal Olympic sports and we should be taking an approach similar to the Chinese in focusing on these to move even further up the medal table.

This approach along with the investment in team sports should address the imbalance in the educational background of high performance athletes. It is an accepted norm in participation sport that disproportionate funding leads to a re-dressing of the social imbalance so why not take this same approach to performance athletes? “No compromise” is very effective but for those who have not been able through financial, educational establishment or family to get up the performance ladder. Yet many who are unable to fund this journey methods should be identified to support those from middle and working class homes to get into the performance funding process.

So the key messages for me are:

• Continue with “no-compromise” for individual sports
• Commit long term funding to Olympic team sports
• Develop multisport performance competition hubs on a franchise basis
• Invest in game based coach education programmes
• Encourage sports to engage in cross sport collaborations
• Identify a range of funding mechanisms to enable a broader base of athletes achieve international status

How should sports organisations react to a new participation agenda

In further consideration of the Strategy for Sport consultation I want to pose some suggestions on what sports participation is or could be?

My View is that government should consider what sports participation activity is popular with the citizens of England and invest in a whole life experience in that sport. For example most adult males have played teams sports at some point in their lives and in many cases this ends in their thirties yet the enthusiasm and love for the sport is maintained. Government should invest in NGBs developing and delivering modified versions of particularly team’s sports to maintain people’s engagement in their favourite sport. Initiatives like walking Football/Basketball would be encouraging to prolong adults engagement in team sport.  Football are reporting considerable growth in "super-vets" football with people well in excess of 60 wanting and engaging in football on a regular basis.

 The challenge for female participation appears to making sure the right offer is available and the ability to move between activities is made easily accessible. For example our research from the Sportivate programme indicates that women like to start participation as an individual but are more likely to sustain participation in a team sport environment. Therefore local sports provision should enable women to move between sporting experiences with a transfer system that does not disadvantage the providers.  

 More longitudinal tracking of different ages should be undertaken to demonstrate how people change their sporting participation through their lives. Sport clubs should be encouraged through financial investment to become bigger and offer wider opportunities for different age groups similar to the western European club model where clubs own and run municipal facilities for the betterment of their towns and communities.  

This investment should be focused on developing local leaders and community groups supported by local business and local authorities to move to greater ownership of community facilities similar to the Castle pool in Birmingham. This is now in community trust ownership following an asset transfer from Birmingham City Council. I am proud to be a Trustee of this organisation and we strive to provide a high quality community based provision.

Through our past work, addressing inequality does not have a short term answer it takes long term investment in people and infrastructure. The development of leaders within communities is critical and the work of Streetgames has started to address these inequalities. However this investment should be invested in building sustainable local communities sporting bodies similar to the Scandinavian model of sustainable “community sports clubs”. 

One of the key discussion points emerging is should governing bodies have a role in developing and delivering participation. This is a fundamental question that needs addressing as many just need funds to governing their sport and have difficulty in expanding the player base. The size and organisation of smaller and new sports is the challenge to growth. We see the process very clearly as we have adopted this approach with a number of smaller sports such as Korfball and Roller sport.

the following process should be undertaken to identify the relevance of sport to British Society. 

• Undertake research to understand the market  
• Utilise this insight to develop suitable coaching, leadership and activator education courses to build an infra-structure of coaches and leaders  
• Reinvest surpluses made into the sport’s development  

 We believe there is a role for a central body that can provide shared services to a range of governing bodies that can through size offer a collective benefit. We have successfully offered this to a number of governing bodies for their coach education provision. This centralisation has enabled governing bodies to concentrate on developing coaches rather than organising courses whereas we have offered a collective planning and booking service at no additional cost to the NGB whilst also giving over £160,000 in royalty return to the NGBs. This has only worked as we have now reached a scale to be able to provide this collective service.

This model could be applied to other NGB services including basic memberships services as we do with Korfball, Development planning and delivery as we previously did for Archery and insight services which we do for Sportivate but also have provided for a range of governing bodies and CSPs.

If you think about building a team of governing body apprenticeships at a local level in line with the government growth model for apprenticeships supporting local sports participation activity linking to ongoing provision with specific targets you can see that a focused company could concentrate solely on that delivery and not be side-lined by other issues that arise from time to time on a day to day basis in governing bodies.

The landscape will change but its how do organisations manage that change and work collectively and use external bodies to help meet their needs but my fear is that many organisation will chase the money as it has been traditionally distributed and not take a semi-commercial view on developing sport specific participation.

 p.s. if you like this post vote for me in the UK active awards!http://www.ukactive.com/events/forthcoming-events/active-training-awards-2015/vote-for-most-inspiring

Strategy for Sport - Future landscape?

The strategy for sport is causing great debate about who should do what but I felt I'd look at what the landscape could look like given the approaches government have taken to other sectors.

Some observations:

·         This and the last government have moved education to nearly entirely government to school in terms of funding cutting out everything in between

·         The same could be said for the health service - direct from government to hospital or general practice.

·         This policy was applied to school sport with the Youth Sport Trust being cut out and the Primary School Sport Premium going directly to junior schools.

·         This government have closed a number of national agencies turning them into trusts e.g. British Waterways to the Canals and River Trust

·         The current investment into a "governing body centrist investment Strategy" only sees 38% of Sport England's funding going directly into governing bodies.

So is this political philosophy going to be applied to sport? In a time when everyone is having to tighten belts even further (will be 24 waist soon after previous belt tightening) how will sport be restructured?

From my experience this is the most in-depth strategy review  I have seen and I have seen a few! With ministers leading each section clearly cross government commitment is already confirmed. So therefore sport can not hide away thinking it will be OK. Also given that other government departments have had to make cuts why should sport be not affected? It is also worth noting in a time recession has gone on around us some governing bodies have seen a ten fold plus increase in funding having staffing structures they could only dream of pre-Olympic confirmation in 2005.

 So what could the landscape look like? Could it remove middle placed sports organisations? I have heard people say if that or this national sports organisations didn't get funding who would notice? So are services provided by Skills Active, Sports coach UK, women in sport, sporting equals, EFDS, AfPE, Sport & Recreation Alliance essential or desirable? Can they learn how the Youth Sport Trust has responded, survived and clarified its market position following the removal of significant central funding? Should other national organisations do the same?

 What of Sport England? Should it be allowed to raise as well as distribute funds? Could it change its contract management role to allow others to oversee implementation? Could it become a campaigning body for sport supported by research and lobbying or isn't that the responsibility of the Sport and Recreation Alliance?

 County Sport Partnerships are now seen has essential delivery and strategic organisations in the sports landscape. Twelve years ago Local Authorities were seen as essential but where are they now?

With all the project trimmings the County Sport Partnerships collectively receive over £50 million a year. Is this best value for increasing participation or does the network need to clarify its position as delivery agencies solely and not concern themselves with strategic connections - or visa-versa? Look at progressive partnerships like West/South Yorkshire concentrating on delivery or the Black Country focused on economic regeneration. What is the best model for investment going forward. All have been charged with raising funds outside of Sport England funds. Wise but how many are on target?

And what about governing bodies? Could the mentioned mixed economy of delivery where the responsibility of increasing participation is shared across the whole of the sector be the way forward? Can Governing bodies on their own be the sole bodies responsible for increasing participation? The mixed economy approach could see the following role going forward:

·         Governing bodies: responsible for increasing participation among its member clubs and satellites where they have influence and a measure of control.

·         Private leisure sector: taking a significant role through governmental investment seek to raise levels of participation. This should be “contract managed” by governing bodies?

·         * Private/Voluntary sector sport development agencies: could provide collective service across governing bodies to cost effectively support the growth in governing body clubs, coaches whilst providing insight across the sector to the NGB’s. Could they provide specific services against national outcomes in coaching and expert advice?

·         County Sport Partnerships: Could provide participation delivery and coordination in set geographical areas.

·         Local Authorities: provide facilities to provide and grow facilities both formal and informal opportunities

This approach could enable NGB’s to return to solely serving their members and the private sector should seek to grow participation with the guidelines set by the NGBs. Medium and small NGBs? This then identifies waht  is the role of NGBs that an not significantly increase sports participation? Could they take a “shared services” approach to NGB development services in coach education, Club development, research and insight?

The private sector could provide these services against clear specifications from NGBs. We have experience in this area and meet the targets needed by NGBs and CSPs. A consolidated out-sourced service would provide a focused targeting of growth in coaches and clubs whilst also providing vital customer insight into the needs of the NGBs?

So the landscape may be very different come 2017 with more directly funded bodies delivering and less in the middle? I hope this gives food for thought and also I hope people think carefully about the role they can play in the future growth in participation. 

I might be wrong so please tell me differently? 

Strategy for Sport - apprenticeships

Apprenticeships 

In the first of my blogs relating to the consultation for the national Strategy for sport I explore what apprenticeships could look like in the sports sector. 

As a training provider from apprenticeships in sport we feel many organisations are not realising the benefit and opportunity of employing apprenticeships as well as utilising the traineeship programme.  

From our experience sports organisations too readily employ graduates to positions without exploring the apprenticeship route not only in the delivery of sport and physical activity but in the administration and marketing of the services they provide. We feel that training providers can provide a service to increase the number of apprenticeships in sport but also see an increase in participation as a result.  

For those that don’t know apprenticeships are paid for by the employer and the training is funded nationally through the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) however that will change with an option through Trailblazer apprenticeship where the employer will draw down the funding and decide the training provider. It is also a myth that current employees cant take advantage of undertaking an apprenticeship. They can however funding for the apprentice changes at 19 where it moves to 50% and 25 where no funding is available.  

Each apprentice must undertake a NVQ which mainly in sport is the Activity Leadership NVQ, secondly they need to take a knowledge programme with depending on the pathway could be a level 2 coaching award for coaching or a level three in sport development through City and guilds. all apprenticeship must reach a certain level in English and Maths as well as undertaking employment rights.  

The biggest challenge in sport we feel is paying the apprentices' wages. We feel actions could include grants made through Sport England to employ staff should have conditions that a % of the employees should be apprenticeships. For example small and medium NGBS and CSP have a small workforce of development officers. Employing one expert development manager and a network of sport development apprenticeships within a geographical area possibly employed through a central body such as ours, local authorities or CSPs would ensure the investment into staff gains a greater utilisation. We also welcome  Ajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills proposal for an Apprenticeship Levy on very big companies.  

However we at Sport Structures feel the real opportunity should be taken to develop networks of apprenticeships in suitable pathways. We do not feel there is one apprenticeship pathway that will be able to cover all. We feel that sport should be compelled to employ a % of government funded staff as apprenticeships and these to include the following frameworks: 

• Coaching 
• Outdoor activity  
• PE and School Sport  
• Fitness and Health 
• Business administration and customer service  
• Social media  

Further consideration needs to be given to the method of delivery of the education side of the apprenticeships and how these move further into the workplace through the development of staff within sporting organisations to tutor, assess and verify educational practice.  We at Sport Structures have seen through  an investment in staff development to enable them to educate, assess their own staff this has seen an improvement in not only how the apprentice is supported but all the staff within the company have seen an improvement in how they are supported trained and developed. 

Traineeships are also not greatly understood in the sector but they are an ideal pre-apprenticeships offer. Traneeships offer a real opportunity to engage people who have not had the best of time in education and need a change to develop a career in sport. We are Sport Structures have found Traineeships as an excellent pre-apprenticeship programme which enables young people to have a taste of what they may do as an apprenticeship and see if its right for them. 

At the other of the apprenticeship spectrum is the Advanced Apprenticeship in Sporting Excellence. this is an excellent tool for developing potential athletes. It is different from other apprenticeships as the apprentices are not employed but part of a performance development programme. I do think the programme could be enhanced by engaging the apprentices in coach education courses, recognising that some governing bodies already do this. Another option should be to engage the apprentices in learnign about sport development as they could be the next sport development workforce.  

We at Sport Structures see the benefit of investing in the potential of young people and apprenticeships are an ideal way of fulfilling and embracing this potential.