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?