ABSTRACT
The relationship between a government and those who run and manage sport is one that is ever-evolving and therefore ever prone to controversy and accusations of interference. Governmental priorities in and around sport the world over are not consistent; issues arise that are either necessary or politically expedient and are often accompanied by publicity and funding streams. Central to any debate about the saliency of sport and physical education thus are questions as to what are the purposes of such genres. This then provokes debate pertinent variously to public health, national security, public order, the raising of children and issues of national heritage and national identity. In the UK until the late 1950s governmental intervention in sport was generally a reaction to specific problems. Over the next 30 years a variety of governments promoted sports with the belief that participation brings with it numerous benefits to the nation and its people. For many the benefits of sport cannot be questioned – it does only good and should therefore be funded. But an observer could ask, at what cost? And to whom? Such questions are pertinent as London prepares to host the 2012 Olympic Games. The economic case for London to host the world’s largest sporting event resides in two ideas; the first is that the Games will lead to massive investment from the host country that will see an infrastructure – both sporting and other – built that will benefit the population for decades to come. The other is that the Games will inspire generations of enthusiasts
to participate in sport to the benefit of both themselves and the nation thus saving the Treasury the funding of medical care for citizens ill by virtue of their inactive lifestyles. The factors that secured London a victory over Paris by 4 votes in July 2005 might one day be explained by those who made the choice described by one journalist on the Observer Sports Monthly as “the greatest sporting mugging of all time”. Meanwhile the astute political spin-doctoring that secured the votes for London continues. For the Games’ cheerleaders the nation will benefit, particularly the low-income multi-cultural population of East London. Concomitantly politicians and those employed by the 2012 Games propound that levels of sporting participation will rise amongst all age-groups in the UK. Realistically no other possibility can be countenanced as the public purse is increasingly raided to pay for an event that the International Olympic Committee requires a government to underwrite as a safeguard to cover all unforeseen eventualities.
