Written a few days after England won the UEFA Women’s Euros, this blog follows closely on the publication of our recent post, marking the 10 year anniversary of the...
10 years on: Did 2012 Inspire a Generation? Some lessons for schools
This article, published on the 10th anniversary of London 2012, asks questions about the way we treat mega sport events and elite athletes. At the end is a link to access a free resource that will prompt thinking and conversation about how we can do better at inspiring far more young people.
In September 2012, a few weeks after the closing ceremonies of the London Olympics and Paralympics, I went to Essex to deliver a CPD course for primary teachers. I started the day asking attendees what stood out as their highlight from the magical summer of sport, after all, it was widely accepted that London had delivered a fantastic Games and, I must admit, as a Londoner who was sceptical, I was incredibly proud of my home city. The conversation started and many people spoke enthusiastically about Super Saturday on the track, the Hockey, the superstars bike riders etc. Then I noticed 2 tables of about 8 teachers who were not taking part in the conversation. I invited them in and they responded by saying how they weren’t at all interested, hadn’t watched a single minute of the coverage and took the opportunity to go on holiday. On reflection, this was a critical moment for me. Why did I, and indeed everyone in my social and professional bubble think that the whole world was as excited as we were? What were we taking for granted to the degree that we simply couldn’t contemplate the abject apathy of these teachers?
Fast forward September 2021 when the Sports Minister, Nigel Huddleston defended the Olympic Legacy to deliver on the ubiquitous strapline, Inspire a Generation by arguing that health and participation figures would be even worse had it not been for the £9 billion spend of the 2012 Games. He went on to point towards increased Google searches for specific sports as evidence of the OIympics and Paralympics generating enthusiasm amongst the general public (The Guardian 2021). In a clear reversal of the commitments he made before the Games, Sebastian Coe has echoed the same line this week as we mark the 10th anniversary of London 2012 (BBC, 2022). Am I missing something? Is this not beyond woeful on so many levels, not least the reckless use of public funds? Can you think of any other sector or project that costs £billions that is not only not monitored, but no thought was given at the time as to how it would be evaluated? So little thought in fact, that subsequent politicians have to argue that it is not even possible to measure the legacy that the whole thing hinged on. Can you imagine Starbucks spending £millions on a campaign without knowing how much more coffee they expect to sell or, closer to home, a headteacher telling staff that they are investing heavily in a new programme that will increase literacy outcomes without knowing how it is going to be measured? We have invested heavily in time, effort and resources to create miMove to give precisely this intelligence to people and organisations in PE, Sport and Physical Activity - anybody who sets out to engage young people in physical activity, needs to know the impact of their work, whether this be a teacher, coach or national government. This seems like a very basic and obvious thing to acknowledge. I’m no economist but I once heard that the £9 billion Olympic spend is sufficient to build a new sports facility in every local authority in the country. It seems quite obvious what investment would yield a greater return on participation.
The very essence of Inspire a Generation, highlights the evangelical nature of sports policy when it’s drawn up by sports enthusiasts who eulogise about the ‘power of sport’ with very little evidence apart from personal testimonies - testimonies that are drawn from the lived experiences of people who have had their lives shaped by very positive experiences in sport. Perhaps, the voices of people like the teachers mentioned above, who holidayed as London showed off, should be heard more clearly whenever we speak about increasing participation. The notion of ‘creating a legacy’ remains embedded in the supposed mission of all sports ‘mega events’. This week marks the start of the Commonwealth Games coming in at a mere £750m, less than a tenth of the cost of the Olympics/Paralympics but a huge spend nonetheless. How exactly are these events meant to generate a ‘legacy’ when it comes to participation?
People who are into sport generally feel a sense of excitement when watching closely contested, high-level sporting contests. We tend to appreciate the skill of the athletes, and often have sufficient understanding of tactics to figure out why the performers do what they do, when they do it. We draw upon resources, experiences and privileges that we’ve had to do this. In major events, there are often a range of other factors that capture the imaginations and the hearts of people who might not consider themselves sports aficionados or even enthusiasts. The broadcasting companies have perfected producing very specific narratives - the one who overcame adversity, the one who everyone knew from childhood was destined for greatness, the one who simply never gave up, the new mum etc and that’s before the real heartstring-pullers are wheeled out - the flags, the anthems and all the trappings of national pride or nationalism or patriotism or exceptionalism or superiority or imperialism (depending on your world-view).
But precisely how is this meant to persuade a young person to be more active? Mike Weed is Professor of Applied Policy Sciences at Christ Canterbury University and was commissioned to monitor the 2012 legacy. He refers to what he calls the Demonstration effect to explain the process of being inspired by high level performers. It was this that was presented to the IOC in Singapore 2007 when Coe, Beckham, Windsor et al presented the London bid that featured beautifully-produced videos of children around the world watching great Olympic moments before embarking on their own journeys to gold medal-dom. Weed’s work brilliantly illustrates that for many people, this is simply a fallacy. Much of our appreciation is precisely because we are watching performers carry out feats that are remarkable. I may well appreciate a gymnast’s floor routine but I am no more likely to start tumbling as I would be to purchase a grand piano after watching a concerto. Many people experience an ‘aversion effect’ ie they are actually put off taking part for fear of being inadequate (Weed et al, 2015). On the other hand, young people who are already participating in that or related sports for similar reasons, i.e. to compete, may well be inspired to do more or switch sports. For people who are less or not active or who are active for different reasons e.g. for social reasons, these demonstrations are insufficiently relatable to prompt increased activity. This highlights the need for us to know if, how, and why the young people we work with are active (again the reason we created miMove), and then use this information to better meet their needs.
Inherent in the assumptions of the demonstration effect is the notion of athlete-as-role-model. This invariably leads to a very selective narrative that conveniently ignores the athletes' flaws, insecurities, and the questionable lifestyle that elevates focus on a single, low probability goal, achieved on a single day above pretty much everything and everyone else. As an educator and parent, I would be far more comfortable if there were fuller, more balanced, less eulogised, learning conversations around elite performers. Again, it is assumed that because some people revere, even fetishise, elite athletes, all young people will. I remember watching an Olympic medallist present his story to an auditorium of 12-14 year olds complete with the inspirational videos of him doing hill sprints in snow. I glanced at the room to see a lot of young people disengaged, chatting, doodling - some were even asleep. Once again, we are adept at motivating the young people who are already active in formal, organised sport. Who are the ‘role models’ for young people who are involved in informal, unstructured activity or who are less active? Who do we celebrate in schools in our newsletters and indeed on our display boards around the school? Our challenge is to break free from mini-me syndrome - when we speak to and connect best with the young people who are most like us with regards to interests, backgrounds, body shape, forms of preferred movement/activity, motivation etc. Can we develop our practice to enable all students to relate positively to their physical self in movement, other people and/or the activities they experience.? From mini-ME to mini-WE!
We have prepared a document that draws upon Mike Weed’s work to prompt thinking and discussion about how we might present more inclusively and meet the challenge mentioned above. Click here for your free download.
References
BBC (2022) Accessed at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/62299772
The Guardian (2021) Accessed at https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/sep/02/uk-sport-minister-nigel-huddleston-denies-london-2012-failed-inspire-more-exercise
Weed, M., Coren, E., Fiore, E., Wellard, I., Chatziefstathiou, D., Mansfield, L., & Dowse, S.(2015) The Olympic Games and raising sport participation: a systematic review of evidence and an interrogation of policy for a demonstration effect, European Sport Management Quarterly, 15:2, 195-226, DOI: 10.1080/16184742.2014.998695
If you are interested in reading about a very different side of the Olympic movement, check out:
Krohe, J. & Winchell, D., 2010. FIVE-RING CIRCUS. Planning, 76(2), pp.8–13.
Lenskyj, H. (2020) The Olympic Games: A critical approach. Emerald Publishing
Lenskyj, H.. "Olympic Education and Olympism: Still Colonizing Children's Minds." Educational Review: 'Olympism' and Education: A Critical Review 64.3 (2012): 265-74. Web.
Rennie. J. (2018) Hosting the Olympic Games: The Real Costs for Cities Routledge, London
