'Focus on 2012 gold threatens Games legacy'
Joe Murphy, Political Editor9 Sep 2008
An advocate of grassroots sports facilities today accuses the Culture Secretary of adopting an elitist policy that puts winning Olympic medals ahead of mass participation.
Alison Moore-Gwyn, chief executive of Fields in Trust, said ministers appear to have retreated from the Government's pledge to get two million more people involved in sport.
FIT, formerly known as the National Playing Fields Association, fears sports pitches are still being sold off or built on despite ministers' pledge to boost community sports when they secured the 2012 Games.
"The Beijing medal tally was fantastic and gave a huge boost to the whole nation and, understandably, there is a desire to ensure that this can be matched - or even superseded - by London 2012," Ms Moore-Gwyn said.
"Improving facilities for elite level athletes is vital but hosting the Olympics represents a real chance to promote physical activity to every single person in the country by growing grassroots sporting participation. It is this that should be the resounding legacy of the 2012 Games."
Her comments challenge the Government's stronger focus on top athletes brought in by Culture Secretary Andy Burnham and his predecessor James Purnell. Ms Moore-Gwyn echoes former Sport England chairman Derek Mapp, who told last week how he quit after refusing to support the new policy.
The Evening Standard has launched its 2012 Sports Legacy campaign to ensure that the London Games live up to the pledges made in 2005 to champion "sport for all", particularly among young people.
FIT will later this month begin a campaign to highlight the importance of recreation grounds to communities and to safeguard as many as possible before the London Olympics.
The FIT for Gold project will establish protection for fields nominated by local communities to be protected against developers or sell-offs. Ms Moore-Gwyn said the continuing risk to green spaces cast a shadow over the sporting legacy of the Games, adding that five threats to playing fields are being reported to her organisation each week. However, ministers appear convinced that winning medals for Britain will motivate young people on its own.
"Focussing on the high end of elite participation may help create inspiring stories but it doesn't help much in the longer term to galvanise new sections of the population to get involved in physical activity or to ensure that they have space and facilities to participate," she said.
The most recent Government figures show that there are 17 planning applications to build on playing fields every week . In most cases, ministers say the proposals end up improving sporting facilities because they include floodlights or indoor facilities.
However, FIT says the official figures do not reveal the full extent of the loss of land because small plots are not listed.
Alex Welsh, chief executive of the London Playing Fields Association, said there were no reliable figures, and loopholes existed in the official protection. "This means that playing fields can be lost without ever coming on the radar," he said.
Reader views (7)
The last 2 guys make good points...the sports we did well in are hardly easy to take part in and the cost is expensive.
- Mark, Watford, 10/09/2008 10:35
Report abuse
Most of our gold medals in Beijing came from sailing around in tiny boats and cycling around in tiny circles inside a purpose built stadium.
Hardly the sort of sports that’ll attract a huge participation or attract the boys from the hood.
- William Boreham, mitcham uk, 09/09/2008 19:07
Report abuse
...yes Great Britain did well, but the vast majority of the golds were in cycling, sailing or rowing. Athletics, which is what we are talking about here, are in trouble. And it's directly because of the lack of facilities, the closure of playing fields etc. Success does indeed go to the best/the elite - but that elite has to be trained and to discover its potential. We got one athletics gold medal this time...how many will we get next time if 5 playing fields go under threat each week?
- Damian Hockney, London, UK, 09/09/2008 16:30
Report abuse
The name of the game isn't winning, as all of our school children will tell you everyone is equal. If someone can't do something then you should lower then standard so that they don't feel out of place, after all we wouldn't want to offend them. Now, who's for some nice lentil stew and a bit of meditation?
- Bob, Cheam, 09/09/2008 16:09
Report abuse
How can such advocates of mediocrity be in charge of something so important. Government, please ignore these bleeding heart liberals and continue to focus on elite sport, it is painfully obvious that seeing our country produce golds will encourage kids and adults to get out and play far more than anything or anyone else ever could.
- St, london, 09/09/2008 15:57
Report abuse
IF very few medals had been won we'd all be moaning about that because the taxpayer funds the "elite" athletes.
We need to find the right mix and kids who are prepared to work hard and use the facilities around to beomc champions in any sport.
- Mark, Watford, 09/09/2008 15:29
Report abuse
Enough of this medals-for-all nonsense, the sort of mindset that has led us to become a 3rd-rate, and often worse, sporting nation. The name of the game is winning -- and that, as the British public's response to the marvellous showing of our athletes in Beijing, is what we want. If that's "elitist," then tough.
- Al Webb, Croughton, Northamptonshire, 09/09/2008 12:07
Report abuse
Afternoon:
9°c





