THERE is a point in seeking to establish a direct, provable link between the hosting of major sports events and the health or wider social benefits to the host city. It is not easy to prove, as the examples of the London Olympics, the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow or those eight years previously in Manchester demonstrate.
That emphatically does not mean major sporting events are bad things or never have wider beneficial social outcomes. We believe the Commonwealth Games a year ago were good for Glasgow in general and the east end of the city in particular, and good for Scotland and for the Commonwealth as a whole.
When Andy Murray has a spectacular triumph, such as leading Britain to the Davis Cup final, it is hard to track a direct correlation with youngsters picking up a racket, other than sporadically and short-term in local parks.
Equally, they do not throw the racket away when Murray loses at the US Open. The impact is more complex, long-term and subliminal than that and is dependent on a host of other factors such as volunteer support and professional coaching.
So let us resist the temptation to knock last year’s Games over the finding in the Scottish Health Survey that only one per cent of respondents were sufficiently inspired to undertake more sporting activity while the event made just three per cent consider more activity.
We agree with Professor Mike Weed that the findings were “pretty disappointing for anyone who was hoping for evidence of a legacy” from Glasgow 2014, but we are also realistic enough to know it does not always work that way. The survey found that six per cent of the population became “generally” more interested in sport and exercise as a result of the games, but for most this did not result in specific lifestyle changes. But as Professor Weed pointed out, this finding was “reasonably positive” as changes in attitude usually come before changes in behaviour.
As he put it: “Although five to six per cent seems quite low, if even half of these people went out and increased their physical activity participation that would be the biggest change we have seen for years.”
There is, without doubt, an increasing disconnect between spectator sport and participation in sport. Some of the Rugby World Cup matches have ticket prices starting at £150 and that is before the intervention of touts and corporate packages.
A decent thesis could be written on the correlation between higher ticket prices and the available cash left for those interested in sport to pay for participation in activities locally, given that cash-strapped councils are often increasing charges.
The tragedy is that there is a consensus now around the immense benefits of sport and physical activity at the very time when the public resources that might have gone into boosting initiatives have frequently been choked off at source.
But that should not be seen as a counsel of despair. Much good work is already under way with dedicated specialist sports academies within our public education system.
But these cater for the “elite” youngsters who show special aptitudes. The wider gain will come from encouraging the non-elite youngsters to enjoy sports, for if it is not enjoyable they will turn away. For all our futures it is a fight worth the cause.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here