Kingwell: ‘There is no delivery plan, no budget’ / photo: SLC / Marcus Kingwell / NIKKI GOODEVE

On first read, the government’s sport strategy, Get Active, focuses on the all the right things. The emphasis on inactivity, the need for government and the sector to work together to embed outcomes at the heart of government policy – this is what many in the wider sector have been asking for over many years. All good stuff. And with three core priorities of activity, integrity and sustainability, this looks like a strategy from a government that has listened and understood the issues facing and opportunities for UK sport and physical activity.

But here’s the problem: it’s not really a strategy at all. It’s just a vision. There’s no delivery plan, just a compilation of actions, and there’s no budget associated with it. It’s a classic case of setting BHAGs – Big Hairy Audacious Goals – and then not following through. We all get excited by the ambition but then find there is no help or guidance on how we are going to achieve it.

Perhaps the plan is coming later? Perhaps we’re all meant to produce our own plans without knowing how we fit into the whole?

This creates a secondary problem: how will we know, in five years’ time, whether the strategy has been a success? The handful of targets in the strategy only relate to the first objective – activity – and don’t relate at all to the objectives of integrity and sustainability. As the saying goes, what gets measured gets done – and by implication, anything which isn’t measured won’t get done.

In our view, it also misses some key themes too – particularly those set out in Sport England’s Future of Public Leisure Report (Dec 2022).

The Pivot to Active Wellbeing is conspicuous by its absence. Many millions of pounds has been invested by Sport England and local authorities into creating some of the conditions for pivoting through the Local Delivery Pilots and Active Partnerships. However, there’s a great deal more to be done to integrate leisure operators as a true system partner within a place. There’s also little acknowledgement in the strategy of the massive problems in our workforce: the labour shortage, low pay and the lack of specialist skills and training pathways to deliver on active wellbeing.

Get Active is crying out for part two, the main feature. It needs a delivery plan which is costed, time-bound and owned by the organisations which will deliver it. It also needs a set of key results to enable everyone to know if the strategy is on track – and to hold the government to account. Until that time, it’s a grand vision and a collection of case studies but not much else.

With an election looming the sector should focus on doing the right thing rather than be distracted by this poorly-timed and cynical attempt by government to be seen to be strategic.

Oxley says any national strategy needs local delivery / photo: JOHN OXLEY

For those of us who have given the greatest part of our lives to sport and physical activity and have immersed ourselves in its organisation and delivery, it’s always a moment of intrigue when a government launches a new ‘strategy’.

As a series of nice words and sentiments, the recent report from the DCMS can be perfectly appreciated. As a document to inspire and initiate transformational change to the degree that’s undoubtedly required, it has missed the target completely.

To some extent, I have sympathy with the authors. Policy control and responsibility is set within a part of government – the Department of Culture, Media and Sport – that’s confused at best and fundamentally conflicted.

The DCMS appears to have exposed one of its flaws in the very first paragraph of the Minister’s Foreword, as it boldly makes a direct link between sport and the health, happiness and prosperity of the population. No-one doubts that sport can provide participants with such benefits, but to imply that a coherent and compelling sports and physical activity strategy can address the travails of ill-health and health inequality facing the nation smacks of crass ignorance.

The health of the population can undoubtedly benefit from increasing levels of physical activity, notably in those who are often excluded or under-served.

However, those who are disenfranchised from participating in physical activity endure substantial social, educational, and economic disadvantages that – in a Maslow-type analysis – must be addressed before those people have a chance to own a pair of trainers, let alone be able to access facilities, clubs or activities.

Let’s properly understand the notion of population health and the extent of inequality, before we begin to pontificate about sport’s role in addressing it.

This is a really BIG topic; we’re talking about the health and wellbeing of the entire nation. It’s complex and multi-faceted and will certainly require system-level, cross-departmental initiatives to begin to address challenges and shift behaviours.

Before we begin to rush to solutions and implore behavioural change, I’d welcome a commitment by policy-makers and leaders to deeply understanding the subject matter and to do so by listening more and talking less. They would as a result become more effective, collaborative and selfless leaders.

As a final observation and having experienced professional sport, worked in national organisations, in local delivery and within grassroots clubs, I’m very clear where meaningful impact and changing lives happens. Success comes from deep understanding of local issues, the building of local connections and the distribution of responsibility at a local level.

The strategy penned is likely to drift into anonymity (if it hasn’t already) as we edge nearer to a General Election. The voice of a government department extolling the virtues of this type of strategy is frankly a complete irrelevance. What matters is the capacity, capability, innovation, resource and accountability at a local level to make purposeful improvement within communities – today and every day.

Monkhouse: We have an opportunity to be better and braver / photo: Active INsight

There are a lot of clear opportunities outlined in this strategy to demonstrate the impact we can have as an industry.

We welcome the statement about ‘focusing on evidence, data and metrics to understand how interventions are helping get people active and demonstrate their value’, but it’s important to recognise that this data doesn’t just have to be from the industry, as many of those working on health in our communities already have outstanding data.

My plea is that we don’t create our own systems, but that we integrate with what already exists, to identify gaps and opportunities.

Ensuring we ‘level the playing field of activity provision’ will be vital if we are to play our part in ‘helping the sector to be welcoming to all, by promoting women’s and disability sport, championing diversity across the sector and holding the sector to account for investing in these groups’. This will mean moving from our general position of providing bricks and mortar services and running GP referral schemes in the hope patients become members and instead doing more enabling activity with statutory and third sector organisations who already interact with the communities we find so hard to reach.

If we’re to play our part in ‘setting the future direction for facilities and spaces where people can be active’ we need to understand where communities feel safe and happy, who the ‘leaders’ are in a community and how we can upskill these communities to deliver locally to ‘people like them’.

Ultimately a refocus of resources – there will be no new money – partnerships with organisations that already exist and are delivering within the space and upskilling our workforce and the existing community volunteer workforce to engage, empathise and activate could deliver a great deal of this strategy.

There are lots of opportunities to be better, be different, be brave and to truly demonstrate that we can assist in making a real difference to people’s lives and healthy longevity.