Inequality and the limits of sports policy Inequality and the limits of sports policy Prof Fred...

Inequality and the limits of sports policy

Prof Fred Coalter

Is laughing at Vicki Pollard related to sports participation?

The problem with the Irish is that they have problems for all the solutions

Tried everything else............... even a £10 billion ‘legacy’

In participation terms, we start from a low base…..comparable

countries have more people playing sport. Only 32% of adults in

England take 30 minutes of moderate exercise five times a week, as

recommended by health professionals..... we are a long way behind the

best-achieving nations: in Finland the participation rate is 80% and

increases with age.

...... only 46% of the population participate in sport more than 12

times a year, compared to 70% in Sweden and almost 80% in

Finland

A benchmark for this could be Finland...........70% of population reasonably active by 2020

Portugal

Greece

Italy

Spain

Austria

Germany

Luxembourg

Belgium

France

UK

Netherlands

Denmark

Sweden

Finland

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

At least once per week 1-3 times per month Less often etc

What is the issue?

European Social Survey 2002

45

48 4746 44

43

47

46

49 48 48 49 4948 47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1987 GHS 1990 GHS 1993 GHS 1996 GHS 1999 GHS 2002 GHS 2005 GHS 2006 APS 2008 APS 2009 APS 2010 APS 2011 APS 2012 APS 2013 APS 2014 APS

Sports Participation in England 1987 - 2014

Why is this a problem?

• Promoting sport?• Excellence and performance?

..you can have a performance strategy based on good quality identification and structure that doesn’t necessarily have to link into mass participation............ The reality is that there are some sports in which we can genuinely anticipate success on a world stage, but have to face the fact that they will never be mass participation sports….

Externalities: core policy, bonus or rationalisation? • Health/obesity, ‘social inclusion’............?• Sport or PA? • Once a week???????

’only a niche role for sport’

Why is sports participation regarded as ‘low’?

• Social equity?

Structure Agency

Consistent ‘associations’

• Age

• Sex

• Level of education

• Social class (taboo?)

Explaining levels of sports participation

National Statistics Socio-economic Classification

Goldthorpe: ‘New Labour vetoed any reference to class’

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AB C1 C2 DE

Social Class and Selected Sports Participation

SSSoooccciiiaaalll CCClllaaassssss AAABBB (((111888%%% ooofff pppooopppuuulllaaatttiiiooonnn)))

Proportion of Participants in Each Sport 1995-97 All Year Data: Sports with One Per Cent or More Participation

141516

202021212223242525252627282829

3234

363838

40414142

48

17

38

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Over-represented

Proportionatelyrepresented (±3%)Under-represented

Cricket

Squash

Snooker/billiards/pool

Basketball/netball/volleyball

Tenpin bowling

Multigym/weight training

Table tennis

Running/jogging

Sailing/water sports

Football (any)

Keep-fit/aerobics

Ice skating/ice hockey

Rugby

Golf

Martial arts

Walking (2+ miles)

Bowls

Skiing

Athletics

Horse riding

Gymnastics

Hillwalking/climbing/

Tennis

Fishing/angling

Yoga

Hockey

Badminton

Dancing

mountaineering

PercentageBase number: 3,521

CyclingSwimming (any)

SSSoooccciiiaaalll CCClllaaassssss CCC111 (((222555%%% ooofff pppooopppuuulllaaatttiiiooonnn)))

Proportion of Participants in Each Sport 1995-97: All Year Data: Sports with One Per Cent or More Participation

2225

26

282828282929293030303131323232323233333333

3535

3939

28

33

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Over-represented

Proportionatelyrepresented (±3%)


Tennis

Snooker/billards/pool

Walking (2+ miles)

Football (any)

Horse riding


Gymnastics

Cricket

Bowls

Swimming (any)

Rugby

Keep-fit/aerobics



Dancing

Martial arts

Skiing

Tenpin bowling

Cycling

Table tennis

Hockey

Athletics

Fishing/angling

Yoga

Squash

Running/jogging

Golf

mountaineering


Hillwalking/climbing/Badminton

SSSoooccciiiaaalll CCClllaaassssss CCC222 (((222333%%% ooofff pppooopppuuulllaaatttiiiooonnn))) Proportion of Participants in Each Sport 1995-97 All Year Data: Sports with One Per Cent or More Participation

81112

15161717

191920202121222222

2323232324242425

272828

32

14

27

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Over-represented


Under-represented

Martial arts

Tenpin bowling

Cricket

Badminton

Hillwalking/climbing/

Swimming (any)

Cycling

Athletics


Hockey

Gymnastics


Golf

Dancing

Squash

Running/jogging

Tennis

Fishing/angling

Walking (2+ miles)

Rugby

Table tennis

Bowls

Horse riding

Skiing


Football (any)


Yoga

mountaineering


Keep-fit/aerobicsBasketball/netball/volleyball

SSSoooccciiiaaalll CCClllaaassssss DDDEEE (((333444%%% ooofff pppooopppuuulllaaatttiiiooonnn)))

Proportion of Participants in Each Sport 1995-97 All Year Data: Sports with One Per Cent or More Participation

48

11

131414151515161717

1919

212121

23232424

2626

28

2930

3232

12

29

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Under-represented

Tenpin bowling

Walking (2+ miles)


Cricket

Yoga

Horse riding

Cycling

Running/jogging


Hockey

Badminton

Rugby

Ice skating/ice

Swimming (any)

Tennis

Table tennis

Squash

Fishing/angling

Gymnastics

Athletics

Keep-fit/aerobics

Dancing

Bowls

Skiing

Football(any)

Martial arts


Hillwalking/climbing/mountaineering


Multigym/weight trainingGolf

0102030405060708090

100

Male Female

Selected Sports Participation: Male and female

Source: sportscotland

Structure Agency

Consistent associations

• Age

• Sex


• Education

(i) Individualism/consumerism

Supply DemandMeaning/motivations


•Elaine the empty nest career lady [sic]

Market segmentation and descriptive stereotypes

• Individual ‘consumers’ maximising their utility?• Sport as commodity? • Structure and culture.............?

• Leanne the supportive single

•Ben the competitive male urbanite

Structure Agency

Consistent associations

• Age

• Sex


• Education

(i) Individualism/consumerism

Social marketing Theories of [rational] behaviour change

Foster et al Understanding Participation In Sport

• Govt policies set out to ‘change attitudes’ or ‘cultures’ with only the most cursory analysis • Well-meaning policies not rooted in realities of people’s lives

Supply Demand

(Relapse is the rule not the exception)

Meaning/motivations


It is evident ....that government policies designed to increase sports participation have had limited success ................ Some have had success..within small communities or specific cohorts..........same level of success has not been apparent within the mass population. Nicholson et al

… clear that governments and researchers don’t know enough about the way in which ‘complex systems of organisations function to either induce or disrupt sports participation patterns’. Nicholson et al

Finland (S Collins)

It is impossible with any certainty to determine what effect national and local government policies have had upon achieving high levels of sports participation

Well-meaning policies..........

Portugal

Greece

Italy

Spain

Austria

Germany

Luxembourg

Belgium

France

UK

Netherlands

Denmark

Sweden

Finland

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


So, why are they ‘better’?

It’s all about clubs....

Finland7,800: 1.5 million [c 19%)

Denmark14,000 sports clubs: 1:4003.2 million members (64%)

But, is it all about clubs?

Sweden /Finland• Men are over-represented in club-related and competitive sport

• Women: Higher proportion of regularly/ intensively: non-competitive/non-club- contexts

Denmark 4/5 participants in ‘non-organised locations’

NetherlandsHigher proportion who participate ‘regularly’ outside clubs

Finland• 15% of sporting activity in a sports club• 1/3 ‘non-active’ members

Important social institutions, but ............

• High levels of participation not via organised sport • Women less likely to take part in competitive/organised sport• Shift in types of activity non-competitive/flexible/fitness etc

Does the answer lie in inequality?

Inequality is the key

UK

3-4

8-9

UK : 0.335Finland 0.269Sweden 0.234Denmark 0.232.

Legatum Prosperity Index: 2010

1 Norway2 Denmark3 Finland

6 Sweden

9 Netherlands

13 UK

79 variables

• Economic Fundamentals• Democratic Institutions• Health• Governance• Social Capital• Entrepreneurship and Innovation• Education• Safety and Security• Personal Freedom etc

The Spirit Level: Inequality is the key

Poverty Inequality: the extent of difference Not absolute standards of living/rising incomes Relative deprivation

Poverty Poverty of opportunity/aspiration

Inequality: damages social relationships

• Status denial of worth

• Social differences: Q of character/moral resolve/competence: Chavs/scroungers

• More vulnerable to status anxieties ‘respect’

‘Individual psychology and societal inequality relate to each other like lock and key’

They do not make rational considerations with respect to health consequences however

important they might find these, but ...base their choices primarily on the consequences

this has for their own identity, their relationships with others and the appreciation or

rejection that this may bring to mind van Bottenburg et al

Exercise and sport are thoroughly social phenomena, which take place and find their

meaning...within a broader societal context... The choice to take part in sport, how, where,

what and with whom is directly related to the issue of how people see and wish to

present themselves.....socio-culturally determined views and expectations also play a role

here’

Sport: more than market segmentation

‘Social mobility is widely seen as a process via which people are sorted by ability’ social value/status/personal worth/stigma

Social mobility and unequal societies

The higher the bar, the lower earnings mobility across generations.

UK: 40% of males will stay in same class as fathers (e.g. not moving from unskilled to skilled manual)

Comparable Estimates of Intergenerational Mobility

Britain Finland Sweden Denmark Norway0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0.271

0.147 0.143 0.143 0.139

1 No mobility0 Total mobility

United Kingdom

Level of educational achievement seems to be the most important determinant of sports behaviour. Bottenburg et al

Late 1990s

1993

1981

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Richest 20% at aged 16 Poorest 20% at age 16

Degree completion by age 23 by parental income group: GB

Opportunity hoarding and the glass floor’

Sweden/Netherlands

No difference between highest/middle levels of education

Education plus.......

Finland

All educational levels more/less equal levels of sports participation

Sports participation

Women’s participation in ‘sport’Sweden : + 5%Finland: +2%

But not in clubs......

Women’s status

% of women on company boards• Norway 29%• Sweden 23%• Finland 20%• UK 11%

• % of women in legislatures• Male/female income gap• % of women completing higher education

Community and equality are mutually reinforcingPutnam

Norway, Finland and Denmark and the UK are not comparable countries in any

meaningful sense

Social evaluation threats Anxiety/depression Self-esteem insecure narcissism ‘respect

Concern with social judgments/other’s evaluations Self-esteem social esteem Greater inequality importance of social status anxieties

Anonymity of mass societies Unequal societies

Lack of trust Inequality damages social relationships More equal societies: collaborative/less status competition/anxiety More inclusive/participatory

Social inclusion precedes participation?

Social status ‘meritocracy’: ‘ability’; superiority/inferiority Chavs/scroungers/failures

‘Individual psychology & societal inequality relate to each other like lock and key’

Haberdasher’s Askes’s Boys School/ Reigate Grammar School/Bristol University?

Eton / Westminster/ St Paul’s Boys School/ St Paul’s GirlsHills Road Sixth Form College (Cambridge) send more students to Oxbridge PA than 2,000 comprehensive schools/FE colleges

S Collins

Social democratic values inherent in Finnish society, such as egalitarianism, have

supported and provided favourable environment for SfA policies...the legislation

merely recognise practices that were already in operation within Finnish sport’

Well-meaning policies..........

Inclusive political cultures and inclusive definitions

Finland

• Two sports acts (1980/2003)• Sports legislation/provision a central part of social policy• Sports clubs highly subsidised• Huge municipal facility provision• Government directing investment to areas of need.

Is sport epiphenominal?

Portugal

Greece

Italy

Spain

Austria

Germany

Luxembourg

Belgium

France

UK

Netherlands

Denmark

Sweden

Finland

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


So, is this not an over-achievement for ‘sport’?

6 stone weakling meets 400 pound gorilla

Fancy a bit of

theory ?

Inequality and the limits of sports policy

Prof Fred Coalter

Laughing at Vicki Pollard is related to sports participation

mmMmmmmmmmmmm

1981 1993 Late 1990s0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poorest 20% at age 16 Richest 20% at age 16 Educational inequality

Degree completion by age 23 by parental income group

The Spirit Level: Inequality is the key Poverty Inequality: the extent of difference

Not absolute standards of living/rising incomes

Social exclusion‘mechanisms that act to detach groups from the mainstream” Giddens

• The Hidden Injuries of Class• Cultural capital• Social capital Community and equality are mutually reinforcing. Putnam

Poverty Poverty of opportunity

Class Relative deprivation

Class Social status /status anxieties

Inequality: damages social relationships worry about how seen/judged more vulnerable to status anxieties ‘respect’

‘Individual psychology and societal inequality relate to each other like lock and key’

Sports research 2010 - changing times, challenging perspectives’

Fred CoalterUniversity of Stirling

The sports participation glass ceiling – myth or reality?

Re-thinking poverty, inequality and relative deprivation

M van Bottenburg et al (2005) Sports participation in the European union

M Nicholson et al (Eds) Participation in Sport: International policy perspectives

R Wilkinson and K Pickett (2009) The Spirit Level: Why equal societies almost always do better

Basic sources

Sports Participation in the EU Van Bottenburg et al (2005)

1960s 1990s significant increases

Late 1990s

Tentative generalisations

• Stagnation: Finland/Netherlands/Belgium/Austria/Portugal/Spain• Decline: UK/France• Decline among young adults: Sweden/Denmark • Decline in young adults time on sport: Netherlands/Denmark

Individualisation of ‘sports’

“swimming, cycling, walking and…fitness/keep-fit/aerobics are the most practiced sporting activities in almost all of the EU member states”

• Social mobility as an index of class

• Education

• Status of women

More equal countries almost always do better

Portugal

Greece

Italy

Spain

Austria

Germany

Luxembourg

Belgium

France

UK

Netherlands

Denmark

Sweden

Finland

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


So, why are they so much better than us?

Can the The Spirit Level explain differences in sports participation?

Prof Fred Coalter

Glass ceiling or class ceiling?

Late 1990s

1993

1981

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Difference (educational inequality) Richest 20% at aged 16 Poorest 20% at age 16

Degree completion by age 23 by parental income group: GB

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Trends in participation in sport (% of adults 16 plus) 2005/6 to 2009/10

1 x30 moderate a week

3 x 30 moderate a week

Sport England’s problem

Trends in participation in sport – excluding walking (at least once in last 4 weeks)

45

48 4746

43

5758

57

54

51

34

39 3938

36

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

1987 1990 1993 1996 2002

GH

S Pa

rtici

patio

n in

at l

east

one

spo

rt ex

c. w

alki

ng

All Men Women

Distribution of Income

Source OECD

Social Mobility and Child Poverty CommissionAlan Milburn

Cross-generational social mobility greater equality/fairness/ social cohesion

relationships weaken aggregate sports participation increase

Social Mobility

Inequality and the limits of sports policy Inequality and the limits of sports policy Prof Fred...

Documents

Transcript of Inequality and the limits of sports policy Inequality and the limits of sports policy Prof Fred...