20. In addition to seeking sporting success at the London 2012 Games, UK Sport is aiming to build a world class system of support for elite athletes that will last beyond the Games. The Department said that the Prime Minister had announced an extra £120 million for elite sport for the two years beyond 2012 to support participation by UK athletes at the Commonwealth Games to be held in Glasgow in 2014.[22]

21. The Department's objectives for the London 2012 Games extend to grassroots participation in sport. This raises questions about how the Department's doubling of resources to help elite athletes win medals is going to benefit ordinary men and women, such as those playing sport at the weekend. The Department told us that elite sport was just the pinnacle of the pyramid approach to funding sport in the United Kingdom. Below this was a broad base of people participating in sport at every level in the community, and that was reflected in the Government's funding and the Lottery funding for community sport, which had also significantly increased. The Department had a target for two million more people to participate in a sport or physical activity by 2012. Anecdotal evidence suggested that funding for elite sporting success could also play a part as athletes, such as Dame Kelly Holmes, could be effective role models and inspire young people to take up sport. UK Sport was, however, unable to provide firm evidence that winning medals had a positive influence on participation in sports at a grass roots level. We do not consider that the examples provided by the Department to illustrate how success in a small number of sports may have generated grass roots participation provide firm enough evidence on which to draw this conclusion. [23]

22. We also questioned whether the success of athletes within certain sports funded by UK Sport, such as rowing, sailing and equestrianism, provided role models to encourage people from all socio-economic groups and all parts of the United Kingdom to take up sport. Many people were deprived of opportunities to participate in such sports by lack of access to the necessary facilities. UK Sport drew attention to initiatives seeking to develop elite athletes from a wide range of backgrounds. UK Sport's Sporting Giants initiative had sought to identify people from all backgrounds meeting certain age and height criteria who had the potential to become rowers, volleyball players and handball players. The Amateur Rowing Association's Project Oarsome was another example of a scheme seeking to introduce a sport to people from all walks of life. UK Sport did not collect data on the social background of those athletes benefiting from the £600 million of funding through to London 2012 or those who had successfully competed at Olympic and Paralympic level.[24] It refused to do so on the grounds that it did not consider social background relevant in determining either athletes' potential or its investment strategy.[25]

23. One potential barrier to the achievement of the London 2012 objectives for elite sport and increasing grass roots participation in sport is access to facilities. We referred to evidence, for example, that the United Kingdom now had only six 10-metre high Olympic standard diving boards, and that 90% of pools in London have had their diving boards removed due to concerns over health and safety. The provision of adequate sporting facilities to promote participation at all levels rested not with UK Sport but with the UK's sports councils, whose primary remit was grass roots participation. UK Sport worked closely with the home country sports councils on any obstacles to elite sporting success which they, based on their wider responsibilities, could help to address.[26]

24. If UK Sport is to achieve its objectives to secure long term benefits from the London 2012 Games, it will have to work collaboratively with a range of stakeholders. There is a multiplicity of organisations involved in elite sport, including UK Sport, the home country sports councils, the British Olympic Association and the national governing bodies of sports, and there is a risk they will not work together coherently. UK Sport said the administrative arrangements were more coherent than they had ever been, particularly since all responsibility for elite sport had been transferred to UK Sport in April 2006. We asked UK Sport whether there was any risk of 'turf wars' between the different agencies in the run up to London 2012. UK Sport said that all those responsible for sport in the United Kingdom wanted to achieve the same things in Beijing in 2008 and in London in 2012.[27]

25. UK Sport is developing a business case for a new model in which responsibility for drug detection in sport would be the role of a National Anti-Doping Organisation, independent of UK Sport. The new body would progress existing work on testing and intelligence gathering. Its creation would also allow closer links with law enforcement agencies and help address issues earlier, such as by addressing the supply of drugs. As an independent body it would have its own budget, which would be determined as part of the consideration of the business case.[28]

23   Qq 5-6, 52, 83, 88; C&AG's Report, para 1.6 Back

24   Qq 85-86, 137; C&AG's Report, para. 4.11 Back

25   Q 86; Ev 19 Back

26   Q 71; C&AG's Report, para 4.8 Back

27   Qq 90-92 Back

28   Qq 72, 77 Back