Post by Belligerent Hype Man on Dec 1, 2010 19:20:34 GMT
It makes no sense. David Cameron plans to jet off to Zurich to support England's World Cup bid when his government are about to cut off all funds to the country's school sports partnerships from next spring. Like any football fan I want to see England host the World Cup in 2018. It would be my first chance to watch the tournament as a spectator (no, watching from the bench doesn't count). The whole country would be buzzing, I would go to the stadiums with my kids to be a part of a once-in-a-lifetime event. That's why I signed up to be an ambassador for the bid.
But I must confess that I'm an ambassador with a touch of ambivalence. Please, don't accuse me of being unpatriotic: it is just that, in a list of priorities, health has to rank higher than entertainment and at the moment I'm not convinced that the government have their priorities right. My reservation about our political and financial resources being focused on a World Cup is that we could be spending a lot of money to be entertained without seeing much in the way of physical or long-term health benefits for the masses. It's all very well having lovely memories of a nice tournament, but what are the tangible benefits of hosting the competition?
Just as with the 2012 Olympics, the buzzword we keep hearing is "legacy". But if the government are to cut sports funding at school level then who will be around to compete in these great facilities? The 2018 World Cup is still eight years away. That should be enough time to develop a generation of footballers who could challenge for the honours. But it won't happen by itself, and it certainly won't happen if we keep taking sports money away from our kids.
I sat and watched the England game against France last week. Afterwards the pundits talked about France and how technically proficient their players are – the same old conversations. In turn, up popped the same old questions, such as: are we getting things right at grassroots level? It is a sad state of affairs when even football, the richest sport in this country, is impoverished at the bedrock level of the game.
A recent Uefa report revealed that England have just 2,769 Uefa-qualified coaches. Compare that to Spain who have 23,995, Italy 29,420, Germany 34,970 and France 17,588. Our stats are shocking. In addition we have far more registered players than our competitors, meaning that our player-to-coach ratio is far higher than everyone else's. No wonder, then, that while each of those countries have won the World Cup or the Euros – or both – in the past 10 years, England have not won a major international trophy since 1966.
Financially it doesn't even make sense. Britain is wealthier than countries like Spain and Italy, so why do they have more coaches than us? Clearly it's not just about having loads of money, it's about how we direct our resources.
That's what I find so troubling about the government's position at the moment. Surely withdrawing the funding that helps schoolchildren to enjoy sport and exercise only adds to society's problems? It is frustrating to think that I raised these same issues concerning grassroots sport and health back in 2006. Everyone knows that less investment in mass participation sport means less success at the elite end of the pyramid. Plus – for the masses – a generation of kids who grow up as a burden to the health system we are struggling to pay for.
As a society we face an uphill battle. TV shows such as The Biggest Loser (where contestants compete to lose weight for money) and Fat Families (another weight-loss show where families are ridiculed) are seen as entertainment rather than issues to be taken seriously.
We've been moaning about sports fields being sold off for years but it's still happening. Where I live there's an old rugby field that's now being turned into a superstore. The only new fitness facility being built in our area is a David Lloyd gym, so clearly the message going out to the public is: you can be fit if you can afford to pay for it.
We hear a lot about how much money Fifa earn from a World Cup – an estimated tax-free sum of £2.1bn after South Africa 2010. It's not that I don't think the World Cup should be commercially viable – I do – but with so much money being made you'd like to think that a bigger amount goes towards the health and wellbeing of the host nation. How much of all that money will filter back into grassroots football? Is grassroots football even a priority for the organisers? Or is this just about the circus coming to town and getting paid?
On 2 December all eyes will be on Zurich and the result of the bid. I'll have my fingers crossed that we win. But I'll also have my fingers crossed that the nation doesn't lose out when it comes to the bigger picture.
But I must confess that I'm an ambassador with a touch of ambivalence. Please, don't accuse me of being unpatriotic: it is just that, in a list of priorities, health has to rank higher than entertainment and at the moment I'm not convinced that the government have their priorities right. My reservation about our political and financial resources being focused on a World Cup is that we could be spending a lot of money to be entertained without seeing much in the way of physical or long-term health benefits for the masses. It's all very well having lovely memories of a nice tournament, but what are the tangible benefits of hosting the competition?
Just as with the 2012 Olympics, the buzzword we keep hearing is "legacy". But if the government are to cut sports funding at school level then who will be around to compete in these great facilities? The 2018 World Cup is still eight years away. That should be enough time to develop a generation of footballers who could challenge for the honours. But it won't happen by itself, and it certainly won't happen if we keep taking sports money away from our kids.
I sat and watched the England game against France last week. Afterwards the pundits talked about France and how technically proficient their players are – the same old conversations. In turn, up popped the same old questions, such as: are we getting things right at grassroots level? It is a sad state of affairs when even football, the richest sport in this country, is impoverished at the bedrock level of the game.
A recent Uefa report revealed that England have just 2,769 Uefa-qualified coaches. Compare that to Spain who have 23,995, Italy 29,420, Germany 34,970 and France 17,588. Our stats are shocking. In addition we have far more registered players than our competitors, meaning that our player-to-coach ratio is far higher than everyone else's. No wonder, then, that while each of those countries have won the World Cup or the Euros – or both – in the past 10 years, England have not won a major international trophy since 1966.
Financially it doesn't even make sense. Britain is wealthier than countries like Spain and Italy, so why do they have more coaches than us? Clearly it's not just about having loads of money, it's about how we direct our resources.
That's what I find so troubling about the government's position at the moment. Surely withdrawing the funding that helps schoolchildren to enjoy sport and exercise only adds to society's problems? It is frustrating to think that I raised these same issues concerning grassroots sport and health back in 2006. Everyone knows that less investment in mass participation sport means less success at the elite end of the pyramid. Plus – for the masses – a generation of kids who grow up as a burden to the health system we are struggling to pay for.
As a society we face an uphill battle. TV shows such as The Biggest Loser (where contestants compete to lose weight for money) and Fat Families (another weight-loss show where families are ridiculed) are seen as entertainment rather than issues to be taken seriously.
We've been moaning about sports fields being sold off for years but it's still happening. Where I live there's an old rugby field that's now being turned into a superstore. The only new fitness facility being built in our area is a David Lloyd gym, so clearly the message going out to the public is: you can be fit if you can afford to pay for it.
We hear a lot about how much money Fifa earn from a World Cup – an estimated tax-free sum of £2.1bn after South Africa 2010. It's not that I don't think the World Cup should be commercially viable – I do – but with so much money being made you'd like to think that a bigger amount goes towards the health and wellbeing of the host nation. How much of all that money will filter back into grassroots football? Is grassroots football even a priority for the organisers? Or is this just about the circus coming to town and getting paid?
On 2 December all eyes will be on Zurich and the result of the bid. I'll have my fingers crossed that we win. But I'll also have my fingers crossed that the nation doesn't lose out when it comes to the bigger picture.
