College Papers

participation. the most talented athletes when in 2012

participation. sport from when the bid was won in 2005. Overall this suggests the importance of the Playing to win policy and the positive impact it had on medal winners and the increase of physical and sportResearch confirms from Tew, Copeland, and Till (2012) that the London 2012 is the ?rst Olympic and Paralympic Games to openly try and develop “socioeconomic legacies” for which their aim was clearly detailed to deliver a health legacy by getting two million more people more active by 2012″ However, Mahtani et al. (2013, cited in Chen & Henry, 2016) identified that there was a lack of evidence to support the belief that hosting an Olympic game results in an increased participation in physical activity for hosting nations. However, the DCMS Sporting Future: A New Strategy for an Active Nation (2015) policy highlights that legacy from London 2012, is that 1.65 million more people are participating in Conclusion Trust, this originally was created in 2006 before Playing to win was written. Although it began before the playing to win policy was created in 2006 as a single annual multi-sport competition, during 2010 it was developed into a chance for primary and secondary school students to compete at local and county levels. There were even competitions for the most talented athletes when in 2012 the first national final was hosted at the Olympic park. This shows the impact the Olympic games had on participation and initiatives once it was announced it was being hosted in London. Thankfully for the young people during the 2016/17 academic year 2.2 million participates had an opportunity to take part in local inter-school events. (Your School Games, 2018).Sport England, delivered by Youth Sport project is; The School Games. This is funded by sportAn example of a school How it brought change (within schools and participation)Successfully Team GB was able to finish 3rd in the medal table with a total of 65 medals, 29 of them being gold. This resulted in being Team GB’s most successful Olympic games since 1908. (Olympic Games, 2018). In the Paralympics Team GB finished 3rd in the medal table, with a total of 120 medals. Although, they tightly missed out on their desired 2nd place to Russia who achieved a medal total of 102 but narrowly missed out to 2nd place as Russia had two more gold medals. (Paralympics medals table, 2018).What the policy achieved UK Sport’s aim was simple, to be the frontrunner on the development of world-class sporting athletes, with a focus on winning medals at international championships such as the Olympic Games. To do this they wanted to create a “world-leading high-performance sporting system” that will support the development of elite athletes in years to come. As UK Sport is responsible for investing money into the development in elite athletes, the government along with UK Sport’s “ultimate goal” for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games was for their Olympic Athletes to finish 4th in the medal table Paralympic Athletes to finish 2nd. England wanted to create a community sports system to increase participation and development in sporting participants across all levels of the performance pyramid. Their aims were to increase participation by no less than 1 million consistent participants by 2012/2013 and decreasing the 16+ drop off in participants by creating state of the art sports clubs and developing coaches to develop sporting participants. (DCMS, 2008).SportYouth Sport Trust was responsible for supporting the delivery of the “PE and Sport Strategy for Young People, working with Sport England and led by DCMS and DCSF to”: grow the number of 5-16-year olds participating in at least 2 hours of PE and sport in school each week. They want to do this by creating new opportunities for 5-16-year olds to participate in a further three hours each week of sporting activity. (DCMS, 2008). However, this is easier said than done as Houlihan and Lindsey (2008) questioned whether the absence of sports clubs in lower economic areas, I school club’s links would be established as regularly as traditional ‘middle-class sports’ in middle-class areas.England and UK sport, all three had plans in place to increase participation and improve the elite athlete.Sport Trust, SportThe policy required support from, Youth How it planned to increased participation and howThe first challenge was to tackle the decline in participation in school sport. In 2002, only 25% of 5-16-year-olds took part in a minimum of 2 hours of PE and sport each week.  PE, School Sport, and Club Links, ambition was to increase this to 75% by 2006 and by 2008 aim for an 85% increase, this target was met a year early, with 86% doing at least 2 hours in 2006/07. (DCMS, 2008).England is the agency for grassroots sports within the UK. Both are accountable to the DCMS, meaning they are a department run by the government, accountable to the treasury. Government targets are set and must be followed if organizations want government funding. (Grix and Carmichael, 2012)SportOverall the policy wanted national governing bodies to target young people from all walks of life, developing a competitive structure throughout the UK; and to allow them to have access to modern sports clubs. They aimed to do this by inspiring more people to get off the sofa and playing sport, providing a fun and competitive experience which will allow individuals to succeed. This all would not be possible without UK Sport which provides funding and is the agency for elite sport and athletes in the United Kingdom. How it planned to achieve its aimsAndy Burnham Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at the time said, “Our aim is to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities, support the pursuit of excellence, and champion the tourism, creative and leisure industries”. With London 2012 in mind, there was a focus simply to win, in the first serval pages of the document Andy expressed how he wanted to expand the collection of elite athletes in England to win medals and break records. For this to be measured, a figure had to be set as a benchmark to see whether this statement could be achieved. No figure was set, however, the secretary of state at the time aimed to get 2million people more active by 2012. This can have interpreted as a change in direction or having two separate aims. However, it has been identified by Grix and Carmichael (2012) that investment in elite sport, results in better athletes, which in turn provides mass sports participation, resulting in a greater chance for elite champions of the future to be developed. This was also supported by Van Bottenburg (2002) who outlined that having role model champions in sports encourages participation of that sport. AimThis policy had a change in direction from its predecessor; A strategy for delivering government’s sports and physical activity objectives in 2002. The focus in 2002 was known as “sport as a social intervention” DCMS/Strategy Unit (2002) and due to the winning the bid of the London Olympics in 2005 the focus was now on creating a ‘playing to win’ culture in English sport. Collins (2010) acknowledged that the sports policies tend to have a sudden change in priorities but not the magnitude of going from physical activity objectives to playing to win. This suggests the importance London 2012 was going to be big for sport in the UK and how the government believed it would have a long-lasting impact on participation and future medal winners. .sportDCMS (2008) Playing to win: A new era for . This assignment will include a review of the policy, highlighting the aims of the policy, how it affected sports, how it might have increased participation in sport and if the policy proved to be a success.sport, policies are created to set out ideologies and aims for the next five years of government. In 2008 the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) created the policy: Playing to win: A new era for officeA policy is known as a governmental function, implementing action-oriented strategies focusing on achieving long-term objectives. (Davies, 2000). When a new government enters Introduction