An Olympic Legacy?

When Lord Coe launched London’s bid for the 2012 Olympics he said: “The Games must offer more than 17 days of world class sport and celebration.” He went on to say that he believes London has given more thought to delivering a lasting sporting legacy than any previous Olympics. Critics are now trying to ensure that organisers of the Games deliver on this legacy promise, one that would see an increase in participation in sport at grassroots level and a consequent improvement in the nation’s health and fitness.

This is primarily because there cannot yet be an informed discussion over London’s delivery of the Games, five years before the first athlete sets foot on a track in a stadium that is yet to be built. The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) has the responsibility of ensuring that London’s bid remains on track, yet there is no body solely responsible for overseeing the delivery of the sporting legacy.

London would do well learn to the lessons of Athens 2004. There, the body equivalent to the ODA, the General Secretariat for the Olympic Games, was given the responsibility of ensuring that the Olympic facilities were properly utilised. However, this responsibility was entrusted to them, along with a new title, only after the Games had finished. Fani Petralia, the deputy Culture Minister and Greece’s top Olympic official admits this was a significant oversight: “We did not have a reliable post-Olympic plan in Greece. Many venues were designed without their post-Olympic use in mind.”

Now, according to Sophia Tassopoulou of the Hellenic Olympic Committee, “Many of Athens’ Olympic stadia, including OAKA Park, are underused and there has been criticism from anti-Olympic campaigners that the public spaces upon which they were built would have better served the people if they had been left alone.”

A parallel can be drawn with the current situation in London. For instance, there is no plan for the Olympic Stadium’s use after the Games is over. Some of the fears appeared to have been eased when it was suggested West Ham might move into the stadium, but this has now been ruled out. Adrian Bassett, press officer at the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG), says: “We have not ruled out the possibility of a smaller [football] club coming in but the priority at the moment is to get the stadium ready. The ODA’s priority us to get the land cleared ready for building in the next few years.”

It is exactly this kind of short-termism that angers campaigners like Kevin Doolin, who oversees the running of the Hackney and Leyton Sunday League on Hackney Marshes. Fourteen football pitches and two rugby pitches are earmarked for development and Doolin is worried he is going to lose the marshes permanently. He says: “We are very sceptical. They promised not to touch the marshes, and now they are going to tarmac it all and put a car park in. There’s never been another space that’s been concreted and then returned as a sporting surface.”

If there is supposed to be a focus on community participation, it is hard to see how the Olympic organisers can justify the removal of a public space as big as Hackney’s East marsh. Yet the marshes are not the only sports facilities that will disappear before the Games begin. Cyclists have already lost a mountain bike track at Eastway, having been promised a comparable replacement as part of the Olympic development. Now, that promise has been scaled back, leaving a community of active cyclists without a track on which to ride and the knowledge that the replacement facility will not only be significantly smaller, at 900m, but also situated seven miles away from the previous site.

Lord Coe has said that “Medallists and world champions do more to drive participation [in sport] than anything else.” Yet if existing facilities are already being reduced, where are the future champions supposed to train? Alan Storey, British Athletics endurance coach, agrees that the best incentive to get ordinary people involved with sport is a successful British Olympic team. However, he maintains that “At the moment, the evidence is that participation in athletics is dropping. It takes around eight years to train an athlete to Olympic standard. Unless this is reversed we will have a less successful athletics team in 2012 than we do now. If the performances at the Games aren’t adequate, we won’t see an increase in participation.“

James Stibbs, press officer at the Central Council of Physical Recreation (CCPR), an umbrella organisation for some 270 sports, is adamant that not is enough is being done to fund an uptake in community sports participation of the kind likely to see new people attracted to athletics. He says: “It’s all been about cost, it’s not about cost. Our concern is that DCMS need to speak up. We really need a plan to improve participation in sport. In other Olympics it hasn’t happened and we can’t just assume that it will happen here.

“Sport England are responsible for delivering this but they need the resources and they need government backing. It’s a concern that passed 2012 there have been no targets set for increased involvement in sport. It’s up to government to demonstrate that they have a plan in place so that after 2012 we can go to government and hold them to account.”

Sport England has recently had to hand over £340 million to the ODA for spending on Olympic venues. This money is derived from lottery funding and would normally be used to sponsor local sports clubs. Stibbs fears the Olympics will be a drain on this valuable source of funding in the future.

“Lord Coe was quite open about it when he started the job – if there’s hard decisions to be made they will concentrate on delivering a successful Games. There is a lot of doubt over whether the legacy will be sustained. We have to think about how the stadiums will be used in 20 years time. If the demand is there, that’s ok, but there has been no thought on how to ensure that it is.”

The CCPR appear a lone voice in the woods precisely because the Olympic organisers have not appointed a body specifically responsible for overseeing the legacy. Sport England is best suited for the role but it is likely that it will be called upon to provide more funding for delivering the Olympics and less for encouraging the community sport participation that may ensure a successful Olympic legacy.

Having approached London 2012, it is evident that they do not have a clear idea of the revenue the event is likely to generate, in terms of tourist income, money generated from new jobs or housing Olympic teams in London and its satellite cities. In any case, with the budget currently set at a daunting £9.3 billion, it is unlikely the revenue generated by the Games will be enough to meet the spiralling costs.

With arguments over cost consequently based only on conjecture and hearsay, the true test for the Games and its organisers is the delivery of a lasting legacy of improved sporting facilities and an increase in sports participation, not, as many would have it, whether Britain can stage a successful event. While the Olympics is undoubtedly going to be a fillip for national pride and an enjoyable event in itself, London needs to ensure it is not left in the same position as Athens after the Games have finished. According to the organisers, London is ahead of schedule. The people who live in the capital will have to hope that delivery concerns will be solved in time to allow organisers to properly focus on delivering an Olympic legacy.

ENDS