How should we feel about the 'feelgood factor' at the London Olympics?

Just because you feel good

Doesn't make you right

Just because you feel good

Still want you here tonight.

Skunk Anansie, Hedonism

Prime Minister David Cameron thinks that the Olympics will create a legacy for the whole of the UK and not just London.  But, true to his earlier statements about importance of feelings and what-not, he warns that some of this legacy will be “hard to touch”.

The concept of 'hard to touch' is a strange one in an era of evidence-based policy, in which, in the words of one civil servant (presumably in thrall to the early philosophy of Wittgenstein), 'if I can't measure it, it don't exist'.  As you know, Wittgenstein abandoned his early ideas and adopted a broader view, and perhaps Mr Cameron has also been persuaded to take a more inclusive conception of reality.  Or maybe he is just worried that the only legacies of London 2012 will be immaterial.

Cameron's touchy-feeling tones when discussing the Olympics are not without precedent.  Consider this neat piece of verbal gymnastics from New Labour's Game Plan policy document, when it suggests that whilst the quantity of medals won at the Olympics is of great importance, one must not neglect the “quality” of a victory:

“‘Quality’ can be taken to be the extent to which victory produces the feelgood factor and national pride (as these are the main public benefits of high performance sport). If it is accepted that the more popular the sport, the greater the amount of feelgood which follows, then “quality” medals are those obtained in the most popular sports.”

So, according to Game Plan, the feelgood factor is a quality that can be created and changed in amount over time, and although it is admitted that it is “difficult to quantify”, there seems little room for doubting that it can have a powerful causal effect.

So what is the feelgood factor, then?  In case you thought it was something to do with happiness, or satisfaction, or well-being, or other philosophical fluff, the authors of Game Plan tell us it can all be explained with hard science:

“The biological explanation for the feelgood sensation is due to the release of endorphin in the brain. Endorphin has been called the ‘happy hormone’ and is released for different reasons, mainly physical, but also from laughter and joy, experienced by, for example, your team winning a match. Endorphin helps to reduce pain and has even been found to enhance treatment of many illnesses and diseases.”

Remember that this piece of pseudo-scientific woowoo comes from a government document; a document that is primarily concerned with justifying the future of sport in the UK, and the billions of pounds it says are needed to ensure it.

The feelgood factor has been repeatedly cited by governments and other agencies as one of the arguments for investment in elite sport in general, and the London Olympics.  In Game Plan, for example, it is listed as the first of three 'virtuous outcomes' of elite sporting success (the others are economic benefits and increased grass-roots participation).

If the Game Plan account is to be accepted, the feelgood factor really means 'improved mood'.  Perhaps you think that is a rather feeble justification for close-to £10,000,000,000,000 expenditure from London alone.

The weediness of the feelgood defence for investment in elite sport is partly due to the fact that we can easily think of more economical alternatives for generating good feelings and lifting our mood, from old episodes of Dad’s Army to Christmas with family and friends, to a smile from a secret crush.

There is a second, more fatal difficulty with the feelgood defence.  Improved mood following nice experiences is almost always short-lived.  Humans are adaptive creatures (like all creatures, in fact), and we readily adapt to changing environments.  So improved mood or satisfaction eventually results in a ‘hedonic treadmill’ by which the elevated state will not continue, even if the circumstances that promote it are maintained.

In other words, the good mood that we hope will come with the Olympic success will be short-lived, and will certainly last a lot less time than it will take to pay off the debt from the Games.

And let’s not forget that moods – like interest rates and skirt lengths – can go up as well as down.  John Steele, former CEO of UK Sport, spoke of the “the euphoria of a full Lord’s Cricket Ground … when a single Ashes test was won”.  But by the same logic, any of England’s subsequent defeats would seem destined to result in national despair.  What will happen to the feelgood factor if any of our Olympic hopefuls under-performs or is injured?

If success in elite sport (let alone second-hand, spectated success) has a potent positive effect on our mood, presumably failure has the opposite.  And if this is true, then this is a real cause for concern, as the nature of sports competition is that most players lose in the long-run.

These are not new arguments, nor particularly scholarly.  I am sure there are those among the governments and their policy makers who know that the public has been offered some pathetically weak rationale for their investment in the Games.  Personally, I’d prefer an honest explanation like, ‘Hey, it’s the Olympics.  We beat the French!’  I’d even take, ‘Look, I was a bit of a spotty geek at school; if we get the Olympics, I get to hang out with Jessica Ennis and Victoria Pendleton!'  I just wish they didn’t treat us like fools.  It doesn't feel good at all.

You have read this article david cameron / jessica ennis / London Olympics / Olympic Games / olympics / philosophy / physical activity / physical education / sport / sports / sports coaching / victoria pendleton with the title olympics. You can bookmark this page URL http://say-sport.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-should-we-feel-about-factor-at.html. Thanks!

Are the London Olympic Games Really Such a Good Idea?

Discussions of the legacy of the London 2012 Olympics have been an ever-presented theme of commentary since Sebastian Coe first made it a distinguishing feature of the UK's bid to host the Games.

Coe said:

We can no longer take it for granted that young people will choose sport.  Some may lack the facilities.  Or the coaches and role models to teach them. Others, in an age of 24-hour entertainment and instant fame, may simply lack the desire.  We are determined that a London Games will address that challenge. So London's vision is to reach young people all around the world.  To connect them with the inspirational power of the Games. (Singapore, 6 July 2005)

Ever since these stirring claims were first made, advocates have turned to the L-word every time a shot-in-the-arm of enthusiasm has been needed.

It is not difficult to imagine why such support is needed.  Increasing numbers of commentators are questioning why London, a city with no obvious problem attracting tourists or business would, is to align itself with "the Olympic movement, a juggernaut controlled by an unaccountable sporting elite".

The original London costing was a little over £3 billion, and this grow exponentially up to £9 billion, before a new government insisted on a more suitably austere budget by changing virtually nothing (and actually doubly the funding for the 'Slumdog' opening ceremony).

The figures usually cited for the 2012 Games are misleading, as they do not include the substantial investment needed to transform the UK's elite framework to its current position as one of the leading half dozen sporting nations in the world.  In the four years prior to the Athens Games (2000) the UK government invested £70.1 million.  With a haul of 30 medals (9 Gold medals), which means that each medal cost the tax-payer about £2.3 million each.  For the Beijing Games investment increased to £75 million, and the total medals won increased to 47 (£1.6 million per medal).

The pattern of spending is revealing: the more money invested, the more medals Britain wins.  This has been likened to a type of ‘sporting arms race’, as governments in pursuit of more medals invest further into elite sport because rival nations do, which in turn ratchets up further investment.  So it was that UK Sport, the government agency responsible for distributing elite sport funding, was allocated £304.4 million for the Olympic funding cycle 2008-2012.

This figure is unprecedented, and signals a remarkable commitment to the cause of elite sport.

Why?

Even outside of difficult times, we might expect the case for such expenditure to be clear and compelling.  We sports nuts are often mocked for losing our sense of proportion, but even we would hesitate from ranking a few medals about hospitals and schools.

Well, some of us would.  There are others whose uncritical love of all things Olympic reminds of Alan Partridge's justification of the outrageous cost of building a model of his own house in BBC Television Centre by betting:

"If the British public were asked whether they would prefer an Alan Partridge Christmas special to 14 kidney dialysis machines, the response would be unanimous."

The clearest statement of justification for investment in elite sport in the UK comes from a document called Game Plan, which was published in 2002.  In fact, its defence is the only one I have been able to find from central government.  Perhaps no further statement is necessary, as Game Plan's claims continue to be made and - with a few exceptions - repeated by the media. 

It is claimed that elite sport produces a number of benefits to the wider population:

1. a ‘feelgood factor’ (among the population) and a positive ‘national image’ abroad;

2. economic benefits (from spending after events and so on);

3. as a driver for grass-roots participation.

As for the claim that Olympic Games make financial sense, for the moment I will simply cite the New York Times:

• The 1992 Barcelona Games left Spain with a $6.1 billion debt;
• Athens estimated that the 2004 Games would cost $1.6 billion, but in the end it was $16 billion;
• It took Montreal nearly 30 years to pay off the $2.7 billion it owed after the 1976 Summer Games.

It doesn't follow that London will suffer a similar fate.  But it's worth bearing in mind, isn't it?

So, what about the other claims?  Will the Olympics develop positive feelings across the nation and around the world?  If it does, do these feelings balance the significant financial investment?

And will the Games drive up mass participation?

I will discuss these two vital questions in subsequent blog entries.  In the meantime, it would be fascinating to hear your thoughts.

Comments very welcome!

You have read this article legacy / London Olympics / Olympic Games / olympics with the title olympics. You can bookmark this page URL http://say-sport.blogspot.com/2012/04/are-london-olympic-games-really-such.html. Thanks!

Participant Development in Sport

LTAD?


Core skills and capabilities?


Early Specialisation?


Talent Development?


Critical Periods in Development?




There is increasing demand on coaches and teachers to keep informed of relevant research evidence, and to adapt their work accordingly.  Evidence-based practice is accepted as the default position for those claiming to be professionals in sport.


The trouble is ... Well, there are a few troubles.  For example:

• Some of the research literature is highly complex, and uses arcane jargon;
• Some of the literature seems to contradict itself; and
• There is awful lot of it out there.

Dave Collins, myself and a small group of subject experts from physiology, psychology and sociology carried out a comprehensive review of the literature on participant development in sport on behalf of sportscoachUK in 2010.

Click on the image to get a free copy.

The report turned out a lot more 'comprehensive' than we'd imagined at the start, and it is certainly the most thorough review carried on playing, developing and improving in sport.

It also includes HUGE list of references.

It offers a critical analysis of such hot topics as LTAD, early specialisation, and talent development.  It also gives an examination of the assumptions that underlie most sports development programmes.

The review was written as a reference document for sportscoachUK, and so the tone is at times quite technical.  So, we also wrote an Executive Summary, which is available by clicking the next image:

The Review team was:

Richard Bailey, PhD, RBES Ltd

Dave Collins, PhD, University of Central Lancashire

Paul Ford, PhD, University of East London (Now BOA)

Áine MacNamara, PhD, University of Limerick (now UCLAN)

Martin Toms, PhD, University of Birmingham 

Gemma Pearce, MSc, University of Birmingham 

We hope this resource proves useful, and makes some contribution to the quality of sporting experiences of all.

You have read this article education / education sport / exercise / gender / learning / Olympic Games / olympics / PE / personal skills / physical activity / physical education / player development / sport / sports / sports coaching / women with the title olympics. You can bookmark this page URL http://say-sport.blogspot.com/2012/01/participant-development-in-sport.html. Thanks!

David Cameron the 2012 Olympic Legacy

UK Prime Minister David Cameron defends the legacy of the London Olympics.




What do you think?




Do you think he sounds convincing?

You have read this article david cameron / legacy / London Olympics / Olympic Games / olympics with the title olympics. You can bookmark this page URL http://say-sport.blogspot.com/2012/01/david-cameron-2012-olympic-legacy.html. Thanks!

Funding an Olympic Legacy - thank God for Jeremy Hunt!

Billy Connolly used to joke that the Queen thinks the world smells of wet paint because everywhere she goes has been freshly re-painted!




I think of these words whenever government ministers and other official-types boast of their access to 'the voice of the people'.  How would they possibly know?  They are, after all, surrounded by people whose main function is to make sure they don't ever meet the dreadful general public, which is a demographic known to be notoriously off-message.




So, maybe be should take Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt's comments with a pinch of salt:

"I'm continually surprised by how few naysayers there are. I was expecting there to be a much higher volume. If you look at the run-up to Sydney and Vancouver, there were many, many more sceptics than there have been in the UK.

"Locog has done a superb job in helping get the public fully behind the Games. There will always be a few sceptics but the closer we get the more they are starting to realise that this is going to be an extraordinary moment and they will feel perhaps just a tinge of being a party pooper."

The simple fact is that, post-Blair, government ministers simply never get to spend time with critics and 'party poopers'.  So all of their ideas are, for all they know, marvellous, touched by genius and hugely popular.




The context of Hunt's comments was the announcement of another tranche of spending on the London Games, aiming to make the 2012 Olympics a large-scale advertisement for Britain.  This includes a £39m marketing campaign (in which a group of Brits barely known outside of Central London travel the globe with flags), and a doubling of the budget for the opening and closing ceremonies (am I alone in not really caring about these parts of a sporting event?).




Mr Hunt is also expected to announce new policies designed to address the concerns raised by ... well, pretty much everybody, about the inexplicable cuts to the budgets for school sport.

"We remain 150% true to the vision Seb [Coe] outlined in Singapore in 2005. We remain totally committed to that.  It's a difficult period in terms of public spending.  I think we've got a very good plan in place that will convince the sceptics we can deliver on a fantastic sporting legacy as well as a fantastic economic legacy."

Coe's vision of an Olympic Legacy proved to be untenable at a time when funding for PE and youth sport in England was probably more generous than in other any country in the world.  But somehow Mr Hunt claims to have discovered a way to salvage that legacy.  And presumably without lots of money.


Genius!  Or so he no doubt has been told.

You have read this article Jeremy Hunt / legacy / London 2012 / London Games / London Olympics / Olympic Games / olympics / sport / sports with the title olympics. You can bookmark this page URL http://say-sport.blogspot.com/2012/01/funding-olympic-legacy-thank-god-for.html. Thanks!