Guest Blogger Martyn Allison takes up the issue of 'winners & Losers'

Over recent weeks the media have featured many interesting debates on the importance and value of sport and physical activity particularly for children, but it was the story this week about the RFU's new rules on mini rugby that caused me to tweet my frustration after a pointless breakfast TV debate! The telegraph headline typifies the nature of the debate " Rugby joins the ranks of the politically correct with 'no winners ' rules for children", claiming that the RFU have been criticised for "robbing children of motivation". This shows I think just how quickly the same old arguments about competitive sport are reopened with no reference at all to the wider issues and the value in simply getting more children more active and enjoying sport on their own terms, the point made on behalf of the RFU by Steve Grainger.

The incident made me think about my 40 years in the industry and how although we are in a very different and challenging context in terms of public expenditure and public service policy the sport sector seems to want to keep revisiting the same old debates it has had for many years. I therefore offer my analysis of the last 40 years and some solutions for debate.

40 years ago sport was mainly voluntary and unprofessional. Some individuals played it because it was fun with limited public funding and policy intervention. The 70's then saw a huge investment in facility development as the leisure centre was born and facility management became a career. This level of public investment opened the sector up to greater scrutiny in terms of public accessibility and equity. Questions were asked about the levels of participation across communities and the concept of "sport for all " was born. By the early 80's the desire to improve participation and use sport to tackle social issues lead to the birth of sports development initially through Action Sport and similar initiatives and by the mid 80's the sports development profession was created and growing fast. But with it we created the central debate that continues to plague the sector even today. Should sport be about personal and team performance, competition, excellence and elitism in the pursuit of medals and recognition or do these values collude to assist exclusion and our ambition should be to widen participation by adapting the sporting product to make it attractive to a wider audience who simply want to have a go, meet people, feel better and enjoy it. What I think Surrey RFU has tried to do with its new rules.

By the nineties these arguments continued to divide the sector and in an attempt to resolve the dispute the concept of the sporting continuum was developed. From physical education, through participation to performance and excellence. But ideology persisted to get in the way as different political leaders sought to influence Sport England and continually moved the pendulum between sport for sport sake and sport as a tool of social intervention.

The economic downturn at the end of the eighties and into the nineties brought new challenges. How do we justify with limited public expenditure resources being given to sport and leisure? The introduction of Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) provided new challenges to facility managers but provided them with excuses to ditch sports development on the grounds it required subsidy and did not generate adequate income to sustain contracts. Sports development fought back arguing the public value it adds in terms of health, wellbeing, and diversionary activity away from crime and anti social behaviour. The demise of school sport following teacher unrest and strikes also changed the landscape further stimulating new arguments about the purpose and value of sport in schools and reigniting the debate about the importance of physical education as opposed to sport and the role competition should play as clubs were encouraged to fill the gap left by teachers.

By the end of the 90's we had seen a change of government and a different approach to public service management and reform. Nationally and locally the challenge was now to better join up services and align them to the delivery of agreed priorities that tacked the big issues facing communities. Service performance was to be measured and service improvement was to be underscored by external inspection and intervention. Sport England despite its charter was becoming a direct arm of central government accountable for delivering national policy and helping measure performance in terms of increasing levels of participation. Councils were held to account for participation levels by national indicators. The legacy of CCT was now a mixed economy of leisure providers including the increasing use of trust status to bridge the gap between commercial acumen and social value. New and separate organisations emerged to champion elite and performance sport (UK Sport) and school sport (YST). Despite the desire to join up public services the sector had actually become even more fragmented and competitive.

After the turn of the millennium the potential to host the Olympics was starting to raise the profile of sport in general but the need to invest in performance and excellence sat uneasy alongside a mounting desire to see sport and physical activity as a primary tool to address health improvement, health inequality and rising obesity levels particularly in children. This again reopened the debate about the role of sport only to be resolved by the use of legacy as the long-term justification for massive investment in performance sport. As the decade moved to an end the measurement of participation started to show that it was not increasing substantially and inequality of access remained a stubborn challenge for the sector, but optimism remained high that the Olympic dust would change attitudes and behaviours once and for all. To ensure it did the political leadership switched emphasis and resources to focus on the National Governing Bodies of sport who would be challenged to adopt business and performance practises to address participation growth but with no real assessment of their ability to do so or the resourcing of the support necessary to help them. Failure to deliver increased participation would simply be met by a funding reduction. By now the Youth Sport Trust had made serious inroads into addressing the demise of school sport and activity levels were increasing.

By the end of the decade It appeared that the sector was finally getting its act together, performance management appeared to be driving management and service improvement albeit patchy, the arguments about the value of sport and physical activity in improving health were being won, sport was back on the agenda in schools, investment in new facilities were being fuelled by the growing National Lottery, governing bodies were being professionalised to deliver and the Olympics were on the horizon. What could possibly go wrong?

The new decade saw the anticipated reaction the financial crisis with a new coalition government determined to address the challenge with a massive reduction in public expenditure and reduction in the scale of the public sector. Central and local government felt the winds of change early and sport and leisure were quickly put under the spotlight for significant and immediate funding reduction. Subsidy reductions made it harder to address issues of equity, as income generation again became the priority for facility managers. Out-dated facilities would either be closed or go into gradual decline. Management capacity across the board was being reduced.

In schools ideology won the day and we saw the demise of the work of the Youth Sport Trust despite the promise of legacy. Sport in schools was again to be based on competitive traditional games and Asian Dance was certainly off the agenda. Although temporary funding was introduced when the political deals were completed the future of school sport remains uncertain.

Performance management regimes involving national indicators, inspection and intervention were dismantled as wasteful except in schools but are now returning to health and social care. The Olympics successful in many ways came and went and soon after the demands to fund elite sport into Rio brought promises of on-going cash. But the obesity time bomb and health inequality remain national and local challenges and once again becoming responsible for public health means many councils are increasingly coming to the conclusion that on-going funding and new investment in sport and leisure could only be justified if it has a health and wellbeing premium.

As a result NGBs and clubs are finding it harder to access public facilities at reasonable costs and their capacity and capability short falls are being exposed as many fail to deliver the required participation growth for Sport England. As promised decisions now follow to reduce their funding switching it to alternative organisations.

As we approach the midpoint of the decade the challenges for the sector are huge. Public expenditure will not return to its previous levels for another decade at least if ever. Faced with this reality I wonder why old arguments are reopened and factionalism and competitive driven ideology persists. Why when the RFU are prepared to adapt its product to make it more accessible to more children so that they participate, get fitter and healthier and enjoy themselves do we have to have an out-dated debate about competitive sport? Those that want to play competitive rugby up to international level can do so, it is their choice. Why when we face the biggest funding crisis we have ever faced are we not all focused and working together on simply making sport and active recreation in whatever form for what ever purpose simply accessible to more people. That should be our common goal.

So what are the solutions to the big challenge ahead? May I suggest these four priorities for further debate?

1. Either rationalise once and for all the organisational landscape (which is unlikely) or better still replace the competitive driven factionalism with a culture of real collaborative leadership.

2. Replace the current climate of ideologically driven policy making with evidence-based policy making. When we know what works let's replicate it and build on the successful learning.

3. Invest in system based performance management and build the capacity and capability of the sector to continually improve itself solely for the benefit of the customer and the wider community.

4. Invest together in improving leadership across the sector.

Let's hear your views.