The Sports Think Tank was present in Glasgow for the final party conference this Autumn – the Liberal Democrats. We attended a number of fringe events and speeches and drew the following observations from the overall event.

1. Transport, but not sport

CTC, the national cycling charity and proponents of the Get Britain Cycling campaign, hosted a fringe with transport representatives from the Liberal Democrat Party (as they did for the Labour and Conservative Conferences), but perhaps most significantly with Julian Huppert MP (Cambridge), the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group. Here there was a keen backing for increasing the Department for Transport's spending on this area, to improve infrastructure, improve safety standards, boost participation and ultimately physical activity.

2. Youth Engagement

As in Manchester and Birmingham, Sports Leaders UK spoke on the value of sport for education the role it can play in getting people physically active at a young engagement breakfast event. Nick Clegg also took time to speak to young people about their concerns on policy making, in particular the educational agenda and what vocational learning would look like, should the Lib Dems find themselves in government. This evidently showed a strong commitment from the party in this area, and resonated with the belief in the power of sport for non-formal learning and holistic development.

3. A main floor presence: Reclaiming the People's Game

While Sport didn't feature much on the fringe schedule, the Liberal Democrats did host a main floor debate entitled 'Reclaiming the People's Game'. This wide-ranging motion sought to address many of the issues that have become prominent in the professional game, for which the motion was passed (You can find full details of the motion on the Liberal Democrats website by clicking here).

Below are some observations from the debate:

i. Professional sport

The key essence to this debate was a desire to readdress the belief that football has lost touch with the society around it: placing a particular spotlight on the Premier League and the role it plays in the overall sporting spectrum in Britain. The Liberal Democrats want to ensure it invested and nurtured the community aspect of sports offer to society including youth development, creating social action opportunities and increasing physical activity, inside community and educational settings. Highlighting the reasons for the debate, Steve Bradley, the prospective parliamentary candidate for Bath, said: 'We owe to football, we owe to supporters and we owe to the rest of the world because the game began in this country, to show that you can combine sporting success with stability, with democracy and with equality. This motion seeks to save the golden goose of English football, not to kill it. Please, let's blow the whistle on the mismanagement of English football's boom and let's help ensure that it's a game that we can become even more proud of.'

ii. Governance

As one of the country's largest governing bodies, conference called for the Football Association to have sustainable and modern governing structure. This issue has already had a degree of parliamentary attention, after being scrutinised by a Select Committee inquiry first in 2010 and the debate resurfaced earlier this summer with Lord Moynihan (Conservative) proposing a new wide-ranging Governance of Sport Private Members Bill of his own.

iii. Community Responsibility

The Lib Dems' motion to seeks a 'five percent tithe on English and Scottish Premier League TV revenues to fund the strengthening of the game's grass roots and lower leagues, and to ensure greater democracy and equality within the game' This in particular contributes the wider debate on the league's promise they agreed with the FA in the late 1990s. This particular line resonates well Labour MP David Crausby's campaign from the opposition bench, who calls for an increase to a 7.5% tithe and reflects Labour's Clive Efford's proposal that the Premier League to adhere to their original promise of 5%. This could be worth a reported £50 million extra revenue each year for Grassroots football.

iv. Integrity

Part of the amendment from the Liberal Democrats bill included the following: 'Secure, long-term funding to be provided for key stakeholder groups that are promoting representation, democracy, equality and diversity within football; in return, such groups should commit to robust governance and performance agreements.' Similarly on the lines of governance structures, this signals a sincere attempt to adjust the status quo and make the football and the surrounding structures that govern in more inclusive. Edward Lord, Chair of the Amateur Swimming Association, spoke about the sexist scandals which have rocked football this year and spoke of his experiences after being dropped from the from the FA's Inclusion Advisory Board. The motion included a passage looking to reduce racism, homophobia and sectarianism at matches. The debate subsequently heard accounts from party members who wanted to push for greater inclusion of women and greater representation from the LGBT community.

v. Government legislation

Paul Baker, the Chairman of Cheltenham Football Club questioned the need for government interference in football altogether. He argued the Liberal Democrats should be working with football in order to put some of the concerns right. Furthermore, he believed that the motion was likely to add significant costs to the running of professional football, and that legislation must be the 'final straw'. Of course this raises the question when is the final straw? When the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport published their findings in 2013, the committee issued an ultimatum to English football: make the necessary reforms within 12 months or face possible legislation. To date, there has been no such action from government, so it will be interesting to observe in the upcoming months what the likely effect of added pressure from this passed bill will amount to in the wake of Greg Dyke publishing the FA's second report on grassroots football last week.

vi. Competition

While competitive sport vs non-competitive sport has been a hot topic throughout much of 2014 it has not been used in the context of the governance of professional sports such as football. The Liberal Democrats motion argued that 'Winning has become the primary motive in the sport - leading to financial risk taking, high debt levels and almost a hundred instances of club bankruptcy since 1992.' While this wasn't really touched on during the debate it reflects the strongly held view by some that club owners are driven purely by profit rather than the 'heritage of the clubs they have bought' or the interests of the fans and supporters of the clubs including offering affordable tickets, and the annual publication by all professional clubs of how much they spend on player agents and so on.

4. Finally

It was encouraging to see that the Liberal Democrats believe that sport does have a wider role in society especially amongst young people, and that certain activities, such as cycling, when well supported by other policy areas, can also have a significant role in the health of the nation. It was however, their focus on how football is governed that dominated the policy agenda: that sport and society are closely inter-winded and should mutually support each other for the benefit of all. We wait with interest as to whether this no doubt popular, but also complex issue, will form a major part of their manifesto for the next election.