"Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success"

Henry Ford

The sports and physical activity industry is a young and constantly changing one, which covers a variety of areas. It encompasses the fun and excitement of the sports sector and the growing importance of the health and wellbeing sector. It crosses the public, private and third sector, and works across a number of Government departments. It attracts political interest (particularly when it suits politicians) and has a history of significant government and commercial funding (although the former is receding rapidly).

However, it remains a relatively new and (at times) immature industry, with its own unique and innate challenges.

Firstly, it is a very complex, somewhat nebulous and undefined sector. Its remit is spread across sport, physical activity and health, where the definition and boundaries of each are very variedly interpreted. This is reflected in how, at Government level, policy is spread across a number of departments, from DCMS and DoH to DCLG and the Treasury.

Secondly, it is disparate, encompassing a number of different types of organisation. The sector includes everything from governing bodies, whose priority is their own sport and their members, to charitable organisations who are using sport to achieve social and economic objectives. Such disparate interests and organisations mean that at times, bringing them together under one remit (such as "sport") can be nearly impossible.

Finally, it is often a divided sector. The differing objectives and priorities of the sector organisations mean that often they are working at odds with each other – or, worse, are actively opposed. This is exemplified in their relations with government, where different sector bodies will be found lobbying the same ministers for different – and often contradictory – things: a situation which ministers can find infuriating. Worse, this can then be exploited by the separate departments who deal with the sector – such as DCMS and the DoH – who themselves often struggle to work together.

However, it has been shown that the sector can work together when required. London 2012 was a prime example of how not only government departments, but also the key sports bodies worked together to produce one of the best Olympic Games of the modern area.

It would be fair to ask the question: Why does it matter? Why should the separate organisations work together? We are, without question, a great sporting nation and we have brought about sporting success in a number of different areas with the existing system.

However, there are a number of reasons why we need to do so. And probably the most significant relates to the nation's health. For, whilst the sector as it is has brought success in a number of areas, it has not yet overcome the next challenge the UK faces – the large scale inactivity of the public.

There is no question that the nation is leading towards a public health crisis.

The growing health costs for treatment arising from lack of physical activity – obesity, diabetes, heart disease – will significantly impact upon the NHS in the next decade. Obesity impacts on six in ten adults and even three in ten children and costs the NHS £162 per second. Diabetes costs the NHS £286 per second.

Cardiovascular disease costs around £30bn and Dementia costs about £23bn each year.

The new CEO of the NHS recently warned that obesity could bankrupt the NHS, whilst the latest fitness data show an increasing decline in children's fitness over the last decade.

The sport and physical activity industry can play a unique role in helping tackle the crisis.

At a strategic level it can provide the cure – in getting people more active. At an operational level, it can provide the delivery mechanisms and opportunities to facilitate participation. And at a cultural level, it has the influence and reach to change behaviours and attitudes.

However, its ability to do achieve these outcomes, and make a meaningful difference will be greatly increased if it works together as a sector.

That working together is effective has been shown in a number of areas where successful changes have been made.

For example, we have seen how sports development packages on school sites exploit fiscal savings for the parents of those children taking part – an example of the education, sport and local authorities working together to encourage children to take part in physical activity. At the same time, other benefits accrue to the schools – through increased profile and goodwill in the community – and to the local authorities – through the increase of activity opportunities for local people.

The "Cycle to Work" Scheme is an example of how the Department for Transport worked with the Treasury and the cycling sector to encourage physical activity, greener commuting and a healthier workforce. This scheme has undoubtedly stimulated participation at a much lower cost and has also offered an opportunity to rid the sector of the present "health tax" (which impacts on workers whose employer does not directly provide for their physical activity and wellbeing).

Working together can also lead to new and often transformative ways of approaching old problems. For example, the Westminster Lodge Centre in St Albans, isa local authority facility which ran at a £300,000 deficit. Working in partnership with St AlbansDC and Willmott Dixon, the centre was re-designed rebuilt and now gives the LA a trading surplus of £450,000 per annum.

There are also other innovative ways to approach ageing leisure stock and the wider question of stock rationalisation. Using leisure land to create mix use developments helps to cross-subsidise projects and schemes. For example, Westminster CC embarked on a Leisure project worth £26m, using their land to build a new Leisure Centre, community facilities and public realm initiatives in a joint venture with Willmott Dixon. The outcome was that the local authority ended up with a cost neutral position.

However, such changes require us to work together. Looking at it horizontally, this means bringing together organisations from the different areas involved – from NGBs in sport, gyms in physical activity and fitness and charities and local organisations in the community. It must also bring together those from different backgrounds – private, public and third sector and examining how, far from being in opposition, a joint approach can help them to achieve their objectives together.

From the "vertical" perspective, it means encouraging those at the top to recognise the importance of physical activity in terms of public policy and to connect, and share information, with those organisations which are "on the front line". This will not only enable key policy makers to understand what the challenges and solutions are at a practical level, but also to enable those grass roots bodies to input directly into policy making.

This is not to suggest that there are any easy answers. Even working together, there is no single solution – no silver bullet. The issue is about changing behaviours – a challenge which encompasses social, cultural, economic, and financial considerations. Not only are these challenges in themselves, but they differ between ages, genders, areas, and demographic groups.

But bringing all the different sectors of the industry, sharing information and connecting at a local level could provide the key difference in tackling these issues.

So we could do worse than follow the advice of Thomas Stark:

"The secret is to gang up on the problem, rather than each other"

Bearing in mind what we have achieved in our present form, what could we do if we worked together?

Andy Sutch is a member of Sportsgroup