The Spectator magazine, has predictably taken the first cheap-shot as we near the conclusion of the Government's Spending Review.

The Spectator makes the case that sport is less deserving than the arts of public money on the present scale, given poor recent participation figures and the contention that museums like The Tate are regarded as among the elite arts institutions globally and by highlighting some interesting comparisons in funding between various arts institutions and their counterparts in sports (Olympic performance programmes, National Governing Bodies etc.).

Olympic sport in the UK is equally admired around the world, and it is interesting to compare funding between UK Sport and museums, or perhaps gallery attendances (89.4 million people attended performances, exhibitions and film screenings by Creative Industries' National Portfolio Organisations in 2011/12) with sport spectatorships (75 million attendances at UK sports events in 2012).

Nevertheless, while the arts provide a range of positive social impacts, sport plays a significantly stronger role in delivering wider positive social impacts, as recognized by DCMS' own review of the social and educational impacts of sport and culture (attached below),

"Sport has a considerable literature relevant to social impacts and might be seen to have 'turned a corner' from the previous state which was criticised by many academics as being under-researched. There are links made between individual and social benefits in some cases for sport. The arts have considerable literature relating to social impacts but not of such depth or extent as sport; and with evidence gaps."

The Arts in the UK are world-renowned and there is a strong and unified voice to highlight the strengths of the sector and make the case to the Government. Sport can learn from this and should make use of the large and ever-growing evidence base for its positive developmental outcomes and social benefits.