London 2012: Where is the Great Athletic Legacy Promised?

By: Filippos Letsas

May 8, 2015

When London won the bid to host the 2012 Olympic games, Seb Coe (who later came to be the chairman of the London Organizing Committee) promised, while giving the delegation’s victory speech, that these games would leave a different legacy than all previous competitions; Coe promised that–apart from creating unforgettable memories–the 2012 Olympics would foster the ideals of a healthy and active nation; inspire many generations to come; and function as a catalyst for positive, long-term socioeconomic growth. At the end of the day, however, it seems that instead of following a critical method of planning concerning the real impact of the games, such rhetoric was only utilized in order to justify the total cost of hosting the Games–the total amount of which reaches £9.3 billion.

Last summer, the British government published a report concerning the successful legacies that sprung from the London 2012 Olympics. Among other “success stories,” the report claims that the British economy has experienced a tremendous trade and industry boost, beating the four year target of £11 billion in about half the time, while British businesses have managed to secure significant contract wins, further sales, and improved FDI. It also highlights that the 2012 Olympics helped in promoting multiple parts of the country that were unknown to the rest of the world, while also increasing the number of international visitors to Britain by 6 percent in 2013. Finally, it stresses that the Games have generated an extraordinary legacy in volunteering, with British citizens becoming regularly active in various community-building projects, group seminars and other collaborations, and with the Join In initiative supporting more than 100,000 events across the country every year.

What this report glosses over, however, is the terrific drop in regular sport participation in Britain after the Games (especially prevalent in 16 to 25-year-olds) whose involvement has decreased by 53,000 in only a year. As a matter of fact, nowhere does this report mention that the number of Britons who play sports for at least half an hour a week has decreased by almost 150,000 in the past year, or that the decline among people from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds has almost been 500,000, as Sport England’s Active People’s surveys have revealed. The dramatic decline in these numbers raises multiple concerns regarding public health implications of increasingly inactive lifestyles for Britons; such unhealthy routines can prove to be critical factors in affecting long-term childhood obesity, signs of anxiety, and depression, as well as the risk of developing various diseases.

But why has the excitement towards athletics declined so dramatically in the post-Olympics era? One possible explanation is politicians’ wasteful and disorganized attitude towards sports. Deep cuts to local authority budgets and the lack of a suitably integrated cross-departmental plan for sports have led to the closing of various sport facilities around the country and the abatement of funded schemes that reached poorer communities. At the same time, physical education in schools continues to decline and the gap in participation figures between those who have the time, money, and opportunity to buy relevant equipment and access sport facilities, and those who don’t, widens more and more.

Understanding the real impact of spectator sports is also critical when evaluating the effect of an elite competition in sports participation. It is the same story as with the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games: viewers didn’t magically leave their sofas to fill up athletic centers. The change these Games brought about was only gradual. Some spectators were initially even demotivated to make an effort in playing sports, as they felt undermined by the spectacle of athletic excellence.

It is also important to note that female participation and involvement of disabled individuals–two key areas of focus–have declined significantly. Currently, figures reveal that 1.75 million more men play a sport regularly than women, despite the attempts of several high-profile campaigns (such as This Girl Can) to encourage more active participation among women. About 120,000 less people with disabilities are exercising once a week (compared to last year’s figures) primarily due to problems of accessibility, limited funding, and lack of good coaches willing to properly engage with them. Given this sad reality, shouldn’t it be our priority to ensure that doing sports is a feasible and attractive option for disabled people too?

To conclude, the promise that London would become the first Olympic host to deliver a healthier and more active nation in the wake of the Games was proven to be an endeavor that ultimately failed–perhaps even an elusive dream. The important questions now are: to what extent can a city hosting a major sports event generate truly lasting benefits for its people and their involvement with sports in general? What lessons can we take from the example of London on using the Olympics as a propelling force in creating a meaningful spiritual legacy to our society?

Opens in a new window