To think elite sport isn't inclusive

[Dinosauria]

And the main reason is financial.

Lots in the news about how people should/shouldn't be included in sport and the loudest voice is that sport must be inclusive.

But it isn't, elite sport cost a lot of money, amateur sport costs a lot of money, there must be a significantly greater number of people that are excluded from sport than those that are excluded based on their biological sex.

Where is the fury when it comes to children not being able to afford to participate?

Even football/rugby grassroots is run by volunteers but still around £80-100 a year and then boots/kit etc and then match fees, fuel to and from matches etc.
Swimming, £100 per month for county level plus race fees and fuel to travel
Cycling, triathlon all have large fees and kit requirements, whilst of course it is possible to manage on a shoe string when you compete for fun as soon as it becomes more serious it becomes expensive.

Travel, hotels all become a necessity when you start competing at a higher level.

Top Olympians in the UK are four times as likely to be privately educated than the population as a whole.

Sporting bodies should be looking into this rather than denying biology.

@Nicholethejewellery hasn’t been back, has s/he/they?

Don't really know how to help if you don't understand a statement of fact.

Agreed. We have several friends whose dc are in elite sports. The money they spend is eye watering. I’m talking over £1000 month. I was saying to a mutual friend whose sibling is an elite athlete how good these dc are and that friend made a good point. Yes, there’s some science to it, but the reality is if you can afford to put your dc into 20 hrs week of gymnastics, private track club or swimming, they are always going to get a lot better than the kid who does it 45 min or 1 hr a week. I think that’s actually a good point. A very large % got their b/c their parents had the means to make that so, some sports more than others and of course there will be the odd one where that isn’t the case. For the majority their success comes down to getting to that point because of the means their parents, especially in those early days.

*there
(sorry, haven’t had my coffee yet)

I completely 100% agree. Government would be wise to invest more in school sports so that every child can have access to a sporting future. My boys go to a swim club. There are a LOT of v wealthy kids there who swim in the club AND a couple hours coaching at their private schools. Definitely an unfair advantage. The local swim club fees r v expensive, kit costs a lot etc.. swimming definitely prices out a lot families

It's not just sport though. My nephew works in the film industry and worksop top films like James Bond. But he only got there because his girlfriend's parents lived in the right location and were prepared to let them live there for a couple of years rent free and his parents could not only give him a car but finance it until he was established. And try becoming a barrister without the right support and contacts. Want to be an academic or a serious artist? Really tough if, in the early years, you need to earn a living to put a roof over your head and food on the table.

@MossyBottom

No it's not inclusive because you have to be talented and not everyone is.

Well said. You don’t get to be a mediocre sportsperson and cry ‘it’s not fair’ because they would let you play. Elite sport by its very definition is not playground sport.

@OhTedLasso

Agreed. We have several friends whose dc are in elite sports. The money they spend is eye watering. I’m talking over £1000 month. I was saying to a mutual friend whose sibling is an elite athlete how good these dc are and that friend made a good point. Yes, there’s some science to it, but the reality is if you can afford to put your dc into 20 hrs week of gymnastics, private track club or swimming, they are always going to get a lot better than the kid who does it 45 min or 1 hr a week. I think that’s actually a good point. A very large % got their b/c their parents had the means to make that so, some sports more than others and of course there will be the odd one where that isn’t the case. For the majority their success comes down to getting to that point because of the means their parents, especially in those early days.

Although in some sports, that sort of hothousing environment simply leads to them dropping out when they become seniors, because they're either sick of it or they can't cope with a more open playing field.

Whereas certainly in some sports (e.g. running, triathlon) there are still thankfully plenty of examples of elite athletes who simply dabbled in it as kids and then became successful because they had the necessary dedication and determination to train really hard. Perhaps thats becoming slightly less so now because GB team recruiters seek out talented kids. But there are at least local running clubs which anyone can join at negligible cost who will train you quite well for a small weekly fee. That in itself is dependent on their being a local athletics track, of course...

Elite sport by its very definition is not playground sport

Exactly.

But I do see where people are coming from - having wealthy (and interested) parents helps when you need to be ferried around to training and competitions (especially with the current price of fuel) and then you have the actual cost of it. Football is relatively affordable (when ds played it was about £120 a year though you'd have to add on the cost of getting to training and matches). Athletics too, it cost about £80 a year for ds including the cost of the track while he was under 18. But swimming clubs are really expensive and I imagine if you eg want to do dressage you need a second mortgage. Triathlon is expensive too - the events are expensive to do and you need all the gear, compared with running for example.

I pay £32 a year to be a member of a running club but we pay extra if we want to do track sessions. However, you can be a good runner without training at a track. The kids' athletics clubs are more expensive though, my club only takes over 18s.

It does really depend on the sport doesn't it? Things like tennis, equestrian, winter sports etc are going to be unattainable for many (although I know there are moves in tennis to make it better).

I grew up doing athletics. Athletics clubs are run by volunteers and I know that many of the poorer children had kit, busses, entry fees paid by the volunteers out of their own pocket. I think nowadays most clubs have funds for this now.

The best value sport my daughter does at the moment is climbing. It's about £8 for 1h45m including kit hire etc. Still not cheap though, although I know a couple of the talented teenage climbers are sponsored by the centre

@yellowsuninthesky

Elite sport by its very definition is not playground sport

Exactly.

But I do see where people are coming from - having wealthy (and interested) parents helps when you need to be ferried around to training and competitions (especially with the current price of fuel) and then you have the actual cost of it. Football is relatively affordable (when ds played it was about £120 a year though you'd have to add on the cost of getting to training and matches). Athletics too, it cost about £80 a year for ds including the cost of the track while he was under 18. But swimming clubs are really expensive and I imagine if you eg want to do dressage you need a second mortgage. Triathlon is expensive too - the events are expensive to do and you need all the gear, compared with running for example.

I pay £32 a year to be a member of a running club but we pay extra if we want to do track sessions. However, you can be a good runner without training at a track. The kids' athletics clubs are more expensive though, my club only takes over 18s.

Absolutely - the issue is that anybody from a poorer family is significantly less likely to ever have a chance to become an elite athlete because of the costs and situations being prohibitively expensive and inaccessible from the outset. A few kids who are noticed as being good at football or running might be given an opportunity if they are picked up on in school, but that completely excludes thousands who could be excellent at other sports.

There could be kids with the potential to become Olympic medallists in show jumping, sailing, cycling, skating, bobsleigh, rowing, skiing - but never, ever get anywhere near even trying those things because they're financially out of reach - it's a different world they couldn't ever hope to enter.

Who is going to do their best in sport when their clothing consists of a £4 pair of trainers that offers no support for overpronation or grip on multiple surfaces, so they get frequently injured? When they have a £5 triangle bra in a 32AA because it was cheap compared to £30 for a sports bra in the correct size? When they really need contacts to be able to see clearly during sport but the voucher money went on glasses? When they're freezing their arse off in a cotton t-shirt and nylon shorts when others have appropriate running gear and layers they can remove or put on as they get cold?

If somebody is head and shoulders above everybody else at age 7, great. They might get picked up by a football or athletics team if the teacher spots the talent. But the kid who has never seen a swimming pool before the age of 8 when they get their term of lessons isn't going to be swimming competitively, any more than the kid who doesn't have room in their flat to attempt a handstand or dance is going to have a chance as a competitive gymnast or ballet dancer when there are wealthier kids who have been doing it at a club/having lessons since the age of 3. A kid with an NHS wheelchair and a parent reliant upon the bus isn't going to be playing rugby, skiing or entering the marathon aged 18 when there are kids who have been bought sporting chairs to make it possible to take part in a club that's an hour's drive away for the last ten years. A child who needs a prothesis doesn't get a blade as well as a standard one from the NHS every year in case they would like to run.

It's not the case that only those who are naturally better get to become elite. It's the case that those who are naturally better AND have the finances, living situation, aspirations and support to access those activities who become the elite.

Neverdrop thank you for putting it so eloquently.

Even football at £120 plus matches can be unaffordable for one child, let alone when they have siblings.

I don't have an answer, (and I know lots of people work tirelessly to support those unable to afford it) I'm just sad there is no voice for these people.

I agree that sport isn't diverse and that perhaps there are would-be olympians who've never had the chance to try (or pursue) a sport they might have excelled at....but I can't see how this translates into allowing biological men to compete as women..?
they are separate issues.

@Fizbosshoes

I agree that sport isn't diverse and that perhaps there are would-be olympians who've never had the chance to try (or pursue) a sport they might have excelled at....but I can't see how this translates into allowing biological men to compete as women..? they are separate issues.

I wasn't addressing that - but I am prepared to.

If a kid, despite all their social and physical (poor diet due to poverty, for example) disadvantages attempts to access that sport due to having an element of talent, they're already at a disadvantage.

Now add in that they aren't just competing against girls with great diets, supportive parents, the money to support and encourage them, but there are very large, very physically able competitors who are larger, stronger, fitter due to inherent biological advantages. Their parents see their kid potentially getting flattened, left in the dust or completely overpowered, the chances are higher that their family's faith doesn't allow for getting changed in the same room as a biological male (ethnicity and poverty are linked), there's the perception that they're never going to get anywhere in the sport because there are these comparative giants winning everything.

Is it worth struggling with money, time, energy and risking severe injury when it's not just a case of being better than any other girl who has huge advantages, but that they'll never, ever, ever be able to win against somebody so physically advantaged, even if they take medication to bring them within the still far higher ranges for hormones? Chances are that the biological male is also one of those far better supported financially, practically and emotionally.

Really, when there's already next to no chance, what is the point of spending money that their parent cannot afford to try and let them pursue their dream when it's clear that it's not even money, it's basic biology that means they've got no chance at all?

It's a second barrier over and above the almost insurmountable barriers faced by kids from poorer backgrounds. Because when it comes down to it, there's no point even trying.

I can't see how this translates into allowing biological men to compete as women.

It doesn't, it shows how life is unfair. The man with the feelz is seemingly no more or less disadvantaged than the child with talent who's parents are unable to finance it. ( Seemingly as if they have the finance to do this they already have greater chances than most)

My son plays rugby in Australia where, at club level, the talented players are scouted and shunted to rugby league which is where the money is. The expensive private boys’ schools play rugby well. They will also offer scholarships to talented kids

Oh, unfortunately it is. My child likes to play tennis. We do not participate in competitions. But group classes aren't cheap either.