(Ebooks PDF) Download Sport Policy in Britain 1st Edition Barrie Houlihan Full Chapters

Full download ebook at ebookname.
com
Sport Policy in Britain 1st Edition Barrie

Houlihan
https://ebookname.com/product/sport-policy-in-britain-1st-
edition-barrie-houlihan/
OR CLICK BUTTON
DOWLOAD NOW
Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Routledge Handbook of Sports Development 1st Edition

Barrie Houlihan
https://ebookname.com/product/routledge-handbook-of-sports-
development-1st-edition-barrie-houlihan/
Sport Policy and Development An Introduction 1st

Edition Daniel Bloyce
https://ebookname.com/product/sport-policy-and-development-an-
introduction-1st-edition-daniel-bloyce/
Personality Traits in Online Communication 1st Edition

Barrie Gunter
https://ebookname.com/product/personality-traits-in-online-
communication-1st-edition-barrie-gunter/
Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain Natural

and Built Environment Series 1st Edition Peter Headicar
https://ebookname.com/product/transport-policy-and-planning-in-
great-britain-natural-and-built-environment-series-1st-edition-
peter-headicar/
Lung Cancer 2nd Edition Nancy G. Houlihan
https://ebookname.com/product/lung-cancer-2nd-edition-nancy-g-
houlihan/
Networking bible 1st Edition Barrie Sosinsky
https://ebookname.com/product/networking-bible-1st-edition-
barrie-sosinsky/
Ethnicity Sport Identity Struggles for Status Sport in

the Global Society 1st Edition Andrew Ritchie
https://ebookname.com/product/ethnicity-sport-identity-struggles-
for-status-sport-in-the-global-society-1st-edition-andrew-
ritchie/
Counseling for Asperger Couples 1st Edition Barrie

Thompson
https://ebookname.com/product/counseling-for-asperger-
couples-1st-edition-barrie-thompson/
Anglo European Intelligence Cooperation Britain in

Europe Europe in Britain 1st Edition Hager Ben Jaffel
https://ebookname.com/product/anglo-european-intelligence-
cooperation-britain-in-europe-europe-in-britain-1st-edition-
hager-ben-jaffel/
Sport Policy in Britain
Barrie Houlihan is Professor of Sport Policy at Loughborough University

and also Visiting Professor at the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo
Iain Lindseyy is Senior Lecturer in Sports Development at Edge Hill University

Routledge Research in Sport, Culture and Society
1 Sport, Masculinities and the 9 Critical Readings in

Body Bodybuilding
Ian Wellard Edited by Adam Locks and Niall
Richardson
2 India and the Olympics
Boria Majumdar and Nalin Mehta 10 The Cultural Politics of Post-
9/11 American Sport
3 Social Capital and Sport Power, Pedagogy and the Popular
Governance in Europe Michael Silk
Edited by Margaret Groeneveld,
Barrie Houlihan and Fabien Ohl 11 Ultimate Fighting and
Embodiment
4 Theology, Ethics and Violence, Gender and Mixed
Transcendence in Sports Martial Arts
Edited by Jim Parry, Mark Nesti Dale C. Spencer
and Nick Watson
12 The Olympic Games and
5 Women and Exercise Cultural Policy
The Body, Health and Beatriz Garcia
Consumerism
Edited by Eileen Kennedy and 13 The Urban Geography of Boxing
Pirkko Markula Race, Class, and Gender in the
Ring
6 Race, Ethnicity and Football Benita Heiskanen
Persisting Debates and Emergent
Issues 14 The Social Organization of
Edited by Daniel Burdsey Sports Medicine
Critical Socio-Cultural
7 The Organisation and Perspectives
Governance of Top Football Edited by Dominic Malcolm and
Across Europe Parissa Safai
An Institutional Perspective
Edited by Hallgeir Gammelsæter 15 Host Cities and the Olympics
and Benoît Senaux An Interactionist Approach
Harry Hiller
8 Sport and Social Mobility
Crossing Boundaries
Ramón Spaaij
16 Sports Governance,
Development and Corporate
Responsibility
Edited by Barbara Segaert, Marc
Theeboom, Christiane Timmerman
and Bart Vanreusel
17 Sport and Its Female Fans

Edited by Kim Toffoletti and Peter
Mewett
18 Sport Policy in Britain

Barrie Houlihan and Iain Lindsey
Barrie Houlihan and Iain Lindsey
NEW YORK LONDON

First published 2013
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Simultaneously published in the UK
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group,
an informa business
© 2013 Taylor & Francis
The right of Barrie Houlihan and Iain Lindsey to be identified as authors
of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and
78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Houlihan, Barrie.
Sport policy in Britain / Barrie Houlihan, Iain Lindsey.
p. cm. — (Routledge research in sport, culture and society ; 18)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Sports and state—Great Britain. 2. Sports—Political aspects—
Great Britain. 3. Sports administration—Great Britain. 4. Sports—
Social aspects—Great Britain. I. Lindsey, Iain. II. Title.
GV706.35.H689 2012
306.4'830941—dc23
2012013300
ISBN: 978-0-415-87483-0 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-203-09427-3 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by IBT Global.
Iain would like to dedicate this book to his father who, with
his love of sport and ongoing thirst for knowledge, was and
continues to be a wonderful role model and guiding in uence.
Contents
List of Figures xi
List of Tables xiii
1 The Framework for Analysis 1
2 John Major’s Conservative Governments 25
3 From New Labour’s Modernisation to

the Coalition’s Big Society 49
4 The Impact of Devolution on Sport Policy 76
5 Elite Success and/or Increased Participation 105
6 The Forgotten Partner: Local Government 128
7 Youth Sport 156
8 Continuity and Change in British Sport Policy 181
Notes 205
References 207
Index 227
Figures
5.1 Sport policy clusters of interest, 2012. 106

5.2 Percentage of adults who have participated in sports at least
once in the last 4 weeks and at least 3 30-minute sessions of
moderate intensity in the last week, 2005/06 to July 2010–
June 2011. 121
Tables
1.1 Dimensions of Change 4

1.2 Levels of Beliefs and Policy 9
1.3 Policy Change and Policy Instruments 11
1.4 Selected Major Macro-Level Theories and Sport Policy 13
4.1 Landmarks in Progress towards Devolution: Scotland,
Northern Ireland and Wales 77
4.2 Change in Public Expenditure on Sport in Scotland 2002–
03 to 2010–11 80
4.3 Dimensions of Divergence 102
5.1 Continuity and Change: From the Conservative Government
of John Major to the Coalition Government of David
Cameron, 1995–2012 112
5.2 Trends in Participation in Sport (Excluding Walking) 1987
to 2002. Adults in Great Britain Aged 16+ Participating on
at Least One Occasion in the Previous Four Weeks 120
5.3 Trends in Participation in Sport 2005/6 to April 2011.
Participation by Adults (16+) in England in at Least 3
30-Minute Periods of Moderate-Intensity Sport per Week 121
5.4 UK Performance at the Olympic Games 1992 to 2008 123
5.5 Funding (Estimates) and Olympic Medal Success 1992–
2008 124
5.6 A Comparison of Elite and Community Sport Policy
Implementation with Gunn’s Ideal Typical Model of Top-
Down Implementation 126
1 The Framework for Analysis
The period since 1990 has been one of the most signifi ficant for British sport
since government began to take a sustained interest in the policy area in
the mid-1960s. What was, in the late 1980s, a largely neglected backwater
of public policy has experienced a rapid increase in political attention lead-
ing to a plethora of policy initiatives and a substantial increase in public
funding. The purpose of this book is to provide an analysis of the nature
and extent of change in the fortunes of British sport. It is argued that since
the early 1990s there has been signifificant change across a range of dimen-
sions of sport policy and especially in relation to: the salience of sport to
government; the allocation of government resources associated with sport;
the machinery of government concerned with sport; and the distribution of
power in the policy sub-sector.
The analysis in this book is focused on developments in policy related
to community, elite and school sport, but is concerned mainly with the
non-commercial providers and aspects. While it is acknowledged that
the government has a signifi ficant role in regulating elite sport within the
commercial sector (professional football, rugby, tennis et cetera) and in
shaping the business environment of the commercial fitness fi sector, the
activities of the government or the state more broadly in these areas of
sport provision are not the central concerns of this study. As regards the
geographic focus of the book, it is acknowledged that much of the sub-
stantive focus is on sport policy which operates at the UK level (mainly
elite athlete development) and at the England level (for example, in the
chapters that deal with local government and with youth sport). However,
the impact of devolution is a theme that runs through the study and is
dealt with explicitly in Chapter 4.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF 1990
Nineteen ninety was an important year in British politics in general and,

as would soon become clear, for sport policy. Margaret Thatcher, who
had been prime minister for over eleven years and who had resigned in
November 1990, had had a profound impact on British politics and on the
role of government. Her successor, John Major, shared many of her princi-
ples, especially in relation to the role of government and public expenditure
(which should both be limited). However, where he diff ffered signifi
ficantly
from his predecessor was in relation to his view of the relationship between
the individual and society and in his attitude towards sport. Whereas
Margaret Thatcher adopted an atomistic view of ‘society’ as comprising
a collection of utility maximising rational actors, John Major took a view
which was closer to ‘one-nation’ Conservatism and its acknowledgement
of national and local community. More signifi ficantly for this study, he was
passionate about sport and, although a reluctant interventionist, he suc-
cessfully placed sport back on the public policy agenda.
In the early 1990s sport was a policy sub-sector which was underre-
sourced, lacking in strategic leadership and on the margin of the govern-
ment’s agenda. When sport forced itself to the attention of government
it was often through crisis. Yet by the end of the decade sport was being
promoted by a number of senior politicians as a source of social capital
and national pride. Given this history of relative neglect during Margaret
Thatcher’s time as prime minister, it is not surprising that there was a lack
of clarity within public organisations, especially the Sports Council, about
the public policy objectives of sport. Writing of the time, David Pickup,
the Sports Council’s director-general, commented that ‘we were constantly
vexed by the studied lack of any specifi fic endorsement—or even rejection—
by the government of those earlier strategies [Sport in the Community: The
Next Ten Years, published in 1982, and Into the Nineties: A Strategy for
Sport 1988–1993, published in 1988] . . . It has regrettably to be added that
the corporate plans were no more productive of a specifi fic Departmental
endorsement’ (1996, p. 53). While the Sports Council was busy formulating
policy (in relation to important issues such as equity of access to sport and
the nature of the sport development continuum), their internal discussions
were taking place in a public policy vacuum.
As regards the machinery of government associated with sport, the pic-
ture was one of competing agencies, overlapping jurisdictions and role con-
fusion. Not only did the GB Sports Council have a confusing dual remit for
UK-wide issues and for English issues, but also the division of responsibility
between the GB Sports Council and the three ‘home country’ sports coun-
cils was very unclear. There was also a degree of role confusion insofar as
the GB Sports Council, at times, acted as though it were an advocate on
behalf of sport rather than an agent of government (albeit masked by the
fiction of a Royal Charter). Pickup again captures accurately the lack of
clarity within government in this period over the roles and responsibilities
of the agencies:
As far as functions are concerned, [Minister for Sport] Iain Sproat’s

statement of 8 July 1994 shed little light upon the matter [of reform
The Framework for Analysis 3
of the GB Sports Council]; replete with ambiguities and confusion, it
sought to present any future English Sport Council’s involvement with
‘mass participation’ as unnecessary whilst encouraging it to promote
‘grassroots’ activity. He also envisaged both the planned UK Sports
Council and all four Home Country Councils as having some responsi-
bilities for promoting sporting excellence, but was impenetrably vague
as to how the UKSC might, in practice, achieve any sensible co-ordina-
tion of eff
ffort (1996, pp. 209–210).
Other sport organisations operated within a broader sports landscape

which was fragmented and resource-poor with the consequence that they
were routinely excluded from policy debates. National governing bodies
(NGBs) retained a high degree of autonomy from the state due in part
to their preference, but also in part due to their lack of capacity to lobby
eff
ffectively and to the state’s lack of interest in hearing their opinions. Local
authorities had proved ineff ffective in resisting privatisation of the manage-
ment of sport and leisure centres and were generally considered to be an
impediment to the ambitions of the Thatcherite wing of the Conservative
party to reduce the size of the state. Schools were grappling with the imple-
mentation of the National Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE) and
still recovering from the damaging consequences of the introduction of
local fi nancial management of schools and the teachers’ dispute with the
government in the mid-1980s, both of which had signifi ficantly reduced the
extent of extracurricular sport.
John Major’s appointment as prime minister came at a time when the
sport sub-sector was underresourced and fragmented, characterised by
ineffective
ff leadership and little sense of purpose and direction. The few
indicators of effffectiveness of sport policy that were available at the time
painted a mixed picture. Somewhat ironically, 1990 marked the high point
of sport participation (48 per cent of adults participated in sport—walk-
ing excluded—in the previous four weeks). However, this was more likely
the result of the release of latent demand made possible by the building
of facilities in the late 1970s and early 1980s than successful activity by
sport development staff ff. Less positive were the difffferences in participation
levels between genders (19 percentage point gap between men and women’s
participation), social classes (37 percentage point gap between professional
and unskilled manual) and age groups (a 44 percentage point gap between
the 20–24 years age group and the 60–69 years age group). As regards
indicators of success at the high performance level, the British team at the
summer Olympics in 1992 achieved a modest 13th place in the medal table
before a disastrous 36th place in Atlanta four years later.
In the intervening period it would appear that this rather bleak picture
of sport policy, provision and impact has been radically changed with sport
having established ministerial representation in the Cabinet, having also
benefi fited signifi
ficantly from almost 15 years of national lottery funding,
Table 1.1 Dimensions of Change
4
Dimension 1980s Mid-1990s Early 2010s
Salience of sport to government Low Increasing following John Major’s Consistently and signifi
ficantly higher
appointment as PM than in the 1980s
Public policy objectives for sport Vague, except in response to Emerging strong focus on Reasonably firmly established around
(direct and indirect) specifi
fic problems (e.g. football school and elite level sport youth participation, elite success,
hooliganism) when they event hosting and sport’s contribu-
were confused tion to health improvement and
improved educational standards
Machinery of government Neglected and with limited Reduction in overlapping remits Still complex
concerned with sport resources; confused (due to establishment of UK Sport);
overlapping remits appointment of a Minister for Sport
and establishment of a ministry
responsible for sport. Still very
complex
Broader national landscape of sport Fragmented and labyrinthine; only Fragmented and labyrinthine; only Much closer integration between the
limited contact between public, not- limited contact between public, not- public and not-for-profit
fi sectors
for-profit
fi and commercial sectors for-profit
fi and commercial sectors
Distribution of power in the policy Lobbying capacity weak in both Increasing lobbying activity by Cen- A more vigorous policy network with
sub-sector the not-for-profit
fi and commercial tral Council for Physical Recreation, more eff
ffectively organised interests
sectors national governing bodies of sport especially in relation to elite sport
and BISL (Business in Sport and and youth/school sport.
Leisure)
Sport policy outcomes Limited connection between public Significant
fi increase in resources avail- Tighter integration between public
policy inputs and sport outcomes able to central government to shape and not-for-profit fi sectors; NGBs
sport (via the national lottery) increasingly the agents of govern-
ment policy; substantial success in
increasing participation in school
sport and also in winning Olympic
and Paralympic medals
being able to point to a signifificant increase in participation among school-
children and having achieved considerable success at the Beijing Olympic
and Paralympic Games in 2008. However, progress had not been uniformly
positive as sport organisations still operated within a complex (and often
fractious) organisational landscape and participation levels remained stub-
bornly static and variable by class, gender and age. Table 1.1 provides a
summary of the contrast.
In the period since 1990 there has arguably been a significant
fi transfor-
mation in the status and impact of sport policy. The primary aim of this
book is to analyse the character and signifi ficance of the changes that have
taken place in relation to the government’s policy towards, and forms
of intervention in, sport. A necessary complementary aim is to identify,
assess and utilise a set of concepts and analytic frameworks which will
help in fulfifi lling the book’s primary aim. With these two aims in mind,
this chapter continues with a review of concepts and frameworks which
have proved to have the greatest utility in previous analyses of sport policy
or which have been developed in the general discipline of policy analysis
and which are considered to have the potential to make a contribution
to the examination of sport policy. It is argued that eff ffective analysis of
policy is only possible through the application of concepts and analytic
frameworks which off ffer not only the opportunity to recognise patterns
and processes in policy development, but which also provide a rigorous
challenge to the conventional wisdom and easy empiricism. With these
concerns in mind, the fi nal chapter will provide both conclusions regard-
ing the nature, extent and process of policy change in sport and also an
examination of the utility of the concepts and frameworks introduced in
the remaining sections of this chapter and the degree to which they pro-
vided insights into the policy process.
ANALYSING CHANGE IN SPORT POLICY
The study of policy change involves the search for, and analysis of, pat-
tern, trends, key events, continuities and breaks with the past with the
aim of giving meaning to a collection of events and policy decisions in
a particular time period: in other words, to move beyond the mere cata-
loguing of events through descriptive research to an understanding of the
deployment of power and the protection and promotion of interests. In
order to obtain an accurate perspective on the scale and nature of change
in a particular policy area, it has been argued that a period of at least
ten years is required (Sabatier 2007). However, even a period of ten years
may not be suffi fficient to identify policy trends or watersheds that mark
signifi
ficant policy transitions. Uncertainty about the temporal parameters
of policy analysis arises, in part, from uncertainty regarding the nature
of policy itself and particularly what constitutes signifi
ficant policy change.
Policy may be defi fi ned in a number distinct ways, for example, as aspiration
and symbolism or as action and process. Contemporary sport policy in the
United Kingdom (UK) is replete with aspirational statements and symbolic
flourishes. Recent examples of aspirational statements include that from
UK Sport, which identifi fied one of its three ‘corporate themes’ as being
to promote ‘UK Sport to win and maintain the respect, trust and engage-
ment of everyone with whom we interact’ (UK Sport 2010, p. 10). In Game
Plan, one of the recommendations was ‘To encourage a mass participation
culture . . . A benchmark for this could be Finland’ (DCMS/Strategy Unit
2002, p. 80). More recently, Sport England stated that it aspired to ‘create
a world-leading community sport environment, as part of the legacy of the
2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games [and to establish] a lifelong sport-
ing culture in this country [which] will change sport from a minority to
a majority pastime’ (Sport England 2010, p. 9). Sport Northern Ireland’s
stated vision is to develop ‘ . . . a culture of lifelong enjoyment and success
in sport . . . ’ (Sport Northern Ireland 2009b, p. 7). While many would
question whether these aspirations were feasible, few would argue that they
were not laudable. More importantly, in relation to all of these organisa-
tions a strong case could be made that even if their mission statements and
goals were overambitious the sentiments that they incorporated have been
supported, even if only modestly, by the commitment of resources—that is,
policy as action and process.
Unfortunately, identifying action (the commitment of resources such as
time, money, expertise, personnel and political support to the achievement
of realistic objectives) is not always straightforward. The outputs of the
political system can take a range of forms only some of which would meet
this defifi nition of action. Indeed, in sport there are many examples of policy
outputs which are simply policy re-branding or organisational tinkering
such as the establishment of the Sports Cabinet and the proposed merger of
UK Sport and Sport England.
In relation to policy change, the acceptance in the mid-1960s that sport
fell legitimately within the remit of government was equivocal rather than
wholehearted and policy interventions were sporadic and generally discon-
nected rather than continuous and strategic. In the period immediately
prior to Major’s appointment as prime minister, the governments of Mar-
garet Thatcher displayed little interest in sport apart from the obligatory
photo opportunities (being kissed by Kevin Keegan before the departure of
the England team for the 1982 World Cup finals was probably the prime
minister’s most intense sporting experience). When sport did intrude into
the consciousness of the prime minister, it was almost always in a negative
context, as two of the most prominent sports issues of the 1980s were foot-
ball spectator violence both at home and abroad involving the supporters
of English football clubs and stadium safety (a fi re at Bradford City FC sta-
dium in 1985 and a crowd surge at Hillsborough stadium in 1989, both of
which resulted in substantial loss of life). Apart from the attempt to tackle
the issues of spectator violence and stadium safety, the government’s most
signifificant impact on sport was as a consequence of its general commitment
to privatisation of public services which aff ffected public sport facilities due
to the requirement that local authorities should put the management of
their facilities out to competitive tender.
The appointment of John Major as prime minister in November 1990
appeared to mark an important break with the past. In addition to very
diff
fferent levels of personal interest in sport, the period of John Major’s
premiership contrasted sharply with that of his predecessor most nota-
bly in terms of fi nancial investment (which increased considerably due
to the introduction of the national lottery), administrative reform (for
example, the establishment of sportscoach UK, UK Sport and the Depart-
ment of National Heritage) and strategy development (a signifi ficant policy
document in 1995, the fi rst in 20 years). However, the apparent clar-
ity of the break with the past needs to be put in perspective. First, it is
important to note that increased public investment, administrative reform
and publication of strategy documents were evident across most areas of
public policy, certainly from the mid-1990s. In education, for example,
Chitty (2004) notes that between 1944 and 1979 there were only three
significant
fi education acts, but between 1979 and 2000 there were over
30 separate education acts. The last 20 years or so has not only witnessed
an increase in legislative output by government but also an increase in
administrative tinkering.
Caution in accepting 1990 as a watershed in sport policy is required
for a second reason, which is the methodological problem in identifying
specifific periods. Debates concerning historical periodisation warn against
the premature identifi fication of periods and emphasise that period identifi fi-
cation depends on the historical characteristics or variables that are con-
sidered signifi ficant. Attempts at periodisation invariably bear the imprint
of their time of origin. More importantly, the erroneous imposition of a
period on a series of events or policy developments can obscure analysis
as the researcher attempts to make the data fit fi the defifi ning characteristics.
The historian Fernand Braudel warned against ‘scholars who . . . first fi create
these signs and then glue them on their precious bottles, to end by giving
the signs authority over their content’ (quoted in Gerhard 1956).
In this respect it is valuable to adopt a metaphor of levels of change in
relation to sport policy, as this alerts the researcher to the danger of ascrib-
ing signifificance and ‘period’ status on the basis of relatively superfi ficial or
epiphenomenal events. For example, at the superfi ficial level one might point
to actions by the state which affect
ff the distribution of resources, the estab-
lishment of new, or the reform of existing, administration structures, the
change in the use of national lottery funding or change in the criteria for
allowing national governing bodies of sport access to world class perfor-
mance funding for their elite athletes. At a deeper level, change would be
located in actions by the state which altered its long established relationships
with civil society sport organisations such as national governing bodies or
the place of physical education in the school curriculum. At a much more
profound level are the changes in societal values which directly or indi-
rectly impact on sport. Change at this deep societal level would include
public acceptance that intervention in sport was a proper concern of gov-
ernment or that women or those with disabilities have the same right to
participate in sport at the elite level as male able-bodied athletes. It would
be possible to identify periods at each of these levels with the length of the
period increasing with depth of change.
A number of writers have utilised a metaphor of levels in policy analysis
with the work of Sabatier and colleagues being particularly useful. A cen-
tral aspect of their advocacy coalition framework (ACF) is the role played
by ideas in shaping the direction, nature and pace of policy change. The
ACF conceptualises a three-tiered structure of beliefs: deep core beliefs;
policy core beliefs; and secondary beliefs. Deep core beliefs are ‘very gen-
eral normative and ontological assumptions about human nature, the rela-
tive priority of fundamental values such as liberty and equality, the relative
priority of welfare of difffferent groups. The proper role of government ver-
sus markets in general, and about who should participate in governmental
decision making’ (Sabatier and Weible 2007, p. 194). At a slightly less pro-
found level are a set of policy core beliefs which affffect a whole subsystem
and are the application or operationalisation of deep core beliefs. Policy
core beliefs would indicate, for example, ‘the priority of diff fferent policy-
related values, whose welfare counts, the relative authority of government
and markets, the proper roles of the general public, elected officials,
ffi civil
servants, experts, and the relative seriousness and causes of policy problems
in the subsystem’ (Sabatier and Weible 2007, p. 195). At the finalfi level are
secondary beliefs which are ‘relatively narrow in scope (less than subsystem
wide) and address, for example, detailed rules and budgetary applications
within a specifi fic programme, the seriousness and causes of problems in a
specifific locale . . . ’ (Sabatier and Weible 2007, p. 196). Secondary beliefs
are more flexible and open to change. Table 1.2 provides examples of how
the concept of a hierarchy of beliefs and levels of policy might be illustrated
in relation to sport.
As the foregoing discussion indicates, it is important to take a sceptical
approach to claims that a particular event or policy represents a watershed
in the development of public policy in a specifi fic subsystem. It is important
to bear in mind that what might appear a profound shift in policy might,
with the sharper perspective that temporal distance gives, appear as more
incremental and part of a longer term pattern in policy development. For
example, it is open to debate whether the sharp shift in sport policy fol-
lowing the resignation of Margaret Thatcher and the appointment of John
Major marked the beginning of a new period in the history of government
involvement or whether the Thatcher years should be seen as a relatively
short break in the longer term trend of increasing government involvement
Table 1.2 Levels of Beliefs and Policy
Examples of beliefs
Level related to sport Examples of policy
Secondary beliefs/ • Hosting major sports • Allocating responsibility

surface level policy events reflflects positively and resources to a govern-
on a country ment department/agency
• All Olympic gold medals • The identifification of sports
are of equal value irrespec- where a country has some
tive of the sport in which relative advantage
they were won
Policy core beliefs/ • International sporting • Allocation of resources in
substantive policy success projects a positive pursuit of Olympic medals
image of a country • Investment by government
• Young people’s participa- in school sport provision
tion in sport builds positive and in competitive sport
personal characteristics
Deep core beliefs/ • Sport participation • Introduction of regulations/
profound policy is appropriate/ processes to require funded
underpinnings inappropriate for women sport organisations to
• Sport is a frivolous/serious increase sports opportuni-
pastime/career ties for women
• Regulations which deter-
mine the status (compulsory
or optional) of sport/physi-
cal education in the school
curriculum
in sport. Thus it could be argued that John Major’s increasing interven-

tionism picked up where the previous Labour government sports minister,
Denis Howell, left offff in 1979 rather than marking a break with the past.
With regard to the related example of modernisation, one could argue that
the strong association between the Blair government and the modernisa-
tion of the institutions of government and civil society was a distinctive
New Labour policy and marked a break with the more ideologically driven
reforms of the previous administration. Indeed, as will be discussed below,
both UK Sport and Sport England were tasked with promoting the mod-
ernisation of national governing bodies of sport and their constituent clubs.
However, a contrary interpretation would be that rather than modernisa-
tion being a New Labour innovation, a strong case can be made that New
Labour was continuing a process championed by the previous Conservative
governments under the banner of new public management. Indeed, it is also
arguable that the modernisation of the civil service has a much longer his-
tory which can be traced back to the Northcote-Trevelyan report published
in 1854 (Burnham and Pyper 2008).
In summary, while periodisation is attractive as a way of organising
empirical data about a policy area, it is a concept that should be used with
caution as continuity has the habit of breaking through the most deter-
mined attempts to change policy direction. With this admonition in mind,
the time span which is the focus for this study should be treated at this point
in the analysis as having no signifificance beyond the fact that it marked the
end of the time as prime minister of a particularly dominant personality in
twentieth-century British politics and also that 1991 was the date when one
of the present authors published his previous analysis of British sport policy
(Houlihan 1991). Whether the span covered by this study deserves the defifi
nition as a distinct policy period will be discussed in the conclusion.
A related approach to assessing policy change is through a closer anal-
ysis of the particular instruments or resources used to eff ffect change. A
number of authors have proposed either directly or indirectly typologies
of policy instruments (Lowi 1964, 1972; Hogwood 1987; Hood and Mar-
getts 2007). Many of them are variations or expansions of the basic trio of
policy instruments, namely inducements, threats and marketing. Lowi, for
example, although referring to types of policy issues, provides a typology
of responses to issues, suggesting that governments respond to issues in
one or more of the following ways: distribution, redistribution, regulation
and changes to administrative arrangements. Hood and Margetts provide a
diff
fferent typology, but one that has substantial overlaps with that of Lowi
insofar as it identifi
fies the resources that underpin the selection and deploy-
ment of particular instruments or combination of instruments. For them
there are four basic resources available to government: nodality (the fact
that government tends to hold a central strategic position in terms of flow fl
of information); authority (to make and enforce regulations and laws); trea-
sure (money which can be distributed or exchanged for other resources);
and organisation (administrative capacity and expertise).
In order to develop a clearer understanding of the significance
fi of instru-
ment design and deployment, it is important to relate them to the intended
policy change. Hall (1986) provides a valuable typology identifying three
levels or ‘orders’ of policy change. First-order changes are alterations to the
intensity or scale of an existing policy instrument, an example of which
in relation to funding would be the decision in March 2006 by the UK
government to provide an additional £200m to help prepare athletes for
the 2012 London Olympic Games. Second-order changes are those that
introduce new policy instruments designed to achieve existing policy objec-
tives: examples of which would include the designation of some secondary
schools as specialist sports colleges as a way of improving the quality of
physical education teaching and increasing opportunities for participation
in sport. Finally, third-order changes are those that involve a change in
policy goals of which the short-lived decision by the government in the
early 2000s to prioritise increased physical activity rather than more nar-
rowly defi fi ned sport would be an example.
Table 1.3 Policy Change and Policy Instruments
Underpinning resources Nodality—Authority—Treasure—Organisation

which
enable the selection from Inducement/ rewards—Sanctions—Information/education/social marketing
clusters of instruments
...
. . . which engineer Distribution of resources Redistribution of Regulation Administrative (re)design
change through . . . resources
. . . and thus deliver diff
fferent orders of change, for example, in relation to elite sport
Change to existing Increasing the level of Diverting resources from Relaxing the tax regula- Establishing a commit-
instruments Exchequer funding or other government bud- tions to make corporate tee to coordinate the
increasing the share of gets, such as school sport donations to elite sport activities of the agencies
national lottery funding or community sport, to projects more attractive concerned with elite
the elite sport budget sport development
Introduction of new Introducing new sources Decision to import Introduce criteria Establishing a specialist
instruments of funding such as new excellent coaches rather (regulations) which administrative agency
lottery games than develop home- determine access to to oversee elite sport
grown coaches elite sport funding investment
Adoption of new policy Direct funding to a Diverting funds to a Relaxing the tax regula- Establishing a specialist
goals country’s best medal country’s best medal tions to make corporate unit/agency to pursue
prospects prospects and away from donations to specific fi new policy objectives
a country’s best athletes summer Olympic sports such as improved elite
(if the latter are compet- more attractive level coaching, talent
The Framework for Analysis
ing in sports where the identifification or chil-

quality of competition is dren’s play
11
especially high)
Table 1.3 combines these typologies of resources and instruments and
illustrates their potential application in relation to elite sport. The impor-
tant aspect of the table is the dimension of depth derived from Hall’s notion
of orders of change. What Hall’s conceptualisation suggests is that water-
sheds in policy are far less likely to be defifi ned by doing more of the same
(that is, simply adjusting existing patterns of resources, regulation and
administration intended to better achieve the same set of policy goals). The
break with the previous period is more likely to be defi fi ned by a signifi
ficant
change in policy goals.
FRAMEWORKS FOR ANALYSING POLICY CHANGE
Although this study utilises frameworks developed for meso-level analysis,

that is, frameworks intended to analyse policy at the sectoral or subsystem
level, it is important to bear in mind that each meso-level framework or
approach has its roots in assumptions at the macro level, which include,
inter alia, those about the distribution of power at the societal level, the
signifificance of the pursuit and protection of sectional interests, the signififi-
cance of ideas (whether as myths, evidence or ideology, for example) and
the relationship between the state and civil society. In addition, each of the
major macro-level theories sensitises the researcher to diff fferent aspects of
the policy process as illustrated in Table 1.4.
While it is not within the scope of the present study to articulate and
explore in detail the implications for policy analysis of macro-level theo-
ries, it is important to bear in mind that meso-level analytical frameworks
are not value free and are derived from the often highly contentious and
ideological theorisations at the societal level. There are a number of excel-
lent summaries and examinations of macro-level theory which can be con-
sulted for a more detailed engagement with this level of analysis. Parsons
(1995) and Howlett and Ramesh (2003) provide valuable reviews of the
main elements of a selection of the major theories, while Dryzek and Dun-
leavy (2009) and Hay, Lister and Marsh (2006) provide more sustained
explorations of contemporary macro-level theorising. There is also a sub-
stantial body of work which explores the application of macro-level theo-
rising to sport, including Giulianotti (2004), Morgan (1994), Carrington
and McDonald (2009), Hargreaves (1986a), Horne, Tomlinson and Whan-
nel (1999) and Jarvie and Maguire (1994).
The number of studies which have explicitly utilised meso-level frame-
works to inform the analysis of aspects of UK sport policy is growing, but
is still small. For example, Parrish (2003) and Green and Houlihan (2004,
2005) have drawn upon the advocacy coalition framework in their studies of
the emergence of European Union sports law and elite sport policy change,
respectively; Houlihan and Green (2006) have utilised the multiple-streams
framework in relation to the development of school sport in England; and
Table 1.4 Selected Major Macro-Level Theories and Sport Policy
Dimension Neo-Marxism Governance Neo-pluralism Market liberalism
Unit of Social classes Policy networks and Interest groups Markets and individuals
analysis subsystems
Role of Under Marxism the state is Due to increasing complexity The state is an active Argued that markets maxi-
the state an instrument of the ruling of social issues, governments participant in making mise social welfare and that
capitalist class: Under neo- seek to act in partnership policy, partly mediating individuals are rational utility
Marxism the position and with civil society between rival groups, but also maximisers. The role of the
role of the state is less clear organisations. Rhodes (1994) protecting and promoting its state is to enable markets to
with some arguing that the sees this as a loss of power own interests (especially in operate effffectively (with as little
state’s role is to manage (the hollowing out of the relation to problem definition
fi regulation as possible). Market
capitalism which might state), whereas Rose (1999) and preferred solutions). The liberals, especially rational-
involve short-term actions argues that we are witnessing state has a bias towards busi- choice theorists, have a deep
which go against the inter- an extension of state power, ness interests. suspicion of state action and
ests of capital accumulation, i.e. a ‘rolling out’ of state argue that politicians and state
e.g. provide welfare services power. offi
fficials will act rationally and
through taxation to enhance consequently seek to maximise
legitimation. their budgets (through taxation)
to secure organisational growth
and therefore larger personal
rewards. The role of the state
should be limited to activities
such as protecting property
rights, defence, providing basic
infrastructure and services (in
cases of market failure) and
regulating monopolies.
The Framework for Analysis
(continued)
13
Table 1.4 (continued)
14
Dimension Neo-Marxism Governance Neo-pluralism Market liberalism
Dynamic for Class confl flict and/or the i Accumulation of evidence and/ Interaction between groups with Market competition and the pur-
policymaking nherent instability of capitalism or external events (e.g. financial
fi unequal influence.
fl suit, by individuals, of personal
(e.g. the 2008 European and crisis). interest.
North American banking crisis).
Associated None clearly, but elements Policy communities; Advocacy coalition framework; Multiple streams.
meso-level of network theory in which institutionalism. punctuated-equilibrium theory;
frameworks business-dominated or business- institutionalism.
and approaches oriented networks would
manage policy subsystems; and
institutionalism in which domi-

nant power relations become
institutionalised in the state.
Primary focus Sport as a form of social Sport policy networks/com- Existence and infl
fluence of The regulatory role of the state.
for the study control (i.e. diverting attention munity and their membership, advocacy coalitions for interests The relationship between the
of sport policy from the ills of capitalism) values and decision processes. such as elite, women, youth and state, the market and the not-
or sport as a source of profitfi community sport. for-profit
fi sector.
(e.g. through broadcasting and
commodifi fication).
Orientation/key How is the tension between What are the dominant values To what extent do advocacy Is the state competing with the
questions sport as a ‘new industry’ in the community? How is the coalitions exist in sport? If commercial sector by providing
and as an element of welfare membership of the community they do, what is their relative sports facilities? Is the expan-
provision managed? decided? How insulated is the strength and what is their rela- sion of state involvement in
community from other policy tionship to government? sport evidence in support of the
subsectors? public choice critique of public
offi
fficials (seeking personal ben-
efifits, such as increased salaries,
rather than social welfare)?
References Off
ffe (1984), Brohm (1978), Pierre and Peters (2000), Lindblom (1977), van den Friedman and Friedman (1962),
Jessop (1990), Morgan (1994), Houlihan and Groeneveld Berg and Janoski (2005), Niskanen (1971)
Girginov and Sandanski (2011) (2011), Rose (1999) Green and Houlihan (2004)
Houlihan (1991) drew on network theory in his study of British sport. The
volume of applications of meso-level frameworks is certainly too small to
suggest that one framework provides the most accurate description of the
sport policy process or is the most eff ffective tool of analysis. It is also still
not clear whether particular frameworks provide insights only into specific fi
issues within the sport subsystem (whether defi fi ned geographically, by scope
or by pattern of activity) or whether it is possible to refer to the sport policy
subsystem exhibiting a set of policymaking characteristics which are not
only stable over time, but which also correspond reasonably closely to one
particular framework. Due to the relative paucity of theoretically informed
empirical studies, four meso-level analytical frameworks, which have the
greatest potential explanatory value, will be examined briefl fly. The basis for
selecting analytical frameworks has been discussed elsewhere (Houlihan
2005), but in summary the criteria are as follows: They should be inter-
nally consistent; have been applied empirically to sport; they should offer ff
a reasonably comprehensive analysis of the policy process that is not over-
focused on one aspect of the policy process such as implementation; and
are intellectually robust, having been subject to sustained critical evalu-
ation. More specifi fically, a useful framework should have the capacity to
explain both policy stability and change (John 1998; Sabatier 1999); have
the capacity to illuminate a range of aspects of the policy process; and facil-
itate at least a medium-term (fi five- to ten-year) analysis of policy change.
The four frameworks reviewed are punctuated equilibrium, institutional
analysis, multiple streams and advocacy coalitions.
Punctuated Equilibrium
One significant
fi criticism of a number of meso-level frameworks is that
they tend to be better at explaining stability or change, but rarely stability
andd change. One exception to this criticism is Baumgartner and Jones’s
punctuated-equilibrium model, which suggests that policy sectors are char-
acterised by long periods of relative policy stability typifi fied by conserva-
tive incremental movement in policy which are then punctuated by intense
periods of policy instability and change (Baumgartner and Jones 1993,
2002; True et al. 2007). The punctuated-equilibrium model is concerned
to explain the factors that cause a shift in the rate of policy change. Peri-
ods of relative policy stability are explained by the institutionalisation of a
dominant set of ideas (about the nature of the policy area and the accept-
able responses to issues) which are reinforced by powerful interests, the
media and public opinion. Instability and rapid policy change are the result
of the emergence of new issues, the accumulation of evidence challenging
the status quo through feedback and changes in the broader government
agenda which spill over into the macro-politics subsystem. ‘Macropolitics
is the politics of punctuation—the politics of large-scale change, compet-
ing policy images, political manipulation, and positive feedback. Positive
feedback exacerbates impulses for change; it overcomes inertia and pro-
duces explosions or implosions from former states’ (True et al. 2007, p.
162). Baumgartner and Jones (1993) explained that these intense bursts of
change—punctuations—are caused by the interaction of image (the way
in which a policy is characterised and understood by the public and the
media, for example) and institutions (the institutional context of issues/the
arenas in which policy is discussed). ‘Institutions . . . freeze a set of political
participants into the policy process and exclude others. Institutions help
ensure that problems are defi fi ned in a particular manner and not in another.
They set the agenda’ (John 1998, p. 179).
The punctuated-equilibrium model is fi rmly located within a set of plu-
ralist assumptions which views policy subsystems as fragile and vulnerable
rather than institutionalising, on a long-term basis, bias towards partic-
ular interests on a semi-permanent basis. While Baumgartner and Jones
do acknowledge that ‘middle class interests’ do seem to fare better in the
American political system than those of the economically and politically
weak, they nonetheless concluded that ‘Rather than being controlled by
any single group, institutions, or individual these forces are the result of
complex interconnection of many institutions in society’ (Baumgartner and
Jones 1993, p. 237).
In some respects the model has potential utility in analysing sport policy
in the UK, but there are elements of the model which might be difficult ffi to
support with evidence. On the positive side there are a number of occa-
sions when macro politics has conflicted
fl with the institutionalisation of a
particular defifi nition of sport policy priorities—for example, the large-scale
government-wide priorities such as privatisation under Margaret Thatcher,
social inclusion under the Blair government and, potentially at least, ‘Big
Society’ under the coalition administration. Each of these government-
wide initiatives disrupted the settled pattern of the sport policy agenda,
the institutional arrangements, the allocation of responsibility and fund-
ing arrangements. However, it is debatable whether sport has experienced
sustained periods of equilibrium which are then available for punctuation.
Some areas of sport policy, such as community sport, experienced periods
of sustained instability with any periods of equilibrium arguably being the
consequence of neglect. However, other areas such as youth/school sport
and elite sport can be characterised as having periods of equilibrium and
evidence of incremental policy change during those periods.
Institutional Analysis
Overlapping with the punctuated-equilibrium model is a group of policy
analysts who give even greater emphasis to the role of institutions in shap-
ing policy. According to Thelen and Steinmo, institutions ‘shape how
political actors define
fi their interests and . . . structure their relations of
power to other groups’ (1992, p. 2) and are seen as significant
fi constraints
and mediating factors in politics. Although the institutionalist literature
is diverse, there are two broad orientations, one emphasising the signififi
cance of institutions as organisational entities (local authorities, national
semi-autonomous agencies, departments et cetera) and the other, cultural
institutionalism, which highlights shared values, norms and beliefs and
can be seen as the routinisation of individual agency. Institutions constrain
choice through their capacity to shape actors’ perception of both problems
and acceptable solutions. As such, the emphasis on institutions is a valu-
able corrective to the tendency of much pluralist theory to treat organisa-
tions (Sport England, the Sports Council for Wales and the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport, for example) as arenas in which politics takes
place rather than as independent or intervening variables in the process.
Cultural institutionalism, with its emphasis on values, norms and beliefs,
draws attention to the social construction of meaning and ‘how interest
groups, politicians, and administrators decide their policy preferences’ (Fis-
cher 2003, p. 29). It is also at odds with the rhetoric of ‘evidence-based
policy’ so frequently used by the Blair government and thus adds weight
to Coalter’s argument regarding the mythopoeic nature of sport (Coalter
2007). Coalter (2011) sees mythopoeic concepts as based on popular and
often idealistic beliefs which are generated and maintained largely indepen-
dent of a robust evidence base and which consequently ‘isolate a particular
relationship between variables to the exclusion of others and without a
sound basis for doing so’ (Glasner 1977, pp. 2–3, quoted in Coalter 2011).
However, the relevance of institutionalism for sport policy analysis extends
beyond the support it provides for the capacity of sport to shroud itself
in a supportive mythology. Houlihan and White (2002), Pickup (1996),
Roche (1993), and Henry (2001) all identify the organisational infrastruc-
ture of UK sport as a signifi ficant variable in shaping policy. Allocation of
functional responsibility for sport among central government departments,
the role of devolved assemblies, the use of ‘arm’s-length’ agencies, and the
presence of a minister for sport are all seen as having a noticeable impact
on sport policy and its implementation.
One of the key strengths of institutionalism (as it relates to organisa-
tional arrangements and structures) is that it is a powerful corrective to
those who are too ready to ignore the significance
fi of state institutions in
the policy process. However, this insight, that state institutions matter, is in
many ways self-evident and leaves largely unanswered the more important
questions such as ‘To what extent and in what circumstances do institu-
tions matter?’ In many respects the distinctive contribution of institutional-
ism lies in the attention that it gives to ideas in the policy process and the
extent to which ideas (whether based on evidence or on myth) can become
an institutionalised constraint on policy choice. As such, institutional theo-
rising resonates with the concept of path dependency, which suggests that
‘the trajectory of change up to a certain point constrains the trajectory after
that point’ (Kay 2005, p. 553), and the notion that institutions ‘leave their
own imprint’ (Thelen and Steinmo 1992, p. 8) by being significantfi mediat-
ing factors in the policy process. Whether the emphasis is on institutions
as organisations or as sets of values and beliefs (culture), they constitute
‘unique patterns of historical development and [impose] constraints . . . on
future choices’ (Howlett and Ramesh 1995, p. 27). Past decisions need to
be seen as institutions in relation to subsequent policy choices with path
dependency capturing the insight that ‘policy decisions accumulate over
time; a process of accretion can occur in a policy area that restricts options
for future policy-makers’ (Kay 2005, p. 558). In a narrow application of
the concept of path dependency one would argue that early decisions in a
policy area result in current policy being locked on to a particular policy
trajectory. A broader application of the concept would suggest that rather
than the next policy choice being inevitable it is more accurate to suggest
that early decisions signifificantly constrain subsequent policy options and
make policy reversal or termination progressively more difficult.
ffi
In relation to the broader conceptualisation of path dependency it has
been argued very persuasively that the welfare regimes in countries in West-
ern and Northern Europe can be divided according to historic political
traditions associated with Christian conservatism, social democracy and
neoliberalism (Esping-Andersen 1990). The strength of these traditions
explains, partly at least, the persistence of distinct approaches to welfare
at a time of intense global pressures to reduce the tax burden on business.
However, recent comparative research by Bergsgard et al. (2007) suggests
that caution is needed in assuming that welfare regime type imposes sig-
nifi
ficant constraints on policy choice and the role of the state in relation to
sport. Based on a study of countries considered to be exemplars of Esping-
Andersen’s three welfare types, the authors found only a loose association,
with the anomalies being more striking than the indicators of consistency.
The overall impression with regard to welfare state regimes and varia-
tions is that our assumptions need to be modified. fi In all four countries
voluntary sports organisations . . . still play prominent roles as organis-
ers of sports activities. However, in all four cases we also fi find that
government is strongly involved with sport. This is not only the case
in the “state friendly” social democratic welfare state of Norway. Pub-
lic policies are important for sport in the conservative welfare regime
of Germany and the liberal welfare regimes of Canada and England
(Bergsgard et al. 2007, pp. 244–245).
Attractive though the literature on the broad version of path dependency

is, the relationship between regime type and policy outputs is apparently
far from consistent in relation to sport and suggests that sport policy is not
and should not be defi fi ned solely in terms of those elements that are associ-
ated with welfare. The case can be made that, more than other aspects of
welfare provision (such as personal social services, education, health and
housing), the dominant rationale for government intervention is as much
business as it is welfare and that the commercial elements of the sector
(sports broadcasting, sponsorship, sports events et cetera) are much more
inflfluential in shaping policy direction than the private schools or hospitals
are in shaping policy in their respective fields. In addition, one could argue
that broad sport policy is also inflfluenced by international-relations objec-
tives (Olympic medal success and increased UK infl fluence in key interna-
tional sports organisations) than other welfare sectors.
The links between institutional theory and macro-level analyses are far
less direct than with the other three frameworks that are considered. Apart
from market liberalism, institutional analysis could fit comfortably within
any of the other three macro-level theories. Neo-pluralism, for example, is
distinguished from pluralism by the acceptance of the institutionalised influ-
fl
ence of business in the policy process. Marxism and neo-Marxism similarly
argue that the state is, to a greater or lesser extent, subordinated to the
interests of capital, while one version of governance theory assumes gover-
nance structures to reflflect the institutionalisation of particular interests.
The Multiple-Streams Framework

At fi rst sight the multiple-streams framework (Kingdon 1984) would seem
inappropriate for the study of sport policy in a country which has a rela-
tively centralised policy system and where points of entry to the decision
process, for example, at regional or local government levels, are limited.
Yet Houlihan and Green (2006, p. 89) in their study of the school sport
policy process concluded that ‘while the evidence from this study pro-
vides some support for the ACF [advocacy coalition framework] it is the
multiple-streams framework that off ffers a more plausible explanation of
policy change’. The framework takes as its organising metaphor for policy
choice the ‘garbage can’ where ‘various kinds of problems and solutions are
dumped by participants as they are generated’ (Cohen et al. 1972, p. 2).
Giving stress to the extent of ambiguity, complexity and residual random-
ness in the policymaking process, Kingdon identifies
fi three distinct streams:
problems, policies and politics. Problems are ‘conditions that come to be
defifi ned as problems, depending on who is paying attention at the time, the
values and beliefs of the individuals concerned, and the magnitude of the
change in the conditions’ (Zahariadis 2003, p. 7). Governments are often
prompted to ‘recognise’ a problem as a result of crisis (sexual abuse of chil-
dren by sports coaches [Brackenridge and Telfer, 2011], declining standards
of fitness among the young [Green, 2006]) or the accumulation of evidence,
regarding sport participation, for example, from the routine collection of
information such as the School Sport Survey, the Active People Survey or
the General Household Survey. The second stream comprises policies or
ideas which are normally developed within specialist policy communities
and which relate to specifi fic problems or classes of problems and are thus
distinct from macro-level ideological orientations such as market liberal-
ism. Policies which are deemed easier to implement and which are able
to attract a higher level of support within a policy community from key
actors, such as public offi
fficials and pressure groups, are more likely to be
adopted. The third stream is politics, which is independent of the other two
streams and comprises a number of elements including the national mood
(sentiment towards issues among voters), organised political forces (politi-
cal parties and interest groups, for example), and turnover within govern-
ment (for example, a change of sports or education minister).
A central aspect of the multiple-streams framework is the notion of ‘cou-
pling’, which refers to the process by which issues achieve political recogni-
tion and attract policies (solutions). The coincidence of the three streams,
for example, as a result of a crisis and/or the activities of policy entrepre-
neurs, can provide a ‘launch window’ where ‘a problem is recognized, a
solution is developed and available in the policy community, a political
change makes the time right for policy change, and potential constraints
are not severe’ (Kingdon 1984, p. 174). However, windows of opportu-
nity might also be the result of routine aspects of policy cycles such as the
annual budget-setting process or an election. To some degree Kingdon’s
framework is a signifi ficant challenge to rational models of decision making,
but as Zahariadis points, out multiple streams does not suggest random-
ness in policy selection, but rather highlights ‘the importance of context
and politics’ (2003, p. 9).
There is much in the multiple-streams framework that is attractive in
addition to it being a corrective to the rationalist assumptions of other
frameworks. The capacity of the framework to be integrated with the more
fi rmly established and empirically founded literature on policy communities
provides a rich conceptual language for analysis. Furthermore, the concept
of spillover is valuable, as it suggests that the successful implementation of
a policy in one area (for example, marketisation, privatisation, ‘naming and
shaming’) ‘may spill over to another, facilitating the adoption of the same
solution in a seemingly unrelated area’ (Zahariadis 2003, p. 154).
However, while the framework does not neglect the significancefi of con-
text, it plays down too strongly the importance of structural factors and
institutionalised power, perhaps due to its roots in pluralist macro-level
theory. The weakness in the framework’s underlying theory of power is
especially important due to the prominence given to ideas in the policy
process, where the signifi ficance of ideas in relation to interests and power
is under-theorised.
The Advocacy Coalition Framework

It is in the light of the inadequacies of the frameworks reviewed so far that
consideration is now given to the advocacy coalition framework (ACF),
which, in recent years, has emerged as a highly regarded basis for policy
analysis, both in its own right and in combination with other frameworks.
According to Sabatier and Weible (2007, pp. 191–192), there are three
‘foundation stones’ to the framework: ‘(1) a macro-level assumption that
most policymaking occurs among specialists within a policy subsystem but
that their behaviour is affffected by factors in the broader political and socio-
economic system; (2) a micro-level “model of the individual” that is drawn
heavily from social psychology; and (3) a meso-level conviction that the
best way to deal with the multiplicity of actors in a policy subsystem is to
aggregate them into “advocacy coalitions” ’. The dynamic of policy change
is based on policy-oriented learning and external perturbations.
The ACF suggests that policy subsystems normally comprise between
two and five coalitions each united by shared normative and causal beliefs
and competing for infl fluence. As mentioned above, belief systems are hier-
archically structured with the fi rst level being ‘deep core’ beliefs, which
cover fundamental norms and values and which span a number of policy
subsystems. Second-level values comprise ‘policy core’ beliefs, which are
the basic normative commitments that span the whole policy subsystem.
Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1999) identify eleven categories of policy core
belief including perceptions of the causes and severity of system-wide prob-
lems, the effffectiveness of policy instruments, and the appropriate division
of responsibility between the market and the public sector. At the third
level are secondary policy beliefs, which are narrower beliefs related, for
example, to the seriousness of particular issues or to geographically specific fi
issues, and are much more susceptible to change.
Exogenous factors, such as conflict fl between coalitions or external
shocks such as scandal (e.g. a doping violation by a leading UK athlete)
or crisis (the fi re at Bradford City FC in 1985), often mediated by a ‘policy
broker’, are sources of policy outputs and policy change, although change
can occur as a result of ‘policy-oriented learning’ (Sabatier 1998, p. 104).
Policy-oriented learning describes relatively long-term changes in beliefs
that result from ‘experience and/or new information’ (Sabatier 1998, p.
104) and refl flects the underlying assumption of rational behaviour in deci-
sion making, at least in the long term. However, learning may take some
time to affffect policy as ‘individuals face cognitive constraints and fi lter or
avoid belief-confl flicting information’ (Weible 2007, p. 7).
The ACF is an attractive analytical framework not least because it has
been so widely tested empirically. The framework also addresses the chal-
lenge of explaining both stability and change, although it is more persuasive
in explaining the persistence of stability than in explaining the dynamics of
policy change which rely on the combination of rational learning and exter-
nal perturbations. Perhaps of greater concern is the lack of a sustained discus-
sion of power and how institutionalised power (mobilisation of bias) affectsff
individual behaviour with regard to problem perception and policy choice.
The foregoing discussion of policy theory and concepts is an essential
exercise prior to the analysis of UK sport policy. Kurt Lewin’s (1951, p.
169) often quoted remark that there is ‘nothing so practical as a good the-
ory’ is a succinct reminder that making sense of the policy process requires
not only robust empirical data but also an equally robust set of concepts
and theoretical frameworks for their interpretation.
Meso-level frameworks such as the four discussed above fulfi fil two impor-
tant functions for the researcher. The fi rst is that they offffer a framework
for the conduct of research insofar as they direct the researcher’s atten-
tion (or sensitise the researcher) to particular aspects of the policy process
(for example, agenda-setting or policy learning and transfer) and particular
relationships (such as the role of policy brokers) and themes (such as the
inflfluence of business or other organised interests). The use of a particular
meso-level framework works best when the testing of its appropriateness
is the central research question or when the previous research in the fieldfi
suggests strongly that one framework is more appropriate than the alterna-
tives. Testing a particular framework is not the central concern of this study
and, as mentioned previously, there is no consensus on the most appropri-
ate framework for the analysis of sport policy. Hence, the four frameworks
will be used to sensitise the researchers to aspects of the policy process and
the relationships and patterns of infl fluence that underpin the process.
The second function of meso-level frameworks is as tools for the analysis
of empirical data—a guide to the interpretation of research fi ndings. This
function is best fulfifilled through an iterative process by which, during the
conduct of the research and particularly at the conclusion of the research,
there is refl
flection on the data collected and how it can be illuminated and
refi
fi ned by reference to particular analytic frameworks. This second func-
tion of the frameworks is one that will be adopted for this study.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE ANALYSIS
An understanding of the developments in sport since 1990 requires analysis

across a range of dimensions which include changes in government motives
for involvement in sport, changes in the range of instruments used to effect ff
the implementation of sport policy, shifts in the pattern of power relations
between policy actors, changes in the organisational landscape and the
implications for the confi figuration of networks and the balance between
policymaking and policy taking. These five dimensions provide the the-
matic structure for the subsequent analysis.
First we need to explore the motives for government involvement in sport
not only in terms of the breadth of motivating factors but also in terms of
shifts in the salience of sport to government. At this stage it would appear
that over the last 20 years or so the salience of sport, particularly elite sport
and to an extent school sport, to government has increased while that of
community sport has remained largely on the margins of political agendas.
As regards changes to the range of instruments available to the government
to eff
ffect policy implementation, such changes would include the introduc-
tion of the national lottery and the expansion (though recent contraction)
of specialist agencies such as UK Sport, the English Institute of Sport and
School Sport Partnerships. The analysis of power relations is always a chal-
lenge as the voluminous literature on the concept attests, but an assessment
of the nature, deployment and impact of power is at the heart of policy
analysis, as is a theme that runs through all the meso-level frameworks
discussed above.
The fourth dimension concerns changes in the confi figuration of net-
works and whether the nascent policy community identifi fied by Houlihan
in 1991 has materialised or whether other metaphors such as coalitions or
loose issue networks are more apt descriptions. The final fi dimension rec-
ognises that in many policy sectors interests and policy actors are forced
to adopt a reactive stance in relation to policy initiatives. Dery provides a
useful distinction between policymaking and policy taking. Policymaking
‘implicitly presumes control over key variables that shape policy in a given
area’ whereas policy taking ‘denotes the pursuit of a given set of policy
objectives, which is primarily or entirely shaped by the pursuit of other
objectives . . . the resulting policy . . . [is] . . . the by-product of policies
that are made and implemented to pursue objectives other than those of
the policy in question’ (Dery 1999, pp. 165–166). The conceptualisation
of policy taking would seem to have considerable relevance to the study of
sport, given the long history of the instrumental use of sport to achieve a
wide range of non-sport policy objectives.
In order to explore these dimensions, the research relied heavily on two
sources of data—documents and a series of semi-structured interviews.
The analysis included documents produced by a wide range of national
and subnational-level policy actors, for example, central and local govern-
ment, national governmental sports agencies and national interest/lobbying
organisations. Documents were collected and selected through systematic
searches of the published output of organisations either available in paper
copy or available on offifficial Web sites. Access was also provided by some
interviewees to internal documents. Documentary sources were augmented
by the conduct of a series of semi-structured interviews with policy actors
who were selected on the basis that they had been or were still involved
in policy at a strategic level; they were, in broad terms, representative of a
particular group of policy actors; and that they had been involved, either
directly or indirectly, in the sports policy subsector for at least five years.
The book is divided into eight chapters. Chapters 2 and 3 provide
an analysis of the change in national government policy from the late
1980s through to the early phase of the coalition government elected in
2010. Chapter 4 explores the impact of devolution on the development
of sport policy in the four home countries. While a detailed analysis of
the policy process for sport in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is
beyond the scope of this study, the chapter will focus on the significancefi
of devolution for two aspects of sport policy: fi first the extent to which
home-country policies in relation to youth/school sport and community
sport have diverged and second the impact of devolution on UK-wide
policy for elite athlete development.
Chapter 5 explores the relationship between community sport and elite
athlete development. The chapter will examine the tension between these
two sets of objectives and the problems that the governments have had
and continue to experience in establishing consistent and stable objectives
in both these areas, but especially in relation to community sport. Chap-
ter 6 develops some of the issues and themes identifi fied in Chapter 5 and
focuses on the role and signifificance of local government for the delivery of
sport policy objectives. The chapter traces the reintegration of local govern-
ment into the delivery framework for Labour’s sport policy which followed
the long period of neglect by the governments of Margaret Thatcher and
John Major. Chapter 7 focuses on school and youth sport and examines
the changing salience of school sport to governments, the particular role
of national organisations, such as the Youth Sport Trust, and the way in
which school sport policy frameworks such as the PE and Sport Strategy
for Young People integrated school sport into a broader youth sport devel-
opment programme. The fi nal chapter explores the pattern and nature of
policy continuity and change through the application of the various con-
cepts and analytical frameworks introduced in this chapter.
2 John Major’s
Conservative Governments
Chapter 1 advocated caution in identifying particular historical moments

as watersheds at which a signifi ficant policy change can be identifi fied. Nev-
ertheless, the period of John Major’s premiership from 1990 to 1997
was certainly signifi ficant in terms of many sport policy developments. In
some ways this was surprising given that, more generally, the period of
the John Major governments is widely recognised as one in which there
was little change in the substantive policy agendas inherited from the
previous Conservative administrations led by Margaret Thatcher. Tay-
lor (2006) suggested that Major, in fact, cemented much of the legacy
of the Thatcher years. Moreover, partially due Major’s more pragmatic
style and the political pressures facing him (Kavanagh 1994), the overall
approach to policy was ‘ad-hoc, fragmented and piecemeal’ (Taylor 2006,
p. 119). In the particularly relevant area of welfare policy, assessments of
policy under the Major government were of ‘stagnation’ (Alcock 1997) or
‘drifting’ (Atkinson and Savage 1994).
However, in at least in two respects, John Major’s personal values dif-
fered signifificantly from the ideology promoted by his predecessor Margaret
Thatcher. First, Major was less ideologically opposed to state provision
than Thatcher. While Thatcher favoured the singular mechanism of privati-
sation, Major sought to improve public service provision through a variety
of means including policies such as the Citizen’s Charter, which sought to
empower and off ffer greater choice to individuals (Kavanagh 1994). Second,
Major himself was also ‘intensely traditionalist’ (Young 1994a, p. 22) in
keeping with the one-nation strand of Conservatism. Major wished to pre-
serve ‘continuity, community and stability’ (Kavanagh 1994, p. 13), a view
which placed him in opposition to Thatcher’s lack of belief in society itself
(Young 1994a). As will be demonstrated, it is certainly the case that these
values infl
fluenced the distinctive approach to sport and sport policy pursued
by John Major in government.
This chapter will examine the distinctive sport policy turn that emerged
during the period of John Major’s premiership. In so doing, the chapter will
examine the reasons for sport becoming a policy concern of some salience
for government and the distinctive sport policy themes that emerged as
a result. Furthermore, the chapter will examine the changing manner in
which control was exercised within the sport policy sector and the way in
which this control was associated with changing institutional and funding
arrangements. In order to contextualise these developments, it is necessary
to commence the chapter with an examination of the sport policy legacy
left to John Major in 1990 by the outgoing premier, Margaret Thatcher.
MARGARET THATCHER’S LEGACY OF NEGLECT
Government intervention in sport during the period of Margaret Thatch-

er’s premiership was framed by the broader, and largely ideological, agen-
das pursued by her governments. While the nomenclature of ‘Thatcherism’
implies a degree of coherence within these broader agendas, more careful
examination allows identifi fication of contradictory elements (Atkinson and
Savage 1994). The neoliberal, free-market economic policies enacted rep-
resented a major retrenchment of the role of government combined with
support for the private sector and its supposedly more effi fficient practices.
Privatisation of publicly owned industries, the introduction of private sec-
tor provision of local government services and the introduction of mar-
ket-based management of services such as the NHS were all exemplars of
the neoliberal approach (Wilding 1997). However, this ‘hollowing out’ of
the state was accompanied by increasing centralisation of power through
the expansion of centrally controlled quangos and increased regulation of
many areas, including the privatised industries, during the period of the
Thatcher premiership.
Similar trends can be seen in terms of the welfare and social policies
enacted by the Thatcher governments. There was consistency in terms of
the attack on the collectivist approach that had largely predominated since
the Second World War. Instead, welfare and social policies emphasised
individualistic self-support designed to enable people to function within
the market-based economy (McCarthy 1989). Although these policies were
again designed to reduce the role of the state, in reality broader economic
conditions led to an increase of government spending (Hills 1998). More-
over, the focus on individual liberty was balanced by a more traditionally
conservative desire to maintain the role of the family (Atkinson and Savage
1994) and a ‘vigorous’ emphasis on law and order (Monnington 1993).
As with broader policy agendas, the period of the Thatcher government
witnessed a breakdown of the previously broad consensus regarding sport
policy (Roche 1993). Given the broader attack on aspects of the welfare
state, it was unsurprising that sport was not seen as an important function
of government. Oakley and Green (2001, p. 76) characterised the Thatcher
governments’ view of state intervention in sport as representing ‘encour-
agement of ineffi
fficiency and the suppression of individual initiative’. Added
to this broad, ideological view was Margaret Thatcher’s personal lack of
John Major’s Conservative Governments 27
affi
ffinity with, or indeed antipathy towards, sport (Monnington 1993; Houli-
han 2000). Thus, sport lacked any great status either within the machinery
of central government or in terms of national public spending (Pickup 1990;
Gilroy and Clarke 1997). This is not to say that sport never encroached on
the agenda of the Thatcher governments. However, as will be identified fi in
the following paragraphs, exceptions to the broader neglect of sport by the
Thatcher governments were only evident when it could be used as a politi-
cised tool to further other policy agendas or when it was associated with a
perceived social problem (Hargreaves 1996; Coghlan 1990).
Government intervention in sport during Thatcher’s premiership was
often triggered by specific fi incidents or events. One of the fi rst examples of
such intervention was Thatcher’s strong personal advocacy for a boycott of
the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Clearly an intervention aligned with the prime
minister’s own ideologically orientated foreign policy, Coghlan (1990, p.
245) stated that, in pursuing a boycott, Thatcher sidelined the minister for
sport and ‘lectured rather than listened’ to sports organisations. The fact
that calls for a boycott were ignored was something of a personal embar-
rassment for Thatcher (Monnington 1993). Nevertheless, the government’s
approach to elite sport continued to be premised on its potential contribu-
tion to international prestige and broader foreign policy goals. This was
highlighted by the Sports Council itself in its 1988 policy document, Into
the Nineties: A Strategy for Sport 1988–1993, which identifi fied that ‘public
support of excellence in sport . . . is primarily defined
fi in terms of external
goals, several as an adjunct of foreign policy’ with ‘the objective of helping
the elite performer to develop their personal potential last [in terms of pri-
ority] after a series of foreign policy goals’ (Sports Council 1988, p. 48).
Government intervention in domestic sport followed a similar pattern
to international sport. Riots in inner-city areas in the early 1980s acted
as a trigger for investment in programmes, such as Action Sport, intended
to counter social problems in deprived areas. Views on such programmes
varied. Hargreaves (1986b, p. 259) viewed the use of sport in this way as
a reactive ‘focus on the symptoms rather than the causes of deprivation
and disorder’. Coalter et al. (1986, p. 37) went further, suggesting ‘sport
and sporting provision was in danger of being turned into a “dustbin of
social policy”—a cheap, cost-eff ffective and immediate response to social
problems’. Alternatively, for Lentell (1993), the riots opened a ‘window of
opportunity’ exploited by the Sports Council at a time when it was other-
wise weakened by the government’s more general objective of ‘rolling back’
the public sector (Houlihan and White 2002). Although Action Sport and
associated projects launched by the Sports Council were relatively short-
lived (Coghlan 1990), their long-term policy impact was perhaps signififi
cantly greater. The start of government appropriation of sport as a form
of ‘benign policing’ (Green 2006, p. 225) represented a signifi ficant change
from the preceding policies which valued sport and leisure as a human need
(Monnington 1993). Although Sports Council spending on Action Sport
programmes was a small part of its overall budget (Coalter 2007), the need
to justify the contribution of sport to wider policy agendas was evident in
Sports Council policies (e.g. Sports Council 1982, 1988) throughout the
period of the Thatcher government and beyond.
Inconsistent with the use of sport as a tool for social control, government
intervention was also prompted by Thatcher’s recognition of sport, and in
particular football, as a site for social deviance. Hargreaves (1996b, p. 249)
noted that Thatcher spoke about regular outbreaks of hooliganism at both
domestic and international football matches in the 1980s ‘in much the same
vocabulary and tones as those reserved for terrorism, street crime, strikers
and demonstrators, and other perceived enemies within’. That outbreaks of
hooliganism occurred at the same time as Thatcher was conducting impor-
tant negotiations on Britain’s future in Europe only served to heighten her
political embarrassment (Monnington 1993). Believing that self-regulation
of the problem had failed (Roche 1993), Thatcher sought to circumvent
sport authorities and even her own sports minister to introduce legislation
that would require spectators to hold identity cards (Monnington 1993;
Pickup 1996). Ultimately, however, plans for this extension of repressive
state control were abandoned by the subsequent Major government as a
result of the Taylor report into the 1991 Hillsborough disaster.
A fi nal area of government intervention, with signifi ficant long-term impli-
cations, was in the system of national sport governance. As the examples
of the Olympic boycott and football hooliganism signify, successive minis-
ters for sport were largely marginalised within the Thatcher governments
(Houlihan 2000), although they increasingly displayed an alignment with
Thatcher’s own New Right ideology. It was perhaps of greater importance
that the government started to utilise its power of appointment to place
individuals of similar political persuasion to board and chair positions
within the Sports Council (Henry 2001). Furthermore, in a trend that has
subsequently been extended, government increasingly began to specify proj-
ects to which the Sports Council were to direct funds (Hargreaves 1996b).
While the exertion of such powers of infl fluence were recognised by the then
deputy director-general of the Sports Council as counter to its Royal Char-
ter, increasingly they became seen as the norm (Coghlan 1990). Moreover,
these trends in the relationship between the national government and the
Sports Council were refl flective of the increasing central control over quan-
gos more generally, despite being somewhat contradictory to governmental
rhetoric regarding rolling back state infl fluence (Henry 2001).
Besides the implicit repositioning of the Sports Council that came from
increasing governmental control, there were also more explicit attempts on
the part of government to redefi fine the role of the Sports Council. In 1986, the
government tasked the Rossi Committee with considering the rationale for,
and the role of, the Sports Council (Green 2004). Subsequently, one of the
most active ministers for sport during the period of the Thatcher governments,
Colin Moynihan, suggested that the Sports Council’s role, especially in rela-
tion to elite sport, be reduced (Henry and Bramham 1993). Although sig-
nifi
ficant changes to the Sports Council were not enacted until the end of
John Major’s period in office,
ffi the cumulative eff ffect of government interven-
tion was to create instability within the Sports Council throughout much of
the 1980s. Moreover, in the fragmented and sometimes fractious national
sport policy sector (Roche 1993), the Sports Council was unable to eff
ffectively
advocate within government either for sport or for itself as an organisation
(Green 2004). This weakness of the sport policy sector was implicitly recog-
nised by the Sports Council itself, stating in 1988 (p. 67) that
Whilst the Council clearly has a role to play in ensuring greater co-
ordination among sporting interests it cannot, as an adviser to Govern-
ment, simultaneously be the prime organiser of a lobby, though there
will be many occasions to share and proclaim identical views.
These limitations and weaknesses of the Sports Council did not impede it
setting its own policy agenda for sport in the 1980s. During this period, the
Sport Council published two major policy documents: Sport in the Com-
munity: The Next Ten Years (1982) and Into the Nineties: A Strategy for
Sport 1988–1993 (1988). Based on a signifi ficant body of evidence, both
policies were wide-ranging and comprehensive in covering all elements of
the ‘sports development continuum’ that was introduced in the later docu-
ment (Sports Council 1988). In so doing, the policies sat somewhat in con-
tradiction to limited sport policy aims of the government and, in the later
document, the neoliberal-orientated focus of the chairman’s own introduc-
tion (Smith 1988). It was perhaps partially for these reasons that the deputy
director general himself recognised that the government paid little heed to
either document (Coghlan 1990).
Nevertheless, it is useful to brieflfly consider the details of these policy
documents in order to inform understanding of future developments. Ini-
tially, in preparing Sport in the Community (1982), the Sports Council
had agreed that school sport was the responsibility of the Department of
Education and Science. However, by 1988, there was an identified fi decline
in extracurricular school sport due in part to the government’s wider edu-
cation policies (Holt and Tomlinson 1994), and the Sports Council (1988,
p. 61) recognised a ‘need to give further impetus to work with young people
in view of the relative lack of success in the past five years’. Young people,
alongside women, became one of the two main target groups for encour-
agement of mass participation in Into the Nineties (1988). The adoption
of these and other target groups represented recognition that there were
insuffi
fficient resources to continue the generalist ‘sport for all’ campaigns of
the 1970s (Sports Council 1982) although the desire for widespread par-
ticipation remained:
Most important of all, there are . . . major inequalities in participation.
To use an analogy, the sports franchise has been greatly extended but
the suff
ffrage is far from universal. (Sports Council 1988)
Besides the focus on participation amongst target groups, the Sports Coun-
cil remained committed to developing performance and excellence (Holt
and Mason 2000). However, in these areas, despite some learning from
international contexts (Coghlan 1990), the Sports Council was explicit in its
desire not to follow Eastern European models of elite sport success (Sports
Council 1982; Green 2004). Incremental improvement in approaches to
developing excellence were promoted rather than any radical change to
existing systems in the United Kingdom (Sports Council 1982).
The implementation of both Sports Council strategies was recognised
to be dependent on additional government funding, which was largely not
forthcoming (Sports Council 1982, 1988). For the deputy director-general,
this represented ‘a sad commentary on the power and influence
fl of the Min-
ister for Sport, Colin Moynihan’ (Coghlan 1990, p. 224). Instead, the drive
from the minister of sport, in line with Thatcherite ideology, was for the
Sports Council to attract greater private sector investment especially in elite
sport (Moynihan 1990). Moreover, central government controls and cuts
in local government fi nance further limited the funds available for sport
and leisure provision (Coghlan 1990; Coalter 2007). The weakness of the
funding position of sport was explicitly recognised by the Sports Council in
Into the Nineties and NGBs were urged to ‘avoid becoming over-dependent
on grant aid from Government’ (1988, p. 6). An acknowledgement of the
lack of funding was perhaps responsible for the Sports Council promoting
‘an overriding theme of . . . better co-ordination and co-operation’ (1988,
p. 69) rather than an expansion of existing provision.
JOHN MAJOR AND THE RE-EMERGENCE OF SPORT
That the approach adopted by John Major’s governments towards sport

was significantly
fi diff
fferent to that of the preceding administrations is
unquestionable. Besides representing a break with the past, the changes in
government policy and approach towards sport begun under Major were to
have inflfluence beyond the lifetime of his governments (Houlihan and White
2002). As stated earlier, that is not to say that there was necessarily a single
point or event during the seven years of Major’s premiership that could be
represented as a ‘watershed moment’. In fact, within two years of Major’s
appointment as prime minister the government department then respon-
sible for sport published a policy statement, Sport and Active Recreation
(Department of Education and Science 1991), which was a fairly unremark-
able document that only hinted at some of the more signifi ficant changes to
come. More important were three developments instigated after Major’s
re-election in 1992. A new Department of National Heritage was created in
1992; the National Lottery commenced in 1994 and 1995 saw the publica-
tion of a second policy document, Sport: Raising the Game (DNH 1995).
These three developments signalled a significantfi increase in the salience
of sport for government. Furthermore, as shall be discussed in subsequent
sections, collectively they had a degree of coherence that enabled them to
‘lay the foundations for sport policy development and governance into the
twenty-fi fi rst century’ (Green 2009, p. 127). However, before examining
these developments in greater detail, it is important to examine the broad
thrust of the sport policy agenda developed by John Major and, subse-
quently, the political factors that enabled this agenda to be promoted.
Just as the broad policy agenda pursued by John Major’s government
represented an accommodation between his predecessor’s brand of neo-
liberal ideology and his own one-nation Conservatism, so these two dif-
ferent aspects were evident in the overall thrust of the sport policy agenda
(Henry 2001). John Major’s beliefs regarding the qualities of sport were
strongly shaped by its infl fluence on his own life starting from childhood
during which he described himself as being happiest while playing team
sports, spending his spare time at the Oval Cricket Ground and reading
cricket literature (Major 1999). His empathy with cricket in particular was
strongly linked with his one-nation Conservatism, as is demonstrated in the
following passage from his autobiography:
It is diffi
fficult to capture the special fascination of cricket. It is unique.
It has grace and charm and athleticism. . . . Above all, with occasional
lapses, cricket is played with a generosity of spirit that is refreshing, as
it is unfashionable. It is, I think, a very English game, that still encap-
sulates old values. (Major 1999, p. 23)
Given the strength of John Major’s personal passion and belief, it was hardly
surprising that these values shaped the increasing intervention in sport under-
taken by his governments (Holt and Mason 2000). Rhetorically, this influ- fl
ence was evident in early statements regarding sport made by ministers for
sport. For example, in a debate on sport in the House of Commons, the then
minister for sport argued that the government should nurture
the great British tradition of sport, which makes Britain envied through-
out the world, is that it is amateur and local. That access to sport makes
the sporting tradition of this country so unique. (Key 1992)
The strongest examples of John Major’s own personal advocacy for govern-
ment intervention based on a peculiarly traditional image of sport all came
in his forward to Sport: Raising the Game. Highlighting the nomencla-
ture of the government department created to promote his agenda in sport,
Major (1995, p. ii), for example, eulogised that
Sport is a central part of Britain’s National Heritage. We invented the
majority of the world’s great sports. And most of those we did not
invent, we codifified and helped to popularise throughout the world.
Part of the government’s agenda for sport was thus orientated towards its
potential to contribute to a somewhat homogenous (Gilroy and Clarke
1997) vision of national identity. Again, this was espoused in John Major’s
forward (1995, p. ii):
Sport is a binding force between generations and across borders. But,

by a miraculous paradox, it is at the same time one of the defi fi ning
characteristics of nationhood and of local pride.
John Major’s belief in the communal potential of sport stood in stark con-
trast to the individualism that underpinned Thatcher’s ideology, as did his
support for government intervention in sport and other cultural activities
based on the supposed benefi fits it could bring to participants. In fact, in
the forward to Sport: Raising the Game, Major placed himself in direct
opposition to Thatcher’s prioritisation of economic development as the sole
contributor to individual welfare:
I have never believed that the quality of life in Britain should revolve
simply around material success. Of equal importance, for most people,
is the availability of those things that can enrich and elevate daily life in
the worlds of the arts, leisure and sport. All too often in the past these
areas have been overlooked. It is time for change. (Major 1995, p. i)
John Major and other government ministers (e.g. Sproat 1995c) were
especially keen to laud the contribution that sport could make to the
social and moral development of children and young people (Gilroy and
Clarke 1997). It was in so doing that elements of the competitive indi-
vidualism that was central to the neoliberal ideology came to the fore to
a greater extent in Major’s rhetoric regarding sport. Perhaps in a desire
to relate to the particular audience, the following passage from Major’s
speech to the Conservative Party Central Council Meeting in 1994 is a
prime example that demonstrates some of the values he felt sport could
instil in young people:
And I also hope we’ll see more team sport back in our schools. I have
no time for those Left-wing ideologues who oppose competitive sport.
Put children together and what do you see. They run. They jump. They
fight. They compete. It is their natural instinct. We don’t help them by
hiding that away from them. Life can be tough. They need to know vic-
tory and defeat. And the sooner they learn it, the better equipped they
will be for life. (Major 1994)
A similarly neoliberal view that sport could help to produce citizens capable
of fitting into and contributing to the national economy was espoused by
the then minister of sport, Ian Sproat (1995c), who spoke of the utility of
sport in creating young people suitable for recruitment to the armed forces
and fi re service. As shall be discussed further in the following sections,
neoliberal aspects were also especially prominent in the approach enacted
to achieve the government’s desired sporting objectives (Henry 2001).
From the preceding discussion, it is evident that the policy agenda set
for sport was an intensely personal one for John Major. It is notable that
besides advocating his desired agenda, Major also took an unusual inter-
est in the detail of policy as suggested by Seldon’s (1997) description of his
intimate involvement in the drafting of Sport: Raising the Game. That this
degree of prime ministerial involvement was required was in part due to the
political context in which sport policy was developed at the time. Previous
statements have demonstrated the support of ministers of sport for Major’s
sporting agenda and, perhaps more signifi ficantly and fortuitously, senior
members of his cabinet, such as Ken Clarke, David Mellor and Peter Brooke,
shared Major’s affi
ffinity with sport (Major 1999; Henry 2001; Houlihan and
White 2002). However, as Major himself recognised, his interest in pursu-
ing a sporting agenda was ‘thought to be rather quirky by some colleagues’
(Major 1999, p. 412). His offi fficial biographer also identifified that Major’s
cabinet colleagues were ‘variously indiff fferent to, amused or irritated by, his
passion for sport’ (Seldon 1997, p. 594). Importantly, Seldon (1997, p. 594)
also quoted a senior member of the civil service who described sport as ‘one
of those areas where the Whitehall machine is rather resistant and regards
it as somewhat frivolous’. Evidence for this resistance was also provided
by the minister for sport who indicated the ‘terrible battle to get [Sport:
Raising the Game] through the treacle of Whitehall . . . [as it] trespasses on
other Departments’ (Sproat 1995c). It is a measure of the powerful forces
supporting the government’s sporting agenda that the recalcitrant Depart-
ments ‘eventually saw the wisdom of our ways’ (Sproat 1995c).
Despite the need for prime ministerial impetus to drive the sport agenda
forward within an unsupportive governmental apparatus, other aspects of
the political context were supportive of John Major’s initiative, especially
around the time that Sport: Raising the Game was published. At that time,
public support for the Conservative government was low and John Major
was struggling to retain control of a party that was signifi ficantly divided,
especially over Europe. John Major was therefore able to present his sport-
ing vision strongly, and unusually, at the Conservative conference in 1994
(Hargreaves 1995) as something with which the broader party could
empathise (Houlihan 2000). Furthermore, in terms of a broader audience,
Major’s advocacy for sport was seen as a ‘clever attempt to gain popular-
ity for a flagging government by appealing to an aspect of popular culture
that most people see as innocent and benefi ficial’ (Hargreaves 1995, p. 39).
This view is supported by Gilroy and Clarke (1997, p. 22), who suggested
that Major’s ‘focus on sport was a palliative to help draw attention away
from other more fundamentally problematic areas’. What was also nota-
ble was the lack of opposition to the vision presented in Sport: Raising
the Game. As noted by the minister for sport himself (Sproat 1995a), the
Labour party raised little objection when the policy was discussed in par-
liament. Amongst the broader sport policy community, used to the disdain
with which sport had been treated by the Thatcher government, any posi-
tive governmental impetus for sport would have been welcomed. Although
Sports Council policy was diff fferent in a number of ways from that pre-
sented in Sport: Raising the Game, as shall be explored in the following
section, for the organisation to have voiced any objection would have been
‘political suicide’ (Gilroy and Clarke 1997, p. 35).
SPORT POLICY THEMES 1990–1997
Largely fitting within the broader agendas examined in the previous sec-
tion, sport policies during the period of John Major’s premiership increas-
ingly focused on specifi fic aspects of sport. One such signifificant policy
focus was school sport, an issue that rose to prominence due, in large
part, to perceptions that it had been in a period of decline. As noted ear-
lier in the chapter, the Sports Council had begun to raise concerns regard-
ing sport for young people while Margaret Thatcher remained in power.
Nevertheless, in Sport and Active Recreation, the Department of Educa-
tion and Science (1991) remained somewhat equivocal regarding youth
sport, noting that a decline in extracurricular activities was balanced
by an increase in opportunities for young people within the community.
However, the ‘perception that something needed to be done’ (Houlihan
and Green 2006, p. 81) about school sport increased to the point where
the narrative about decline became a signifi ficant rationale for the policy
focus accorded to school sport in Sport: Raising the Game. This narra-
tive was highlighted at the beginning of the section of Sport: Raising the
Game which was devoted to school sport:
It is serious cause for concern that sport no longer commands the place
it once did in school life. Sport has had to compete for time in an
increasingly crowded school day. . . . We are determined to reverse the
decline . . . and put sport back at the heart of school life. (DNH 1995,
pp. 6–7)
Moreover, in Commons debates on Sport: Raising the Game, the minister

for sport justifi
fied the need to reinvigorate school sport in terms of the need
to increase health amongst young people and as a contributor to overcome
the failure of the home nations to qualify for the 1994 FIFA World Cup
(Sproat 1995b).
The somewhat bizarre nature of this last justifi fication highlights an
important issue regarding the availability and use of evidence in the pol-
icy process. While Roche’s analysis (1993) did support the case regard-
ing the decline of school sport, both the minister for sport (Sproat 1995b)
and, previously, the Sports Council had identifi fied that evidence regarding
school sport provision was lacking. Moreover, Gilroy and Clarke (1997)
argued that what evidence was available was either ignored or used selec-
tively, especially in relation to the pressures on curricular time for PE that
resulted from implementation of the national curriculum. Instead, it was on
the back of personal enthusiasm by John Major and other members of his
government, reinforced by a widely accepted narrative, that school sport
became ‘the single most important element in the sporting continuum’
(DNH 1995).
It was largely this personal enthusiasm that also underpinned the pri-
oritisation of traditional competitive team sports over individual sports or
other forms of physical education. The prioritisation of competitive team
sports had initially emerged through the development of the National Cur-
riculum for PE early in John Major’s time in office ffi (Houlihan and White
2002), but was made fully explicit in his forward to Sport: Raising the
Game and by the minister for sport in the subsequent House of Commons
debate (Sproat 1995c). Gilroy and Clarke (1997, p. 26) critiqued the focus
on traditional team sports as representing a ‘restorationalist discourse that
school sport was better in some halcyon and romanticised bygone age’.
Nevertheless, this discourse only served to strengthen the government’s
commitment to their agenda at a time when they were promoting a broader
‘Back to Basics’ campaign (Holt and Tomlinson 1994; Penney and Evans
1999). The Sports Council responded to the developing government agenda
by similarly beginning to prioritise youth sport, as evidenced by publication
of their own policy document Young People and Sport (1993a). However,
it is notable that the Sports Councils agenda remained somewhat broader
than that of the government through seeking to encourage ‘basic move-
ment skills’ and developing ‘positive attitudes to active recreation’ (Sports
Council 1993a, p. 18).
Implementation of the government’s school sport agenda was to be
achieved through a variety of mechanisms. As shall be discussed further
in this chapter’s penultimate section, John Major’s government committed
little or no new public funding to improve school sport (Holt and Tomlin-
son 1994; Taylor 2006). Any additional funding for school sport was to
come through redirection of existing Sports Council and National Gov-
erning Body funding and, in alignment with a neoliberal agenda, through
private sector sponsorship (DNH 1995). Of greater influencefl was the com-
mitment in Sport: Raising the Game to the utilisation of more coercive
governance techniques. Inspections by the Office ffi for Standards in Educa-
tion (OFSTED) were to examine both teacher training for sport and, most
importantly, the provision of competitive team games in schools’ curricular
and extracurricular provision (DNH 1995). In addition, a new Sportsmark
for schools was initiated which was to be awarded on the basis of govern-
ment criteria including targets regarding the hours of available PE and extra-
curricular sport. The public nature of such awards was, as in other areas
of public services, envisaged as enabling enhanced parental choice which
would in turn drive increased standards of provision (Sproat 1995c).
Besides school sport, the other major focus of sport policy was elite
sport. That this was an especially strong feature in Sport: Raising the Game
refl
flected not only the perceived contribution international success could make
to national identify and cohesion but also the notable lack of success in the
Atlanta Olympic Games in 1994. In at least one way the agenda promoted by
the time Sport: Raising the Game was published in 1995 demonstrated the
incremental change of government policy throughout John Major’s period in
offi
ffice. The earlier policy document, Sport and Active Recreation, had pro-
moted a non-interventionist and voluntaristic approach:
The Government’s role is to encourage and support what are largely

voluntary efforts,
ff not to direct and fi nance these activities which
remain the responsibility of the British Olympic Association, the Com-
monwealth Games Federation and the independent governing bodies of
the sports concerned. (DES 1991, p. 27)
In the face of increasing international competition (Oakley and Green

2001), recognition developed within the sport policy community of the
need for a more systematic and scientifi fic approach to elite success (e.g.
Sports Council 1993b). Visits to Australia and Canada by members of the
Sports Council (Pickup 1996) and especially government ministers (Sproat
1995c) were infl fluential in shaping a new policy approach towards achiev-
ing elite sport success (Oakley and Green 2001). As a result, Sport: Rais-
ing the Game included a proposal for the creation of British Academy of
Sport, which mirrored the Australian Institute of Sport instigated fourteen
years earlier in 1981. Alongside other developments, including the use of
National Lottery funds examined later in the chapter, the policies of the
Major government marked a ‘watershed for the emergence of an organi-
sational, administrative and funding framework for sport at the elite level’
(Oakley and Green 2001, p. 371). Certainly, to use the words of Houlihan
and White (2002, p. 74), ‘John Major fi nally put the myth of the inspired
British amateur to bed’.
Another developing area of elite sport policy was governmental support
for bids to host international events. Again, the publication Sport and Active
Recreation off ffered only lukewarm and indirect support in ‘welcom[ing]
initiatives to stage major sporting events in the UK’ (DES 1991, p. 27).
At the behest of John Major, however, there was a large government pres-
ence including the prime minister himself at the Barcelona Olympic Games
in 1992 (Pickup 1996). This ‘reminder of [sport’s] cultural and emotional
power’, alongside England’s successful run in the 1990 World Cup, was
credited by Holt and Mason (2000, p. 154) as encouraging Major and his
government to pursue their sporting agenda. With Manchester undertaking
a second successive bid to host the Olympic Games in 2000, Major’s per-
sonal interest prompted the government to provide both fi nancial and polit-
ical support to the bid (Seldon 1997). Support was also off ffered by Deputy
Prime Minister Michael Heseltine, who, despite lacking Major’s personal
enthusiasm for sport (Major 1999), saw the Games as potentially contribut-
ing to economic regeneration (Pickup 1996). Despite Manchester’s bid being
unsuccessful, the minister for sport reiterated that attracting the Olympic
Games to Great Britain was a key priority (Sproat 1995c), although such an
objective was not mentioned in Sport: Raising the Game.
It could be suggested that governmental support for elite sport and host-
ing major sporting events was not solely premised on the potential boost
to national pride and identity, but also as a prominent tool of international
relations. At the outset of his premiership, John Major was personally
involved in negotiations with Nelson Mandela to lift the sporting ban on
South Africa (Seldon 1997). Cricket also featured prominently in his first fi
visit to South Africa in 1994 and it was notable that the minister for sport
highlighted the positive role models presented by English cricketers when
touring the country in 1995 (Sproat 1995c). Moreover, two of Major’s early
ministers for sport, Robert Atkins and Robert Key, both sought to high-
light the leading role taken by Great Britain in international anti-doping
eff
fforts (Atkins 1991b; Key 1992). That the Sports Council (1993b) itself
placed anti-doping at the centre of its attempts to retain ethics and fair play
in sport again demonstrates the link between sport policy and John Major’s
tradition-orientated conservatism.
However, not all aspects of Sports Council policy fitted neatly with the
government’s sporting agenda. In the fi rst instance, the publication of Sport
and Active Recreation by the Department of Education and Skills in 1991
presented a dilemma for the Sports Council, who were in the process of pre-
paring a third strategy to follow Sport in the Community (1982) and Into
the Nineties (1988). Rather than abandon the work already undertaken
to develop the strategy, the Sports Council decided to publish Sport in the
Nineties: New Horizons although without the detail and evidence that was
included in the previous policy documents (Sports Council 1993b). Ele-
ments of Sport in the Nineties: New Horizons, such as the focus on young
people and excellence, were in line with the emerging government agenda
(Houlihan and White 2002). However, especially in relation to aspects of
mass participation, the Sports Council’s strategy was rapidly superseded by
Sport: Raising the Game. As part of continuing to support the philosophy
of ‘sport for all’, Sport in the Nineties: New Horizons (1993b) reiterated
the comprehensive approach of the Sports Council across the four elements
of the ‘sports development continuum’: foundation, participation, perfor-
mance and excellence. Damning the sports development continuum with
faint praise as ‘a word beloved by the Sports Council’ (Sproat 1995c), the
government tried to ‘maintain the notion of a unifi fied sports development
policy’ (Houlihan and White 2002, p. 67) whilst following a more limited
agenda. Responsibility for the creation of pathways between the dual prior-
ities of school sport and elite performance was placed, in Sport: Raising the
Game, with sports clubs and further and higher education establishments
(DNH 1995). While possibly off ffering some pathways, these organisations
were unsuited and lacked the capacity to off ffer widespread sporting oppor-
tunities across the breadth of the population. Furthermore, the government
envisaged that participation would naturally increase as a result of elite
success (DNH 1995). Irrespective of the limited evidential legitimacy of
these claims, it was inevitable that the government agenda would prevail,
resulting in what Green (2004, p. 371) subsequently viewed as the ‘with-
drawal of central government and the Sports Councils from the provision
of opportunities for mass participation’.
Similarly, the sporting agenda pursued by the government limited the
impact, at least in the short term, of a series of Sports Council policy papers
concerned with achieving equitable involvement in sport amongst particu-
lar groups, for example, women, people with disabilities and ethnic minori-
ties (Sports Council 1993c, 1993d, 1994). These papers provided radical
new perspectives on the institutional and organisational barriers aff ffecting
participation in sport (Houlihan and White 2002, p. 63). However, the
government took a signifi ficantly difffferent approach in Sport: Raising the
Game, as explained by the minister for sport at the time:
I want to make it clear that we did not mention the very important
needs of the disabled in the paper for the same reason that we did not
concentrate specififically on individual sports or matters of gender or
race. The policy statement is for people of all abilities. (Sproat 1995c)
A particularly strong critique of the inclusivity of this approach was pre-

sented by Gilroy and Clarke (1997, p. 32), who argued that the ‘traditional’
sports that were the focus of Sport: Raising the Game were only viewed as
such by a ‘largely white, male and middle class section of the population’.
The lack of consideration of gender was also highlighted for these authors
by the rhetoric of ‘sportsmen’ and ‘sportsmanship’ used by John Major in
his forward to Sport: Raising the Game (Gilroy and Clarke 1997). Never-
theless, it was only in time and with the election of the Labour government
that issues of equity again became prominent as part of the sport policy
agenda (Houlihan and White 2002).
ORGANISATIONAL REFORM AND

SHIFTING BALANCES OF POWER
The organisational context of sport at the start of John Major’s time in

power was one that was recognised to be highly fragmented. In an assess-
ment that was pessimistic about the existing situation and future prospects,
Roche (1993, p. 91) wrote that ‘the structural disorganisation and internal
confl flict are at least longstanding and probably endemic in the British sport
policy community’. The disjointed nature of sport policy processes was
even identifi fied in offi
fficial documentation with the Sports Council (1993b,
p. 8) recognising that ‘the UK’s sporting achievements have too often been
secured in spite of the disparate goals having been set by our sporting com-
munity’. It was in this context that signifi ficant organisation reforms were
enacted during the period of John Major’s premiership. As shall be dis-
cussed later in this section, not all of these reforms contributed eff
ffectively
to the desired objective of both the government and the Sports Council to
achieve a greater degree of coherence within the country’s sporting system
(Sports Council 1993b; Taylor 1997).
Sport had long been relegated to a marginal place in political and depart-
mental structures within Margaret Thatcher’s governments. Before becom-
ing prime minister, John Major (1999, p. 404) was himself aware that ‘in
the empires of Cabinet ministers [both sport and the arts] were regarded
as lightweight responsibilities and something of an irrelevant diversion’.
That this institutional weakness contributed to the neglect of sport within
governmental policy meant that, for Major in particular, ‘we were under-
valuing a national asset and missing a political opportunity’ (1999, p.
404). Nevertheless, prior to his re-election in 1992, the only organisational
change enacted by Major was to transfer responsibility for sport from
the Department of the Environment to the Department of Education and
Skills. The implications of this change were to replicate the consequences
of previous changes in departmental responsibility for sport that altered
the balance of power between various organisations within the sporting
community (Green and Houlihan 2005). On the one hand, the transfer
of sport from the Department of the Environment ‘weaken[ed] the link
between sport and the other range of community-focused services’ within
the department (Houlihan and White 2002, p. 78) and, more generally,
within local government itself (Lentell 1993). Murdoch (1993), on the other
hand, viewed the transfer to the Department of Education and Skills as
off
ffering the potential for improving collaborative planning across PE and
youth sport. That this potential was not realised was due to the Department
of Education and Skills having an attitude towards sport which ‘combined
neglect, disdain and incomprehension in almost equal measure’ (Houlihan
and White 2002, p. 62).
After the re-election of the Conservatives in the 1992 general election,
John Major was better placed to assert his own agendas and ideas within
government. One almost immediate action was to create a Department of
National Heritage (DNH) encompassing sport as well as the arts, broad-
casting and tourism. While Henry (2001, p. 89) described it as ‘an unex-
pected stroke’, the creation of the DNH can be accounted for in terms of
a number of supportive factors. Taylor (1997) credited David Mellor and
Kenneth Baker with playing key roles in persuading John Major of the
need for the new department and a minister for national heritage within
the cabinet. Irrespective of the role of these individuals, John Major’s per-
sonal support for the DNH was crucial. In order to give culture and sport
the profifile he felt that they ‘deserved’ in government, John Major described
himself as ‘convinced that this could only be done through establishing a
new department of state to bring together all aspects of the arts, sport and
heritage’ (Major 1999, p. 405). In addition, wariness amongst the Conser-
vative party regarding a new department (Taylor 1997) was allayed as the
proposed name represented an ‘appeal to One-National Conservatives of
implying a unitary national heritage’ (Henry 2001, p. 49). Taylor (1997)
also indicated that factors within the arts community also contributed to
the creation of the DNH. However, although the Sports Council (1993b, p.
16) had long ‘argued that such an organ of central government was needed
in the best interests of British sport’, there is little indication that this advo-
cacy had any impact either in the creation or operation of the DNH.
The aspirations of the Sports Council and others were, in part at least,
realised by the creation of the DNH. Polley (1998, p. 24) recalls that ‘the new
designation [of the DNH] was important in terms of flagging sport’s signifi fi-
cance as part of national culture’. In this regard, the name of the department
was certainly signifi ficant in pre-empting the subsequent direction of sport
policy described earlier in the chapter (Henry 2001). Similarly, for Green
(2009, p. 127) the creation of the DNH represented the first time that sport
policy had been ‘registered . . . as a serious national government responsibil-
ity’. As with most areas experiencing increased governmental interest, the
creation of the DNH also engendered increasing central control over sport
(Oakley and Green 2001). However, Taylor (1997) suggested that the way
that central control was enacted by the DNH represented something of a
signifificant departure for government more generally. Partly due to the pref-
erence of David Mellor, the first minister of state for national heritage, and
partly due to the organisational complexity of sport and other policy areas
overseen by the department, the DNH sought to achieve its policy goals more
through steering networks of organisations rather than direct intervention
(Taylor 1997). This approach was reaffi ffirmed by the then minister for sport,
who stated that the government did ‘not believe in centrally imposed blue-
prints or day-to-day political interference in sport’ (Key 1992). Instead, it
was through the provision of policy direction, ministerial activism, scrutiny
and arm’s-length control of organisations such as the Sports Council that
governmental policy objectives were pursued (Taylor 1997).
For the Sports Council itself, the period of John Major’s premiership was
largely one of uncertainty in terms of its role and organisational structure.
Initial proposals published in Sport and Active Recreation (DES 1991)
foresaw the splitting of the Great Britain Sports Council into a UK Sports
Commission and an English Sports Council. Amongst the roles envisaged
for the former were improved co-operation in planning of ‘facilities and
services to sustain excellence’, to provide ‘stronger representation of the
UK in international deliberations on sport’ and to, more generally, allow
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
elmulás kilátástalan kapuján, a semmibe, a mely előtt remegve,
megtörten, roskadozva gyülekeztek öregek és fiatalok, más férfiak és
más nők, a kiknek nem telt be a sorsuk úgy mint nekik.
Nagy csokor friss, piros rózsa volt a fiatal nő fejénél. Vajjon ki
tette oda? Ó Mary is szerette volna teleszórni virággal a nőt, a férfit
és a kicsi gyermeküket. Le tudott volna térdelni a fehér, kavicsos
úton a sírok között, hogy annak a két embernek a mindent betöltő
szerelmét imádkozza meg a maga számára.
Abban a pillanatban egész primitiven nőnek érezte magát és
egyszerű vágyakkal telt meg a szíve.
Másnap megvette a dombormű fotografiáját, mikor hazajött, az
íróasztala mellé akasztotta és azóta ott lógott. Sokszor tévedt rá a
tekintete, de annak a júniusi délutánnak kinzó, de olyan gyönyörű
nyugtalansága ma tért vissza először.
Levette a szegről a képet, a lámpához vitte és hosszan nézte. A
fiatal nőt nézte, a ki háttal állt hozzá a halál kapujában.
Aztán a tükörhöz ment, feltűzte a haját és lassan levetkőzött.
Neki épen olyan sima, egyenletesen csavart kontya, épen olyan
finoman karcsú teste volt mint annak, csak a férfi nem állt mellette,
a kinek olyan gyönyörű mozdulattal, annyi bizalommal tegye vállára
a kezét.
Újra az Oszkár hangját hallotta: «Mary!» Az ő ölelései jutottak
eszébe és szégyelni kezdte a mezítelenségét. Milyen más volt az,
mint a mit a kis szürke képen látott maga előtt, milyen más, mint a
rég elmult júniusi délután vágyakozása.
Feledni akarta furcsa, reménytelen, nevetséges szerelmét.
Lefeküdt, két kezét erősen rászorította a mellére és magyarázni
kezdte magának, hogy ő már harmincz éves, Oszkár huszonöt.
Oszkárt ő sohasem fogja többé látni… A körmeit belemélyesztette a
fehér bőrébe és a hirtelen fájdalomra egyszerre jól esett Roth Ervinre
gondolni, valakire, a ki nagyon, nagyon gyengéden szereti őt, olyan
régen már, mindig őt, csak őt.
IX.
Csendes, egyforma napokat élt Mary Feldoffingban. Az apja nem

említette többé Roth Ervint. Ő, ha egyszer belebeszélte magát
valamibe, akkor nagyon tüzelt, aztán meg elfelejtette a dolgot
egészen. Már nem aggasztotta leánya jövője, az ilyesmi nála csak
addig tartott, a míg beszélt róla és még akkor is egyetlen szóval meg
tudta nyugtatni az, a ki eltalálta a kellő szót, vagy a ki épen
befolyással volt rá. Mary mindig befolyással volt rá, kis gyermekkora
óta az történt, a mit ő akart, ha egyáltalán érdemesnek találta
akarni.
Általában keveset szóltak bele egymás dolgaiba, mindketten a
maguk útját járták, Mary gyakran napokig nem látta az apját, de ha
találkoztak, mindig úgy találkoztak, mint a jó pajtások. Nem űzte
őket össze soha a kényszerűség, a mindennapi családi ebédek és
vacsorák, a melyekhez ugyanazon órában, ugyanazon asztalhoz
ülnek le ugyanazon emberek, hogy korlátlanul meggyötörjék
egymást a kellemetlenségeikkel és rossz kedvükkel.
Nekik örömet szerzett minden ebéd, a melyet együtt költöttek el,
ünnepszámba mentek nagy sétáik és az esték, a melyeken
elbeszélgettek sokáig.
Most mégis örült Mary, hogy az apja majdnem állandóan
Münchenben volt és már napok óta haza sem nézett.
Az április gyönyörű volt és abban a magától érthetődő, csendes,
napfényes világban minden magától érthetődő, csendes és
napfényes lett. Kicsit álomszerű volt a helyzet a berlini élet után, de
tisztább és világosabb sokkal. Annyi izgalom után jól esett Marynek
otthon lenni megint, úgy érezte, mintha végre visszaült volna egy
kényelmes, régen megszokott karosszékbe, a melyből csak nagy
elhatározás után állt fel egyszer, hogy aztán ezerszer megbánja.
Belesimult a gyermekkora óta megszokott életbe, hagyta, hogy a
napok teljenek, a hogy épen a sors hozza őket, az ő akarata és
beleavatkozása nélkül.
Egy szombat éjjel azt álmodta, hogy kis gyermeke volt és
gyönyörű vasárnapra ébredt.
A nap nagy, széles sugárban esett az arczába, az ablak nyitva
volt és olyan friss fény áradt be, a milyen csak tavasszal lehetséges.
Gyorsan felkelt és sétára indult a széles, fehér úton, a még
többnyire üres, bezárt nyaralók között.
Egészen elhagyatott volt az út. Mary a berlini utolsó vasárnapjára
gondolt. Mennyi ember tolongott az utczákon. Szép volt akkor az
Unter den Linden, ünnepies és tarka. Sok díszruhás asszony járt
virággal a kezében és a gyermekek majdnem mind fehérben voltak.
Oszkár pedig ott állt a kirakat előtt háttal hozzá. Ő megszólította,
meg kellett szólítania, ajkára tódult az öröm akaratlanul is. Oszkár is
örült nagyon. – Mary! – Milyen kedvesen mondta a nevét.
A visszaemlékezésre meleg lett a Mary arcza, a szíve sebesebben
vert, kicsit elakadt a lélekzete is, elhagyta a napok óta tartó
nyugalma és szerette volna, ha megint találkozik Oszkárral, ha feléje
jönne most egyszerre, a már gyengén, nyáriasan fehérporos úton.
Egy szép nyaralóhoz ért, a melynek jól ápolt kertjében már nyilni
kezdtek a jáczintok és tulipánok, nagy rácsos kapuja előtt pedig egy
kis nyomorék fiú állt. A lábai görbék voltak, túlnagy, kopott kabátja,
öreg arcza, nagy feje, rosszul illettek törpe kis alakjára.
Az iskolából jöhetett, a vasárnapi istentiszteletről, mert táska volt
a hátán, most pedig ott állt és várt.
Maryt nagyon meghatotta a kis fiú és ő is megállt az út másik
felén.
Jött egy fiú, meg egy leány. A fiú nagy volt és erős, egykorú
lehetett a kis törpével, de az vállig sem ért neki.
– Mit csinálsz itt? – kérdezte a nyomorék társától.
– Várok.
– Miért nem csöngetsz?
– Csengettem már, de nem hallják.
– Várj, majd rázom az ajtót.
A leány nevetni kezdett, rongyos, sötétkék gallérja hátra csúszott,
az akasztóláncz, a mely úgy látszik útközben szakadt le, a szájában
lógott és rágott rajta.
– Ne rázd az ajtót, minálunk nem szabad – kérte a kicsi fiú az
erős fiút.
De az nevetett, félrelökte a szegény görbelábút, jól megrázta az
ajtót, még gyorsan egyet lódított a kis sántán, hogy neki esett a
kerítésnek, aztán a galléros lánynyal együtt elszaladt. Mary és a kis
fiú pedig vártak tovább.
Végre jött egy férfi, a ki a házmester lehetett és a gyermek apja.
– Miért nem csengetsz, kis csúnya?
– Csengettem.
– Nem hallottam, szegény fiam.
– Kétszer is csengettem, akkor bizonyosan nem szól.
– Dehogy is nem szól.
A házmester megnyomta a csengőt, nem szólt, erősebben
nyomta és akkor szólt.
– Igazad van, nem szól jól, meg kell nyomni erősebben.
A kis fiú már benn volt a kertben.
– Jaj apám, én nem bírom olyan erősen nyomni.
Megindult fel a lépcsőn, nehezen, lassan, a kezével segített,
ijesztő kis szörnyeteg volt a táskájával hátán, négykézláb a lépcsőn.
– Bizony én nem bírom olyan erősen, kétszer is nyomtam, nem
szólt – ismételte, miközben az apja bezárta a kaput, aztán ölbe vette
a szegény kis fiát.
Mary is tovább ment az úton, nagyon meghatotta a kis sánta, de
aztán ezzel kapcsolatban is magára kellett gondolnia.
– Nem szól, vagy csak nem bírom olyan erősen nyomni? Nem
tudom. – Ez járt a fejében folyton. Nem szól, csak az biztos.
Valakinek jönnie kellene, a ki megnyomja erősen, hogy szóljon,
aztán az ölébe vegye őt, mint a kis nyomorékot az apja.
A fehér út kanyarodott egyet, Mary a kis katholikus templomhoz
ért. Bement! A mise már vége felé járt. A pap gyorsan mormogta a
hosszú latin mondatokat, két egészen kis fiú ministrált, értelmetlenül
motyogva közbe, kemény, szigoru és szent dolgokat.
A miseruhát a pap vállán a Mary anyja hímezte volt, nagy, piros
selyemrózsákat keresztszemmel.
Három miseruhát hímezett az édes anyja, egyet az esküvője
emlékére, egyet a Mary keresztelőjére és egyet, mikor már nagyon
beteg volt… a halálára.
Mindig hímezett reggeltől estig. Az apja egy nagy képet festett
róla, ott lóg mindig a műteremben, azon is hímez. Mary nagyon
tudott csudálkozni ezen gyermekkorában, most nem csudálkozott,
most már bámulta.
A mai asszonyok számára nem is léteznek már ezek a végnélküli
kézimunkák.
És mégis gyönyörű lehetett az anyjának színes selyemszálakkal
nagy virágokat hímezni és egy üres szövetdarabot telis-tele szórni
velük. Ő bizonyosan átérezte az öltögetés fontosságát és tudott
hozzá gondolkodni szépen.
Három ilyen miseruha, egy piros rózsás, egy nefelejtses, egy
fehér liliomos fekete bársonyon, egész asszony-élet.
Mary a piros rózsákat nézte, ő bizonyosan sohasem lesz olyan
boldog, mint az anyja volt, mikor ezeket a nagy virágokat varrta a
műterem ablakában és közbe-közbe rámosolygott a férjére. Talán
mégis a régi asszonyoknak volt igazuk.
A mise véget ért, a rózsák eltüntek, a templom kiürült és Mary is
ment.
Lement a tó partjára, leült egy nagy kőre, épen a domb alatt, a
melyen a házuk állt.
Szemben ült a nappal, behunyta a szemét és a behunyt szemén
át piros volt minden, fényes, piros és azt hitte, soha ki sem nyitja
többé a szemét.
Nagyon szép volt és jó, megmagyarázhatatlan boldog érzés
beszélt hozzá, a mely épen olyan titokzatosan jön, mint a nagy,
oknélküli bánatok. A nap pedig sütött és úgy nyugodott a Mary
arczán, mint egy nagy, simogató kéz.
Az anyjára gondolt Mary, a hímzéseire, a gyermekkorára, a
vasárnap varázsát élvezte, egész valójára ráborult valami gyöngéd,
lágy, mosolygó emlék. Delet harangoztak és a harangzúgást követő
csendben ismét az Oszkár hangját hallotta… Mary!
Most ez is szép volt és egyáltalán nem szomorú. A tó csillogott a
déli fényben, a hegyek kéken látszottak a tavaszi, párás levegőben, a
túlsó parton, mint egy mesebeli vár, úgy állt virágos fák között, a
leonii kastély.
A starnbergi hajó ment el fehéren füstölve, széles barázdát
szántott a vizen, a mely hullámokba veszve simult el a part felé,
hogy benedvesedtek és fényesek lettek a kavicsok a Mary lábainál.
Mary meg volt győződve róla, hogy ma eljön Roth Ervin és reá
várt. Ott várt, mert tudta, hogy a házuk kapujából megláthatja őt.
Egy vonatot hallott fütyülni messziről, a a szíve elszorult,
nehezebben kapott lélekzetet. Most jött, ha jön egyáltalán. Várt!
Izgatott lett. Inkább a bizonytalanság hozta magával. Ha nem jön,
azt sem bánja, talán megkönnyebbülést is érzett volna, ha nem jön.
De jött! A kertjük kapuja ismerősen nyikorgott, otthon kereste
előbb, minden úgy történt, a mint Mary gondolta. Még várnia kell
egy kicsit. Most felér a házhoz, megkérdi, hogy ő otthon van-e? Azt
mondják nem, sétálni ment. Ervin elindul, hogy találkozzék vele. A
kertkapuból meglátja őt és… Már lépéseket is hallott maga mögött.
Mary nem mozdult, egyszerre csend lett, a kavics már nem
csikorgott, Ervin megállt, mikor már egészen közel ért hozzá.
Ismét csak a hullámok csobogása hallatszott, a mint a köveket
mosták a napfényen.
Egy percz, két percz, aztán Mary lassan megfordult és újra látták
egymást hat év után.
– Jöjjön, üljön le mellém – mondta Mary és Roth Ervin leült egy
másik nagy kőre.
Nagyon elfogult volt, Mary kezdett beszélgetni. Aztán
elgondolkozott ő is.
– Emlékszik mikor utóljára ültünk itt? – kérdezte.
– Emlékszem Mary, egy szeles alkonyat volt, magának egészen
szétborzolta a haját a szél. Akkor is így ült mellettem, mint most,
hogy csak profilban láttam. Egyetlen egyszer sem nézett rám és úgy
mesélt soká. Arról mesélt, hogy régen a nők haja zenélt, ha a szél
belefujt és maga akkor egy indiai királyleány volt, a kinek sarkig ért
a fekete haja és abban hordott nagy különös színű bogáncsokat. A
Gangesben fürdött és tánczolt a holdfényen gyöngyökkel telehintett
zöld fátyolban. Aztán fekete ruhában feküdt egy puha, vörös
kereveten, sok, sok selyem párnán, a melyeknek orchidea szaguk
volt. Emlékszik még maga is?
– Emlékszem. Milyen régen is volt, mikor én még ilyenekre
gondoltam. Azóta valaki beszélt nekem egy indiai lányról, de az
szőke volt és agyontánczolta magát, mert szeretett, elhervadt, mint
egy rózsaszínű orchidea. Így még szebb, de ez sem én voltam.
Szomorú mindez nagyon.
– Nem, nem szomorú, Mary. Én úgy vártam, hogy leteljék az idő
és újra eljöhessek magához. Egyszer Münchenben is jártam,
elmentem az atelierhez, a mely előtt annyiszor vártam magára,
akkor mentem, mikor tudtam, hogy senki sincs ott. Lipcséből jöttem
titokban… felmentem a lépcsőkön is, fel kellett mennem. Aztán
odatámasztottam a fejemet az előszobaajtó üvegéhez és talán arra
vártam, hogy valami meg fog elevenedni odabenn. Hogy maga fog
kijönni Mary. Nagyon szerettem hat év előtt is és most még sokkal
jobban szeretem. Nem tudtam soha sem egészen és igazán
megmondani mennyire. Nem értem, mindig olyan ostoba voltam, ha
mellettem volt, elbutított a boldogság. Miért is szeretem annyira?
Egy hétig csak látnom és hallanom kellene, a míg aztán telítve az
egyéniségétől, magamhoz jönnék… Nem tudok egy hétig várni már,
hat évig vártam a mai napra. Hat évig türelmetlen voltam és árva.
Nem akarja megpróbálni velem az életet Mary?
– Nem tudom, én már olyan fáradt vagyok.
– Ne mondja azt, az nem helyes, maga még fiatal és szebb mint
valaha. Csak az élnitudás hiányzik magából, mint a legtöbb
emberből. Igen sokat töri a fejét és gondolkodik az életen. Olyan az,
mint ha a művészek, a helyett, hogy hangszereiken játszanának,
azok elemzésével foglalkoznának, sorra vizsgálnák a húrokat,
kiszednének egyes részeket, míg végre már nem is adna hangot az a
hangszer.
A élet hangszer Mary, a melyet a természet formál, a mely
rejtélyesen formálódik olyanná, a milyen, a játszani tudók számára.
Úgy kell venni, mint valami kész egészet, valami magától érthetődőt,
a melynek készségébe avatatlan kézzel belenyulni nem szabad.
– Ezt Oszkár is mondhatta volna, ha ő tudna így beszélni –
gondolta Mary.
Ervin folytatta: – Mary, próbálja meg szeretettel és művészettel
élni a maga életét és ne törje a fejét más lehetőségeken. Adja ide a
kezét. Én úgy szeretem magát. Lesz egy jó meleg szobánk, egy
kandallónk, nagy butorok és sok, sok gyönyörű esténk, mikor
megvárja míg befejezem a munkát, a puha vörös kanapén, a
selyemvánkusok között várja meg Mary és én azt mondom – Gyere
ide – maga hozzám jön Mary és mesél nekem és én minden mást
elfelejtek. Akarom, hogy maga is csak engem tudjon és semmi,
semmi mást a világon.
Szikrázott a napsugár a homokon, tülekedő bogarak zümmögtek,
forró volt az ég és Marynek jól esett erről a nagy szerelemről
hallania. Egy kicsit várt még, aztán két kezébe fogta az Ervin kezét,
az arczához szorította és valami gyöngéd, nagy megnyugvásra
gondolt, a mely kedves volt, derüs és finom, mint az édes anyja
hímzette miseruhán a piros virágok.
X.
Öt évvel később októberben egy müncheni vendéglő ablaka

mellett ült Mary és vacsorázott. Faburkolatos, jellegzetesen német
sörcsarnok volt, gótbetűs verses feliratokkal a sötétbarnába illesztett
világosabb barna táblákon.
Fehérkötényes pinczérlányok hordták az ételt, a kik keveset
törődtek az egyedül ülő asszonynyal, inkább a férfiakat szolgálták ki
és soká megálltak tréfálkozni az asztalok mellett.
Végre Mary is megkapta a vacsoráját, disznócsülköt káposztával
és egy nagy korsó sört, a müncheni sörházak rendes étrendjét.
Mary Feldaffingban látogatta meg az apját és két napra bejött
Münchenbe, szétnézni ifjúkori emlékei között.
Nagyon örült ennek az egyedüllétnek, távol a férjétől, távol a kis
fiától. Úgy érezte, hogy el kell mennie tőlük, szabad levegőt szívni
egy kicsit.
Az apjánál volt, a leánykori szobájában lakott, a régi íróasztalát, a
kedves képeit látta újra, a melyek mind ott maradtak megszokott
helyükön. Néha majdnem elfelejtette, hogy asszony és újra járta a tó
partján a nagy erdőket.
Marynek egy kicsit mindig terhére volt a férje és örült, hogy
ismét egyedül élhetett a kis szobájában. Azért nem volt ő
boldogtalan Ervinnel, nyugodtan élt, a fiát nevelte és lassan egészen
megváltozott. Piros arczú lett és egészséges kinézésű, széles csípőjű,
beesett mellű, mint a német asszonyok. A haja megbarnult és nem
göndörödött többé aranyosan a kalapja alatt.
A megelégedett családanyák nyugalmával ült a vendéglő
ablakában és evett disznócsülköt káposztával. Közben kinézett az
utczára és kötelességszerűen az elmúlt időkre emlékezett.
Leánykorában gyakran ebédelt itt és most bele akarta magát élni
a régi helyzetbe, de sehogyan sem sikerült.
Minden otthonos volt, de mégis szokatlan, valami, a mi régen
kedves volt és már kiszakadt az életéből, hogy valami idegen legyen
megszokottá.
Mary befejezte a vacsoráját és felnézett és mikor felnézett,
Oszkárt látta végigjönni az éttermen.
Az első pillanatban nagy örömet érzett, olyanformát, mintha
valakinek, valaki öregnek és fáradtnak váratlanul visszaadják a
fiatalságát. Felugrott. – Oszkár! – mondta meglepetten.
Akkor már Oszkár is meglátta és épen olyan csodálkozva mondta
ő is – Mary!
Oszkár a feleségével volt és az asszony mosolyogva biztosította
Maryt, hogy már sokat hallott róla, de azért nem ismerte volna meg,
egészen másnak képzelte, azután leült az asztalához.
Oszkár hamar visszanyerte teljes nyugalmát és vacsorát rendelt,
de Maryt túlságosan meglepte a viszontlátás. Régen tudta ő, hogy
Oszkár megházasodott, de az csak puszta tény volt, a mely eljutott
hozzá, hogy elszomorítsa egy pillanatra, a valóság egészen más volt.
A valóság egy csinos, fiatal asszony volt, a kit Oszkár nagyon
gyengéden Juditnak szólitott.
Az a szürkekesztyűs leány volt, a kit a virágkereskedésben
szeretett meg, a kinek az emléke fehér szegfűket juttatott Marynek,
a kit visszatérve Pestre újra látott Oszkár és a ki már egy éve volt a
felesége.
Oszkár kiszakadt a Mary életéből, mint az ifjúkori emlékei és
most visszatért, egy nővel tért vissza, a kit szeretett. Szép nő volt.
Mary úgy hitte, hogy még sohasem látott olyan gyönyörű színűre
lesült és olyan kemény karokat, mint az ő karjai, soha olyan
aczélosan formált testet. Új, divatos kalapja volt, kicsi, sötétkék és
ha férjére nézett, mindig nagyobbak és fényesebbek lettek a szemei.
Oszkár alig-alig is szólt, a felesége vacsorájáról gondoskodott és
Mary érezte, hogy alapjában véve terhére van.
Judit mesélte el, hogy két hétre utazni jöttek a házasságuk
évfordulójára, hogy kinn voltak Starnbergben és az a nehány nap
csudaszép volt. Feldaffingba is átsétáltak és sajnálja, hogy nem
találkoztak Maryvel. Elvitték volna csónakázni őt is, mert jóformán az
egész nap a tavon voltak. Egyszer délután áteveztek Leoniba, aztán
felmentek a Szépkilátóhoz uzsonnázni és mire visszaértek a
csónakhoz, már este lett. A starnbergi part sötéten veszett bele a
tóba és csak a csónakház előtt világított egy kis lámpa, hogy az
útjukat jelezze, úgy dolgoztak át négy kilométert az éjszakában.
Oszkár a feleségét nézte és hallgatta és Marynek eszébe jutott, a
mit régen mesélt neki a jövő vágyairól.
– Örvendek, hogy olyan boldogok, – mondta Oszkárnak – úgy
látszik mindazt megkapt a a mit régen kívánt magának.
Oszkár megsimogatta a felesége kezét és Mary még
megjegyezte: – Talán a sors is engedékenyebb azokkal szemben, a
kik hisznek benne, a kik az életet szeretik és erősen tudnak akarni.
Mondja különben, most mivel foglalkozik?
– Egy nagy gépgyárnak vagyok a mérnöke, a feleségem is
dolgozik, tanít, mint leánykorában és így nagyon örülünk a
szabadidőnknek. Az esték különösen szépek, akkor sétálni megyünk
vagy színházba. Judit a műveltségemet igyekszik kiegészíteni. Úgy-e
szívecském?
Az asszony bólintott, mosolygott és Oszkár bort töltött a
poharába.
– Hát maga, Mary, hogy él, mióta nem láttam? – kérdezte aztán.
Most a Mary otthonáról beszéltek és ő egyszerre utálni kezdte a
férje mellett eltöltött nyugalmas öt esztendőt.
Az Oszkárral együtt töltött napokra gondolt és egész este
nyugtalan, ideges, türelmetlen volt.
Érezte, hogy megöregedett és elszélesedett, restelte a nagy krigli
sörét és a vadászkalapját. Szerette volna, ha ma is olyan vékony
törékeny a csuklója, mint régen volt, mikor még a Halensee partján
ebédelt együtt Oszkárral.
Vacsora után moziba akart menni Judit, Mary is velük tartott,
nem mert elválni tőlük, félt attól a pillanattól, ha majd egyedül
marad. Pedig únta az előadást, egyáltalán nem szerette az ostobán
humoros és szentimentális történeteket a fehér vásznon. Olyan jól is
tudott máskor a szerinte együgyű élvezettel gúnyolódni, de ma este
nem nevetett a fiatalasszony mulatságán, irigyelte tőle azt is,
irigyelte a gyerekes örömét és minden nevetését.
A gép berregett, a levegő rossz volt, a zenekar hamisan játszott.
Mary egyedül, elfogultan ült az asszony mellett, a ki az ura kezét
fogta, hozzásimult és úgy mulatott.
Mary is szeretett volna fiatal, boldog asszony lenni, mindent
elfelejteni, a mi volt és csak ma egyetlen egyszer a Judit helyében
lenni.
Együtt indultak el hazafelé, egy szép, új hotel előtt Oszkár
megállt. – Na, mi itthon vagyunk – mondta.
– Kísérjük el Maryt, – ajánlotta az asszony, aztán felmutatott a
negyedik emeletre – ott lakunk a sarkon, gyönyörű szobánk van,
egyáltalában én még sohasem láttam ilyen szép hotelt, egészen új
és hihetetlenül izléses. A mi szobánkban fehér a butor, vörös selyem
huzatokkal, az egész padló szürke plüssel van bevonva és még az
ágyban a pokróczok mintája is egész különösen szép.
Mary egy penzióban lakott, ott, a hol régen leánykorában is, ha
bennmaradt a városban. Oszkárék hazáig kísérték. A ház előtt egy
nagy kulcsot vett ki a táskájából és kizárta a kaput. Már kezében
fogta a kilincset, mikor hirtelen érezte, hogy most így nem válhat el
tőlük, mit fog különben gondolni róla az az asszony.
– Holnap mit fognak csinálni? – kérdezte.
– Még nem tudom, nincs semmi tervünk – mondta Oszkár. – Este
az operába megyünk, csak az bizonyos még, a Pillangókisasszonyt
nézzük meg. Maga meddig marad még itt, Mary?
– Holnap este megyek vissza Feldaffingba.
Csend volt. Judit érezte, hogy most valami kedveset kell
mondania.
– Vacsorázzék velünk holnap is. Várjon, de hol? Tudja mit, jőjjön
el a szállodánk éttermébe, hétkor eszünk és aztán megyünk az
operába.
– Jó, majd meglátom, talán – felelte Mary és ez a barátságtalan
válasz jól esett neki.
Aztán elváltak, Mary bezárta a nagy kaput, felment a sötét
lépcsőn, fölnyitotta az előszobát is, meggyujtotta a számára
odakészített gyertyát és végre eljutott a szobájába.
Az ágy szélére ült le és gondolkodott a mai estén. Valami
bosszantó megszégyenítő érzés fogta el, bántotta az asszony minden
féltékenységtől ment kedvessége, a melylyel vele bánt és
bosszantotta, hogy ő meg annyira elveszítette a biztonságát, a
nyugalmát.
A gyertya pislogva égett, a villanyt már féltizenegykor lezárta a
háziasszony. Mary a félhomályban ülve nézte az egyenes, barnalábú
íróasztalt, a téglavörös mintás tapétát, az ízléstelen, olcsó függönyt.
Ő itt lakott, azok pedig most már hazaértek a fehér szobába, a
vörös selyemhuzatos butorok közé. A szürke bársonyszőnyegen jár
az asszony, rakosgat, vetkezik és Oszkár behúzza a szép, nagy
függönyöket.
Az asszony bizonyosan csodálkozik, hogy ő, Mary, olyan, a
milyen, másnak képzelte. Más is azon a képen, a melyet Frohnauban
ajándékozott Oszkárnak. Akkor még hüvelyk- és mutatóujjával tudta
átfogni a csuklóját, most pedig egyáltalán nem érte át. Ha ő olyan
lenne, mint akkor volt, ha holnap megjelenhetne megint a régi
rozsdaszínű ruhájában, talán még féltékeny is lenne Judit. – Mary
olyan, mint egy rózsaszínű orchidea! – Erre csak úgy emlékezett már,
mint öregasszonyok az ifjúkori hódításaikra.
És Oszkár, Oszkár vajjon mit gondol most róla? Semmit, Oszkár
nem törődik már, csak a feleségével, most, míg ő itt ül az ágya
szélén, talán épen megöleli, úgy mint régen őt. Nem, nem úgy,
másként, nagy szerelemmel és boldogok, olyan boldogok, a milyen ő
nem volt és nem lehet sohasem.
Marynek tovább mozgott a képzelete, látta a gyönyörű mintás
pokróczokat, látta az asszony barna fejét a kis fehér párnán, hallotta
kaczagni és egyszerre ott állt előtte, úgy a mint ma este látta, a mint
tudta, hogy most már mindig látni fogja őt, a sötétkék ruhájában,
vörös szegélylyel a fekete áttört selyemzsinórok alatt, a kemény kis
alakjával, a mint profilba fordul, ránéz az urára és mosolyog.
Mary haragudott rá, féltékenynyé szerette volna tenni és nagy,
nagy szomorúságot okozni neki. Irigyelte a boldogságát, de már nem
érezte azt a fájón édes, egész testét megrázó vágyakozást, a melyet
régen érzett, ha Oszkárra gondolt. Az a vágyakozás már meg volt
ölve egy együttélésben, a mely fáradttá és unottá tette csak,
boldoggá soha. Már, már elhitette magával, hogy a nő számára a
férfi csak gyermeket jelent, az ifjúságban kívánt, remélt, sejtett
gyönyört soha.
Most látta Juditot, a mint mosolygó biztonsággal nézett az ura
szemébe, látta hozzásimulni, hallotta a szobájukról beszélni és
csónakázásaikról a Starnbergi-tavon.
Mary felugrott az ágy széléről, az ablakhoz ment. Vidám diákok
énekelve vonultak el a szemközti utczasoron. Lenn a vendéglőben
még sokan ültek és a lámpák széles fénysugarakat vetettek a
járdára. Póstások robogtak hazafelé autoczikliken, egy fiatal pár
nevetve jött át az utczán és nevetésük felhallatszott Maryhez. Ezek is
boldogok! Talán Oszkár és Judit most róla beszélnek, Oszkár elmesél
a feleségének a megismerkedésüktől az elválásukig mindent, az
egész tovatűnt berlini barátságukat.
Az asszony meg bizonyosan kitalálja a Mary nagy, reménytelen
szerelmét és sajnálja őt. Ebben a pillanatban sajnálja, a fehér
szobában, a férje karjaiban, mikor ő itt áll a nyitott ablakban
elhagyatva, egyedül.
Bizonyosan azt hiszi, hogy ő még mindig szereti Oszkárt s hogy
boldogtalan nagyon a mai találkozás után. Ezt nem akarta Mary,
együtt kell lennie velük okvetetlenül, meg fogja mutatni, hogy
boldog ő is, el fogja felejtetni velük a mai estét.
XI.
Egy vonat robogott az éjszakában Münchenből Feldaffing felé,

hideg, ködös, októberi éjben fázva simult Mary a kupé sarkába.
Egyedül és nagyon szomorúan.
Ismét találkozott Oszkárékkal. Már egész nap kereste őket, a
képtárakban, a sétatéren, a legszebb utczákon, a nagy árúházban,
szeretett volna túlesni a rá nézve olyan nehéz együttléten, de nem
találta meg őket sehol.
Végre eljött az este és együtt ültek ismét, látta az asszonyt
estélyi ruhában is, világos szürkén, selymesen, nagy tollas, kis fekete
kalapban, Oszkárt meg frakkban úgy, mint régen az Eriksen Lolo
hangversenyén. Most még szebb volt, férfiasabb és még
derültebben, fölényesebben nyugodt, mint akkor.
Arról az elmúlt estéről kezdett beszélni Mary, a mosolygó
visszaemlékezés derüs hangján, mintha egy együtt leélt gyermekkor
eseményeiről beszélne csak, olyan vidáman.
Aztán a kis fiáról mesélt sokat és nevelési kérdések felett vitába
elegyedett Judittal. Most végre fölényben érezte magát. – Istenem –
mondta végül – mit is tudja azt az, a ki csak pedagogus, a
legegyszerűbb anya is jobban ért a gyermekekhez. Maguk még nem
is tudják, milyen boldogság a gyerek, minden nő elsősorban anya, a
többi mind mellékes. Én csak azóta élek igazán, mióta megvan a
fiam. Még a hiúságról is lemondtam, a szép ruhák sem érdekelnek
többé, pedig az nálam nagy szó.
– Igen, leánykorában nagyon szerette a különös és szép színű
ruhákat. Nekem nagyon tetszettek is, én csak a jól öltözött nőket
szeretem, – mondta Oszkár.
Mary Juditot nézte, a gyönyörű ruháját vizsgálta. – Nincs pedig
annak semmi értelme – jegyezte meg aztán.
Így mentette ki a vadászkalapját, füző nélküli reformruhás
megjelenését, a ragyogóan fiatal Judit mellett.
Oszkárék gyorsan vacsoráztak, siettek az operába. Bucsúzóul az
asszony virágokat vett ki egy csomagból és átadta Marynek.
Orchideák voltak, rózsaszinű orchideák.
– Fogadja el tőlem – mondta – Oszkár úgy emlékezett, hogy ezek
a kedvencz virágai.
Mary megköszönte és végtelen szomorú lett egy pillanatra a
szeme, a mint ránézett Oszkárra, a ki már nem is gondol arra, hogy
egyszer féltékenyen őrizte az ő orchideáját a gomblyukában.
Aztán Mary kinn állt az omnibusz megállóhelyen, egyik kezében
az esernyője és az orchideák, másikban a kis sárga táskája és sok
apró csomag, az egyikben czipő volt a kis Ervin számára, a
csomagoló papiros kiszakadt és kilátszott egy keskeny, fekete sarok.
Judit várni akart, míg jön a Mary omnibusza, de Oszkár nem
engedte, félt, hogy elkésnek és elmulasztják a nyitányt.
Elmentek hát. Judit még egyszer visszafordult és mosolyogva
intett Marynek, a ki utánuk nézett. Oszkár senkivel sem törődve,
átfogta a felesége derekát, úgy tartotta össze a nagy köpenyegét, az
asszony a széllel küzdve előre szegte a fejét és nagy strucztollai
libegtek a kalapján. Még egyszer előbújt szürke selyem harisnyája a
lakkczipője felett, aztán eltüntek a tömegben. Csak néhány könnyű,
rózsaszínű virág maradt belőlük. Még most is ott voltak a Mary
ölében, míg a vonat vitte őt hazafelé. Ölében voltak az orchideák és
össze-vissza zürzavarosan jártak fejében a gondolatok.
Nagyon levert volt, ez a találkozás kizaklatta őt a megszokott,
csendes életéből. Ő szótfogadott a férjének és az elmult öt év alatt
keveset gondolkozott az életen, keveset magán, szeszélyes volt néha
és levert, de magyarázatot nem keresett. Hozzászokott ahhoz, hogy
ne várjon a napoktól mást, csakhogy elteljenek csendesen, izgalom
nélkül. Mióta a fia is meg volt, meg az ezer kedves, apró gond, azóta
épen nem törődött mással, mint az étellel, itallal, a lakásával és a
bútorokkal. Magáról elfelejtkezett egészen, úgy mintha minden napra
viseljük már az ünneplő ruhánkat és elfelejtünk vigyázni arra, a mit
valamikor annyi gonddal őriztünk.
A férje boldog volt vele, neki kényelmesebb volt a lecsiszolt,
eltompult Mary, ő szépnek látta és szerette, az ő szemében örökre
élt a régi varázsa. Csendes, nagy érzelem volt, a melyről sohasem
beszélt és óvatos, kicsit megszorított járása jellemezte egész
életüket. Maryt mindig bosszantotta ez a járás és most ott a kupé
sarkában egyszerre gyűlölte, épen úgy gyűlölte, mint a kifaragott,
élesen, biztosan körülhatárolva előadott véleményeit, szigorú nagy
szavait és az Ervin egész nyugodt, meggondolt szerelmét.
Oszkárra gondolt és arra, milyen lehet ha szeret, ha
szenvedélyesen, fiatalon öleli magához az asszonyát.
A halenseei sétájuk jutott eszébe, a csókjaik, visszagondolt a
búcsújukra az ő szobájában, mikor fejét a vállára hajtva ülhetett
mellette. Akkor Oszkár is szerette egy kicsit. Most már más ül
mellette, mást csókol, más az övé egészen.
Mary sohasem lehet az övé, soha azé a férfié, a kit szeret és
sohasem ölel senkit úgy, a hogy átvirrasztott fiatal éjszakáin az
álmait ölelte.
Ostobán hinni próbált Róth Ervinnek azon a rég elmúlt tavaszi
napon és a vágyak elcsitulását várta nála, de az ő vágyai nem
elcsitultak egy szerelemben, hanem lassan haltak meg, múltak el az
évekkel.
Most üresen áll és nincs semmije és senkije.
Hazagondolt, a kékvirágos levesestál jutott eszébe, a nagy kanál,
aztán hirtelen gyöngédséget érzett, a kis fiát látta, a mint feléje
nyujtja a tányérját. De mindjárt a férje is megjelent, szemben ült a
fiával, most óvatosan dugja nyakába a szalvétáját és a kis fia, a Mary
baloldalán épen úgy a trikója kivágásába. Épen úgy, mindent épen
úgy, mint az apja, olyan óvatosan, tisztán, rendesen.
A szemei az apja jóságával, gyengédségével vannak tele, minden
szava az ő türelmével és kis kezei fehérek, keskenyek, mint az Ervin
kezei.
Egy nagy Ervin és egy kis Ervin, ez az ő élete. Oszkár és Judit
pedig most az operában ülnek, egymáshoz simulva zenét hallgatnak,
az asszony az ura kezét fogja, úgy mint tegnap, és Oszkár ránéz
meleg pillantással. Mosolyog is hozzá, de a szeme komoly marad,
csak a sűrű szőke bajusza mozdul meg. Milyen jól ismerte Mary ezt a
mosolyt.
Aztán hazamennek majd a Puccini zenéjének emlékével, a
legszerelmesebb zene emlékével és kicsit ünnepélyes lesz a csókjuk,
mintha a színpadon lennének ők is.
Egyszer Juditnak is lesz bizonyosan kis fia, de az Oszkárhoz fog
majd hasonlítani. Megszagolta az orchideáit és nézte őket soká. Ha ő
akkor régen mégis ott maradt volna Berlinben, talán most neki is
volna egy olyan kis gyermeke. Bolond gondolat, de elképzelni jó.
Minek is ment ő feleségül Ervinhez? Hátha találkozott volna még
valakivel, a kit tudott volna szeretni is. Vagy maradt volna inkább
egyedül, akkor nem pusztult volna el a művészete és nem halt volna
meg a vágyakozása, hanem végtelen, gyönyörű bánattá finomodik
eddig.
Apró kezekről álmodozott akkor, kis gyermekkarokat kívánt a
nyaka köré, minden szenvedést megváltó gyermekfejeket látott
maga előtt, a melyekről Frau Petersen beszélt azon a régi esős
délutánon, a Bettina néni szalonjában, a sok asszonynak.
Most megvolt a kis fia, de az apjához hasonlított, az apjához
egészen és Mary nem tudott benne gyönyörködni, mert nem szerette
a férfit, a ki adta és lealacsonyító volt számára a szenvedély, a
melyből támadt.
Csak most gondolta végig mindezt Mary, most kapott
magyarázatot sok nehéz órája, most megértette a gyermeke
születése után, nagy, ösztönszerű elégedetlenségéből fakadt sirását.
Megérkezett a vonat Feldaffingba, hideg volt, köd ülte meg a
tájat, mintha láthatatlan kezek lengetnének fehér fátyolokat. Igazi
ősz volt, szeles, hideg október és a fákról hullottak a levelek.
Mary gyalog ment haza, nem félt az éjszakától, egy vonat füttye
hallatszott messziről és a templom-óra ütni kezdett. Csak itt-ott égett
pislogva egy-egy lámpa az út mellett és Marynek vigyáznia kellett
minden lépésére. A küzdelem az úttal, a sötéttel új életkedvet öntött
belé, önkéntelenül valami kibúvót keresett nagy keserűségéből.
Zizegett a sok sárga levél a lába alatt, reménytelensége
szomorúság lett lassan, mély igazságokkal telt meg, függetlennek
érezte magát mindattól, a mi vele történt, külön vált a saját sorsától
és elhatározta, hogy könyvet ír róla.
Nagy tanulsággal teli könyvet az asszonyoknak, a leányoknak,
hogy sohase fogják meg férfi kezét nagy igérettel, ha nem
szeretnek, mint ő régen, régen egyszer tavaszszal.
Igen így is fogja kezdeni. – Tavasz volt, Mária az arczához
szorította az Egon kezét és… –
Gyorsan ment, sietett haza, még ma este el akarta kezdeni. Úgy
érezte, most már elmenekült zürzavaros, sötét helyzetéből és valami
nagyon világosnak és tisztának kell jönnie. Már a finom fejléczeket is
látta, a melyeket a könyvéhez rajzol, felébredt régen elaludt
munkakedve és majdnem vidám lett.
Otthon nem várták, csendesen zárta ki a kaput, felosont a
szobájába, ledobta a kalapját, kabátját, leült az íróasztalához,
meggyujtotta a lámpát, állát gondolkodva támasztotta az
összekulcsolt kezére és maga elé nézett. A fény ráesett a Bartholomé
domborművének képére, a mely a régi helyén lógott, szemben vele.
Mary rajta felejtette a pillantását. Egy fiatal férfi és egy nő aludt
egymás mellett holtan, keresztülfektetve rajtuk kis gyermekük. Ők
emelt fővel mennek be az elmúlás kapuján, míg körülöttük
roskadozva gyülekeznek öregek és fiatalok, más férfiak és nők, a
kiknek nem telt be a sorsuk úgy, mint nekik.
Mary nézte, nézte a képet, a lámpa bizonytalan fényében a férfi
lassan Oszkár lett, a nő olyan mint Judit és a gyermek az ő
gyermekük.
Piros rózsák nyíltak most is körülöttük a Mary képzeletében, mint
régen kinn a párisi temetőben… mi ehhez képest minden szó és
minden írás?
Mary lehajtotta a fejét az asztalra és sírt.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MARY ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying
copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of
Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything
for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund
from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law
in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated
with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this
agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached
full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the
terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears,
or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning
of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or
expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or
a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original
“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must
include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in
paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or

(Ebooks PDF) Download Sport Policy in Britain 1st Edition Barrie Houlihan Full Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Ebooks PDF) Download Sport Policy in Britain 1st Edition Barrie Houlihan Full Chapters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Ebooks PDF) Download Sport Policy in Britain 1st Edition Barrie Houlihan Full Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download ebook at ebookname.

Sport Policy in Britain 1st Edition Barrie

Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

Routledge Handbook of Sports Development 1st Edition

Sport Policy and Development An Introduction 1st

Personality Traits in Online Communication 1st Edition

Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain Natural

Networking bible 1st Edition Barrie Sosinsky

Ethnicity Sport Identity Struggles for Status Sport in

Counseling for Asperger Couples 1st Edition Barrie

Anglo European Intelligence Cooperation Britain in

Barrie Houlihan is Professor of Sport Policy at Loughborough University

Iain Lindseyy is Senior Lecturer in Sports Development at Edge Hill University

1 Sport, Masculinities and the 9 Critical Readings in

17 Sport and Its Female Fans

18 Sport Policy in Britain

Barrie Houlihan and Iain Lindsey

NEW YORK LONDON

1 The Framework for Analysis 1

2 John Major’s Conservative Governments 25

3 From New Labour’s Modernisation to

4 The Impact of Devolution on Sport Policy 76

5 Elite Success and/or Increased Participation 105

6 The Forgotten Partner: Local Government 128

7 Youth Sport 156

8 Continuity and Change in British Sport Policy 181

5.1 Sport policy clusters of interest, 2012. 106

1.1 Dimensions of Change 4

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF 1990

Nineteen ninety was an important year in British politics in general and,

As far as functions are concerned, [Minister for Sport] Iain Sproat’s

Other sport organisations operated within a broader sports landscape

Dimension 1980s Mid-1990s Early 2010s

ANALYSING CHANGE IN SPORT POLICY

Secondary beliefs/ • Hosting major sports • Allocating responsibility

in sport. Thus it could be argued that John Major’s increasing interven-

Underpinning resources Nodality—Authority—Treasure—Organisation

ing in sports where the identiﬁﬁcation or chil-

FRAMEWORKS FOR ANALYSING POLICY CHANGE

Although this study utilises frameworks developed for meso-level analysis,

Dimension Neo-Marxism Governance Neo-pluralism Market liberalism

Dimension Neo-Marxism Governance Neo-pluralism Market liberalism

institutionalism in which domi-

Attractive though the literature on the broad version of path dependency

The Multiple-Streams Framework

The Advocacy Coalition Framework

THE STRUCTURE OF THE ANALYSIS

An understanding of the developments in sport since 1990 requires analysis

Chapter 1 advocated caution in identifying particular historical moments

MARGARET THATCHER’S LEGACY OF NEGLECT

Government intervention in sport during the period of Margaret Thatch-

JOHN MAJOR AND THE RE-EMERGENCE OF SPORT

That the approach adopted by John Major’s governments towards sport

Sport is a binding force between generations and across borders. But,

SPORT POLICY THEMES 1990–1997

Moreover, in Commons debates on Sport: Raising the Game, the minister

The Government’s role is to encourage and support what are largely

In the face of increasing international competition (Oakley and Green

A particularly strong critique of the inclusivity of this approach was pre-