Last week’s World Athletics Championships offered the latest evidence that when it comes to staging major sports events considerable expertise has been generated in the UK.
The competitors themselves, not least those taking part in morning qualifying sessions or decathletes and heptathletes who are used to some of their events running into the intervals between sessions, seemed amazed by the size of the crowds they were performing in front of.
We expected vast attendances at the weekends when Usain Bolt and Mo Farah were putting in their final track performances, but in between times, through the working week, they kept pouring through the gates, more than 700,000 spectators in all in the course of 10 days of compelling action.
Such were the incidents, issue and at times even intrigue, they got their money’s worth, with genuine global greats, also including Allyson Felix and Wayde van Niekerk, in action every night, but as uplifting as much of it was it played to a theme I was asked to address earlier this summer.
In the event it was an invitation I had to turn down because of a date clash, but it had been extended by the president of a rugby club who wanted me to examine his hypothesis that we are going through a process of turning sports that were formerly largely about participation into spectator sports.
Just as rugby has become increasingly like American Football in that regard, while our national sport of football has also seen a chasm develop between what is designed for spectators and the game most people play, so at what is now West Ham United’s home ground it felt, during the World Championships, as if something similar has been happening in athletics with all the effort piled into putting on a show and getting bums on seats, rather than feet on tracks and pitches.
‘If you build it they will come,’ rang the ‘Field of Dreams’ movie legend, but even in that heart-warming fairytale the battle was between the purity of the main character’s motives and those seeking to find the most effective way of making as much money as possible from the land.
In essence this is all part of the discussion about this abused word ‘legacy’ that has been used to justify huge public expenditure on staging sports events and in pursuing gold, silver and bronzeware, the argument being that we are inspiring future generations.
Heading late into the penultimate evening at the Olympic Stadium there was, however, an ever stronger case to be made that what we are inspiring them to do is watch rather than play with, in stark contrast to what we had hoped would be happening by now, just one British athlete, a man who was on the point of retiring from the track, picking up an individual medal in the course of the championships and by his dizzying standards even Mo Farah under-performed by winning ‘only’ one gold medal.
It was apt, then, that Scottish Athletics could lay some claim to the man who turned things around, their former head of coaching Stephen Maguire having overseen the full set of relay medals, a gold, two silver and a bronze, that lifted the host nation to sixth place from outside the top 10 on the table.
More important than that, however, was the presence of a record sized Scottish contingent produced by a governing body that for many of us has become an exemplar of the right way to develop sport, by placing the emphasis on participation. They did not come home with a bag full of medals this time, but probably will from the Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast. Most encouraging of all is that the men behind the policies that are allowing Scottish Athletics to show the rest of the UK how it should be done are in ever more important roles.
Mark Munro was promoted to chief executive last year having previously been head of development. That promotion came when his former boss Nigel Holl was appointed head of strategy for British Athletics. They seem to be the sort of individuals who can properly capitalise on events like those tumultuous World Championships and use them to best effect as it becomes ever more important that we understand just what sort of behaviours we are seeking to inspire.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here