Unofficial Partner Podcast
Unofficial Partner Podcast
UP508 What's Sport Selling? Hollingsworth on the state of the nation's health, flags, needles, government and the free market
This is the fourth and final episode of our series What's Sport Selling?
Created in collaboration with the Redtorch research and creative agency.
Today's guest is Tim Hollingsworth, who led Sport England for eight years, managing the £300m annual budget derived from government and national lottery funding. His tenure spanned COVID, energy crisis, and fundamental strategy reset via "Uniting the Movement."
Over the past three episodes, we've explored how sport can drive meaningful social impact, tackle the global physical inactivity crisis, and unlock powerful business opportunities for the industry.
This conversation brings all of those themes together.
If you'd like to learn more about Redtorch, the independent research and creative agency dedicated to making sport more relevant, visit Redtorch.Sport. We thank them for their support. Much appreciated and what has been a really interesting and broad series.
Unofficial Partner is the leading podcast for the business of sport. A mix of entertaining and thought provoking conversations with a who's who of the global industry.
To join our community of listeners, sign up to the weekly UP Newsletter and follow us on Twitter and TikTok at @UnofficialPartner
We publish two podcasts each week, on Tuesday and Friday.
These are deep conversations with smart people from inside and outside sport.
Our entire back catalogue of 400 sports business conversations are available free of charge here.
Each pod is available by searching for ‘Unofficial Partner’ on Apple, Spotify, Google, Stitcher and every podcast app.
If you’re interested in collaborating with Unofficial Partner to create one-off podcasts or series, you can reach us via the website.
Hi there, Richard Gillis here. Welcome to Unofficial Partner, the Sports Business Conversation. Our guest today is Tim Hollingsworth, who recently stepped down after eight years as Chief Executive Officer of Sport England, which put him in charge of the country's 300 million pounds annual sports budget, which then gets allocated to the governing bodies and various other places as well. So what did he achieve? What would he do differently? And what is the state of sport? And the governing bodies in England today in 2025. You can hear the full conversation here. It goes in lots of interesting different directions, as you would expect. Very reflective, but also he's asking some very good questions. He's been in those rooms where decisions get made and sport meets government, so well worth your time. This is the fourth and final episode of a series that we've been running in collaboration with Red Torch under the title of What's Sports Selling. Over the past three episodes, we've explored how sport can drive meaningful social impact, tackle the global physical inactivity crisis, and unlock powerful business opportunities for the industry. This conversation really does bring all of those themes together. If you'd like to learn more about Red Torch, the independent research and creative agency dedicated to making sport more relevant, visit Red Torch Sport. We thank them for their support. Much appreciated and what has been a really interesting and broad series. I'll put the other podcast in the series. In the show notes and the newsletter. If you don't already and you listen to this and are interested in the stuff that we talk about, I would point you towards Substack and the Unofficial Partner newsletter. Put a link in there for you too if you don't already do that. Lots and lots of people do. Probably the people that are, uh, in your office as you look around anyway. Thanks for your time. It's much appreciated as ever.
Tim Hollingsworth:hopefully I'll still be clearheaded, but I hope it, it doesn't sound too, too bad.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I think it's, there's a certain gravitas to the voice.
Tim Hollingsworth:I've just had a le sip and you know, that is the cure for all ills, isn't it?
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:It is.
Tim Hollingsworth:go. Anyway, this is, this is great. Thank you. This is a, a, a toe dipped back in the water for me of speaking out loud.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So. I'm fascinated by the job and you are just off out the back of it,
Tim Hollingsworth:Yeah.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I want to sort of brain dump from you in terms of what you thought going in, what actually happened, and then you know what you are thinking now. And we'll get into some specifics that I know we want to get into. But first of all, let's assume that we don't know what Sport England does and. Just start from there. Just a very quick,'cause I always see it and I'm very conscious that sometimes I get it wrong in terms of its remit or I sort of misunderstand it or blame it for the wrong things or credit it with the wrong things and all of those things. So
Tim Hollingsworth:Yeah. Yeah.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:just give us a, a sense,'cause you are, you know, out the back end of it. So what, what was the job basically, what did you do all day?
Tim Hollingsworth:That's such a good question. The job of being Chief Executive Sporting England is leading the sports council that government has for grassroots community, sport and physical activity. And in doing that, there was an obligation fundamentally to do two things. One was to be. Policy, stewarding lead organization for government in terms of sport across England in terms of, how it is, delivered the organizations that are involved, and the effectiveness and also the integrity of that agenda. And then on the other it was much more about can we as an organization help to shape a, a greater level of, focus and improvement on the activity levels of the nation and actually can at Heart Sport England be an organization that enables more people to move in their everyday lives and consequently have the, the physical, mental and social benefits that that brings. Because one of the things that many people confuse is that that also involves sort of elite and world class success and Olympic and Paralympic investment. For reasons of devolution, that's always sat with UK sport as a UK body. but actually the strategic ambition of Sport England and the thing that I helped to set is that we could be and should be far more deliberate in our investment, trying to tackle the inequalities that have historically existed in activity and get the nation moving more.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So it's that link I'm interested in between sport and government. And what sport looks like when it goes in the door. And we've obviously had Tracy Crouch on, you've been on before and you know when you're in post. But just step back, gimme a sense of what that conversation is like and what the sort of assumptions of someone like me might have about what sport, how that plays, and how it really does.
Tim Hollingsworth:So it was Tony Blair that said out loud, you this government just doesn't have a sport policy. Sport is also a health policy, an education policy, a justice policy and we've never quite achieved that. Ambition and goal, even if it was set In reality, there is a home department for sport as there is for every bit of society in the department for culture, media, and sport. There is a sport minister, there's a Secretary of State. There is a whole team of officials responsible for it, and that ranges across the whole of. What we would consider to be the sport landscape. So at one end it's about the bidding for events and mega events and World Cups and Olympic and Paralympic games through the world championships. It's the facilities base, it's the investment into community and grassroots. It's the understanding of the legislative and regulatory agenda that surrounds sport. And fundamentally you're in a position where you've got a department who is seeking to drive all of that, but actually some of the levers that it needs to pull, if it's gonna be successful, sit outside of that department. So that would be my principle reflection. Is that when people talk about cross government working and the ability to genuinely influence policy you recognize that sport England as a as an arms length body of the DCMS has a huge amount of insight. And I would argue alongside the other home country sports councils and the, and so many other organizations knowledge and experience of actually how to do this, but the barriers that are faced aren't held just by the DCMS, they're held elsewhere. And unless we can actually create an environment within government where that's understood, we'll always have quite a narrow addition definition of, of sporting government, I think, which is. You know, put simply how are, how are national and international teams doing on the world stage? And, and how well do we see in, in, in each, in each MP's constituency, how well do they see their, their clubs doing,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So is it, is it like a sort of, is it a microcosm of the, is it the machinery of government, which is a phrase that quite often
Tim Hollingsworth:Okay.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:comes back and people as a sort of implied criticism of the civil service or just the way in which things get stuck. They go, you know, ideas and good people go into government and it just wears them down and the process. Is there something in it about that or is it just in terms of, you said the, the sport just doesn't have a big enough.
Tim Hollingsworth:Canvas doesn't have a canvas, a big enough canvas within government, I would say actually to, to draw on. And you know, I've, I've got a favorite statistic from my time at Sport England because one of the things that was always rightly argued was that sport could play a huge role in the health of the nation. It's the, it's the, it's the starting point for so many people's sort of presumption around why you might invest in. In sport, physical activity. So, you know, to have a healthier, happier nation, physical and mental wellbeing being at the center of of that. And yet the annual budget that Sport England controlled, which was together taking the exec government money and lottery money was give or take 300 billion pounds a year. Which equates to 14 hours of the NHS budget. So the inequality, if you like, of the presumption of I influence is, is writ large in that, that you've got a scenario where sport is being seen as being the answer to an awful lot of the challenges and the problems that we can face in society. But there's a, there, there isn't the, there isn't the, the, the ability. To then properly access and engage in not just the resources, but the sort of policy agenda that sits across health, that sits across education that sits across one of, one of the most important departments for SPO the Department for Communities Housing and Local Government because that department. the, sets, the tone for local authorities, sets, sets, the budget for local authorities, sets the planning rules, which have been, you know, very much a, a, a topic of conversation this year. All the things where you talk about, well, why aren't we doing better with our facilities? Or why aren't there more swimming pools? Or why is it so difficult for, for a club to, you know, to, to, to to get its pitch? Agreed. this is because it's the leavers for that aren't controlled by sport, and yet sport depends on them. So one of the things I would argue is that it's not so much the inertia of government, it's more than a lack of canvas being presented. You know, if the, if it was, if it was more. know, one of the, one of the things I think when we were, when we were sort of having a chat and we said, well, if you're Sports England, if you're a sports minister for a day, sure, you could do a huge amount to be quite honest with you. But if you could spend your day genuinely seeking, as I know the sports minister seeks to do, to get the rest of government to understand the value of what we as a sector can contribute, would be more powerful than more of the same within sport.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So. One thing I was thinking about, is this a British problem? Is this something, this is across the board. Is it? I mean, people always go to Scandinavia and we all love Scandinavian countries and we love the, you know, the, the stories that link, they, they seem to have solved a bit of this problem. But, so this isn't just about us and our government. This is a problem more broader than that.
Tim Hollingsworth:has their own version of it. I mean, one of the reasons, one of the ways genuinely where we're ahead in this country, I think there's probably two things you could point to. One is unquestionably. The definition of what it takes to win at an elite level. I mean, you know, we might consider our teams to not necessarily be as successful as we would want them to be, but I think we, we do fantastically well if you include Olympic and Paralympic success. And I think the last 20 years of that focus from primarily those involved in the high performance system. And organizations like UK Sport who invest in funding it, but also drive that strategy, we are globally recognized as a nation that understands what it takes to win. And I think that that is a massive, significant part too. And there will always be examples of where, you know, the, the, it's not, it's not quite as apparent, but if you do look at our historic performance across the last five, six Olympic and Paralympic games alone. You know, that's substantially punching above our weight relative to many other nations.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:And the question, sorry, Tim, just the, and the question there is. So there, that's the trickle down argument, isn't it? So it's saying that,
Tim Hollingsworth:come onto that. I'm sure I don't
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:okay.
Tim Hollingsworth:much to that
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay,
Tim Hollingsworth:I can come onto but
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:so we're punching above our weight. Sorry, I interrupted you.
Tim Hollingsworth:in that context. But the other thing is, and this is very much more where my time. Within Sport England has been spent, it's been recognizing that actually if you're going to create a sporting system, you need to think about it holistically rather than about the individual organizations. You need to think about the overall mix of what it takes to get people to be active. And a lot of that is about not only giving them the opportunity but also making sure that there is a genuinely welcoming, inclusive environment for people to take part in. then thirdly, it's really, really critical that we recognize that not everyone wants to follow the most traditional roots. And part of the other bit of this debate that's wrapped up in it all is what, you know, how does sport present itself in this day and age? How, how, how do you actually make it as relevant to people's lives as perhaps it wants was, and, and are we doing a good enough job of acknowledging where the inactive, where the inequalities exist? And prioritizing investment into those areas so that people who previously felt like it wasn't for them. You know, in the last week we've seen the latest iteration of sporting England's This Girl Can Campaign. That was fundamentally driven by that agenda, which is that there was no messaging for those women and girls who felt like being active playing sport, and their everyday life was for them. and actually what we've sought to do with that campaign and the, and the work that goes on in the back of it is to challenge that and to change that. So I think there are two things that we do really well actually as a nation, but what I think we have struggled with is the preciseness of the purpose of sport in society. And why, why it is that we might invest in it or invest in it more.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay. So a few things there. Just bouncing off that, so there's a, there's the let's, I'm mean mention trickle down. So the medals question and which again, you know, we've talked about in the part. I don't wanna spend too long on it, but from all what you're saying and. People get confused. I get confused about what's the role of gold medals? Why are we spending so much, you know, does it matter? And actually, does it matter that we're in the top three in a medal table at an Olympics? We get a moment of national pride. I'm separating Paralympics from this because I think that's a different argument. Let's just focus on Olympics. I think that's. Something that I've, you know, what, what is the role? Does that trickle down to participation? And that's the question. In which case, if it doesn't, why are we spending so much money on major events? Why do we spend so much, why has so much over 25 years, you know, been channeled to performance institutions and all of the rest of it. Just give, gimme your base on that.
Tim Hollingsworth:first of all, I'd argue not that much has actually, in relative terms, I
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay.
Tim Hollingsworth:seems like a lot in isolation, but if you actually look across not just government funding or, you know, but actually just the general, you know, where, where we see money going. I don't think over that period, the amount spent have been so massive relative to, other areas of society, and certainly whilst I'm not making an argument against this, if you look at what's spent, for example. Across other parts of DCMS and the arts. It's a relative investment for a significant return.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Right.
Tim Hollingsworth:there's a bit of an argument there that says, you know, it's, it's an easy, it's an easy tick to say, oh, we, we, you know, we invest all this money in Olympic and PIC success. Actually, it's, it's not a huge, it's not a huge amount relative to so much of what other government spending goes on.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yep.
Tim Hollingsworth:Secondly, I, of course there is. A relationship, otherwise it would be bmy. But there is not the pri the primary purpose for me of success in a high performance context has never felt like it should be. That it would automatically lead to inspiration. To participation.'cause there are so many other factors that dictate whether or somebody or not wants to get involved in playing a sport. What there is is two things that we should not undervalue. There is, part to part to this, which has been playing out in other contexts in society, very real over the last few days is national identity and national pride. And actually, I don't think we should underestimate that. I think it's a very positive manifestation of how we see ourselves as a nation when we see our teams doing well, winning and our athletes succeeding on the world stage. I, I think second also, there is a let's call it joy. There's a joy in that success that is, you know, really important. I think the, whether it's thousands of pints of beer being thrown up in the air when a goal scored in, you know, in box park or wherever, or far more fundamentally, whether it's just a constant of your team that you might follow or an athlete that you might follow. And that moment of success brings, or, or indeed, the moment of failure brings feelings that don't actually manifest themselves in society that often otherwise. So
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Very good point.
Tim Hollingsworth:things to me matter just as much as the idea that because we've got a successful. Canoeist. Lots more people are going to take on canoeing. I don't think that's the argument. I think the argument is there is a validity to high performance success that is really powerful in terms of how it makes us feel and how it makes it us engage in, in our society. then there can be examples and there always will. Of where successfully that has led to some form of increase in interest and participation. And the two examples I would always give, one is actually within Paralympic context, in London 2012, there was an uplift in Paralympic sports because disabled people became more aware of the opportunity that previously they hadn't been.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yep.
Tim Hollingsworth:a similar pattern in women's and particularly girls football. Where the success of the Lionesses has, has manifestly created awareness and understanding and the opportunity. And there you can see a trickle down, but the, but the principle purpose for me of high performance investment is to make it an incredibly valid investment in our sense of I identity and self wellbeing and joy. And I think those things are hugely powerful in and of themselves.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:What do you think of when you see the national flag, the Union Jack or the flag of St. George?
Tim Hollingsworth:Well, I wore the union jack on my sleeve quite literally for seven years at Paralympics gb, and, and I saw, I'm delighted to say particularly in the summer games, lots of Union jacks, right? Go, you know, being run up flagpoles and and athletes on podiums. and I feel that my sense of Britishness. Is a very important part of my identity. And I say deliberately Britishness first, that I enjoy and feel in that context because it feels like a warm and welcoming and positive environment that's created. And I think sports can do that. however, I, I also, you know, worry about how, I mean, we're not gonna get into too much of this, I'm sure, but how that, you know, the, the flags that should be, I don't think it's sports job to determine what a flag's purpose is. I and I, I find, I find a discomfort in some of the way in which identity is created through the waving of flags. But I don't see that in a sporting context because there you are very clearly a nationality front and center when you're competing.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:It's almost entirely driven by context, isn't it?
Tim Hollingsworth:Yeah, yeah, that's a much better way of putting it. Context is all. And I think that for me I, as I say, I felt very proud to be British because I felt I was representing my nationality in a, in an environment that felt hugely positive. And that perhaps is one of the lessons learned from, from, from sport. But equally, we can see, you know, I, I. I, I have always recognized and, and and known that nationality and identity is personal before it's collective, but we try to create a sort of collective sense of wellbeing when it comes to sport.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I remember London 2012, and you'll remember this very well, you know better than I do, but that the flags I took my daughter to, and we were waving Union jacks and, and that, and that the, the debate around that time was. taking the Flag back from extremists, that was, you know, part of the conversation. And then there was a moment and it was a Twitter moment, which again dates this because it's London 2012 and I can't remember who it was, but it was a, it was a sort of Tory mp. At the opening ceremony saying, oh yeah, it's multicultural, rubbish. And the level of sort of vitriol back towards that statement was really interesting and people were, you know, that was a sort of isolated voice. I look back at that time now, it's like a sort of, from a perspective of just the multicultural question in terms of how that debate has moved. And how quickly and all the things that I took for granted are now being sort of questioned and the attacks on diversity and inclusion and all of these things. What role does that play? where does that bit of the conversation play in when it gets to funding, when it gets to, into government? And does that change government by government, does it alter left and right or is it a fairly consistent conversation?
Tim Hollingsworth:the second part of that's much easier to answer. The, it it's pretty consistent actually. I mean, there is a perspective on, on what money is there to, to buy of course, but, and, and government money is there to buy. fundamentally, I've. You know, been in and around government policy for 20 years. It hasn't significantly shifted away from a belief. Where, where I think it has become more aligned in the last decade is around outcomes. What's the purpose? And both, both. You know, governments have recent hues. seen sport and getting people physically active as having a greater outcome led focus to it in terms of the, the mental and physical health and wellbeing of our of the population, but also, you know, the opportunity for greater social identity and con cohesion. So the second part of your, it's quite easy to answer, which is I actually think broadly speaking, whilst you can see distinction and you know, you can see, a, a varying focus in and around priorities. Fundamentally sports policies have not shifted massively across governments. But I think the first half of the answer is really, really hard, which is to what extent do we. Obliged sport to play a bigger role than it does in creating the sort of harmony and the wellbeing in society that we're seeking to, to find you are quite right, everybody who had the privilege of being in and around London 2012. and whether that was you know, even, even as it was broadcast, let alone actually being physically there, it felt like a very inclusive environment. Without that seemingly being a difficult word to say. wasn't a
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah,
Tim Hollingsworth:to say. It was very, you know, it was a genuinely inclusive environment. People felt party to it. They felt
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:and now, and now it would be a woke celebration. You know, a festival of wokeness.
Tim Hollingsworth:Well, potentially, but certainly there would be, for me, a much greater focus perhaps on the, you know, what, how we presenting ourselves to the world. I mean, again, I have a very strong view, which is probably a minority view. That I, I despair of people who think that we didn't, you know, sort of, create a sufficient legacy out of London. 2012. London 2012 created a different perspective for the sporting landscape. It, it created a much greater focus on the professionalization of organizations. It created a huge amount of focus on the role of sport in society. It created a massive amount of interest. In sports facilities and hosting events and things that have maintained themselves over the years. What it couldn't do was, you know, the two things that people blame it for. One was not change society, and two, ultimately drive participation levels to a greater level of increase because it wasn't its job. But, but where we failed a little bit in terms of creating. Impact on the latter point is to understand how legacy works for a major event. You asked about major events. They
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah,
Tim Hollingsworth:powerful tools to creating legacy. You've just gotta be really, really clear what you expect that legacy to be.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:and I, you know, the, again, I'm someone who sort of probably over index on. Questioning major event. I mean, your point there about the intangible of the sort of national brand question I think is really underrated. And I think, you know, I sort of, I, I agree with you. I was nodding as you said, that I quite often go to, you know, you get into soft versus hard outcomes and you say, oh, Stratford is, you know, nicer than it was. And, likewise the participation question. I think one of the que I always think that there is an overpromise in the bidding process of major events, which leads people to, you know, there's a sort of quite a substantial mission creep. Into other loads of areas. And you know, and I, I think that's inherent in sport because PE people project onto it. And Tracy Crouch, who is on here saying there's no, so there's no problem. That sport is not the solution to which, if you start from that perspective, I'm, I've got a lot of sympathy for that view, but immediately everyone's projecting onto it there, hobby horse. And if it ain't going to, it doesn't work, then you're gonna, there's disappointment baked into the process.
Tim Hollingsworth:that's probably my principle reflection now, now that I no longer have to wake up in the morning and worry about you know, supporting them doing the best job it can. And there's a fantastic successor in place and brilliant people there still delivering. But that was the point. Tracy's. Is right? Is that, is that there are so many goes back to that Tony Blair quote I gave with this, you know, when
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yep.
Tim Hollingsworth:chatting. There are so many ways that you can see the role that sport could play in helping to. solve problems that we, that we face. But you can't catalyze that, you know, through the traditional sports sector alone. You need to, to get, I mean, schools, schools, and young people. I think there is a massive we are all very familiar with the debates around the mental health of our young people. But unless schools actually genuinely understand the benefit to mental health, of inclusion, of involvement in sport of making it fun and enjoyable for everybody, of creating active days in school that are much more focused around getting kids moving than, you know, defining it through, organized, formalized activity for certain amount of hours per week of actually thinking of ways in which the really, which my old boss, Chris Boardman, was so focused on. Actually a really critical part of the school day is the journey to and from school, particularly in primary, and getting that, making it as easy as possible for people to walk or cycle and as hard as possible for people to drive. But that's not DCMS. So these are all the areas where, you know, Tracy's bang on. But we need to be therefore creating the environments to enable that to happen and. are still, still, the biggest investor in sport and physical activity in this country is local government. And we rely still on the facilities that local authorities provide, but we know how denuded they're becoming of those resources. So when people say, oh, why aren't more people swimming? Surely swimming, England are failing? Well, actually where are the pools? How are we keeping them going? You know, how
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Tim Hollingsworth:survived the energy crisis and COVID? And there are, they're a crumbling stock. And we can't, we can't just assume that the answer is to a sport lens. It's through that lens of how do we as a society create the opportunity and the canvas for sport to play its part. And then you can get onto, are we doing it well?
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So let's get to a bit more specifics then in terms of Sport England is giving money or, you know, allocates money to the national governing bodies as part of, you know, it's, it's, let's just talk about.
Tim Hollingsworth:many other organizations as
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay, so let's talk about incentives, perverse incentives. Does that process work? It feels to me sometimes I think that it, there's an attribution question in terms of, you know, it's a bit of a boring accounting thing, but. If you set an incentive for, it's still about tennis and paddle or swimming and wild swimming or whatever they are, every governing body is looking at, okay, they're not doing our sport in the right way, but we do have to then sort of count them in our numbers because that's how we're gonna get rewarded. That that, yeah,
Tim Hollingsworth:Absolutely.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Tim Hollingsworth:So one of the reasons why I sort of smiled when you started down that route is, is that I think that's. A disproved model for creating greater levels of participation. And I think every governing body would agree, every go governing body. CEO would agree. The principle role I think, in sport, before you get to anything else, is the g. Of national governing body. It's the
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Tim Hollingsworth:of the sport actually. That's so vital. It's, you know, and, and the role of A CEO now. And yes, of course we can look at the very big governing bodies and the, the huge impact and scale of a football association or Yeah. You know, or the ECB or whoever. But you know, if you are running. Archery GB or canoeing
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Tim Hollingsworth:GB wrestling or you know, you are in an organization where you have a membership base to service and satisfy. You've got societal pressures on you that are, you know, creating much more expectations than were previously the case about. How people behave, how coaches behave, where organizations actually go and actually create their offer. They've definitely got to make sure that the rules are adhered to. They've got to make sure that there is, you know, somebody one of the CEOs that I spoke to about it's not long ago, described it as caseload. It's almost like they, they're permanently dealing with a caseload. There's permanently challenges within the sporting environment, often created by sort of societal prep. Pressures that as governing bodies, they're obliged to seek to
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So let's just pick, let's just pause on that for a minute, because I think that's an interesting point. So the alternative is to say, right, yes, there's always going to the the G word. And we've had lots of people on the podcast who are running governing bodies. It will take all of their, every day of every day, of every week on that subject now. An alternative then, and it would be to remove everything else. Give them that job and let the market decide on everything else. So if people are doing want to play art, do archery. If they want to do swimming, they wanna, then the private sector will soak up and create interesting things for them to do. And actually the presence of the governing bodies are crowding out. Private enterprise. This is a, a market first approach and we would say, right, of course, private equity investors, they never talk about governance. They never wanna talk about safeguarding. They always wanna talk about the entertainment product. They wanna talk about the market, let them get on with it. Some will win, some will fail, some will be park run, some will be CrossFit. Others will fail, but it doesn't matter because we're all, everyone's moving because they're better at that than governing bodies. And governing bodies are instinctively defend, you know, sort of, they're not as good as the marketplace in terms of, of doing that. So you are it. And Sport England's the problem with the, with the model is that you are picking winners. Rather than allowing the market to flourish, in fact, the presence of the governing body is crowding out the private sector. Let's just just have that conversation.
Tim Hollingsworth:Yeah. Gosh. Well there, there's lots in there that I. Would not disagree with, but I would come up with two or three things that I think you, you, you need to consider before you just automatically head down
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Tim Hollingsworth:I unquestionably believe, and I don't think anybody who's involved in the modern environment now in sport, would, would disagree that a strategy or a policy that says that, you know, governing, governing bodies of sport are the answer regardless of the question is gonna succeed. Because as you rightly say, there are so many other forces and potential opportunities that can and should be created beyond that which they, they could possibly do. Whether it's resources or capacity or just, you know, desire governing bodies are always going to be limited. I also think that one of the things we have sought to do. And you know, one of the, one of the bits of correction I would always say is Sporting England now invests proportionately outside of governing bodies more than it does into national governing
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay.
Tim Hollingsworth:exists just as significantly, for example, in the Active partnership network, which are the very important local regional organizations that are 42 of them across the country, in each of the sort of regional areas. Who help to coordinate and drive much more of a focus on that place and actually what does that place need? And then who's best, best enabled to provide that. And in some cases it might be a governing body and in some cases it will be somebody else, or it might be actually a much more informal basis for that activity. And you can see how also. The, the sort of park run model is a great one to pursue, which is start with whatever people want to do, rather than assuming that people will do the thing that you've always sought to get them to do, and suddenly you build something very quickly because it proves to be attractive. Because the greatest single factor in young people and in adults is whether they're having a good time playing sport and being physically active. And we've often forgotten that in the context of trying to put to, to shoehorn it into,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So sport is fun.
Tim Hollingsworth:Yeah, sports fun. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Tim Hollingsworth:we, anybody who says, oh, well, that's just playing to a low and common denominator. You know, obviously once you move up the talent pathway, there are lots of other factors that come into play. But at the basic level I never quite understood in schools, I'm segueing a bit here, but in schools we would always take the view that the, the, the, the pupils who are struggling the most with maths or English or whatever, get distinct help. To improve,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Tim Hollingsworth:the sport model in schools is always set up to basically favor those who are best. And everyone else was
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Mm.
Tim Hollingsworth:of either get on with it or, you know, dread it or, or find some way of getting out of it.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yep.
Tim Hollingsworth:it's because we have not thought, first and foremost, that at that level, when people are being asked just to think about how they move in their everyday lives, more fun we can make it, the more enjoyable we can make it. The greater, the chances are that they're going to sustain it. And, and so, you know, one of the things that governing bodies have had to accept is, is that there are people who are innovatively better at that and are creating models where people can go. And that's fine because, but one of my, one of my caveats to your point that when anything goes wrong in that environment or where something fails in terms of the competition structures or behaviors. It's the governing body who is then required to step in, so they're never distant from that. You can never have a total market free market,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Mm.
Tim Hollingsworth:without, without that governance role. Secondly, there are some governing bodies who are eminently set up to do it for themselves. Cycling would be a, a great example. And the way that they have sorts to, yes, in partnership, but find ways to build a really strong participation base as well as running, you know, successful governing body programs at at at performance level. then thirdly. I definitely think that we are doing the right thing now in investment by thinking much more about communities and what those communities need rather than thinking about the supply side. So being much more demand focused and governing bodies can therefore in some cases play a role, but in other cases will probably not be as formally involved. You know, if you are trying to get somebody who's doing less than 30 minutes a week of activity. To move more. not necessarily going to be through the immediate introduction table tennis. I dunno why I picked
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah,
Tim Hollingsworth:but you know.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:it's quite often table tennis, quite often PE quite people land on table, table tennis.
Tim Hollingsworth:of, or, you know, or, or, you know, a rowing boat or a canoe, you know, there's some of those
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Tim Hollingsworth:yeah, but those governing bodies, British rowing, British canoeing, the governing bodies that surround them, they're fundamental to that sport being able to be sustained. So it's not market failure that we need to continue to invest in. We, we need to continue to invest in the infrastructure of governing bodies, even if they're not necessarily the people who are. Ultimately able to create all the opportunities for people to engage. And then the last bit of it is, you know, we are in the conversation that we've been having, we rely on a talent pathway to be created and exist to enable the next generation world, world-class success. And that actually needs to, and must happen with and through a national governing body because that's the infrastructure that ultimately enables the competition to be. To happen. So there's, there's always going to be an element of investment at, at community level into organizations for whom there is an obvious pathway to an elite to an elite competition.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So that's,
Tim Hollingsworth:the question.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:yeah. So that's the Olympic games incentive, isn't it? So the, if the Olympic Games exists, you need a governing body to exist. Is that.
Tim Hollingsworth:Yeah, I mean you first of all, you know, this is where you just get onto infrastructure and, and you know, international federation that is the member of the IOC is the International Federation that sets the terms for the competition at the Olympic Games. You need a governing body domestically to be a member of the International Federation. So there, but that, that was a very reduc, it's a very reductive view of the role of NGBs. What they're critically important for is the stewarding of their sport. And in some cases that's actually a very, very significant job to do. For others. There's the chance also to think about, well, how can we become more innovative in creating participation base as well?
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:What do you think then has government changed over the period of your sort of tenure? Are they looking for sport to do something else than they were before? Has there been a, a sort of shift in. Direction. And is it, is it healthy or unhealthy? Not in the
Tim Hollingsworth:I
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:sense.
Tim Hollingsworth:think there's a healthy, well, no, we'll come onto the literal sense. There's a healthy bit to that, which is that the last decade has undoubtedly seen a shift to outcomes for society from investment rather than outputs. we are not counting, you know, direct numbers of people who are doing one sport over another. We're interested in the overall mix of, of how are, how are people getting active and are we actually feeling the benefit of that? And that is down to greater outcome focus, thinking about the physical and mental health of the nation and actually how being more active can support that. That's, that's good government policy. Definitely. Where I think there is a challenge how you create. and prioritize investment that can be both focused on those people in our communities who need the greatest level of support to become more active in their everyday lives. And traditional sporting infrastructure and the role that that plays, those two are on a continuum, but they're different interventions. And I worry, and it's only a, a worry at this stage that we've become. So I think we've, we've been danger of taking for granted that that core sport plays in not only retaining huge numbers of people every week in, in activity. But also the role that sports clubs, community groups play in our, in our communities in a greater, you know, social context and assume that it's all about targeting those who are inactive or are unable to, to access that. If you do one without the other. You know, you start, I think you'll start to have a fracturing of what has essentially been that consensus, that sport, physical activity can be contributory to wider society, and you either have to focus on it's sport for sport's sake, or it's a health agenda and not the two.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So you think they're going for the latter, they're, they're pointing it more towards solving obesity essentially. It,
Tim Hollingsworth:I think, I think,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I think. I think,
Tim Hollingsworth:there's nothing intrinsically as a, as a citizen, there's nothing wrong with trying to solve obesity. It's
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:no, of course not. No. Yeah.
Tim Hollingsworth:it's a hugely challenging and, you know, people's mental health and wellbeing and our sense of purpose and identity and our. You know, opportunity to to to participate is a massive part of, of that, I, I just think it's, it's a really interesting tension that's emerging between how do you sustain what the sporting infrastructure provides and also, and it is an, and create the environment where those levels of inactivity can be tackled without, you know, going back to an earlier point. Opening up the resources for the latter to beyond where sport alone sits. So if it's just sports, I mean if we talk money, if it's just sports money that's being asked to do that, you will start to stretch. But actually, if you do think about ways and, and one of the great. Positives in this is how that agenda's being picked up regionally. And the, you know, we worked at Sports England in recent years with the combined authorities and the mayors and obviously, you know, there's a great example of that in Greater Manchester with Andy Burnham, who's been doing this for a while now. But there's a Oliver COPD in South Yorkshire,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:King, king of the North.
Tim Hollingsworth:Yeah, well coming over the hill. But you know, from my point of view, that's a really good example of where at regional level there is a connection of investment in sport and activity with public health and where that can work on the ground and you can see how it's being embedded into public health. And you can see where schemes are being created. The, the opportunity that something like social prescribing provides, for example, where, you know, we can actually have primary healthcare deliberately focusing people more on their, on their activity. Levels. Then you've got, you can have systemic levels of change. You can actually change things. If you just expect a, a sport program to create that level of health intervention, we are not gonna get there. And that's probably the tension and the concern that I have.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:One of the, I'll ask this to John Ridler a couple months ago, is the, is the ozempic question and how that plays into that question. Because, you know, west Street sees it as literally a silver bullet. You know, it's trying to say, right, this has solved, this will solve this problem and we need just more needles and pills to, to sort this. And sport has failed to solve obesity. It was, you know, and I, I'm sort of paraphrasing here. It was never about sport. It was never about exercise. It was always about diet and sugar and the lobbying of, of major organizations into government. And actually that argument, the sports argument in, in the health agenda is weakened by the presence of the ozempic moment.
Tim Hollingsworth:And And similar interventions and ideas? Yes. That it's all about calories in. it is up. You know, this is not me speaking from any degree of professional medical expertise, but knowledge tells, you know, of the, of the reality of the activity levels, obviously creating health and exercise. It's ske muscular skeletal benefit going into later life. Thinking about people's mental health and wellbeing and the way in which they can actually tackle and challenge the, you know, the sort of epidemic that we are facing there, particularly in our young people. If it's not part of the solution, then we are going to be missing out, I think on a significant value add to a pill or an injection that might otherwise be seen as being you know, powerful. Because, and also those are, those are fixes. I actually think that, you know, we're preventative who are living active lives, particularly in their younger in the younger part of their life, are far less likely to then face the challenges that health service now is trying to fix. So the
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Tim Hollingsworth:is not, it be ozempic or X for the, those who are obese, but actually what are we doing to prevent obesity into the future? and for me. a genuine sort of preventative agenda. Preventative health is probably where I would land saying, this is where I would ask and think, you know, go Government should be, using sport more than it currently does.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So I mentioned the lobby word, and I, again, I'm interested in what. how sport shows up. I mean, sport is enormously high profile, but it doesn't appear to be very joined up. I mean, you've got things like the Premier League, you've got enormous sportswear brands. it's a big employer, huge public profile. Yet it doesn't appear to penetrate sort of inner government. And you know, people are saying, well, you get to, it just is. It is. It's all on a whim. People like getting in front of a major event. Politicians like, you know, play the politics game. But there is no coherent sports lobby. As such in a way that the drugs industry would recognize it or sugar would recognize it and tech would recognize it. And I, I wonder, I don't know enough, I've never been in those rooms. So what, how that gets, how the argument breaks down. Because as you articulate it, and you know, lots of people who listen are. We'll be nodding on in agreement with the power of sport, but something ain't penetrating and I don't quite know what it is.
Tim Hollingsworth:Yes and no. There's a job for sport undoubtedly to do, to think about and acknowledge how it presents that wider argument, if it's just making the case for. Sport, you know, we've been quite successful lobby actually, you know, in getting government to, to recognize and pay for whether it's major events or even, you know, in, in recent times there was significant investment by government in. In supporting you know, swimming pools and making the lobby around the, the, the challenge that local authorities were facing on the back of the energy crisis and, and you know, the impact that COVID has had. So where you can get to specifics, I think there has been that. Level of success. There is a emerging sort of greater desire across national governing bodies to come together. There's actually a formal coalition being created quite successfully. I think with that view that they need to be making the case for sports role and governing bodies role more effectively. And I would argue. And particularly now that I'm sort of looking on it in the past uniting the movement, the strategy that we created in Sport England, you know, had its name on the tin. The ambition was to get everyone aligned to what mattered and to think about what mattered more in terms of our role and how we can work together to achieve that and collaborate better and recognize that when we move more, we're stronger, and therefore we should be focused in on a much more aligned approach. at the same time, you are absolutely right. There is a pigeonholing of sport within government that happens mostly through the lens of the event and the high performance
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Tim Hollingsworth:And, you know, every, every MP probably has to be able to confidently state which football team they support, but that does not make them a lover of sport. Or a believer in sports role in, in society, or its potential to impact more broadly. So the argument I think, still needs to be made. And whether that's a lobby or whether it's an evidence base, I think it's the job. And I know it's the focus of, of, you know, my former colleagues is actually how do we, how do we tell the next 10 words of the story? I think we're quite good at the first 10 words we can all say. Yes, sports is powerful. Tool, it can, it can be the answer to so many of society's problems. The next 10 words are, you know, so critical. Now in terms of, and this is how, if we did this within health, if we did this within education, if we did this within you know, justice for example these are the ways in which you can see the benefit, and we haven't got to that point as well as we should.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:And what would happen, just sort of rounding off really, but what would happen if Sport England didn't exist?
Tim Hollingsworth:Oh, I think you'd invent it. you'd invent it for two reasons. One is really prosaic, which is that you need to have a mechanism for the delivery of public investment. And actually it's, it's not a constable you know, thing to think about that being. Done in a more diffuse way. You need to have strategic intent and you need to have the ability to manage and account for that investment. That's the prosaic reason. The much more powerful reason is the desire that we express through uniting the movement to act as the the collaborative organization in chief really for, for the sports sector in England, to, to create the. To create the context for how people could work better together to create a much greater focus on what matters most, which is understanding what the barriers to, to engagement are, and then working much more with those places and the people in those places to understand how to overcome them and creating a genuine, a genuine sense of collaborative intent around the role of sport physical activity. And I think that's sporting them's job, and I think they do it. Well, through the strategic intent of uniting the movement, the challenge now, which is very much for the next few years, is to start to show the impact of that and show the, and show how that strategic intent of bringing people together, collaborating much more effectively, creating a, a unified fo focus for what sports role is and can be, started to deliver the outcomes that we're all seeking in a, a happier, healthier nation.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:And which, which, which bit of the job will you miss, and which bit will you not miss?
Tim Hollingsworth:I already miss being part of the sporting sort of landscape in the, in the way that I was because. I think there are an awful lot of people working every day across community and grassroots sport in particular, who are doing phenomenal and amazing things. One of the things I was thinking about earlier this morning is some of the local clubs, community groups that I went to as part of this job and the people I met, you know, boxing clubs in in Leeds amazing women in Birmingham doing. Phenomenal job thinking of the Swahili hub, particular one organization in Birmingham who just transforming the lives of Asian women through using sport. Sitting with them, seeing what they're doing, you know, being part of that, that, that, that. Community. There was never a bad day when you were, when you were involved in that because it was, you saw the power of sport, you believed in what you believed in, but you also saw it changing people's lives. And you saw people doing it because that was, that was their purpose, not because somebody had told them to, to do it. So I miss that whole sense of how privileged it was being Chief Executive Sports England, to have an oversight on that. And an ability to shape it. probably what I won't miss was surprise nobody, which is that actually, you know, we were, we were fundamentally an organization that had almost created, partly because of COVID, partly because of circumstances to do with government finances more broadly, the dependency on Support England funding. And every level was quite acute, and that creates, obviously almost on a daily basis, you know, a level of challenge when you have organizations who feel disappointed in, you know, their inability to access funding or feel they've been left out or left behind, or don't feel able to be party to the strategy that you're seeking to deliver. And you combine that with the expectation that somehow Sport England had a regulatory responsibility for the sporting sector. Categorically did not. Those two things created a level of relentless sort of daily sort of managing of expectation and managing of people's disappointment that, you know, I gave seven years to and I'm very happy that I did including COVID, but I have recognized that those, you know, ev e eventually you can't, you can't be the a answer regardless of the question.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So what next? I saw your, I saw Profe Professor
Tim Hollingsworth:I've
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Hollingsworth now.
Tim Hollingsworth:I'm allowed to say that in the context of the university I gather, which makes me very happy. I'm doing a very interesting piece of work part-time with the University of Bath where I, as professor in practice, I'm helping a fantastic university program across teaching academic research and. Sport provision maybe align itself and become a bit more strategic to the university's wider goals as well as doing hopefully a bit of teaching along the way on their sports management administration courses. So very proudly part of the University of Bath. I've been elected, I'm delighted to say, onto the board of Paralympic gb, so I'll be giving back a bit more to the environment that I was part of previously. Couple of other bits and pieces Richard, otherwise yeah, interested to find things that will make me both interested and happy, and pay the bills, but all in a good time.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Excellent. Right. Thanks a lot for your time, Tim. Really enjoyed that.
Tim Hollingsworth:Appreciate it.