A great Op Ed from Ian Bird that I thought was worth sharing:
Earlier this month in Vancouver, Gary Lunn, Minister of State for Sport, announced the creation of the “2010 and Beyond Panel,” a panel of leading Canadians with a mandate to recommend reforms to the leadership, governance and service delivery model of Canada’s national sport system.
It’s a smart move which sends an interesting signal about the need for ongoing renewal, even as Canada enjoys the “green-shoots” of international sporting success.
Creating such a panel is not a rare undertaking in Canadian sport history. And looking back, the track record of such reviews is rather mixed.
The Mills Report has gathered dust for a decade now. “Sport, The Way Ahead” set out a strong case for sport development in 1992 but not one that was strong enough to withstand the budget cuts of the ’90s.
Those with resilient memories can recite the recommendations of the Task Force on Sport for Canadians, commissioned prior to the 1976 Games. Those same people know that we are still working to implement one of its central recommendations — professionalizing coaching systems in Canada.
Conversely, five landmark reports from this decade have proven their worth. A trio of reports (Thérèse Brisson, Cathy Priestner-Allinger and Roger Jackson) put the Own the Podium vision of our Olympic and Paralympic leaders on sure footing. Week by week, Canadians now see the Maple Leaf rising when snow and ice are underfoot.
Less well known has been the “Canadian Sport for Life” opus which has taken on a life of its own through its rigour and its recent popularization by Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Outliers, and its recitation of the 10,000 hour rule for developing expertise. New on the block is the “True Sport Report” which caught the eye of Canada’s municipal politicians at their annual gathering this June in Whistler which suggests a proliferation of community sport strategies is on its way.
It would seem that we are not without great ideas nor the capability to put them to good use.
What’s noteworthy is that none of these reports — new and old — tackle the overhaul that is required to the hardware at the centre of the Canada’s national sport system. Sure, they provide the necessary software upgrades for sport operating systems — the partnerships, the programs, the assignments, the plans, the priorities, the financial frameworks, and the information — but none of them adequately addresses the institutional reforms and the modernization of Canada’s most important public sector entities, like Sport Canada, that purport to lead and shape much of what sport achieves on the national and international stage.
All of which is to say that Canada is running 21st-century sport software on 1960s hardware.
The risks associated with this dichotomy are significant and something that the panel chair, David Zussman, will want to consider. Canadians are watching closely in the lead up to the Games in Vancouver. The expectation is that not only will we host “great Games” but that we will sustain our athletic success — “legacies now,” it’s called — and that 2010 will be more than a one-time celebration. Similarly, there is a growing appreciation for what sport means in our communities as it increasingly dominates the social space and time of families and neighbours. Who knew that the Canadian sport system would — or even could — take on the obesity crisis, social exclusion, and declining athletic performances all at once? As a result of this, many sport leaders, myself included, see 2010 as simply the end of the beginning not as an end in itself.
Another risk is that the sport sector (or even the “2010 and Beyond Panel”) will see the required changes as being in the domain of government alone. That won’t do.
The emerging interest among sport organizations to merge and generate alliances is long overdue. So too are the innovations in creating agreements that unite the strategies of national, provincial and community sport bodies. Add in the plans to co-locate sport organizations and to promote shared administrative services, and you start to see a sport system that is changing itself for the better. Better yet, there is a new ethic underpinning the sport sector, a willingness to set aside its own private interests in order to place the public interest at the top of the podium. The sport sector needs to sustain this change imperative.
So if the “2010 and Beyond Panel,” as in the example of the sport sector, tackles the tough questions, challenges the status quo, and seeks out an independent solution, it will be a success.
If it finds workable ways to reform and to modernize sport’s leadership and governance systems, it will be providing a valuable service.
And, most importantly, if such recommendations are acted upon before the end of 2009, then Canada’s national sport system will be well on its way to a sustainable future.
