The disadvantaged will only benefit if encouraged from their early childhood
I read with hope that Jeremy Hunt, the sports and Olympics secretary, wants to focus sports funding on young people ('I've been blown away by how powerful sport is as a tool to inspire young people', Sport, 29 March). Hunt says that sport is about "stretching yourself to do things you never thought were possible, it's learning to cope with success and also disappointment. It can really transform people."
However, his intention to shift his participation targets in order to draw in school-leavers does not go far enough, and there are major hurdles to be overcome if sport is to be able to make its full impact.
Through running the Greenhouse charity I see the difference that sport can make to young people on a daily basis. We work in disadvantaged London communities, providing young people with intensive sports and dance programmes, with coaches empowering them and helping to increase their engagement with their education and community.
Unfortunately, I also see the great disparity in sport provision facing these young people. A young person starting at an independent secondary school can expect to receive twice as much sport per week compared to a state school. This disparity will grow following the school sports cuts. The inequality is further compounded if you live in a disadvantaged community, where there are fewer opportunities beyond the school gates.
And though I was heartened by Hunt's admission that he himself had a "turning point" and a "tremendous boost in confidence" in his school career thanks to sport, his plans to reach young people from 16 years old are too late. My experience is that by this age, young people in disadvantaged communities have had an entire childhood of less sporting opportunity than their more advantaged peers. These are the people who have the most to gain from sport and they represent the shrewdest sport investment for the taxpayer. They should be allowed to have their own "turning point" before they leave school.
Sport is currently funded on the basis of participation, meaning we have countless schemes with short life spans, targeting massive numbers of people. This provides participants with very little contact time, making very little impact in their lives. This is sport for the sake of participation, and in the current climate or any climate it is a luxury we cannot afford.
If we are to get the best possible sports legacy from the Olympics, sport needs to be used to drive positive impacts like personal development, health or positive community engagement. It should be measured on this rather than on participation numbers alone, and should be funded on the understanding that driving these changes means more contact time at a greater cost per head.
And if disadvantaged communities don't receive these opportunities before they leave school, then sport might have found them too late.