A lack of education and money disenfranchise many from playing sport, writes Ian O'Riordan.
One of the most basic and common perceptions of sport is that participation has no boundaries. Nothing beyond physical limitations should prevent a person from any socio-economic background from playing at least some sport of their choice. And it shouldn't prevent them from succeeding in it either.
This is partly based on the worldwide perception of sport. Last summer's World Cup in Germany was a reminder that soccer, for example, not only enjoys global participation levels but also a broad social base, with some of the most dazzling players as likely to come from the poor streets of Brazil and Argentina as the wealthy suburbs of France and Italy.
Several other sports would reflect this: think of the great distance runners raised in the rural villages of Kenya and Ethiopia; the basketball stars coming out of inner-city Chicago and New York; or the prize fighters found in the small gyms of Mexico and Cuba.
Naturally some sports are more elitist than others, with cost of equipment, access to facilities or necessary coaching being the obvious factors. However, when it comes to this country, yesterday's report, Fair Play? Sport and Social Disadvantage in Ireland, appears to challenge that most basic and common perception.
The findings in relation to income and education (the two measures of social disadvantage) aren't entirely surprising, although the extent of their impact on participation levels certainly are. More surprising are the factors behind those significantly lower participation levels, which suggest that facilities, motivation and even cost don't come into play.
Essentially what was revealed is that a person in the richest 25 per cent of the population who has a degree is five times more likely to play sport than a person in the poorest 25 per cent of the population who left school after the Junior Certificate. The impact of income gets stronger with age, while education is constant across all age groups.
Elitism in sports has nothing to do with it, as those sports perceived to have a broad social base - namely soccer and GAA - also show a majority of participants as higher-income earners, with more than 40 per cent of them having a third-level qualification.
Lower-income earners are also more likely to drop out of sport altogether, whether it be participating, volunteering or simply attending sporting events.
What the report suggests is that motivation to participate and even general interest in sport is just as strong in both lower-income earners and those with lower educational attainment. A previous report in this series established that neither lack of sports facilities nor poor quality facilities are significant factors behind non-participation, apart perhaps from at primary school level.
This would appear to rule out the Field of Dreams theory - "if you build it, they will come". However, it's not just designated sporting facilities that encourage participation, especially among younger people. It's also open spaces, parklands or simply a green patch in a housing estate, and we all know how quickly they're disappearing in Irish society. In that instance we're more likely to build on it.
What appears to be holding older people back are factors such as health problems, not living in a large city or not having access to a car. Surely part of the problem is how so much of modern sport is presented and therefore perceived. Much of elite sport these days is deemed as glamorous and highly professional, and does little to encourage participation, especially at the individual level. At the other end, much non-elite sport involves going to the gym, and that automatically cuts off many of those on lower incomes. Maybe someone needs to put the fun back in sport.
The report also presents some problematic implications in terms of Government policy. About 80 per cent of the sporting budget of the Department of Arts, Sport, and Tourism comes from the sale of lottery tickets, which, the report reminds us, are disproportionately purchased by the less well off and less educated. In other words, the less well off are effectively subsidising the activities of the better off.
Readdressing this imbalance is not straightforward. No one wants to advocate less funding going on sporting facilities, but the obvious starting point is to increase funding on creating links between those not participating in sport and the various sporting organisations. Some such organisations, for example Athletics Ireland, are acutely aware of the need to encourage mass participation instead of just elite competition, and most other sports could follow suit.
Given that the benefits of sport are unquestionable, not just in terms of health and general wellbeing but also as a healthy social outlet, the huge drop-off rate in participation after full-time education is particularly concerning. There is an obvious starting point to this problem as well in that policy on schoolchildren's sport needs to be given greater priority, and indeed urgency.
Possibly the greatest outlet for sporting participation is during third-level education, access to which is also affected by low income and low educational attainment. Most universities through scholarships or direct entry programmes are already addressing this problem but there is still wide room for expansion.
Perhaps the whole idea of sport and fair play for all is somewhat utopian. Against that common perception of participation without boundaries there has always been the perception that the disadvantaged had a greater fight on their hands, which has been the theme of many a great sporting movie or novel.
But what is clear from the report is that this country has a greater imbalance on its hands than expected. There is a definite need to improve participation among the disadvantaged, who it could be argued are in greater need of all the benefits sport has to offer in the first place.