Current Issue: 15
5th - 11th March 2010
Latest Comments
No comments found - why not add yours now!
Leeds Student on Twitter
We're doomed
LS Sport Big Debate
By Simon Sandison and Johnathan Brewer
Article Tags
Related Articles
Similar Articles
Despite the success of football’s ‘Kick it out’ camapign against racism, sport has often been accused of shirking away from its wider social responsibilities. LS Sport asks: Does sport have a responsibility to become more environmentally friendly?
Current Votes
For
1 votes so far
Vote for this!
Do you agree with this side of the debate? Click below to add your vote to the list!
Of course they do. If we put aside for a moment the crackpot counter-theorists’ stubbornness; that climate change is a figment of everybody’s imagination, and we take it as red that it is a very real, very urgent problem, then everybody has to shoulder the responsibility for slowing its progression.
Sports teams are clearly no different. Furthermore, as both huge corporate consumers as well as social hubs, the expectation ought to be upon large sports teams, and even larger governing bodies such as the FA or the ECB to lead the way with positive action.
A clear place to start is match day travel. While most major sporting venues discourage fans from driving to games, primarily through parking restrictions, there is an alarming dearth, almost across the board, of useful and efficient public transport options acting in partnership.
It’s unfair to suggest that this is universal, and there are notable omissions to the trend.
The majority of London’s development plans for the 2012 Olympic games include no vehicular access and corresponding extensions to the Underground.
Obviously these kinds of schemes are easier to implement in new developments than in existing, inner-city stadia. This only makes it more startling that mooted new grounds for Spurs and Liverpool, both part of England’s bid to host the 2018 football World Cup, come without any real proposals to improve access for public transport.
Current government initiatives are encouraging drivers to drive just five miles a week less. The FA could surely encourage a cut of similar significance.
Even Macclesfield Town have an average attendance of just below 2000, the lowest in the Football league. A reconsideration of how we travel to the match is required, and even Manchester United should aspire to vehicle-free matchdays.
This goes beyond football clubs, naturally, but they do stand as a prime example as the country’s most followed sport, and as such perhaps their obligation is greater than that of, say, the Worcester Wolves basketball team.
Recycling at grounds is another issue that is worth exploring, but perhaps there is more mileage in more outlandish considerations. The issue of Climate Change is one that demands a complete overhaul of many of our established ways of life, and why should the way we watch sport be any different?
One editor of this newspaper suggested, with his tongue in his cheek, that we could consider the regionalisation of the football league.
It seems flippant, but why not? Instead of having two tiered national leagues below the Coca-Cola Championship, why not have a North and a South division, with two teams promoted from each, and an enlarged relegation zone. The reduction in distances traveled by teams and fans alike would be huge.
There are other ideas that appear initially frivolous that could be considered. Evening games could be abolished in the interest of removing the electrical drain of floodlights. Teams could travel to matches by train instead of by plane.
Naturally there are plenty of arguments against these outlandish ideas, but consideration of the environment increasingly must take primacy over issues of convenience. Sport, as a centrepiece of so many people’s lives, must take the initiative and lead by example.
Against
0 votes so far
Vote for this!
Do you agree with this side of the debate? Click below to add your vote to the list!
Picture the scene. The opening of the 2020 Formula One season and a ‘dramatic’ mid race pit stop sees Ferrari five minutes into refuelling their hydrogen fuel cells.
Meanwhile, Lewis Hamilton glides down the home straight – his car emitting minimal noise, leaving merely a trace of water vapour as the crowd sit silently feeling disenchanted with a sport that has lost the charm of its history.
Motor racing should be all about the smell of petroleum emissions with ear splitting engine sounds exciting a passionate crowd. If sport were to change to address its emissions, Formula One and other sports would be destroyed spectacles.
Formula One always has been the ultimate test of human endurance, high speed and driving ability. Sport has responsibility to entertain, not to protect the environment and therefore to adapt Formula One cars to reduce emissions would have a detrimental effect on the sport.
With less powerful cars or shorter races, we would never see again the drama of the concluding stages of the Brazilian Grand-Prix in 2008. Nor would Michael Schumacher’s highly anticipated return in 2010 have anywhere near the same impact with carbon-neutral vehicles.
Furthermore, it is a sign of man’s accomplishment to break land-speed records, and these simply cannot be accomplished through ‘green’ vehicles. It has always been a prestigious honour to hold the title of ‘fastest man in the world’, and for this practice to effectively be outlawed due to carbon emissions would destroy one of man’s great historic pursuits.
And if we take away motor racing from our sporting culture where would such action stop? Prevent European football competition due to the carbon footprint that travelling teams leave? Perhaps rebrand the Football League to create a series of local derbies where teams can walk to their opposition’s grounds? Or ban Carlisle and Plymouth from competing due to the lengthy distances needed to travel to their respective grounds?
The FIFA World Cup is the pinnacle of football calendar. Indeed much has been written on the lack of green proposals put forward for the South African World Cup this year, both in the construction of the venues, and transport to the country.
But events like this bring nations together. In an age when we are increasingly ‘diverse’ as a country, the World Cup never fails to capture British attention and unite us. Why should we prevent people travelling from the world over to celebrate one of sports great events, simply because a group of scientists claim we are damaging our ozone layer in doing so?
Indeed, the furore over the Olympic Stadium and Olympic Village ‘green’ credentials is irrelevant. The Olympic Games’ primary focus should be on creating sporting legacies alone. To waste what is already a stretched budget on renewable energy that will provide just three percent of the energy needed in the Olympic Village seems frivolous. Surely this money would be better used to ensure our venues are the best they can be for sporting purposes only.
There is no doubt sport must adapt in the future to survive, but sports such as Formula One would not sustain their appeal if they were changed today. The same level of competitiveness or drama that exists in 2010 cannot be provided by current ‘green’ alternatives, and therefore sport should not change to accommodate climate change proposals.
This article was written by Simon Sandison and Johnathan Brewer and was uploaded at 4:49am, Friday 5th February 2010.
It was posted in Sport » Sport Big Debate » We're doomed