By John Eady, chief executive at KKP

The UK Government, Sport England and a range of other agencies acknowledge the crucial role leisure facilities can play supporting people from vulnerable communities to get active via provision of inclusive and accessible opportunities for physical activity and social interaction.

Passport to Leisure (PtL) is the generic term used to describe the discounted cost access schemes offered by various UK local authorities to make sport, leisure and cultural activities more affordable for people on low incomes or certain benefits. While implementation of PtL is autonomous at individual local authority level, many look to Sport England frameworks to justify, design, evaluate and defend their schemes.

KKP’s strategic work with numerous local authorities gives us deep insight into needs, intentions and what is actually happening on the ground, from all angles. Despite well-intended corporate ambition to ensure the poorest in society have access to public sport and leisure facilities this is not being realised.

In this article, we explore the mismatches between reported data, current provision, quality processes and the real-world needs of those that PtL schemes should be supporting.

Why poverty is a barrier to participation

There is a well-established narrative around the standard range of “target groups” which face barriers to participation in sport and physical activity. While women and girls, people from global majority communities and people with disabilities can undoubtedly face additional obstacles, significantly less attention is devoted to the stark fact that the overriding barrier is poverty. Addressing this, together with its overlap with other personal and demographic traits, is key to solving the puzzle.

The numbers are striking. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation UK Poverty 2025 report confirms that 22% of the UK population (14.4 million people) live in poverty. This includes:

• 1 million (two in ten) working-age adults.
• 2 million (or three in ten) children.
• 1 million (c. one in six) pensioners.

Noting that the overall level has barely moved since 2010, and is worsening, it reports that 40% of those in poverty are in “very deep” poverty (with incomes far below the standard line). These include:

• 45% of children in larger (3+ children) and/or lone parent families.
• Many minority ethnic groups have high rates of child, deep and persistent poverty.
• 30% of disabled people. In addition, nearly half of all people who were disabled and living in poverty had a long-term, limiting mental condition = c. 2.4 million people.
• 28% of informal carers.
• 54% of adults in workless households.
• 22% of part-time workers (double the figure for full-time workers).
• 23% of self-employed people.
• 44% of people living in rented accommodation and 35% of private renters.
• Families claiming income-related benefits.

In practice, this means that over one fifth of the UK population is suffering the consequences of living in poverty. The connection with participation in sport and physical activity is as follows:

• The most recent national Sport England Active Lives survey (23/24) highlights that people with two or more inequality characteristics are the least likely to be active.
• SportInspired, a charity working with young people from the UK’s most deprived communities, reports that children in the 20% most deprived areas are three times as likely to experience mental health issues than their more affluent peers. It states that 4.2million children in England’s most deprived areas are overweight (40% of children living in poverty) and 81% of young people from these areas do not participate in sports clubs.
• Swim England notes that young people’s swimming ability is significantly affected by family affluence and location (during school years 1-11). It reports that just 42% of children and young people with ‘low family affluence’ can swim 25 metres unaided (compared to 86% of those with high family affluence) and that only 45% of children and young people going to school in the most deprived areas of the country can swim 25 metres, compared to 76% in the least deprived localities.
• According to StreetGames, families in the lowest income bracket have as little as £3.65 per week to spend on sport and active leisure. Children and young people from low-income backgrounds are half as likely to be members of sports clubs as their more affluent peers.

Is flawed logic diverting attention from real world challenges?

According to Sport England’s most recent Moving Communities Facilities Impact Report (April 2023 – March 2025), people living in the 20% most deprived areas of England account for 16% of the total number of leisure centre users. A 0.5% rise since the previous report (2022-24).

In what Sport England described as “notable growth,” the 2023-25 report itself showed a 9% rise in leisure centre usage by people from economically disadvantaged groups since the one before it (2021-23).

On the face of it, these statistics appear to demonstrate tangible progress in levelling up access to community sports and leisure facilities. A goal that reflects Sport England’s long-term “Uniting the Movement” strategy, which has tackling inequalities at its heart.

However, greater scrutiny of these figures brings these claims of progress into question.

• Unique users vs number of visits

Report figures reflect the number of “unique participants” rather than the number of times different individuals visited leisure centre during analysis periods. So, while the number of people who live in a defined deprived area who visited a leisure centre shows an increase, this is no indication of ongoing usage – the real metric being pursued.

Sport England has introduced various grant programmes aimed at removing poverty as a barrier to participation, stating that such provision “should, as far as possible, be ongoing and not limited to a short time period…short-term projects can create resentment or reinforce mistrust and can sometimes be more damaging than no project at all”. Given this, the absence of data on specific individuals’ number and frequency of visits is an important omission.

• Living in a deprived area vs living in poverty

Poverty is the key barrier to leisure centre access and use. For the purposes of both the reports referred to, leisure centre users are classified as living in a deprived area according to the postcode classification assigned to their home address by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). However, this blanket metric does not provide the full picture.

Over-reliance on ONS IMD home location is, thus a blunt instrument. Not everyone who lives in a defined area of deprivation is poor (nor are all people resident in areas of generally high affluence well-off). It is thereby over-simplistic to assume that an increase in users with houses that fall within deprived areas translates into a parallel increase from people living in poverty.

By way of reinforcement of this, Sport England’s 23/24 Active Lives survey highlighted that inequalities in activity levels have increased between affluence groups.

So, while it might be claimed that the Moving Communities reports support the notion that targeted interventions to increase reach in more deprived communities have been successful, they are almost certainly over-estimating the scale of this and do not evidence progress reducing societal inequalities through lasting behavioural change.

Effective action starts with appropriate (and more individualised) monitoring.

Contradictions – ‘Quest’

The 2023-35 Moving Communities report incorporates other questionable assertions.

Described as Sport England’s continuous improvement tool for leisure facilities, the stated aim of Quest is to “support partners (leisure centre managers/operators) to identify and prioritise opportunities to enhance the quality of their services and facilities.”

A key Quest category is “tackling inequalities.” The latest Moving Communities report indicates that 93% of establishments were good to excellent in this category. In the light of the questions raised in this article, we would question the validity of this conclusion.

Given that Quest is essentially about systems, not outcomes, it may well be that these scores reflect well-written policies (and a reasonable volume of exercise referral schemes), rather than driving what the rational observer might consider to be the required changes to enable people living in poverty to gain realistic (preferably regular) access. We would be keen to see more clarity – and genuine action.

Where Passport to Leisure is failing

Sport and leisure centres do not, of course, account for all the recreational opportunity available in any given area. They are, however, flagship venues for many activities which are hard to participate in otherwise and are essential for what might be deemed as ‘life course activities’ such as learning to swim. In theory, PtL schemes make these facilities (and programmes offered therein) accessible to all. However, their numerous limitations and failings result in the poorest still being excluded.

Target audience awareness

PtL eligibility is determined by individual local authorities. Generally, these follow uniform criteria related to age and the receipt of certain benefits.

Unfortunately, not everyone who is eligible is aware that such schemes exist. The level of visibility of PtL schemes on leisure facility operators’ website is often woefully inadequate and little is done by way of proactive presentation. Uptake (or at least the presentation of opportunity) could be significantly improved if agencies such as GP practices, health visitors, jobcentres, housing associations and even foodbanks played (and were actively encouraged to play) a more active role in “prescribing” leisure facility usage alongside initiating, easing (and preferably owning) the application process.

With the exception of exercise referral programmes such proactivity is rare. Using a wider range of social prescription methods/routes to PtL as standard would encourage more people to take a first step, at the point where they are arguably most susceptible to receiving a health or wellbeing message.

The poorest are still priced out of the market

Sport England’s PtL procurement guidance comes with useful concessionary pricing advice, based on asking the right questions related to “what are we actually trying to achieve and for who?” The questions it rightly raises include:

• What level of reach and attendance is being achieved for people living in poverty (and where this overlaps with other targeted groups) in what might be deemed to be the facility catchment area which are in receipt of concessions?
• Is the subsidy targeted at those most in need?
• Have concessions contributed to local strategic priorities, objectives and outcomes?
• Have concessions been effectively communicated to, and understood by, targeted users?
• What monitoring and evaluation of the concessionary policy is undertaken?

While these questions are important and cover operational factors, they do not address the real-world barriers faced by those living in poverty.

• While a number of local authorities have concessionary pricing schemes for people on benefits or facing other barriers/difficulties, few offer this at a level which could be argued to make regular or even occasional use of a sports facility affordable for people in poverty. With honourable exceptions, very few (of which we are aware) discount the cost of swimming lessons for children or adults to a level which makes them affordable to people and families living in poverty – and most do not at all. This realistically means that the opportunity to learn to swim, if you are poor, is simply unavailable. (It also means that offering free swimming for young people during school holidays could be argued to discriminate against the poorest young people – who are far less likely to be able to swim).
• What is glibly described as “pay and play” access (where people can simply turn up and pay in cash) has all but disappeared at the majority of leisure management contractor (and a lot of local authority/leisure trust) managed facilities – thus adding barriers to those already financially and digitally disadvantaged.
• To access a sport/leisure facility, it is generally necessary to register, in person or online, to become a member. This is a requirement which often comes with an upfront fee or a credit-card reliant process. While one or two operators offer zero-cost memberships, we have not, as yet, seen any operator pair this with concessionary pricing which makes regular participation affordable for individuals or families living in poverty.
• Where they are in place, PtL schemes offer percentage discounts of typically 20-30% off annual membership or the headline price of specific activities. While, relative to other areas this is laudable, it still leaves pricing unattainably high for most people living in poverty, who are also (as noted) in no position to pay upfront joining fees. In many instances, PtL-based users are only allowed to access facilities (for the discounted rate) at off-peak times. This is not only discriminatory but may also limit opportunity to play with friends or to fit sport/physical activity in around people’s other (e.g., working/childcare) commitments.
• People living in poverty are far less likely to own a vehicle, but few schemes take account of this.

Even operators which do offer PtL pricing concessions rarely link these to low-cost public transport options. (The English National Concessionary Travel Scheme does enable disabled and people aged over 65 in England to access free (off-peak) bus travel).

A number of schemes already in place do contain elements of undoubted good practice. However, if we are to make sport/leisure centre participation a realistic opportunity for the poorest in our society, all of the factors noted above and the optimum best practice elements need to be addressed and incorporated, ideally through a nationally benchmarked PtL standard.

Loss of focus

Sport England’s Strategic Outcomes Planning Guidance is a useful vehicle designed to help local authorities and others create a focus and vision on local outcomes, and to deliver interventions that affect behavioural change in target audiences – including those living in poverty.

In addition, where do active partnerships stand on this issue – this is surely an area in which they should be looking to take a lead.

The scale and scope of PtL concessionary pricing is, of course, highly dependent on the amount individual local authorities are prepared to invest. Nevertheless, given that addressing health equalities and linked policies are typically espoused by almost every council, PtL should not be viewed as a straightforward opportunity cost.

Assuming that concessions are targeted effectively at those who could not otherwise participate at the standard price, they should be seen as essential and appropriate mechanisms to ensure that leisure centres make the social contribution that swimming baths and indoor sports facilities were originally developed to enable. As things stand, this principle has largely given way to a focus on leveraging maximum regular income from better-off customers who, in reality, have the means to access physical activity and sport elsewhere.

Ironically, the sporadic work that KKP has undertaken to consider the likely fiscal impact of a well-run PtL would suggest that the opportunity cost (and impact on the ‘bottom line’) is likely to be substantially lower that most fear.

The upcoming £400m government sports fund

Responding to the UK government August 2025 Spending Review announcement that £400m is to be allocated for grassroots sports and targeted at essential community assets (specifically local leisure centres and swimming pools), the Local Government Association (LGA) has stated that councils are uniquely positioned to deliver funding where it is most needed. It suggests that investing this fund via local authorities is the best way for the government to ensure it delivers maximum value for communities and supports long-term health outcomes.

In advocating this, the chair of the LGA’s Culture, Tourism and Sport Board pointed out that “local communities rely on sport and leisure facilities” and that “the benefits to both physical and mental health can be life-changing”, going on to state that to be truly transformative, this funding should be invested via councils, so it can have the impact that delivers government ambition to improve the nation’s health.

Should any part of this fund be channelled via local authorities, we would suggest attaching conditions which ensure that, at least from a pricing access perspective, any capital funding provided is linked to establishment of, and long-term commitment to, retaining a functioning, effective PtL – preferably linked to effective multi-agency social prescribing arrangements and detailed monitoring and evaluation. This would start to join the dots between the key factors which delimit opportunity for those living in poverty who, after all, are surely the most important potential beneficiaries of any such investment.

What does a truly meaningful, affordable, PtL scheme look like?

If there is a local authority out there which considers itself to be delivering an effective PtL we would be very interested in hearing from you. Alternatively, if you would like to partner with KKP to fully interrogate the operational and real cost-based mechanics of establishing a truly meaningful PtL – perhaps in lieu of creating a standard package/process for your authority and/or to share with the broader sector please get in touch.

john.eady@kkp.co.uk