News

How university sport/physical activity directorates look at ‘upping their game’

One of ours! The University of Warwick Sports Hub –opened in April 2019

In September 2024, the University of Southampton announced the opening of its new £40million Jubilee Sport and Recreation Centre extension. Amongst references to the scale of its new (200+) station fitness suite, studios, squash courts and climbing walls, it made the core point that this extension has been designed with inclusivity at its core. It also points out that the venue features the latest adaptive sport equipment to cater for students, staff and people from the local community – of all abilities.

The Complete University Guide Survey suggested that the higher education sector spent over £350m developing sports facilities between 2016-2018 and confirmed that, over the last decade, institutions including Durham, Warwick, Birmingham, York, Nottingham, Loughborough and Portsmouth had made high profile and substantial investment in new sports venues.

The call to action in the BUCS The Value of University Sport and Physical Activity encourages the sector to increase engagement in sport and physical activity for all students and staff, suggesting that individual HEIs make it an essential part of their strategy. The claims made in respect of the benefits of so doing are that a university’s sport and physical activity (SPA) offer:

  • Influences its market position and ‘brand pull’ and how students’ choose the HEIs to which they apply – and the one they subsequently attend.
  • Improves transition – to university from school, and ultimate retention as a result of the accelerated friendships and sense of belonging that SPA enables.
  • Delivers greater life satisfaction – predicated on the assumption that physically active students are happier and exhibit reduced anxiety and depressive symptoms.
  • Enhances academic attainment – the rationale being that graduates who are sports participants gain proportionately more first and upper second-class degrees.
  • Employability – the assertion being that students who participate in university sport earn more than non-participants and those taking up sports volunteering roles earning a ‘further premium’.

The BUCS publication notes that at a time when UK universities are under more financial pressure than ever, providing opportunity for sport and physical activity has a relatively low net cost and a high return. It points out that this, can impact a significant proportion of students (plus staff and the local community) and provides the “glue” which helps hold a university together.

The latter statement is one with which it is easy to agree. For a net outlay which is often well below 1% of a university’s overall budget, the positive impact of high-quality sport and physical activity facilities, clubs, services and programmes is unmatched by virtually any other aspect of non-academic student provision.

However, in our experience, it is as important to make the case for student retention than it is to highlight sport and physical activity as a tool for student recruitment, which is perhaps only significant for three of four key institutions.

KKP has supported a number of UK universities to across a range of projects including SPA and facility strategies, feasibilities on new facility developments, staffing reviews, performance measurement and service reviews. Several recent assignments (e.g. Leeds and Bristol) have incorporated detailed benchmarking with comparable HEIs.

Typically, this covers aspects such as overall service quality, size and scale of indoor and outdoor sport and fitness provision, approach to memberships, sports club reach and quality, recreational offer, provision for overseas students and services for disabled students and links with student welfare. We have also, latterly, considered the difference made by the level at which sports directorates are directly represented in the university hierarchy.

The general consensus is that, notwithstanding the trend for improvement in the quality of facilities and service provision, there is still some way to go. University senior managers, SPA directors, student union staff and representatives and others consulted consider the key areas in which the higher education SPA offer still often requires further attention or investment Include:

  • Balancing the needs of traditional student sport with those of a more diverse student population, which arguably has an increasingly wider range of health needs.
  • Delivery of an improved recreational offer geared to all students, but especially those that do not feel comfortable engaging in the traditional sports club environment.
  • Improving how SPA services and university sports clubs attract and retain members and compete with increasing competition.
  • The quality of direct communication that SPA directorates can have with the full student and staff body. This is often limited by wider university IT infrastructure challenges which limits the capacity for optimal interaction and presentation of the physical activity offer.
  • The linking of SPA management information functions with those of the wider university to enable services to accurately assess the profile of who is participating, in which facility or activity and when. Without this link, performance management can be hindered.
  • Doing more to cater effectively for overseas students who account for an increasingly significant proportion of HEI tuition fee income but are still often under-considered when it comes to the wider SPA offer.
  • Improved linkages and service provision for students with physical disabilities and mental health challenges. Although this is widely considered to have improved in recent years, demand levels have also risen significantly, and services have not always been sufficiently resourced to cope with this.
  • The need for directors of SPA to advocate directly for their service in key university decision-making fora.

Giving university SPA directorates the wherewithal (facilities, staff, systems and operational freedom) to deliver and, at the same time making them more accountable for service breadth and outcomes, is arguably essential to the UK having a vibrant and effective HEI sports system and to ensuring that the full contribution that SPA makes to the quality of the student experience is realised.

David McHendry is managing director at KKP (contact: david.mchendry@kkp.co.uk)

Note: KKP’s university client portfolio includes Bristol, Leeds, Edge Hill, UCLan, Birmingham, Warwick, Manchester, Loughborough, Aberdeen, Royal Holloway, Aston, UC Cork, Robert Gordon, Chester, Sussex, Ulster, Aberystwyth, MMU, Sheffield Hallam, Bournemouth, Glasgow Caledonian and Lincoln.

KKP is online at www.kkp.co.uk