Athletics in the UK: The Rise and Fall of the BAF

131 Epilogue seemed to leave these qualities outside whilst inside the corridors of power. The model adopted by BAF’s successor, UK Athletics, is totally different; indeed it is close to being unique in Europe. Of the principal positions, only the President and Vice President are elected by the clubs of the UK and this has resulted in a more professional and self contained organisation, free from the political strife of its predecessors. As a result of groundwork started in the last days of BAF and carried on by David Moorcroft, UK Athletics wields a considerable budget, enjoys substantial revenues from television (the BBC!) and sponsors and promotes largely the same series of commercial events as those developed by the IAC and Andy Norman. But the early transition to UKA was not seamless. David Moorcroft had been persuaded to create a new governing body but inherited a system that was out of date. He commissioned an independent review by Sir Andrew Foster that recommended, amongst other things, the wholesale restructuring of the sport in England. An entirely new entity, England Athletics, was established to administer the sport through nine geographical regions that matched those of the English Sports Council. The old AAA of England (which reverted to its historic name Amateur Athletic Association), along with its three regional associations, were to be given minor roles and allowed to wither on the vine. The arrangements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, however, would continue substantially unchanged. Thus the once powerful AAA has, at the time of writing, been reduced to a minor player in the sport, with little or no income and simply expending its reserves year after year to maintain a presence. But UKA itself is still criticised by the sport – for being undemocratic and unaccountable. It is hard to blame UKA for not wishing to recreate the “democracy” under which its predecessors laboured but it has less defence against any charges of unaccountability as there is every reason why UKA, as the governing federation of athletics in the UK, should explain and justify its existence and activities. Its duties to lead the sport and to account for its performance could easily be met by more effective communication. As ever, the clubs feel isolated and neglected as UKA and its regional organisations appear bureaucratic and to command large budgets which never seem to reach them, the poor foot soldiers.