Elitism and the BEF Independent Review - were any lessons learned?

Looking back to 2017 I don't think I ever wrote a blog following the conclusion of the British Equestrian Federation (BEF) Independent Review following Clare Salmon's allegations of elitism, self-interest, bullying and corruption as referred to in her resignation letter dated 13th July 2017 from the role of BEF CEO. 

Winner of the class for CBs called Max living in Bulley?
©Harveywetdog

Perhaps I found it was all a bit too difficult; when I had made my submission to the Independent Review I had found myself mostly agreeing to the allegations Clare had made and pointing out where I had personally been the victim of self interest and bullying, and noting that it was painfully obvious that equestrian sport was elite. I had to say I had not seen evidence of corruption, merely incompetence, however I did caveat this by saying  "perhaps to be paid to do a job but do it badly makes you morally corrupt but I cannot say I’ve seen anything which makes me think people are criminally corrupt."

At the time I was delighted to see the review taking place.  I expected a far reaching, root and branch reform of equestrian sport to drag it into the 21st Century. I saw change was required not because there was anything fundamentally wrong with the way the sport was run then, simply that it was set in the past and, as BE discovered, often run on a vocational rather than business basis. This would all be fine if it wasn't for the fact that our sport now expects large dollops of lottery funding to keep it going and it can't expect to receive this without a huge degree of challenge and accountability. Part of this challenge was always going to be "are you supporting diversity and inclusion - are you an inclusive sport?" and if you can't demonstrate that you are then you can soon expect sources of public funding to dry up. 

Promised a lot?

Having submitted my evidence I eagerly awaited issue of the Review findings in December 2017 only to be told that due to amount of evidence received the Report would not now be issued until Late Spring 2018. I took this as a good sign of a thorough review taking a long time to investigate some important issues.

When the Report was finally issued on 15th March 2018 I described my self as "underwhelmed". Did we learn anything new - I think not. Was Clare Salmon exonerated for what she said - not really. And did we get to the root cause of the breakdown in relationships between the leader of the BEF and member bodies  - no we did not! Perhaps like me people found it all a bit too difficult and perhaps people wanted to move on.  One thing I noted was that the review introduced "the relevant period" into the report which limited the scope and with it the action that the report needed to recommend in order to address its findings.

"There was an accusation of elitism in equestrian sport a couple of years ago, the investigation into which was suitably fudged by BEF, but the inconvenient truth remains that grassroots members are only there to fund the elite riders in their quests for Olympic glory (and to be sold out as "sponsor fodder"). Any arrangement, which keep grassroots members at arms length and gets even more money out of them, is simply a part of that truth."

Whatever the reasons for the limited action coming out of the review, looking back now moving in 2022 and through the politically charged prism of 2020, one can perhaps see an opportunity missed. After all if the BBC can dedicate half an hour of Ski Sunday to diversity and inclusion and also describe British tennis as "too white, too male and too posh", trying to shake off an "unwanted elitist tag" what hoops will it make Clare Balding jump through when she is trying to present the eventing from Badminton next year? Let's hope competitors don't have to jump off and "take the knee" before their final show jumping round.

Of course, when it comes to elitism, equestrian sport faces a double whammy; it clearly appears elitist to those looking in from outside (too white, too posh?) but it also feels elitist to those looking up while inside. Obviously we could not describe equestrian sport as too male but neither could we argue that the elitist tag is altogether unwanted. It is the inconvenient truth that the main purpose of recruiting so many grassroots riders into eventing and dressage is simply to provide a funding source for elite riders and elite competition - with the pinnacle being Olympic Selection. Having a large membership base is important as it will make you attractive to sponsors; but it should also mean that you provide those members with the opportunity to compete and spectate at your events and not feel that their needs are constantly taking second place to those of the elite riders. 

It might appear that the equestrian disciplines have used the Covid crisis, and the associated national lockdowns, to reinforce elitism as a part of their "new normal". I suspect that they have actually begun to realise there may be a benefits running events without the riff raff present; if the hoi polloi can be convinced to pay to watch the action via live-stream so much the better. Of course these views are not simply my own; social media is awash with people complaining about grass roots riders being taken advantage of and having to pay a subscription on top of their membership fee to watch equestrian action via livestream. Disquiet in the lorry park still exists today, very much as it did back in 2017.    

"A lot of equestrian life remains a lifestyle choice and some elitist lifestyles don’t come cheap; in fact that is probably their appeal."

As an aside I often feel I am a lone voice when I say live streaming is damaging our sport. For obvious reasons I'm certainly not a big fan of live streaming. Basically because it hits my viewing figures but also because it is often undertaken with insufficient skill and/or bandwidth such that actually seeing anything ultimately seems hit and miss. Long term arrangements by both BD and BE should allow investment and see improvements in live streaming but as I said members are ultimately going to have pay for these improvements. While sponsorship of programmes will play a part once again the bill falls on the membership, via their expected support of the sponsors products and in the price of the products. At the same time the nature of our events will change as foot fall declines and trade stands continue to suffer.

Prior to Bicton 5 Star Captain Mark Phillips explained that as modern crowds were less likely to "walk the course" modern course designers were required to create feature areas where spectators could gather with their picnics and watch the action on a big screen. How convenient if the next step is to move the picnic and the big screen to your living room with the action provided via a premium subscription to an equestrian sport channel.

For British Dressage the answer seems to have been to introduce more and more meaningless levels of competition so that ultimately everyone is a winner reminiscent of sports day at a school run for the snowflakes of the woke. 

Coming right up to date, and in an attempt to address the inconvenient truth, we have recently seen British Eventing trying to address the disparity between elite and the grass root members by restructuring the membership categories for 2022. While there has clearly been a lot of analysis of the data in order to arrive at the new structure it has not met with universal support. That is probably inevitable as there simply isn't such a thing as an "average competitor".

Clearly the offering is based on being competitive at the “unaffiliated level” and at those levels where there is no competition your choices are pay up, don’t compete or emigrate (or change sport). But as we saw in 2017 a lot of equestrian life remains a lifestyle choice and some elitist lifestyles don’t come cheap; in fact that is probably their appeal.

We will never know if, had the review of 2017 been undertaken more seriously, we could have begun to address some of these issues earlier. I can't see that any lessons were learned or taken forward. It is also unclear to me if the initial separation of all the different disciplines away from the BHS is considered a success. Perhaps devolution suited the mode of the 1990s whereas going forward we need a leaner, more agile organisation providing elite competition for those who need it and unaffiliated competition for those who simply want to enjoy their sport.

    

Happy days - Blair Castle 1993
©Harveywetdog