Wednesday 11th March 2020, Perth, Western Australia.
A summary of the Forum including key issues raised and discussed.
What is informal sport?
Informal sport was identified with people getting together with a group of friends to ‘just play’
sport on ovals and parks, enjoy activities at skate-parks and other open spaces including the
beach. Running, cycling and swimming were recognised as often a focus for informal
participation.
‘Social sport’ offerings in a variety of formats were noted as examples of sport provision being
directed towards more informal participation. Regular pick-up baseball, cricket and soccer,
and roller-hockey in car parks, were examples cited of known ‘social informal’ activities
happening locally. Many of these activities were reported as ‘just springing up’, with people
exploring where they can establish and sustain their participation.
In discussing reasons for people choosing informal sport, socio-economic factors were
highlighted as impacting the accessibility of formal sport for many people. Direct and indirect
costs, the logistics of travel to venues, and other challenges facing for example, newly arrived
migrants who may speak limited English, were recognised as important in this regard. The lack
of a welcoming, inclusive environment in some formal sport settings was also cited as a major
reason why many people instead turn to informal participation. Drop-off in young people’s
involvement in sport from age 14-15 was identified as reflecting in part, sporting structures
not offering what young people are wanting in participation.
Should we seek to formalise and/or regulate informal sport?
Caution was emphasised in relation to attempts to formalise or regulate this arena. ‘There are
people doing what they are doing very happily for various reasons.’ A challenge identified for
sport associations was to accept that not all participation can be or should be controlled. It
was also highlighted that for sports ‘numbers = funding’, so it is a balancing act to secure
funding while also seeking to respond to ‘what the market is calling for’ – more informal
opportunities.
‘Formal-informal’
Discussion highlighted the complexities associated with the notion of ‘informal sport’, with
examples shared of initiatives and programs that are designed to ‘semi-formalise’ and thereby
support, informal participation. parkrun (https://www.parkrun.com.au) was associated with
the notion of ‘formal-informal’ and as also illustrating the key role of volunteers in
sustainability.
(How) can we plan for informal sport?
Informal sport was acknowledged as something that typically, is not planned for by local
government and that calls for notable flexibility in relation to management and future
planning. Where informal participants want to participate was acknowledged as a key issue in
relation to local government accommodating informal sport. Provision of designated spaces
for informal sport was recognised as a matter for planning to address.
The spontaneity of informal sport becoming established within a local authority was explained
as giving rise to ‘ad hoc’ support. Encouraging groups to approach councils to discuss needs
was seen as important for establishing and sustaining more opportunities for informal sport.
Resourcing, recognising and developing informal sport
Capacity building in communities was seen as central to growing and sustaining participation
in informal sport, and in that process, promoting more inclusive communities. Informal sport
was recognised as invaluable for community engagement and youth development. Social
connectedness was stressed as a major appeal and benefit - through participation and through
people actively contributing to informal groups and activities in communities. The opportunity
for people to belong was seen as major appeal of informal sport.
Many instances of informal sport were noted as being on a small scale, with a close-knit group
of participants involved. Informal sport was identified as in many instances, low cost to
resource and not necessarily requiring expansive support or resources. Space, dedicated for
informal sport, was acknowledged as the greatest need and as often the point of tension in
relation to other users and local government planning and resources more broadly. Informal
participation was described as not constrained by formal structures or rules and as involving
adaptations to suit the participants, space available and so on. As a result, the space and setup
needs of informal sport are different to formal sport. Opening schools for informal sport
use, was regarded as potentially a ‘game changer’ for informal sport and communities.
From a management perspective, it was highlighted that informal sport participants get
involved in activities accepting that there is a level of risk involved in what they do. Planning/
planners need to be on the same page in this regard, rather than a risk-averse culture
preventing development of informal sport.
Informal sport is also associated with ‘out of season’ participation and ‘season overlaps’ that
present space management challenges and choices for owners of facilities. In WA, there are
now a number of 365 day-a-year soccer facilities – but within this, the challenge is still to
balance club-community use.
It was stressed that government at all levels needs to recognise that ‘there is a significant
informal sport sector’. Adaptability amongst government and state sporting associations, was
seen as vital for recognition and legitimation of these different forms of participation, so that
coordination and resourcing of the informal sector can be meaningfully explored.
Informal and formal sport were stressed as complementary – and that outlook key to positive
stakeholder engagement on all sides, with a more coherent approach to developing
participation and developing communities. Current structures and funding models were
recognised as presenting challenges for development of informal sport. All stakeholders were
challenged to model the re-balancing of support for informal sport in relation to formal sport.
This was seen as key to influencing thinking in higher levels of government.
From a community development perspective, the social capital that comes from formal and
informal sport was described as huge, with the challenge therefore of how to leverage the
potential of both. Sport – at all levels - was challenged to ‘think like a community organisation’
and focus on community. How many sport development officers are trained in community
development? In any consultations, where are community? and how and/or should clubs be
more involved in/with informal participation?
A focus on connectedness, a shift in culture and
a ‘change in the conversation’, were all associated with moves to prioritise community and
inclusion. Engaging community in a systematic way was seen as critical moving forward, with
‘the answers’ for positive ways forward seen as lying in and with the community – their voice
is key in relation to what developments are wanted and what role state sport associations,
clubs and local government can play to effectively support informal sport.
Future visions – 10 years on in WA, what is the vision?
• Sports organisations are community organisations.
• Social outcomes, rather than numbers, are the focus in planning and funding models.
• More of a focus on having fun and having a go.
• Greater collaboration, particularly at a local level, in planning and provision.
• Community reclaiming space and the participation opportunities those spaces offer.
• Every person knowing where they belong in the wider structure of society and sport.
• Relevance and a shift in thinking – it is not about sport, it is about community.
• More and more informal sporting space developed and prominent in how we plan within
local government.
• Sport and informal sport and recreation recognised as a preventative health measure
that needs more investment.
• Recognition that informal sport is very important to the individual and the community.
The forum was presented by Professor Dawn Penney (Edith Cowan University) and Associate
Professor Ruth Jeanes (Monash University) and hosted by the Department of Local
Government, Sport and Cultural Industries. It was convened to connect local government,
sport and community organisations with the project and to facilitate open discussion of key
issues being explored by the research team.
The panel discussion was facilitated by Dr. May Carter, a Senior Research Fellow at Edith
Cowan University and member of the project team. Panel Members were Rob Thompson
(CEO, SportWest); Rebecca Hall (Leader, Community Connections and Learning, City of
Canning); Troy Kirkham (Participation Manager, WA Football Commission); Joe Moniodis,
(Development Leader, Edmund Rice Centre, WA); Denver D’Cruz (General Manager, Inclusion
Solutions); and Mitch Davies (Leisure Services, Recreation and Leisure Services, City of
Stirling).
For inquiries relating to the project in Western Australia, please contact Dawn Penney
(d.penney@ecu.edu.au). Please contact Ruth Jeanes about project work in Victoria and with
any other inquiries (ruth.jeanes@monash.edu).
