The State of Athletics in the UK

I’ve been an athlete, a fan and now a coach in Athletics for numerous years and it saddens me to see the direction the sport is currently heading. Elitist selection policies have caused a great deal of controversy in recent years and it has always been something I have felt particularly strongly about. However this week I have had the misfortune of being on the receiving end of a selection related injustice. This incident has pushed me to share my thoughts about the current state of our sport.

European Championships Selection

On Tuesday 28th May, the team for the upcoming European Championships was announced, and 70 deserving athletes were selected to represent Great Britain & Northern Ireland in Rome next month. However, missing from the team was one of the athletes I work with, 400m hurdler Josh Faulds. On Tuesday morning, Josh was informed that he had not been selected for the team. This devastating news came less than 48 hours after arguably the highlight of his athletics career to date. Josh took his PB down from 50.05 to 49.24 to secure the European standard on the last day of the qualification period.

The explanation given to Josh was that the selectors did not have confidence in his ability to make the top 8 at the championships and consequently he did not fulfil the required selection criteria. This is despite the fact that Josh’s PB and SB of 49.24 would have made the final in 3 out of the last 6 European’s, and he would have been an average of 0.12 seconds off qualifying in the other three instances.

Admittedly the 400m hurdles is an event which is rapidly progressing. However, looking at the mens 400m hurdles rankings in Europe would show you that Josh had ran the 12th fastest time in Europe in 2024 at the time of selection.

As a coach, it saddens me to see that after years of dedication and sacrifice you can be told you are not good enough because you probably won’t qualify for the final. In Josh’s instance, you could certainly argue that this is not the case based on the statistics outlined above. However Josh is not the first and will not be the last athlete to be overlooked by selectors under this strict criteria. The fact that UK Athletics continues to base selection decisions solely on medals and finals is the main issue.

Selection Policy Philosophy

Back in 2017, UK Athletics published a document to outline the philosophy for selecting teams for both Olympic and Para Athletics programme competitions, throughout the track and field pathway during the Tokyo (2020) and Paris (2024) cycles.

The intention of the philosophies is to provide “consistency and clarity in approach to the selection for all British Athletics teams and to allow athletes and coaches to more effectively plan for their future within the sport.”

The philosophy outlined three key aims:

1. Ensuring that medal success at the Olympic Games and IAAF World outdoor Championships is maximised;

2. Ensuring that appropriate competition opportunities for potential future medal winners are provided throughout the pathway; and

3. Ensuring that obtaining a British vest continues to be realistic aspiration for athletes throughout the pathway and that athletes are motivated to remain in the sport post age-group championships.

The first aim has seen smaller teams than ever selected for World Championships and Olympic games. World Athletics invites have been rejected by UK Athletics and a lot of athletes have been left frustrated at the situation. However there has at least been consistency in the application of this ideology, despite much controversy, during the two Olympic Cycles.

The application of the second aim has been questionable, however the third aim seems to have been prematurely abandoned completely. This is evidenced by the policy and selection for the upcoming European Championships.

The European U-Turn

The philosophy is clear on its focus for the Olympics and World championships. The priority is winning medals and gaining top 8 finishes. Next in the competition framework are the European championships. The aim of these championships established in the philosophy document was to provide “experiential opportunities for developing athletes”. It claimed that selection would be widened and standards would be set to give athletes the opportunity to gain selection. Below is a full summary of the aims of the European championships:

Extract from the British Athletics Olympic Selection Philosophy 2017–2024 about the purpose of the European championships

In 2022, UK Athletics did a fantastic job of adhering to the philosophy. The objectives for these championships were clear. Select a team that maximises medal success but also provides opportunities for developing athletes to achieve a GB & NI vest at a major Championships. 115 athletes were selected via entry standards and even invites. The team yielded a return of 20 medals and finished second in the medal table behind host nation Germany. This marked GB & NI’s equal second best return ever at a European Championships.

However, a year later the selection policy for the 2024 European championships was published, with a rather drastic shift in its philosophy. The three key aims were:

1. To maximise medal success at the European Championships

2. To support athletes’ plans to achieve success at the Paris Olympics

3. To support preparation towards medal success at the 2025 World Championships

In addition to neglecting to set an aim to provide opportunites for developing athletes, the policy stated that there would be a maximum team size of 70. This marks a 39% decrease in team size from the previous edition of the championships. This is significant as the athletes likely to make up the majority of this percentage are the ones who the selection philosophy targets in the first place; developing athletes striving to achieve a senior GB & NI vest and gain valuable championship experience.

I do not fully agree with the elitist approach to selection for the Olympics and World Championships; in my opinion anyone who achieves a standard or receives a World Athletics invite should be selected to compete. However, when the European Championships was used as a developmental opportunity there was a platform for athletes to break through and gain valuable championship experience. Now the obvious question is where are athletes supposed to gain such experience if British Athletics won’t even select them for a European Championships? What is encouraging them to continue in the sport once they step out of the U20 and U23 age groups into the senior ranks?

The Knock on Effect

I started working with Josh in 2016. He was an average club athlete up to U15 level but started to show some promise over 400m hurdles as he transitioned to U17. I was still competing at the time, but was starting to get into coaching and ended up supporting Josh. We have grown together and I have seen the time, effort and sacrifice he has dedicated to pushing towards becoming an established senior athlete. Ultimately this week has left both of us questioning what is the point?

The impact on an athlete’s mental health of being told you are not good enough is huge. The fine margins between success and failure make athletics a difficult enough sport mentally as it is. Now imagine you hit a qualifying standard set out by European Athletics and UK Athletics only to be told by selectors that they don’t believe you are good enough to compete at that level. This impact on an individual’s confidence and self-esteem can be long-lasting and devastating.

There is also knock on financial effect to consider. In the last two years, Josh has been working part-time at our local leisure centre to support his athletics career. Days combining intense training sessions and long working hours will be familiar to many trying to breakthrough to become a full-time athlete.

In this instance, it the decision to not select Josh could well be stopping him becoming a full-time athlete. The European’s would have been the perfect opportunity to showcase his potential and maybe push close to the qualifying time for the Olympics. Gaining selection here may have led to sponsorship deals and possibly even a nomination for the Olympic World Class Programme.

It is just as bad for athletes with existing kit contracts. Failing to make a major championships often results in reductions or even worse getting dropped completely. Athletes also miss out on the opportunity to earn bonuses for performances or placings at these championships by not being selected.

Missing out on major championship experience also undoubtedly has a detrimental impact on future performance. Competing against the top 400m hurdlers in Europe would have been the perfect platform for Josh to build on his recent breakthrough. Regardless of the outcome of the race, it would have provide invaluable experience and extra motivation as we move into the next Olympic cycle and future championships.

Countless of our top athletes in recent years have gone to major championships early in their career and failed to make finals and win medals. Mo Farah went to the Beijing Olympics in 2008 at 25 years-old and finished 6th in his heat and did not qualify for the final. Under current policies, he would never have been selected in the first place. This experience undoubtably would have meant he was better place to medal by the time London 2012 came around. This highlights a significant flaw in basing selections solely off current top 8 and medal potential.

The Next Generation?

What really brought home the severity of the current situation to me was coaching my academy squad in the evening after selection was announced. Having watched and been amazed by Josh’s incredible run, the group assumed he would be selected. When they went on to ask why he hadn’t I simply couldn’t give an answer they’d understand.

How do I tell a group of aspiring young athletes that selectors did not have confidence in his ability to finish in the top 8? What message does that send to the future generation of our sport? I already often find myself providing emotional support to athletes who make national age group championships but do not progress to finals. It is important to realise that they have achieved something incredible to simply qualify for a national championships. However the message coming from the top of our sport just reinforces the idea that if you can’t make a final or medal, you are simply not good enough. This precedent is hugely dangerous, and will result in athletes dropping out out of the sport if this continues.

Summary

I appreciate that the selection policy was laid out clearly and well in advance, and that speaking out now will not change anything regarding the recent selection. However, I think these instances always bring the consequences of elitist policies and inconsistent philosophies into sharper focus. It therefore warrants putting such rationale under scrutiny.

With a home European championships in Birmingham on the horizon, things have to change. Italy are sending a team of 115 athletes to Rome next month. A full team for a home championships motivates the athletes, gives the spectators the best experience and inspires the next generation.

It is well documented that UK Athletics have had serious financial issues in recent years. Despite this, they have been adamant the financial constraints have nothing to do with the team size limits and strict selection policies.

If this is indeed the case, then it begs to question as to why UK Athletics implemented such a drastic policy U-Turn for the European Championships from their initial philosophy set out for the Paris Olympic cycle. This is a damaging U-Turn for developing athletes striving to achieve their dreams of representing their country at senior level. It is a decision that could ultimately lead to athletes walking away from the sport before they reach their full potential, and at this point who could blame them?