Last week I attended the three day 22nd Congress of The European Society of Sports Historians (CESH) at Bordeaux, running from 29th to 31st October, and chaired its annual general meeting. CESH attracts leading sports historians from across Europe and beyond. This year it was held in association with the French society Carrefour d’Histoire du Sport.

It drew over 160 participants from eighteen different countries, with presentations allowed in English, French or German, as well as groups of undergraduate students from France and Spain.
The theme of the Congress was Sports History and Patrimonial Dynamics.
It strikes me that this emphasis sports’ heritage is of increasing importance right across Europe, often contributing powerfully to individual and community identities. In Britain sporting heritage has become much more relevant to the formal heritage sector in recent years. It might be in the nature of virtual museums or actual buildings like the National Football Museum at Manchester or Newmarket’s Palace House: The National Heritage Centre for Horse-racing & Sporting Art. It might be in the form of National Sporting Heritage Day or local community activities. Amongst the many fascinating presentations was one by Justine Reilly, the Director of Sporting Heritage, who showed how it was involved in a wide range of activities from a recent three year Arts Council England funding programme to the development of a national data base of sporting collections’.
While I was there I had the pleasure of awarding a Fellowship of the Society to another British academic, Professor David Day of Manchester Metropolitan University, for his distinguished contributions to the history of sport.

All historians are now living in a digital age, and having to come to terms with digital technology. Some of us find it a real challenge to our scholarship. Last week I re-read the excellent collection Sport History in the Digital Era edited by Gary Osmond and Murray Phillips, and Dougherty and Nawrotski’s Writing History in the Digital Age. It made me realize just how far things had moved on in terms even of my own use of digital material from the time I wrote my first book on horse racing, Flat Racing and British Society 1790 to 1914 (2000) to my most recent one Horse Racing and British Society in the Long Eighteenth Century (Boydell, 2018).
Young researchers reading this may not even be aware that to use newspaper material then I had to comb long series of actual newspapers at the then Colindale British library. Each year’s volume had to be ordered separately and arrived on a trolley about half an hour later, then physically read page by page. To go through just one regional newspaper for six months of racing news could take a full morning. References were often limited, scattered and easy to miss. Some newspapers were on rolls of film, which had to be scrolled through. To read printed material I had to search actual library shelves in London, Cambridge, Manchester, Edinburgh and elsewhere. I had to visit the National Archives in London and county archives right across the country and look through their card and microfishe catalogues before actually ordering up any material. To analyse data I had a card index.
But my recent book on the long eighteenth century was so different in its approach.

Use of newspapers has changed. It has certainly given me a completely new sense of eighteenth century print culture, now that thousands of newspapers, magazines and periodicals are available on line. My regional lending library, Lancashire County Libraries has an on-line digital site which gave free access inter alia to British Library Newspapers from 1730, and the Times Digital Archive from 1785. I could purchase access to other searchable sites such as Gales’ 17th and 18th Century Burney Collection or Eighteenth Century Collections on Line. Digital scanning was so easy, so long as I was careful to generate a multiple range of potential keywords: ‘races’ for example, threw up horse races but also material about ethnicity. The word ‘jockey’ had multiple meanings in the early eighteenth century and was further problematized through its fashion featuring as a ‘jockey cap’.

But searching opened up new research opportunities, so long as I retained my awareness of the broader context. So for example, it was easy to compare the number of horse races across time in a single English county reported in the contemporary racing calendars with those in the regional press. There were often twice as many race meetings reported, a reminder that racing calendars only reported the more socially prestigious meetings. I was able to take existing chronology of racing’s development backwards: finding a Newmarket Jockey Club was in existence well before its claimed start in the 1750s, for example. Because on line newspapers had regional coverage I was able to see how far the cultural popularity of racing and its coverage varied from region to region very easily: very popular in Yorkshire, Durham or Suffolk, but gaining little interest in Wales or Devon.

When I was studying jockeys and training grooms I could use their name coupled with associated words like ‘races’ or ‘Newmarket’. Because jockeys’ names were regularly recorded in the surviving Newmarket match book from 1744 to 1769.I was able to put the material on an Excel table, and identify for each jockey when they rode, on which horse, for which owner and in which racing colours, and have some possibility of finding them elsewhere. The ability to search for wills on line, as for example, in the National Archives, turned up fascinating data on the wealth on death of leading jockeys, their ownership of land, their families and the high status of their witnesses and executors. Further material could be found on owners, breeders, and racing officials. Digital genealogy platforms such as Ancestry and Find My Past often helped track down their social origins. The very detailed advertisements for meetings provided important material about the complex changes in racing’s codification, regulation and administration.

Fully searchable court records such as Old Bailey Online, which covered the period from 1674 onwards, also proved useful, showing how race meetings surfaced in evidential discourse regularly: as a time to date from, as offering opportunities for employment and various forms of criminality such as robbery or pickpocketing, and showing the way some criminals followed race meetings and fairs through the summer.

Culturomics approaches allowed me to track broad cultural trends to accompany these more qualitative approaches. Searching newspapers allowed me to track mentions of the ‘thoroughbred’ horse right through the long eighteenth century, from its first appearance round 1720 in newspapers like the Stamford Mercury. Such broad trends could also be tracked using the content of Google books and the piece of software known as Ngram Viewer, which tracks the normalized frequency against the date of publication, providing statistical and graphical representation. This showed peaks in the 1720s, between the 1740s and 1760s and a greater increase in the later 1780s. The word ‘jockey’, little used before the 1720s, really took off from the1750s as Newmarket racing expanded.

Alongside such material was the proliferating amount of material on the internet in terms of historical resources for horse racing as the past circulated into the present. Google is awash with racing material. There were excellent visual representations of racing and horses in sites such as the fully searchable collections of the Yale Centre for British Art or the Royal Collection Trust which helped give an insight into the way artists such as Stubbs or Rowlandson responded to demand for racing pictures. There were material remains shown on line in museums like the Palace House National Horse Race Museum at Newmarket. The site jockeypedia.co.uk maintained over 2000 jockey biographies. The Equine History Collective links equine knowledge into the larger concerns of historical research. And there were many, many more

But I still needed traditional qualitative analysis to back this up. Those of a deconstruction mind-set like Doug Booth have tended to see ‘fragments’ as the appropriate form of post-modern cultural analysis. Admittedly it is much easier to explore, and I can enjoy that too, but it is good sometimes to take a wider view of a long past sporting world such as earlier racing, something that might have a appeal beyond the fairly narrow community of deconstructive sports historians. So I travelled the country, from Scotland to Devon, visiting archive departments, searching urban records, gentry archives, letters and diaries for references. I had faced problems of typography, print and typeface in looking at newspapers, but they palled before the challenges of palaeography, spelling, and syntax in written texts of the period. And I visited ancient racecourses and training grounds, to get a stronger sense of place.

The change has been frightening for those of us beyond retirement age. And I still need lessons!!!!!!

Surprisingly few historians have ever gone racing. Even fewer have placed a bet. Fewer still realize that for well over 200 years horse racing was widely regarded as England’s national sport. Loved by royalty, it was only post-1918 that soccer overtook it. Horse-racing is still the second most important social and economic sport in the United Kingdom.
Surprisingly, although there had been many books on racing in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, no scholar had looked at its origins in any detail or explored how and why it come to take a leading place in British national life
So why did I write my forthcoming book, Horse Racing and British Society in the Long Eighteenth Century (Boydell, 2018) https://boydellandbrewer.com/horse-racing-and-british-society-in-the-long-eighteenth-century-hb.html

(A puff by Emeritus Prof. Allen Guttmann of Amherst College is on the cover, incidentally).

It was almost accidental. I came to the world of academic history late in life, after leaving school at sixteen and lighting out over Europe, Africa and the Middle East, Did my doctorate at the age of fifty-four. As a leisure historian I wrote books and articles on a wide range of topics, from Victorian vices to the world of sport. I knew that from the nineteenth century British racing was dominated by the Jockey Club, drawing its members from the aristocracy and landed gentry. Its historians always claimed that the Club, based at Newmarket and London, was first founded at the beginning of the 1750s.
Quite accidently, when early newspapers began to be digitized and put on-line, I discovered references to a Newmarket Jockey Club with a much earlier existence going back to the 1720s if not beyond. This sparked my interest and raised further questions. But deciding to research the origins and cultural history of early racing was risky.
This was not my period.
It was way outside my comfort zone.
There was a huge volume of unstudied material too, including newspapers, gentry archives, diaries and letters, racing art and urban records from racing towns like York and Chester.
The findings were even more illuminating that I had hoped.
Racing had a highly complex relationship with broader British society.
I had not realized how important the annual racing week was in the leisure calendar of so many county and large market towns during the eighteenth century, helping foster consumerism and the urban renaissance. For many women of the middling classes for example, the racing was almost incidental, but was looked forward to for weeks before with a mixture of excitement and apprehension. It offered many social opportunities; socializing with the titled and the county set, attending assemblies, balls, the ordinaries or the theatre, appearing in the grandstand, and dressing up, demonstrating status and conspicuous consumption.
Racing was equally significant politically. The early Jockey Club was much more than a racing club. Its members were mostly Protestant, Whig and committed to the defeat of Stuart Catholicism, and were usually MPs or otherwise leading figures in the political elite, like the Duke of Bolton. Racing played across divisions of Whig and Tory, court and country or Hanover and Jacobite in complex ways. Hanoverian sons demonstrated their independence against their father by spending money racing. Race meetings were sites of assembly for political discourse where prospective and current parliamentarians lobbied for support, exploited the dynamics of patronage, or used attenders as focus groups.
Conventional histories often portrayed honest, aristocratic Jockey Club members facing dishonest, cheating working-class blacklegs who were corrupting the gaming world. The real situation proved much more complex. There was dishonesty and honesty at all levels of the gaming world, and many examples of cross-class gaming alliance and odds manipulation in the embryonic betting market. Horses could be deliberately run to lose as well as to win.
It became very clear that racing had been the first proto-modern sport, changing over the period from a marginal and informal interest for some of the elite to become the most significant leisure event of the summer season. The way rules and racing organisation developed over times proved fascinating too. The research also shed light on the hitherto hidden world of racing’s key professionals: jockeys, trainers, bloodstock breeders, stud grooms and stable hands. I had not previously been aware that many jockeys and trainers were literate, numerate, socially mobile, handling large sums of money and sometimes wealthy enough to be landowners and leading figures in their communities.
All in all, this book changed my own views radically about the early racing world.

This post responds to Peter K. Andersson’s Journal of Victorian Culture article ‘How Civilised were the Victorians’.

Andersson’s argument that scholars have devoted disproportionate attention to the disciplining and civilizing discourses of the Victorian period is highly welcome. Certainly Elias and Foucault have attracted substantive though I suspect often merely ritual reference. But the reasons for the sustained scholarly attention to such discourses are less clear, given that as Andersson points out, the Victorian period was multifaceted and complex. Of course university English and History departments represent themselves as civilising places and as such have always accorded higher status to and rewarded such studies. And I suspect that the need to defer gratification in order to further a scholarly career means that the two discourses have appealed to many scholars, some of whose backgrounds may have been similar to those Victorian cultural groups giving which gave more emphasis to civility and restraint such as–the self-improving rationalist and secular reformist groups or perhaps the religious reformist leisure cultures rooted in nonconformity and the evangelical Church of England.
Like Andersson, I found the same in-balance a few years ago, when I began to research my recent book Vice and the Victorians (London: Bloomsbury 2015). Vice is a fluid and slippery concept, and its discourses and language certainly needed much exploration, as did its relationship to virtue, respectability and social reform. But in reading the secondary material on vice’s themes, however defined, it was clear that the balance of scholarly work had been on the social and moral reform of ‘vice’ rather than vice itself. Across the Victorian period there were regular debates over gambling, the drinking of alcohol, and sexual pleasures outside marriage, all with peaks and troughs. But in secondary work there was plenty of emphasis on temperance and much less on drinking culture. There was a good deal ofmuch material on the problematics of working-class gambling and anti-gambling reform but almost nothing on the substantial extent of the enjoyments of gambling by the Victorian middle classes, despite the popularity of the London Stock Exchange Derby sweep, and many other office sweeps on major races, or the existence of legal credit betting offices across Britain catering for middle-class betting, or the significant numbers of the middle-class attending race meetings. There was a substantial literature on prostitution, on Munby, on the Contagious Diseases Acts, W.T. Stead, the vigilance associations, and on Oscar Wilde’s problems, but less on some other aspects of sexual behaviour.
Likewise, the Victorian press gave much coverage in its columns to sermons, anti-vice organizations, activities, publications, reports and political meetings, attacking and attempting to repress behaviours deemed problematical, and regularly reported the prosecutions of evil-doers. The reformist groups were culturally powerful, vociferous and possessed cultural capital and much zeal, even if active members were relatively few in number. They dominated the literary sources that survive. So anything seen in print by others was usually phrased in a manner calculated not to cause offence to readers, most certainly, though that did not stop editors or novelists addressing such material in careful ways. The police might appear to have been active in imposing certain types of values, but they saw working-class behaviour through working-class eyes and the practical realities of policing meant that they responded to behaviour contingently. A particular response would be situational, but also dependent on the attitudes of senior officers, the local bench, or pressure coming from complaints in the press. Middle-class drunks might be put in a cab and sent home after a tip was proffered. Local policemen, it is also clear, often ‘read’ local behaviour and appearance in ways often quite different to the readings offered by outside reformers.
Then as now what people said publicly, and how they behaved privately, were not the same. Andersson talks about ‘civilizing masks’ (452);, Peter Bailey talked about more about roles and performances, of people calculatedly adopting the surface trappings of appropriate behaviour and appearance for a particular context. Either way, we need to do more to explore the backstage of Victorian life, but far more broadly than at present, right across the spectrum of class, but also in terms of other forms of identity, including gender, generation, Tory or Liberal political orientation, attitude to faith, and ethnicity. As Andersson says, ‘plebeian women were seldom given a voice… in Victorian studies’ (442) but the same goes for middle-class unrespectable women. We need to do more to identify which groups might have been repressed and constrained and to what extent, and when and where they were and were not, and amongst which groups
Certainly the issues of civility and restraint were situational, most effective in certain occupational contexts, amongst members of a church congregation or in respectable homes with respectable neighbours. They were culturally contested, incorporating contradictions and involving multiple, diverse and individual responses and interpretations. There were, for example, spatial contexts where repression had less effect. These included not just the slums, so often discussed, but music halls and variety theatres, sports and pleasure grounds, racecourses and fairs, places being away from home, in distant towns, and the seaside or foreign lands.
Andersson makes another appeal, for Victorian studies to extend its toolbox of methodologies and sources to place more emphasis on visual material. Many visual sources have, as he points out, yet to be explored. Many Victorian magazines, from The Day’s Doings to Punch, include many pictures and cartoons which hold up to readers’ amusement the less civilized behaviour of their middle-class readers.

Likewise, Victorian narrative paintings, such as Frith’s Derby Day, like many of the painters themselves, often subvert the dominant discourses. Frith’s Derby Day shows the large crowd bent on gambling, eating and drinking, flirting and other sensual pleasures, with no sense of moral danger, even if he also draws on ideas of physiognomy, phrenology and social types in his representations.
There is a wide range of available methodologies available for exploitation, including semiology, discourse analysis, content analysis, psychoanalysis, content analysis or audience and reception studies, alongside the more usual use of visual sources as empirical evidence. There is much out there waiting to be explored: early film, advertisements, book illustrations, flags, standards, paintings, photographs, engravings and cartoons and material objects such as gravestones or clothing. Since reading Andersson’s material I can feel the enthusiasm building to revisit this material and read this much more against the current grain.

.

I’ve just got back from the Annual Congress of CESH, held this year in Florence, outstanding for its Renaissance, art, architecture, sculpture and university studies. There were delegates from right across Europe, north Africa, USA and Japan. I’m always impressed by the way mainland European academics seem to have so many languages at their fingertips. I chaired presentations that were in Spanish, Italian, English and French, for example. Questions came in a variety of languages, including English, but the speakers were often well able to understand and respond. It seems a great shame that by and large British academics don’t attend, though this year northwest scholars from Manchester Metropolitan University came out to Florence, as did Wray Vamplew from Edinburgh. Given that the reputation of British scholars is quite high in Europe, and their work is widely read there, the reasons for our very limited attendance are less than clear.
Is it that European scholarship and academic mores are rather different? Is it a question of cost? Our perhaps more limited language skills? Or is the same suspicion of Europe that is expressed in much of the British press?

Earlier this summer I attended a discussion group at MMU at Crewe.

We began by thinking about the strengths of sport history which should maximized and retained

Here are what the group session thought the strengths were prioritized in rank order. You will note that several tie for third place, so we needed time for more discussion at the end of the day than we had, in order to dig a little further down.
1. Leisure is increasingly central to people’s lives as is sport, alongside changing demographics, and generational attitudes, so well worth studying

2. Open to inter-disciplinary work

3. Critical mass of historians @ Crewe, DMU etc.

4. Sport and leisure history is fun and interesting to do. Sport science expanding. Helps students challenge perceived ideas, myths etc.

5. Sport a fully fledged sub-discipline in terms of literature, journals, subject associations, methodologies and debates. Leisure less so.

6. Good diversity of approaches

7. Wide variety of sources including imagery and representations

8. Publication pace still rapid.

9. Good studies are fully contextualised.

10. Helps engage with broader issues.

Weaknesses of sport history which should minimized or converted into opportunities
Placed in rank order

1. A feeling of intellectual isolation dominated the responses. Leisure history is better integrated into the mainstream than sport, but both insufficiently integrated into mainstream journals. Specialist: sport, tourism, cinema etc.

2. Sport history still sometimes dismissed as ‘fans with typewriters’, as not sufficiently relevant to the present day. This is linked to low external perceptions, especially within sports departments where it occupies an ambiguous position, and sometimes naively seen by sports science academics as lighthearted entertainment rather than a subject with rigour. There are tensions between the subject’s origins in sports studies and PE, history and leisure industries, sociology/anthropology, and therefore in backgrounds of academics and their fit with departments above. Leisure being displaced in universities.

3. There is insufficient diversity within the sub-field. Though leisure history attracts a better gender balance, sport history is still very male-centred and in the UK has not recruited minorities well.

4. Several themes all had similar levels of response.

5. Often over-tied to the status quo and traditional approaches.

6. No radically different forms of sports history are currently emerging.

7. Academics still may need more training. Marketing and impact not yet thought about sufficiently
Sport history is not a subfield which attracts significant funding, unlike sports science, for example, so getting funding is extremely difficult unless you are with a leading university. And this damages REF standing too.

8. Less emphasis was placed on these though all are still important. International differences in terms of patterns of historical writing Library books are expensive and necessary but often in short supply. Coverage – over-strong focus on modern (and classical?) period in leisure and sport. Insufficient ‘grand theory’, or transnational/cross-cultural work. Oral history under-used. Difficult to get funding for projects with indications funding councils do not look favourably on sport/leisure topics and favour mainstream topics. History REF less supportive than sport REF Impact of work often very difficult to quantify. Sports studies students are often more interested in the present and the practical. History’s reading demands are challenging. Declining print runs of historical monographs and small historical journals, with limited circulations.

Opportunities for sport history which should exploited and maximized
Placed in rank order:

1. Leisure and sport history can be linked to heritage, museums, sites, community history, partnerships, outreach and commemoration. Almost all participants mentioned heritage and community history in some form. The move to heritage can drive the discipline forward. Perhaps BSSH should become the Society for Sport and Heritage History. Heritage is a main forum where the public engage with the past via media, museums, communities etc. Outreach ensures work has a meaning, audience , value and a future.

2. Ever-growing amounts of on-line archival material which some universities and some county libraries allow to be accessed free, though it is less helpful for research into minorities or marginalized groups

3. More outreach to amateur, family, local and sport club history. As Martin Polley pointed out, local sport projects are a great way of interrogating sport history and developing original research

4. Several emphasized that that sport history is just as significant and important as military history, parliamentary history or any other subfield of historical research. It could become a significant part of the new social and cultural studies, fusing cultural and structural or perhaps link to business history. It could link more closely to leisure history and there is a possible need for a dedicated Leisure History journal where all aspects of British leisure (sport, art, cinema &c) were covered.

5. Subject can challenge students to think critically within otherwise narrowly focussed ‘professional’ courses.
6. Sport history in universities could submit to sport, not history, in next REF

Also touched on but not emphasised were some other points
Scholars and students still very inventive about ways to convey subject’s significance.
Big demand for books about leisure and sport history, but often self-satisfied ‘nostalgia-fests.’
Presenting papers at mainstream, non-leisure history conferences, and networking more with the mainstream

Threats to sport history, troublesome elements which we should be aware of and seek to tackle
Placed in rank order

1. There was substantial concern about the potential move to open-access journals, with writers of research papers paying very substantial amounts to publish, an idea invented by Russell Group universities, whose research grants will cover the costs and also help their impact. It will be very problematical for leisure/sport articles written by those outside that circle, or those who private individuals who want to share their research.

2. REF does not reward inter-disciplinary work and offers increasing challenges, especially in terms of creating impact. Growing emphasis on metrics like numbers of citations is not helpful to subjects like history where references go up slowly over a longer time frame.

3. Economic and political pressures to encourage more ‘vocational’ and supposedly ‘relevant’ university courses, and increased pressure from line managers for more teaching, admin and other work at the expense of research.

4. Costs of digital access rising.

5. Fewer jobs: recruitment to study of sociology of leisure and sport, history, sports studies and leisure studies departments, and departmental size all recently in some decline

6. Leisure increasingly seen as entertainment, not something to critique

A group of leading historians of sport met at Crewe on 5 June to discuss this. It proved a fascinating day. It allowed me to carry out an opportunity sample drawing on the expertise of those folk who attended to create a SWOT analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in relation to sport history within and beyond the university world. SWOT is a method of decision-making first used in Harvard Business School in the 1960 and later developed further to help guide competitive/strategic advantage and shape future steps.
It sets out to maximize strengths, circumvent weaknesses, capitalize opportunities, manage threats, and can be used in conjunction with analysis of university forces/factors such as competitive and rival courses, student interest, departmental weaknesses etc.

Here’s a summary of what folk said, in rank order of frequency

Weaknesses of sport history which should minimized or converted into opportunities
Placed in rank order

1. A feeling of intellectual isolation dominated the responses. Leisure history is better integrated into the mainstream than sport, but both insufficiently integrated into mainstream journals. Specialist: sport, tourism, cinema etc.

2. Sport history still sometimes dismissed as ‘fans with typewriters’, as not sufficiently relevant to the present day. This is linked to low external perceptions, especially within sports departments where it occupies an ambiguous position, and sometimes naively seen by sports science academics as lighthearted entertainment rather than a subject with rigour. There are tensions between the subject’s origins in sports studies and PE, history and leisure industries, sociology/anthropology, and therefore in backgrounds of academics and their fit with departments above. Leisure being displaced in universities.

3. There is insufficient diversity within the sub-field. Though leisure history attracts a better gender balance, sport history is still very male-centred and in the UK has not recruited minorities well.

4. Several themes all had similar levels of response
5. Often over-tied to the status quo and traditional approaches. No radically different forms of sports history are currently emerging.

6. Academics still may need more training. Marketing and impact not yet thought about sufficiently

7. Sport history is not a subfield which attracts significant funding, unlike sports science, for example, so getting funding is extremely difficult unless you are with a leading university. And this damages REF standing too.

8. Less emphasis was placed on these though all are still important.
International differences in terms of patterns of historical writing
Library books are expensive and necessary but often in short supply.
Coverage – over-strong focus on modern (and classical?) period in leisure and sport.
Insufficient ‘grand theory’, or transnational/cross-cultural work. Oral history under-used.
Difficult to get funding for projects with indications funding councils do not look favourably on sport/leisure topics and favour mainstream topics. History REF less supportive than sport REF
Impact of work often very difficult to quantify.
Sports studies students are often more interested in the present and the practical. History’s reading demands are challenging.
Declining print runs of historical monographs and small historical journals, with limited circulations.

Opportunities for sport history which should exploited and maximized
Placed in rank order
1. Leisure and sport history can be linked to heritage, museums, sites, community history, partnerships, outreach and commemoration. Almost all participants mentioned heritage and community history in some form. The move to heritage can drive the discipline forward. Perhaps BSSH should become the Society for Sport and Heritage History. Heritage is a main forum where the public engage with the past via media, museums, communities etc. Outreach ensures work has a meaning, audience , value and a future.
2. Ever-growing amounts of on-line archival material which some universities and some county libraries allow to be accessed free, though it is less helpful for research into minorities or marginalized groups
3. More outreach to amateur, family, local and sport club history. As Martin Polley pointed out, local sport projects are a great way of interrogating sport history and developing original research
4. Several emphasized that that sport history is just as significant and important as military history, parliamentary history or any other subfield of historical research. It could become a significant part of the new social and cultural studies, fusing cultural and structural or perhaps link to business history. It could link more closely to leisure history and there is a possible need for a dedicated Leisure History journal where all aspects of British leisure (sport, art, cinema &c) were covered.
5. Subject can challenge students to think critically within otherwise narrowly focussed ‘professional’ courses.
6. Sport history in universities could submit to sport, not history, in next REF
Also touched on but not emphasised were some other points
• Scholars and students still very inventive about ways to convey subject’s significance.
• Big demand for books about leisure and sport history, but often self-satisfied ‘nostalgia-fests.’
• Presenting papers at mainstream, non-leisure history conferences, and networking more with the mainstream

Threats to sport history, troublesome elements which we should be aware of and seek to tackle
Placed in rank order

1. There was substantial concern about the potential move to open-access journals, with writers of research papers paying very substantial amounts to publish, an idea invented by Russell Group universities, whose research grants will cover the costs and also help their impact. It will be very problematical for leisure/sport articles written by those outside that circle, or those who private individuals who want to share their research.

2. REF does not reward inter-disciplinary work and offers increasing challenges, especially in terms of creating impact. Growing emphasis on metrics like numbers of citations is not helpful to subjects like history where references go up slowly over a longer time frame.

3. Economic and political pressures to encourage more ‘vocational’ and supposedly ‘relevant’ university courses, and increased pressure from line managers for more teaching, admin and other work at the expense of research.

4. Costs of digital access rising.

5. Fewer jobs: recruitment to study of sociology of leisure and sport, history, sports studies and leisure studies departments, and departmental size all recently in some decline

6. Leisure increasingly seen as entertainment, not something to critique.

Great to see such a good attendance and so many eclectic,thought-provoking and informative presentations. Many congratulations to Sam Oldfeld, Dave Day, Mark and the rest of the MMU gang for ensuring it ran so well. Great to see leading historians of sport such as Jeff Hill or Wray Vamplew alongside people from all stages of research, with quite a number of collaborative colleagues from the rest of Europe who did really well to speak so clearly in what is a second or third language. Wish I could do anywhere near so well. Old friends and some new folk with fascinating areas of research all mixing in together. If you didn’t go to this year’s symposium then it is a great two days with some great craik in the evening.

I am a big fan of Greece, the spiritual home of sport and education, so it was a real pleasure to do a keynote speech at the recent CESH congress, held in the beautiful town of Edessa, in Macedonia, Northern Greece, the so-called Manchester of Macedonia because of its many waterfalls and rivers, which drove machinery in factories in the past. CESH is a really important organisation which disseminates, discusses and develops knowledge in sports history on a European and international scale. If you are a serious scholar of sport you should really join!!!! And if you are expert enough you can achieve the honor of recognition as a Fellow as you attend more regularly. It helps tremendously with networking and is really cheap too.
It was well attended, with delegates from seventeen countries, and focused on the history of sport in education. One of the great benefits of attending events like this is the variety of contacts you make. I’ve always really valued and appreciated meeting scholars from other European countries, whose approaches and methods are different. By sharing ideas and discussing approaches, all of us can to an extent remove our cultural blinkers and think in a more sophisticated way.

The congress was really well organised, so thanks to all the friendly and helpful staff, and the two CESH colleagues, Christodoulos Faniopoulos and Evangelos Albanidis, who did so much to make it a success.

It’s been a while since I posted. The death of my daughter seemed to diminish my interest. But doing my keynote speech at the Milan workshop on Match-fixing in the famous Palazzo Marino last week raised so many issues that I thought I just should say something more about it. The workshop was attended from across Europe by politicians, representatives of policing organisations like Interpol, Gambling Commissions, groups who watch for problematic betting movements, and sports organisations like the IOC or the Bundesliga.
The general view was that now that on-line betting has expanded so hugely globally, and that criminal organisations are adopting a business model, fixing results across many sports, at many levels and across the world, match-fixing is now the most important issue for sport to address. It will damage public trust in sporting results, and eventually reduce crowds. It will drive away commercially important sponsors if we fail to reduce its current level quickly.

So the Convention against the manipulation of sporting competitions needs to be signed up to by as many countries as possible, and far more action taken against it.

For me the lessons that came out of this workshop were
1. History tells us that match fixing can never be eliminated entirely, but we can reduce its level.
2. The involvement of governments and crime agencies is critical, and is happening increasingly.
3. Integrity education and training for players and officials is important and becoming more widespread.
4. We need to put sport’s own house in order too, especially at the club level, where many clubs in the past have tried to avoid relegation or achieve cup success or promotion by unfair means, and develop more discipline at all levels.
5. We need better research data than we have at present.
6. Governments, sport organisations and police need to work more together. Interested parties need more inter-connectivity, better communication, and an improved consistency of approach.
7. Like drug-use in sport, match-fixing will continue to change its targets, its methodology and its locations. We need to be proactive, not reactive.