{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025816249050873197, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006074411541381929, 'mean_word_length': 5.073732718894009, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Physical education and youth sport in England: conceptual and practical foundations for an Olympic legacy?

The concept of youth legacy, as presented in the London 2012 bid, rests on the belief that engagement in (more) sport is ‘good’ for children and young people. Claims are made about the range of benefits to be gained from sports participation, including physical, social and moral benefits. For example, the European Commission (2007) argues that sports participation can lead to social inclusion, social cohesion and re-engagement. One way to conceptualize legacy, therefore, is in the form of enhanced social capital for those who are inspired to ‘choose sport’. Yet, analysis of existing evidence, and of social capital theory, suggests that delivering legacy for young people is likely to be far more complex than is often claimed. Indeed, the term legacy itself seems to be inappropriate because of its passive connotations of bequest from one generation to the next. This is illustrated further when the theory of change underpinning legacy activities and processes is analysed. It is suggested, therefore, that if youth legacy promises through sport are to be kept, there is a need to base programmes and activities staged in the name of Olympic legacy upon clearer conceptual and practical foundations.