Making Things Official: Are the UK's athletics officials sleepwalking into a crisis?
Every athletics event, no matter size or importance, is delivered by a small army of volunteer officials, but how much do we really know about them? James Davis aims to explain all
"Officials are generally pretty awful. They’re generally bad. But again, you can’t really complain, because it’s free. Why do we need so many?"
This quote from Alfie Manthorpe of athletics-focused Instagram account Trackstaa, broadcast during a joint podcast with Tonbridge AC-based Sam Crick's Crickcastpod in early 2022, came as part of a discussion around how to make athletics more engaging.
Without wishing to dwell for too long on the sentiment contained within, Manthorpe's words highlight a key issue faced by athletics officials — athletes, competing week-in and week-out, and by extension their coaches, friends, and family, often have a very limited understanding of the roles and responsibilities of those who facilitate the world in which they compete.
One illustrative anecdote shared by officials features Phillips Idowu, towards the end of a career that saw him win World, European, and Commonwealth titles.
Competing in a Diamond League meeting in the UK, and on the receiving end of a judgement he disagreed with, Idowu exclaimed to an official: "It's alright for you, at least you're paid to be here."
An international athlete for over a decade, the Belgrave Harrier was unaware that those staffing the Diamond League, like all other meetings in the UK, were volunteers.
While greater understanding of officials' and athletes' respective expectations of each other might create a smoother competition experience at the surface level, much more important is understanding the challenges faced by the officiating community as a whole.
With a frequent gulf between the number of officials available on any given weekend, and the number required for events to run smoothly, the degree to which the machinations of the officiating world shape the landscape of athletics in the UK cannot be underestimated.
A world away from the well-remunerated, full-time jobs on offer for top officials in football and rugby, athletics officials are unpaid — the most they are likely to receive for their efforts is travel expenses, food and drink, and an ever-growing wardrobe of curiously coloured clothing from major events.
Additionally, when contrasted with more popular sports, staffing an athletics meeting is comparatively labour intensive.
While a grassroots match in most team sports only requires one qualified referee and a couple of unqualified assistants, the equivalent athletics meeting can easily need more than 20 hands on deck.
More major grassroots meetings usually require upwards of 40 bodies to keep things running smoothly, while this year's UK Athletics Championships saw over 100 officials selected for the two-day event.
With little money to go around in athletics as it is, it is no surprise that payment of officials is not high on the agenda.
Paying merely the National Living Wage to those offering their services at the UK Athletics Championships this year would have cost almost £20,000 — perhaps attainable if the national governing body were in a stronger financial position, but for smaller organisers with equally long competition days and comparatively thinner wallets, the numbers begin to look fairly daunting.
While some organisers do attempt to pay their way — Newham and Essex Beagles notably offering travel expenses and £10 per hour in recent years — the trade-off that allows this to happen is usually reduced staffing levels, also helped by meetings being track-only.
At the opposite end of the scale, where organisers might offer payment out of desperation to fill a gap in their officiating roster and have their meeting go ahead, it is not uncommon to be met with disdain.
Some officials place value on the notion of giving of their time freely, and it is hard not to see this as one small part of the seemingly eternal hangover suffered by many sports with a history of amateurism.
While some traditions are a cheery nod to a bygone era — the Chief Timekeeper and Chief Starter tipping their hats to each other when signalling for the final start of the day, for example — others, such as an insistence on formal attire, and a tenure-oriented system of progression rather than a meritocracy, can seem outmoded to a newcomer.
Viewed in isolation, amateurism and legacy values can be goods in and of themselves, but this misses the wider point.
To dream of oneself continuing the traditions of old, and maintaining the legacy of the halcyon days of sporting history, belies the fact that the men (and it was almost always men) attempting to attach such notions of fairness and purity to amateurism in sport saw their efforts function, intentionally or otherwise, as a means of classist exclusion, rather than solely as a method of securing athletic integrity.
Remuneration aside, officiating can be highly challenging, with a nationwide personnel shortage causing stress at meetings of all levels, and backwards working practices increasing demands on officials, at a time when supply is diminishing.
An eight hour limit on competition programmes was only recently introduced, and does not include setting up or setting down, making for extremely long days — it is not uncommon for key officials to work more than twelve hours at some events.
That being said, the rewards can be immense, not least due to the opportunities for progression — an official who spends enough time chipping away at the coal face has a strong chance to officiate at a major international event.
On a basic level, officiating is incredibly social, and those who wish to can spend almost as many days as they wish to each year giving back to their sport.
Many roles are minimally physically demanding, compared with other sports, and the career of an official can be extremely long. Those who reach the upper echelons at a younger age can spend decades there — some continue to work at the grassroots into their nineties.
Whether these realities are a good thing for the sport is a different matter.
As event organisers look to drive athletics forward, targeting dynamism, compact and efficient schedules, and an athlete-oriented approach, will officials join them on that journey?
Is it right that almost anyone who puts in enough time is able to make it to the highest possible level, or that the decentralised nature of officiating appointments mean that the success of a meeting can depend on who you know, rather than the contribution your meeting is making to the athletics calendar?
Does the sport even have the privilege of asking these questions, given the shortage of officials, or should those within it just accept their lot with little to no complaints?
Recruiting for the future
The first question to ask, with these factors in mind, is who would be an official?
As with any volunteer position that requires significant time investment, the answer is more often than not a certain type of person — well-off, retired, or both.
A strong illustration of the skewed age distribution of officiating, something already fairly clear anecdotally, comes in the recently-released England Athletics Officials Survey of 644 licenced officials, with 71% of respondents aged 55 or over.
In a move that will have many double-checking their dictionaries, it is not uncommon to hear national governing bodies refer to targeting recruitment of 'young officials', in their fifties — this demographic usually get involved through having children involved in the sport, and the most dedicated could spend 20-30 years in the workforce at a minimum.
Given the challenge of securing the time, attention, and energy of anyone in the modern era, not least parents, it should be no surprise that attempts at recruitment can prove difficult.
While dated, an England Athletics webinar from 2021 shines a light on the challenge facing those responsible for getting more bodies into white polo shirts.
Numbers presented by Mark Munro, then Chief Operating Officer at UKA, highlighted just 2,300-2,400 active officials across the wider United Kingdom, with 2,800 needed on the calendar's busiest weekends — a marked deficit.
With 4432 licenced officials in England at the time, and more across the home nations more broadly, the reality is that it is highly likely that less than half of licenced to officiate actually do so regularly.
Though a rounded figure, the 4,000 licenced officials currently mentioned at the bottom of the England Athletics homepage does not suggest a positive trend.
As with most activities previously delivered face-to-face, getting new bodies through the door and onto officiating courses was stopped in its tracks by Covid-19, as resources and delivery methods were forced to adapt for a move online.
In fact, even once through the door, moving up the first few stairs seems to be the challenge. A figure cited both by Munro, and the UK Wide Officials Strategy released by UKA in November 2021, is a conversion rate of 40% — in other words, three of every five course attendees do not get their licence.
While the strategy targets an increase to 85% by 2027, it is difficult to see the path that leads there.
Gerald Alterman is a national level starter, and Officials Secretary for Shaftesbury Barnet Harriers, one of the largest athletics clubs in London.
"How do we recruit? With great difficulty. How do we retain? With great difficulty. It's not an easy task," he says. "I'm not sure what the answer is. We've tried everything. We've tried to coerce people into officiating, but they're just not interested, or they might do an hour, and then, 'Oh sorry, that's it, I'm going now.'
“Courses were, and still are very infrequent. Courses are hard to put on because there are fewer people to take them, and fewer people willing to give up their time to become a tutor."
Stories are similar for those trying to recruit younger officials as well.
Tash Mundell is an experienced track judge, and previously having had responsibility for trying to recruit new officials at Birmingham University Athletics Club.
“We've tried to advertise a wide range of officiating courses and increase the role of officials in the club,” she says. “We've incentivised courses by introducing a volunteering points system, have encouraged virtual courses to allow flexibility, and have specifically targeted injured athletes who want to stay involved in the sport whilst they can't compete.”
Despite these efforts, numbers remain low.
“A large challenge in recruiting younger people to officiate is the fact that it often detracts from an athlete's opportunities to compete,” Mundell says. “Trying to combine officiating and competing often, despite best efforts, results in impacted performance in both areas.”
Given the troubles in tempting newcomers onto courses, one question has to be whether requiring attendance at a specific time, and sometimes in a specific location, now that there has been a return to some face-to-face tutoring, is the way forward.
With self-paced safeguarding and health and safety courses already offered online as part of the requirements for attaining a licence, would a similar offering for the content of the courses themselves not allow officials education to be accessed at any time, anywhere, as and when needed?
After all, similar products already exist.
Sitting on a World Athletics platform alongside courses on safeguarding, coaching, and gender leadership, among others, users have a choice between an 'Apprentice Level' technical official's course, and 'Level I' course — the latter aimed at delivering a level of education detailed enough to allow an individual to officiate at a national level.
A common observation from those officiating at their first few meetings is just how much is learnt through practice.
Far from being a reflection on the tutors or courses they deliver, it is simply unavoidable that the wealth of information gained through getting out and officiating is unobtainable over Zoom, or in a conference room.
However, if this is the case, and the vast majority of learning takes place on the job, why not ensure potential officials reach that stage?
If clubs want their members to be stood with pistol, flags, or stopwatch in hand, and athletics unfolding in front of them, why not strip out the barriers that get them there?
While a reworking of courses across a variety of disciplines, and the creation of online resources for each would undoubtedly be both capital- and labour-intensive, the benefits cannot be overlooked — a one-size-fits-all approach cannot be the way forward.
Developing the present
Recruitment concerns aside, once you get officials into the system, what of development?
Having undergone various revisions over the years, grading of officials in the UK now sees licences issued at four levels.
While obtaining a Level 1 licence is not a challenging feat, requiring a prospective official to help out at four meetings, and complete some straightforward e-learning, greater progression becomes more of a challenge.
Of all officiating qualifications held in England at the time of the 2021 webinar, 77% were at Level 1 or 2, with just 9% at Level 4.
The requirements for progression, with increasing meeting attendance and peer-assessed reports at each level, appear clear when laid out as above, but data suggests the opposite.
The recent England Athletics survey showed just 23% of respondents believe it to be clear how to progress through the levels, with almost twice as many (45%) finding the opposite to be the case.
While the minimum standards at each level demonstrate the necessary conditions for a successful upgrade, understanding what is sufficient is slightly murkier.
Reports, especially those on officials aiming to be upgraded to Level 3 or 4, need to be carried out at a certain standard of meeting to be accepted — one that challenges an official enough to assess them properly.
Though an undoubtedly reasonable caveat, easy-to-access guidance on quite what might be suitable at each level is not forthcoming.
For some, even obtaining a report can present a challenge, as is revealed by a different look at the varied qualifications of officials in England.
It's not a surprise to see more field judges at Level 1 (1,139) than total licenced officials in any other discipline, the nature of staffing events requiring an outsized contribution — this year's UK Athletics Championships saw more field officials appointed than all other disciplines put together.
Photofinish, starters, and starter's assistants require comparatively small teams at events, even at the highest level of competition, and as such, the number of qualified officials in each barely tops 400.
A starter at the highest level, Alterman is well versed in the challenges of having so few officials available.
"We are spread over the whole country," he says. "If you think about it, 300 starters sounds like a lot, but that's over the whole country. So, there aren't that many in each area. In fact, Bedfordshire doesn't have a starter anymore, because the two that were there died over the last seven or eight years, and that's quite a big county."
While these figures are in proportion with other disciplines, the number of those qualified at higher levels is significantly limited, causing a number of issues.
Any official looking for an upgrade to Level 3 or Level 4 will need reports along the way from officials already at those levels, which can be challenging — with six reports needed for a successful move to Level 4, a pool of only 29 officials able to write those reports, as is the case for starters, can be prohibitive.
Unfortunately for those looking to progress through the levels, progression can also be a postcode lottery.
Athletics' club-based model naturally leads to clustering of talent, whether athletes clustered around a good coach, or officials attached to a club with a strong tradition of officiating.
The largest clubs typically organise the most events, compete in the most leagues, and often host meetings at higher levels, therefore being able to offer their own officials much stronger development opportunities.
Equally important, and equally variable, is athletics at the county level.
Provision varies wildly across England — the Surrey County Championships saw nearly 1,000 competitors over a full weekend meeting this year, making it the best-attended championship event in the UK, while Herefordshire, at the other end of the scale, had fewer than 100 athletes on its single day of competition.
For officials in larger counties, gaining experience acting as a referee or chief official at championship meetings, even at county level, can be invaluable — for those whose county championships can be smaller than the average open meeting, the opportunity is less significant.
If perfecting one's craft in a sport whose rulebook comfortably spans more than 400 pages is not challenging enough, some of the discourse that surrounds how, when, and why officials are upgraded can be challenging, to say the least.
A hot button issue like no other, with UKA previously issuing a two-year safeguarding suspension to an official over the manner in which their views on the subject were expressed, the strength of opinion among the wider officiating community cannot be underestimated.
Frequently offered objections typically encompass perceived lack of experience due to the speed of an official's progression, or that the method of assessment for officials hoping to reach Level 4 is simply not as strenuous as previously, when written, closed-book exams were sat by prospective national level officials.
Unfortunately, while there are undoubtedly officials at the wrong level — the current system used to stratify officials does not necessarily progress the most talented, or halt the progression of those with lesser ability — the tendency is for those who have objections to paint all officials progressing through the system with the same brush.
Furthermore, while intimate knowledge of the rules of the sport are integral to any successful official, the fetishization of theoretical tests for a role for where success lies in the application and practice of that theory are deeply counterproductive.
The reality is that unlike many major sports, athletics does not get the privilege of being massively selective.
A significant number of those aiming for the top rung of the officiating ladder in rugby, football, or cricket will, no matter how hard they try, never break into the upper echelons — any thought of the same being true in athletics is incompatible with the ever-shallower pool of officials from which the country's top tier is drawn.
Development concerns aside, friction between officials of varying generations while simply carrying out their duties also presents a problem.
Sarah, a young official whose name was changed for this article, says: “Being younger, it sometimes feels that older officials believe they are superior to you and try to patronise you, even if you have more officiating experience than they do — from talking to other young officials this is a common issue.
“Additionally, coaches and athletes see our age as a vulnerability and think we lack gravitas, giving us less respect than our colleagues. I think being a young, female official accentuates that as you also start having the impacts of misogyny at play — including older officials commenting on choice of clothing.”
Despite the majority of meetings having no formal dress code, dressing for comfort can draw occasional negative comments, while at higher level meetings an insistence on long, formal trousers, even when the weather is upwards of 20 °C, is the norm.
Rows that further highlight intergenerational friction, such as that which arose over comments made to Paralympian Olivia Breen by an official at the 2021 English Championships, do not help matters.
With the stresses and strains that exist, perhaps the time is right to ask whether the current system of managing officials is fit for purpose, or whether, given the imbalances and pressure points, there is another way.
Sports like rugby use a centralised appointments system, with referees offering their availability on a calendar and appointers allocating them to where they are needed — the more highly-graded referees are sent to the more difficult games, those needing development are given challenging opportunities, and assessments are organised not by officials themselves, but by those in charge of development and progression.
Given national governing bodies have complete databases of both licenced competitions and licenced officials, such a move would not be impossible logistically, but pragmatically, however, the outlook is less rosy.
A move to centralised appointments and an availability-based system would likely prove deeply unpopular — the unwavering loyalty of officials in supporting their club, county, or region, even at the expense of the sport as a whole, cannot be underestimated.
However, a middle ground wrought with compromise and caveats could revolutionise the way the sport operates.
Even a simple system to allow meeting organisers to target requests for help from officials of a certain discipline, grade, or in a certain location, would be an upgrade on the current system of pleas on Facebook and by word of mouth.
Being able to build an accurate picture of which officials attend which meetings would also allow governing bodies, currently data poor, to build up a picture of just how challenging the environment in which they are operating truly is, and broaden the scope for targeted recruitment and development.
Retaining the past
While the necessity of bringing in and developing new officials cannot be overlooked, potentially more important is retaining those already qualified.
Blamed for many a disruption since 2020, the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the national body of officials cannot be underestimated, having wreaked an outsized amount of havoc at both ends of the officiating pathway.
With a demographic makeup described politely as on the older side, many officials walked away from the sport in 2020, never to return, or seriously cut back on their commitments.
Given a chance to step back and assess, those who had been contemplating a retirement from the sport for some time were given the opportunity to do so, and with licences requiring renewal every three years, the full effect of their departure on total numbers of licenced officials will only have been borne out now, three years on.
An unfortunate corollary of this is that as those who chose to step away skewed older, they were also likely to be those with greater experience — a disproportionate loss of knowledge for the officiating community.
Alterman notes: "Over Covid we lost a few to the great athletics stadium in the sky. We lost a large number of officials through retirement and death.”
Despite the vast majority of officials finding officiating rewarding, including 80% of those surveyed by England Athletics, stressful situations exist in abundance.
While temporary pressure can act as a development opportunity for ambitious officials, the ongoing stress of being short-staffed meeting after meeting is, in some cases, unsustainable.
Responsible for mustering officials at least half a dozen days of athletics each year, including hosting a number of league fixtures, the challenges facing Alterman and those like him are stacking up.
"Not only the small clubs, the big clubs as well are struggling," he says. "Quite often I get told by a club that they might be able to bring a track judge, and that's about it. So everywhere is having the same problems.
"We did have a good name at one time, our club, that we always fulfilled our obligation and more when we went to an away meeting. Now, I'm having to tell the host club, 'Sorry, we don't have a timekeeper,' or 'We don't have a track judge,' or 'We don't have a full field team.'"
"Every weekend, there is a clash. You get a Southern meeting, or an England meeting, or even a UKA meeting, that clashes with a league meeting, and you lose your officials, because they're in the cohort that go to these major meetings."
An additional squeeze on the time and energy of senior officials at Level 3 and upwards is acting as a referee or chief official at a meeting, a demand accentuated by the shifting competition landscape.
As the aspirations of meeting organisers grow, securing a Level 2 (national) event permit (and potentially a spot on the World Athletics Calendar) often becomes integral to securing the attendance of elite athletes.
However, the additional requirements that accompany an upgraded permit include increased demands on officials, both in quantity and quality — the officials acting as Chief or Referee on the day need to be Level 3 or above in all disciplines.
While most meetings do not have an elevated permit, and do not require highly graded officials running things, it is necessarily true that officials at the highest levels are those with the most experience, and often do take charge, undertaking the management, planning, and extra investment of time that comes with such a role.
These demands, accentuated in some areas by an uneven geographical distribution of experienced officials, can make for a stressful experience, especially when combined with an overall shortage of officials at all levels.
The counterparts to those who leave the sport before they have given all they can, are those who stay slightly too long.
While all efforts should be made to keep volunteers within the sport, it is an equally uncomfortable reality that there are those for whom officiating becomes too challenging, in spite of determination to carry on.
A 2017 UK Athletics decision saw a licence withdrawn from an unnamed official on safety grounds, on the understanding that the official's continued participation was uninsurable.
Danger may not be at the top of anyone's list of the problems currently facing officiating, but to ignore altogether it is to push to the side an uncomfortable reality.
Throwing events are inherently hazardous — heavy objects are travelling through the air at speed — and it is imperative to mitigate the risks involved through proper practice, and thorough understandings of the capabilities of those who officiate.
Though varied circumstances were involved in each, the unfortunate facts are that officials in the UK have been struck while working on javelin, shot put, and discus events just this year.
Reports of a potentially catastrophic near miss where an official was almost struck in the head by a hammer at last year's World Athletics Championships in Eugene show that even at the highest level, there is still significant risk.
With such high stakes, it has to be a priority to have the difficult conversations a year too soon than a day too late.
With challenges in recruitment, development, and retention, and a tendency towards small-c conservatism often putting them at odds with the aspirations of the modern meeting organiser, it is easy to describe the landscape of officiating as troubled.
One only needs to look at the staffing levels of regional championships, among other events, to see a significant divergence in the priorities of officials and athletes.
Shortages will continue to plague all events in the UK for as long as recruitment is challenging, and more officials age out of the system than come in at the bottom.
Those responsible for development will continue to wrestle with the near-impossible balancing act of ensuring that enough individuals progress through the levels to keep the population officiating at national level stable, while also making sure that each is suitably qualified and competent not just in their estimation, but also in the estimations of their peers.
As for retention, the Blitz spirit often shared among those who power the engine room of domestic athletics means the sport will keep ticking over, even if losing officials by the dozen — there is simply no alternative.
The positive counterpoint to all of these challenges is that the solution is no more than clear and effective leadership, implementing simple ideas efficiently.
If athletics is able to harness the skills and efficiencies of those raised in the digital age to create a modern workforce, dispatching with rigidly enforced dress codes and Luddite working practices, and embracing technology in all areas — the field of play, recruitment, and administration of the sport — then it has a chance.
Anything less than that, and it is hard to see a way forward. What may have been nice-to-haves a decade ago have grown into necessities in the present, and governing bodies now need to play the most dangerous game of catch-up they will ever play.