Mind games: Is bridge a sport?

If 100 people were polled, how many would say
bridge is a sport? Mr Justice Mostyn’s recent decision in R (on the application of the English Bridge Union) v Sport England [2015] EWHC 1347 (Admin) suggests he might just fall into the undecided camp. At the end of April he narrowly granted the English Bridge Union (EBU) permission to judicially review Sport England’s (SE) refusal to recognise bridge as a sport, reversing Mr Justice Haddon Cave’s refusal on the papers. The full hearing is understood to be listed for September 2015.

It is not just a badge of sporting honour at stake here. Being recognised as a sport by
SE is the first step to unlocking National Lottery money, or at least an application for lottery funds.

So, is bridge a sport? What is the definition of a sport? SE already recognises over 100 sports, including some weird and wonderful ones, like baton twirling and dragon boat racing (and darts). But there is no single, authoritative definition of sport.

SE’s website states: ’There are many different opinions as to what constitutes a sporting activity and the sports councils do not have their own definition of sport…When deciding whether to recognise a sport, the sports councils look to see if it meets the Council of Europe’s European Sports Charter 1993 definition of sport and if the sport is well established and organised within our jurisdiction.’

The European Sports Charter features in SE’s sport recognition policy, promulgated in 2010. Article 2(1)(a) says: ‘“Sport” means all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels.’

Physical activity is put right
at the centre of this definition. Instinctively, it is difficult to see how bridge meets this. Indeed, as counsel for SE concisely put it: ‘The starting point of the definition of sport is physical activity. Bridge cannot ever satisfy this definition.’

It is important to recognise that SE does not have free rein over what it recognises as a sport (and therefore can fund). The body gets its objects and powers from Royal Charter and its powers are tied to the development and funding
of ‘sport and physical recreation’.
As Mostyn J noted, the Royal Charter is itself the offspring of the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937, legislation aimed at improving the general fitness of the pre-war population. Mostyn J’s view was that the Royal Charter’s objects, taken with the 1937 Act, strongly suggest that sport has to have
a physical component to be recognised by SE.

Health benefits

In the permission hearing, it appears the EBU argued there was nothing in SE’s Royal Charter that limits sport to physical activities, and that there are well-documented health benefits of playing bridge. Further, bridge (and chess) has been recognised by the International Olympic Committee as a ‘mind sport’,
(a fact Mostyn J considered significant). The EBU also directed the judge to the fact that Poland, Ireland, and the Netherlands recognise bridge as a sport. Indeed, bridge is subject to the World Anti-Doping Code.

This is not bridge’s first attempt to assert its position as a sport. In 2014 the Charity Commission decided that bridge fell within the definition of ‘sport’ in the Charities Act 2011, being ’sports or games which promote health by involving physical or mental skill or exertion’. Of course, the Charity Commission was required to apply a statutory definition that is different from SE’s definition. And in EBU v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 181, a tribunal found the Charity Commission decision did not assist with determining if bridge was sport or physical recreation for the purposes of the EBU’s
VAT liability. Instead the tribunal found that ‘sport normally connotes a game with an athletic element rather than simply
a game…Contract bridge involves some physical activity but not a significant amount…’.

Political lobbying

The dispute has taken a political flavour. Conservative MP Bob Blackman has asked the new sports minister, Tracey Crouch, for an update on progress to ensure SE recognises mind sports for their ability to train
the mind. The minister responded by suggesting that funding for games like bridge might be sought from the Departments for Education or
of Health. A clear indication, perhaps, of the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport’s support for SE’s position.

Back in court, the EBU
has a difficult task ahead. Mostyn J recognised that there were ‘very strong arguments’ justifying SE’s refusal and there were ‘a number of strong indicators’ that physical activity was an ‘essential ingredient
of sport’. This was despite admitting to some bridge playing himself. And, returning to the world of public opinion,
in a recent Sky Sports poll only 26 per cent of voters said bridge was a sport. SJ

Leanne Woods is a barrister at 1 Crown Office Row. She practises in sport, healthcare, and public law