Brasil, football and another reason why junk food in sport should be regulated.

One of the most popular soft/sugar drinks in Brasil is GUARANÁ ANTARCTICA

can black

Guaraná is as popular as Coca Cola is in many other countries. The brand sponsors the Brasilian football team, with national team players often wearing Guaraná branded clothing, and the products often feature player images and the logo of the national governing body, the CBF.

Of course, the product has a very high amount of added sugar. When reading the brand’s own nutritional information, the 20g of added sugar per 200mL is mentioned, yet no daily reference value is mentioned. In fact, the phrase “Valor diário não estabelecido” (“Daily value not established”) appears on the website.

g website

So, when a person consumes an entire 350mL can, and not just a 200mL cup, they would be consuming 35 grams of added sugar. Given what we know about ultra-processed drinks, teeth and overall health, it is astonishing that such an ultra-processed drink is so heavily endorsed by sport celebrities in a country with significant health problems for young children.

The Brasilian Ministry of Health argues that ultra-processed drink should be avoided. It is surely time for the CBF to end it’s sponsorship with Guaraná.

Joe Piggin

England, the World Cup and childhood obesity

I hope England wins the World Cup, but whatever happens, children’s health is certainly losing. The entire football “pyramid” in England is riddled with junk food companies.

Football food pyramid jpeg
The English Football Food Pyramid

Through their love of football, children in England are bombarded with marketing for ultra-processed food and drink. It continues through their early years and into adulthood. And it’s not sneaky, ambush marketing. It comes from official football organisations, events, venues, teams, and role models. While sport marketers talk about the successful “reach” of sponsorship, public health promoters focus on the potentially disastrous effects these sponsors can have on children.

But it could all end very soon. The food charity Sustain has told the government what action is needed in sport settings: “Campaigns are currently calling on sports associations to disassociate themselves from junk food brands, but if sports associations will not act, the Government must step in.”

And now a Health Committee in the UK Parliament has formally recommended it is time to end these partnerships:

“The next round of the Government’s childhood obesity plan … should also include a commitment to end sponsorship by brands overwhelmingly associated with high fat, sugar and salt products of sports clubs, venues, youth leagues and tournaments.”

THIS IS MASSIVE NEWS. Sponsorship of children’s sport by junk food companies is pervasive and predatory. It includes organisations such as the FA and FIFA, competitions such as the Premier league and Carabao Cup, venues such as Wembley, and programmes such as McDonald’s national youth sponsorship.

To keep the momentum and pressure on the government to make these changes you can state your support with Sustain here:

For the health of children, this English football food pyramid needs to come tumbling down.

Joe Piggin

PS: This problem is not confined to England either. It’s global. I plan to track other countries soon. See this recent research in the USA about the pervasiveness of junk food advertising in USA sport.

Ego and physical activity advice

Academic work can be rough on egos. Particularly in the social sciences, where ideas matter. We cultivate our reputations over years, but confidence is a brittle thing – just one chastening book review or article rejection away from frustration, anger or anxiety. In a sense, absorbing criticism is inherent to an ideal university structure. As Stuart Hall said, “The university is a critical institution or it is nothing”. Still, it is often difficult to be either the giver or recipient of a scathing critique.

Being on the receiving end of criticism recently really brought this home to me. I co-signed a letter calling for tackling in rugby to be removed from schools (thereby protecting the bodies of school children from one of the most injurious sports), but there was widespread opposition to the idea. That was understandable, but what irked was that the opposition was often coupled with criticism of the letters signers, with claims that we in our ivory towers didn’t know what we were talking about. The idea to remove tackling was labelled ridiculous, as were the letter writers. It was no fun to have my expertise questioned, much less lambasted.

I am also conscious the egos of others might have been caught up in my own critiques of policy ideas. For example, in journals, presentations and on the blog, I have rejected the claims of scholars regarding the corporate influence of companies such as Coke and Nike on physical activity scholarship. More subtly, I have critiqued the ideas of physical activity scholars who have been trying to advance the discipline and promotion of physical activity. While I would not detract from honest academic labour, I do suspect that there have been times where other academics could have taken my analyses personally. So while the ideas are the target of critique, it is impossible to completely disentangle an idea from the person who espouses it. This potential for ego damage is an inherent condition of academic work. That is unfortunate. Where I have less sympathy is when corporate interests are directing the ideas that are generated. Happily and uncritically toeing the line of a company is simply academic dishonesty. You become a shill, not a critical voice in society.

Academics also put themselves up for ridicule in opinion pieces in the press. Consider this recent opinion article in The Times.

After an Oxford professor suggested people pay at the pump of petrol stations rather than entering a service station shop to be surrounded by sugar, the commentator in The Times wrote:

“Who the hell are you saying this to, Professor Jebb? I thought Oxford lectures unlocked the secrets of the physical universe or proposed new ways to unpick Sumerian orthography. But now it’s, “Don’t go into sweet shops, boys and girls, or you’re gonna get fat”? …
Seriously, though? Your answer to Britain’s greatest health calamity since the Black Death is to gently direct people away from places where sweeties are sold? …
That’s a pretty damning view of humanity, isn’t it? That’s what leads some cultures to veil their women from head to toe, because if men can see their lovely faces, like yummy sweeties on a checkout shelf, they cannot be trusted not to have sex with them right there on the street.”

I’m not quite British enough yet to understand the extent of playful sarcasm or liberal distain for the Professor here. Whatever the case, the writer severely misrepresents what Professor Jebb was saying. I wonder if public shaming like this chips away at the enthusiasm of academics to convey their voices in public. Or worse, if it means some health promotion ideas never see the light of day because of a fear of ridicule. But this opinion piece also raises some concerns for how physical activity and health academics portray their work. And it highlights the problem of trying to gain and maintain legitimacy in an area where many structures seem unbudge-able, so academic advice becomes directed at individuals who are more nudgeable. A health promoter’s job is to give practical advice about healthy living, and resisting unhealthy choice architecture (at petrol stations and elsewhere) is one aspect of the job. But there is a risk of academics in physical activity and health being limited to repeating common sense clichés about how to live healthy lives.

In 2014, Public Health England said there needs to be a revolution in physical activity. Revolutions are only possible by upsetting the status quo. And so academics need to be not only willing to do this, but also be prepared for the critiques of those with different agendas. We can rest assured that when giving controversial advice, or advice which negatively affects corporate interests, there is actually no need for our ego at all. We embody one of the seven principles of UK public life – selflessness.

McDonald’s sponsorship of children’s sport

I, and others, have written about how problematic it is that companies which sell ultra-processed food also heavily target young people in their advertising. Even worse is when companies make children do the advertising themselves. See below this from Nottingham in the UK, March 2018: (photo credit: David O’B)


Many sport organisations have safeguarding policies, but this does not seem to extend to protecting children from exploitation by companies selling all manner of ultra-processed food.

What is physical activity? A definition

The definition offered below differs from recent policy definitions of physical activity. It attempts to capture physical activity by acknowledging the variety of meanings that we attribute to it. I humbly accept that what follows is only a partial definition, and encourage the reader to link these possible aspects of physical activity with their own experiences.

Physical activity might be :













J Piggin, 2018

For more on this issue, please see:

Piggin, J. & Hart, L. (2017). Physical activity advocacy in the UK: A multiple streams analysis of a hybrid policy issue, Leisure Studies. 36, 5. 708-720.

Piggin, J & Bairner, A (2016) The global physical inactivity pandemic: An analysis of knowledge production. Sport, Education and Society. 21, 2. 131-147.


The Routledge Handbook of Physical Activity Policy and Practice

I am immensely happy to have been a co-editor of the above book. With Dr Louise Mansfield and Prof Mike Weed, we have attempted to bring together the enormous diversity of scholarly thinking about PA policy and practice.

Rather than solely focusing on physical activity as a means for making populations “healthier” (as judged by traditional health markers), we have included a wide range of chapters to encourage academics, policy makers, practitioners and students to question some of the assumptions about physical activity that have become established in recent years. 75 contributing authors provide contemporary and evocative chapters which frame physical activity in:

  • different ways for …
  • different groups who have …
  • different motivations for achieving …
  • different outcomes.

Therefore, interventions that policy makers deploy must be informed not only by good evidence but also by a sympathy for people whose lives are complex and often constrained by unbudgable (and un-nudgable) forces. Being physically active might not only be a healthy choice … it might also be deeply political.

More detail on the book, including the full table of contents can be found here.

Joe Piggin


An urgent call for clarity regarding England Rugby’s injury claims – update

A couple of weeks ago, Prof Alan Bairner and I wrote an analysis of England Rugby’s false and misleading injury rate claims. Here is the link:

I can now report that England Rugby responded. Here is the initial response – with names redacted:

Dear Joe, 

Thank you very much for your email and for bringing this to attention.

The RFU takes player safety extremely seriously. I would like to take the opportunity to respond to your email and to you and Professor Bairner on your editorial (An urgent call for clarity regarding England Rugby’s injury claims). 

We acknowledge that an editing error was made in the wording used as part of our Rugby Safe booklet, which was published two years ago. It should have read: There is no evidence to show that rugby poses a specifically greater risk of catastrophic injury than other sports and other activities to align with the graphic used directly after it on page eight (screengrab attached). This was a mistake as part of the publishing process.

We want to ensure all our resources include accurate information, so will be undertaking the following:

  • Amending the 2015 Rugby Safe booklet to remove the inaccurate wording with immediate effect (the 2015 document has already been removed from our website)
  • Publishing an updated Rugby Safe booklet next season using the latest research and findings

The RFU has apologised to Colin Fuller for the error. It was not our intention to mislead. We will continue our ongoing commitment and work to ensure player welfare is central to all that we do.
Yours sincerely,

###### #####


##### ####

For more see:

Piggin, J. & Bairner, A. (2017) An urgent call for clarity regarding England Rugby’s injury claims. Nordic Sport Science Forum

Just a pose juxtaposed

Rome blog photo

Corporate brands spend millions of dollars to offer us visions of fitness, physical activity and success (#wantitmore). At the same time, there are young people literally rolling around on the public footpath with their mates.

This is not a post critiquing either pose. Someone might be as offended by the sexualisation of the female model as by the footpath being usurped for motives other than pedestrianism. However, it did make me wonder about what we should spend our time wondering about. Static, decapitated displays shouting from commercial billboards? Or the anarchic, concrete activities of those who find and use space when and where they can?


Joe Piggin

And one more on Big Sugar’s impact on science …

I was at a conference in Brasil recently, where one study examined the use of carbohydrate during endurance exercise. Here were the findings which were presented to around 300 undergraduate and postgraduate sport students:

And there was more:
So the take home message was “consume a lot of carbohydrate”.

Then the speaker had to acknowledge the funders of the study. Here is the slide showing them:


The two top organisations were not described as problematic in any way. Instead they were positively acknowledged for their financial contributions. If you look around their websites you will clearly see a “pro-sugar” attitude of these organisations. and (At the end of 2016, the “British Nutrition Foundation” ceased operating.)

On the day of the conference I took a screenshot of the info on their website. You can see just how much they advocate the use of sugar and refute sugar consumption as a cause of obesity. And even more incredibly, the source for their claim about sugar not causing obesity … is themselves! What a scam this is!


You can also see that many of the companies providing money to the British Nutrition Foundation have a strong profit motive for increasing consumption of their high sugar products.
I wonder if the closure of the British Nutrition Foundation is connected with consumers moving away from high sugar products?
Joe Piggin