THERE is a point in seeking to establish a direct, provable link between the hosting of major sports events and the health or wider social benefits to the host city. It is not easy to prove, as the examples of the London Olympics, the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow or those eight years previously in Manchester demonstrate.

That emphatically does not mean major sporting events are bad things or never have wider beneficial social outcomes. We believe the Commonwealth Games a year ago were good for Glasgow in general and the east end of the city in particular, and good for Scotland and for the Commonwealth as a whole.

When Andy Murray has a spectacular triumph, such as leading Britain to the Davis Cup final, it is hard to track a direct correlation with youngsters picking up a racket, other than sporadically and short-term in local parks.

Equally, they do not throw the racket away when Murray loses at the US Open. The impact is more complex, long-term and subliminal than that and is dependent on a host of other factors such as volunteer support and professional coaching.

So let us resist the temptation to knock last year’s Games over the finding in the Scottish Health Survey that only one per cent of respondents were sufficiently inspired to undertake more sporting activity while the event made just three per cent consider more activity.

We agree with Professor Mike Weed that the findings were “pretty disappointing for anyone who was hoping for evidence of a legacy” from Glasgow 2014, but we are also realistic enough to know it does not always work that way. The survey found that six per cent of the population became “generally” more interested in sport and exercise as a result of the games, but for most this did not result in specific lifestyle changes. But as Professor Weed pointed out, this finding was “reasonably positive” as changes in attitude usually come before changes in behaviour.

As he put it: “Although five to six per cent seems quite low, if even half of these people went out and increased their physical activity participation that would be the biggest change we have seen for years.”

There is, without doubt, an increasing disconnect between spectator sport and participation in sport. Some of the Rugby World Cup matches have ticket prices starting at £150 and that is before the intervention of touts and corporate packages.

A decent thesis could be written on the correlation between higher ticket prices and the available cash left for those interested in sport to pay for participation in activities locally, given that cash-strapped councils are often increasing charges.

The tragedy is that there is a consensus now around the immense benefits of sport and physical activity at the very time when the public resources that might have gone into boosting initiatives have frequently been choked off at source.

But that should not be seen as a counsel of despair. Much good work is already under way with dedicated specialist sports academies within our public education system.

But these cater for the “elite” youngsters who show special aptitudes. The wider gain will come from encouraging the non-elite youngsters to enjoy sports, for if it is not enjoyable they will turn away. For all our futures it is a fight worth the cause.