A Declaration of Rights and Grievances to the AU

I am not suggesting that St Andrews sport finds itself in the same position as the North American colonies in 1774, nor that this piece rivals the prose of the First Continental Congress.

But when something feels unjust, history offers a simple lesson: nothing changes unless it is challenged.

What follows, then, is a declaration — not of independence, but of concern.

As members of the Athletics Union, students might reasonably expect:

1. To be supported in achieving competitive progression, particularly when clubs are promoted to higher national leagues;

2. To have access to functional, sufficient training facilities, without capacity constraints rendering participation impractical;

3. To be provided with safe and reliable transport when representing the University;

4. To operate within a system of fair and transparent financial structures across all teams.

The following grievances are not isolated concerns, but recurring failings raised across clubs and athletes.

The University gym continues to fall short of the students it seeks to support. The issue is not subtle: it is too small.

Katie Riddick, a fourth-year student, summarised the sentiment plainly: “We shouldn’t have to pay the fee we do for an insufficient gym.”

The University has announced plans to refurbish the space, promising an improved layout and increased capacity through “clever design and spatial optimisation.” However, there are no plans to expand the building itself.

Riddick remains unconvinced. “I don’t think it will solve the problem at all… it’s simply too small for the size of the University,” she said, adding that the changes feel like “rebuilding an entire house when it’s the foundations that are the problem.”

Evidence suggests students are already looking elsewhere. Confirmation from the owner of Kilo Club gym that the Rugby 2nd team has moved its strength and conditioning programme there provides clear proof that existing facilities are failing to support both athletes and everyday gym-goers.

The consequences extend beyond inconvenience. Limited space has led to the prioritisation of certain athletes, teams, and even access to changing rooms.

Fourth-year student Daniel Fatigati described regular matchday frustration, with his lacrosse team often left without a place to change.

“It would be nice to have somewhere comfortable,” he said, highlighting the need for improved facilities and the impracticality of preparing for matches fully equipped on the side of a pitch.

Support for high-performing teams has not always matched their achievements.

In the 2023/24 season, the Women’s 1s lacrosse team achieved promotion to BUCS Premier North. Their reward: the removal of performance sport status, and with it, access to strength and conditioning provision.

The justification cited technical criteria. Section 4.1 of the AU’s constitution states that a performance team should have a “permanent” and “qualified” coach.

This raised eyebrows, given the team had battled their way to promotion without one.

That, however, misses the point. One might reasonably expect it to be the AU’s responsibility to provide coaches for the teams it prioritises.

Instead, the team entered a more competitive league the following season without a strength and conditioning programme — and still without a coach. The outcome was, perhaps predictably, underwhelming.

Transport policy presents some of the most concerning issues.

Earlier this season, an Athletics Union club found themselves stranded on the side of a motorway after a van suffered a flat tyre en route to the Lake District. As driver Luke Baird recounted, he contacted both the AA and the AU in line with guidance.

Four hours later, they were still waiting.

Eventually moved to a service station, the team proposed a simple solution: taxi players to their destination and return for the van later. Permission was granted, but with one condition — someone had to remain with the vehicle. Two students stayed behind; the rest continued.

By 8:30pm, with the situation ongoing, the AU informed the group it would be closing at 9pm and could offer no further support. Students were directed to Security and Response, who, according to those involved, provided little more than a link to the AU website.

Support, it seems, operates within office hours.

The van was eventually repaired at around 2am. Baird continued the journey, arriving at approximately 3am — just in time for five hours’ sleep.

Former Athletics Secretary Cole Schubert described the incident as indicative of broader “institutional failings”, noting that the insurance documentation in the vehicle had expired in July 2024 and was updated only after the incident.

Schubert also raised concerns about a system that appears to prioritise cost over safety. Current policy discourages overnight accommodation after fixtures, effectively incentivising teams to travel back at unsociable — and potentially unsafe — hours.

“There’s a financial disincentive to take the safer option,” he said. “You end up with students driving at 2 or 3 in the morning.”

Attempts to introduce practical fixes, such as equipping vans with spare tyres, were reportedly rejected on the basis that tyre changes are the responsibility of the AA.

On a lighter note, Schubert recalled a smaller issue that perhaps says more than intended. When a van developed a faulty sensor, the AU’s suggested solution was: “Why don’t they just turn the sensor off?” — to which another member of the email chain replied, “They probably don’t know which switch to use.”

At least the growing mistrust is mutual.

Being part of an AU-affiliated sports club is, like most things in St Andrews, not cheap.

That might be easier to accept if the AU could clearly explain the financial structures in place.

Fourth-year hockey player Christy Cargill highlighted inconsistencies across teams: “Players in all teams pay the same price, but they don’t get the same benefits.”

She noted that lower teams often receive fewer training sessions and less qualified coaching, despite equivalent costs. “I don’t think the system is fair,” she added.

Her concerns extend beyond fairness. Students, she argues, are not always aware of how their money is allocated — an issue that risks undermining trust in the system as a whole.

The Saint contacted the AU for comment. At the time of writing, a response has not been received.

Taken individually, these concerns may appear manageable. Taken together, they suggest a system struggling to support the very students it seeks to promote.

Perhaps, then, it is worth returning to the beginning.

History shows that when grievances are raised and overlooked, they do not disappear — they grow louder.

If 1774 teaches us anything, it is not necessarily how such stories end, but how they begin: with people deciding that something is not quite right — and saying so.

After four years at this University — helped in no small part by American friends, spiritual successors to their ever-outspoken Founding Fathers, who treat speaking up as a default rather than a distinctly British last resort — I have come to a simple conclusion:

Caring is not excessive. Questioning is not dramatic. Wanting better is not unreasonable.

In fact, it may be the most sensible thing going.

And if making a declaration of that feels faintly un-British, perhaps that is the point.

Because, revolutionary or not, it is, quite simply, cool to care about the state of student sport.

Head to The Saint website to read more on the Athletic Union’s performance:

Clubs Question Athletic Union’s Handling of Fees, Anne-Carter Riggs

Van-demonium: AU Put Students At Risk, Reuben Graves