Clubs Question Athletic Union’s Handling of Fees

Sports clubs across the university have had problems with the Athletic Union

Throughout the years, whispers of clubs having issues with the Athletic Union (AU) never made it out of library rants and committee meetings. Despite reports suggesting the AU sees 30-40% of fees, clubs have reported issues with the union: poor communication and lack of transparency with financing.

To explore this potential conflict, The Saint spoke with thirteen students from seven different athletic clubs. To gain a well-rounded picture of the AU and its relationship to the student body, both non-performance and performance clubs were spoken to. As per their request, all clubs and individuals will remain anonymous.  

Clubs are given ‘performance’ status for consistently high performance. As a result, they are granted funding from the AU to help secure sponsors, new kit, and full-time coaches. 

Non-performance sports are entirely student-run and funded, each one paying the AU to be affiliated with the University to use their facilities and to have British University and Collegiate Sports (BUCS) entries paid for. The only other financial support given by the AU to non-performance sports is a subsidisation of accommodation and travelling for BUCS fixtures, the amount of which depends on the sport.

While the prime purpose of the AU, according to its Constitution, is to “represent the interests of all matriculated students at the University of St Andrews in matters relating to sports and physical activity,” conversations with sports clubs have uncovered a distinct lack of transparency from the AU in their interaction with sports clubs. 

Clubs reportedly find trouble when attempting to work with the AU, from everyday bookings to future club development. Clubs are told they must put in bookings weeks in advance to secure their transport or venues for competitions. While the clubs mostly follow the booking policy, the AU, reportedly, does not. 

One club spoke of a time their transport to a BUCS fixture was cancelled because the AU had to transport something. Another club spoke of how their booking of a pitch for a friendly was cancelled to accommodate a Rugby match. This was expressed as a common occurrence, with the AU cancelling or altering the bookings without much, if any, time for clubs to sort alternatives. 

Another purpose of the AU is to “Promote, support and oversee the Athletic Union affiliated clubs,” as outlined in 2.4 of the AU constitution.

When asked about the allocation of support, the AU President Amy Gordon said, “Each club is unique with differing facility usage, travel, and competition requirements. Due to the individual needs of each club, we endeavour to support all our 53 clubs equitably.” 

However, the favouritism felt toward performance sport has pushed the non-performance clubs to see the AU as an absent parent rather than an equitable governing body. 

Another non-performance club spoke of how the AU does not equitably support them, as their sport is comparatively more expensive than most. They cited a time five years ago when the AU gave them money for performing well, “I think they either gave us a thousand or five hundred. But like that much money compared to how much money we have to spend on things, it went instantly.” 

While clearly appreciated, the club felt as though the AU does not understand what their sport is like.

The same club spoke of the frustration of having to work with the AU, citing that it’s “not only the financial stress, but the mental stress of not having someone to look after us,” continuing, “We are adults, but we are also students.” 

This frustration stems from the clubs paying the AU to be affiliated with the University, yet they feel that they do not receive the benefits they pay for as part of their membership to the AU. 

With the clear favouritism of performance sport, non-performance sports have considered becoming one, but find the qualifications to be purposefully unrealistic. To begin with, the only available performance sport criteria expired in January 2025 and reads more as a justification rather than a policy. 

Section 4.1 outlines the criteria to become a performance sport, which includes already being a “sustainable, well-functioning” club, a “permanent” and “qualified” coach and a plan to recruit athletes as some of the minimum criteria. To achieve these prerequisites, a non-performance club would have to have large amounts of money already, restricting a vast majority from even attempting to become one.

In the frequently asked questions section, the AU acknowledges how the criteria are restrictive by stating that their “resource is not limitless.”

One of these non-performance clubs, which has continuously done well every year for the past decade, with regular top 20 UK finishes, admits that the AU may not know that they regularly perform well because it does not translate into BUCS points. 

A member of the same club stated, “At the universities we’re attempting to compete with, at the level we compete at […] I would be pretty confident in saying that we struggle the most out of everyone with our Athletic Union.” 

Unfortunately, the club's relationship with the AU has manifested into rumours of unethical conduct.

“There’s something funny going on with the money,” one student told The Saint. “The money is staying in the performance sport, and the other clubs are getting squeezed or suffering because of it.” 

When asked about this rumour, AU President Gordon emphasised that, “across the board, Sport has not had a funding reduction,” but that they have been asked, like the rest of the University, to reduce funding to promote growth in university revenue and investment. 

Incoming AU President, Aidan Horsburgh, will have his work cut out to turn the situation around.

Image from Saints Sport website