So, Zara Phillips got a gong from granny and Steven Gerrard finally got the recognition he deserves. Or does he? Well, judging by those named in past New Year Honours lists, he probably does. And so does Phillips, Ian Woosnam, Ricky Hatton, Gareth Edwards and all the other sports stars who received recognition this time around. But is dishing out awards to top sportsmen and women, who in many cases chase glory purely for themselves, what the honours are all about? And should they receive this extra kudos on top of the piles of loot and trophies they have already won? Orders of the British Empire (CBEs, OBEs, MBEs etc), the most common honours for modern sporting achievement, were created by King George V in 1917 to reward services to the war effort by civilians at home and servicemen in support positions. These days the key aim of all the honours is to "reward those who work and serve at the sharp end" according to a Cabinet Office spokesman on Friday, who added the objective was "to recognise people who had really changed things or who had given outstanding service to others in difficult situations". Those of a pedantic nature could argue either way about whether each of the sports stars honoured fits these criteria. Phillips' MBE for "services to equestrianism" seems apt, given the undoubted way she has boosted the profile of the sport. Indeed, without Sir Steve Redgrave?s achievements in rowing, you could argue there would have been no Matthew Pinsent, James Cracknell et al. But those on the other side of the fence may claim that Gerrard?s MBE for "services to sport", say, wrongly rewards an individual sportsman, in a team sport at that, merely going about his business, albeit at the top of his game. Then again, you could argue he is a sporting hero, inspiration and role model to many and therefore deserves the accolade. It is worth remembering that any British national can be nominated for an honour and the Queen chooses the recipients on the advice of the Prime Minister, to whom recommendations are sent either by government ministers or by members of the public. (The sporting honours candidates are put forward by a sub-committee which includes Sir Bobby Robson, Matthew Pinsent, Ian McGeechan and Tessa Sanderson.) Maybe the problem, if there is one, is that too many sports stars are being named in these lists and the quality of recipient is being diluted. England's entire Rugby World Cup-winning squad, regardless of whether they played in the final, became MBEs in 2003, while the cricket team were appointed MBEs after the Ashes triumph in 2005. Plenty of people will no doubt be suggesting they should give these back after the current Ashes debacle, while the suitability for an honour after winning a two-horse race is another line of argument altogether. But Prime Minister Tony Blair said at the time they had "lit up the whole summer" with their performance over the five Tests, which surely fulfils the public service remit of the awards. But if you believe that sportsmen shouldn?t be honoured for merely doing their jobs, what about the hosts of teachers, servicemen and the like who are similarly credited? Sure, many recipients have none of the trappings of a world-class sportsman and therefore this is a modest reflection of their achievements. But should sportsmen and women (and actors/businessmen/industrialists etc) then be legislated against just because their chosen profession happens to be lucrative? On the surface, there is no financial reward for receiving an honour, and it is, in fact, just that ? an honour. Does being made "Sir" Clive Woodward, for example, matter in the real world? Southampton fans may argue not. But there's no doubt a few initials after the name adds a little more shine to the CV. And this distinction is likely to play a part somewhere down the line, in terms of future employment or commercial interests. However, recognising the services, commitment and achievements of someone at a more grassroots level, such as a local youth sports coach, could be seen to be far more worthy. But where do you draw the line? The New Year Honours list is a conundrum, and, some may feel, outdated in a modern world. The recent democratisation of the awards has helped to recognise more "ordinary" people. But if you go too far down this route, do you risk penalising the high-flyers? One thing is certain. If you accept that sports stars in general are deserving, then there will always be differences of opinion as to the merits of the actual recipients. This year, for example, racing fans may think that retired training legend Martin Pipe deserves a knighthood to bring him into line with the likes of Sir Michael Stoute, while fans of other sports may also have their own list of notable omissions. (If the Ashes-winning cricketers, why not the British Ryder Cup contingent?) There may even be some who agree with the "Sir" David Beckham argument. But I doubt it.
