Christopher Dean had to wait for over forty years to receive a knighthood. Similarly, it may be a considerable time before Kevin Sinfield is honored in a similar manner. The fact that Dean received the honor before Sinfield, rather than the duration of the wait, raises questions about the fairness of the honours system.
Back in 1984, Dean and Jayne Torvill, who recently received a damehood, achieved Olympic gold in Sarajevo with a flawless performance to Maurice Ravel’s Bolero. The delay in recognizing their accomplishments, alongside the disparity in who receives honors, raises concerns about the system’s integrity.
Despite his remarkable efforts in raising awareness and funds for the fight against motor neurone disease, Sinfield is yet to be acknowledged with a knighthood. The stringent criteria for such an honor stipulate that nominees must have significantly contributed to national or international causes that benefit others and must still be actively engaged in their nominated work.
Sinfield, despite his exceptional achievements, remains humble and is known to shy away from the spotlight. This modesty may explain why he has not yet received a knighthood. However, the ongoing oversight raises doubts about the efficacy of the honours selection process.
Critics argue that the honours system perpetuates inequality and upholds privilege through ceremonial gestures. The case of Sinfield serves as a poignant example of this perceived bias and inconsistency within the system.
Coming from a Rugby League background, Sinfield’s achievements have been remarkable, elevating him to a higher status post-retirement. While another figure from the same sport was knighted earlier this year, the continued oversight of Sinfield for such an honor based on his background could be viewed as an act of elitism.
The ongoing exclusion of Sinfield from knighthood consideration underscores the need for a thorough review of the honours system to ensure fairness and transparency.