Brian suggests that because he was no good at sport then it should not be compulsory. I think this is utter rubbish for a few reasons.
I was utterly shit at maths at school. I just never "got it" until I left school and was able to see practical uses for it (I was converting square feet of timber into cubic meters when made it all suddenly made sense). Following Brian's thought maths for me should have been optional. If that was the case how many kids would choose to take maths? Not a lot I would suggest. Even though I loathed maths what I learned despite myself has still been useful.
The same applies with english, science geography etc. There are some things that are important to know at least something about and sport is one of them.
Also at the secondary school I went to it was compulsory to do "standards" which was competing in 10 (from memory) athletic events with every performance scored and counting toward a house competition. There were a lot pf people who were not very good but the encouragement of the other house members for all of the participants irrespective of ability was something to see. Even the most useless performer was encouraged by all of the other house members. I didn't really have much aptitude at athletics but looking back I can see that by making everyone be involved it was beneficial to all of us. In fact I remember bloody near killing someone when I stuffed up a hammer throw! You could see some of the kids who lacked confidence (as clearly Brian did) really put the effort in when they had 50-60 people cheering them on. I know I did.
While I can sympathise with Brian's point I cannot agree.