UK sports funding review - Is it fair or discriminating?

[Stat Brother]

Should the money provided for sport in the UK be solely used as a medal generator?

Non medal sports are having their funding withdrawn or greatly reduced in favour of sports, no matter how niche, that performed in London '12.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...by-UK-Sport-a-year-after-winning-it-back.html

Several sports have been given an increase in funding with the big winner being triathlon, whose money goes up from £5.5million to £7.5million, a 36 per cent increase. Others with increased funding include canoeing, fencing, gymnastics hockey, judo, sailing, shooting and taekwondo.


Was Lizzy Yarnold's gold medal worth £3,447,600?
When our Cross Country ski 'hopeful' works full time and has to buy his own equipment.

http://www.uksport.gov.uk/sport/winter/bob-skeleton

Naturally the Winter Olympic review is on a different cycle.

 

[TheJasperCo]

I find it is a bit counter-intuitive, because from my perspective only the most successful sports get the most funding. This kind of defeats the object of investing in improvements for sports we are no good at. If money needs to be spent on any sports, shouldn't it be concentrated on those sports that need the money in order to get medals over the coming years?

That said, there is always going to be a finite pot of money, and playing it safe by funding the more popular, successful sports is probably the least risky gamble by Sport England. Consolidate and maintain our position as world-leaders in cycling and rowing seems arguably more sensible.

 

[beorhthelm]

no. doesn't it go against the whole ethos of the Olympics? its like no one in team GB has watched Cool Runnings.

and isnt there a risk that after the current crop of talent in a particular sport has left the it, you're left with a lot of money going into a damp squib.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

I am sure I read somewhere recently that because the GB basketball team had had its funding removed the coach could now not afford to pick the two NBA players because their insurance would be too expensive for what little money they had left.

 

[Stat Brother]

I find it is a bit counter-intuitive, because from my perspective only the most successful sports get the most funding. This kind of defeats the object of investing in improvements for sports we are no good at. If money needs to be spent on any sports, shouldn't it be concentrated on those sports that need the money in order to get medals over the coming years?

That said, there is always going to be a finite pot of money, and playing it safe by funding the more popular, successful sports is probably the least risky gamble by Sport England. Consolidate and maintain our position as world-leaders in cycling and rowing seems arguably more sensible.

Thanks, to get a reply I thought I was going to have to rename the thread:-

UK sports funding review - Does Gus think it's fair or discriminating?

It's a very tough call.
I seem to be struggling with sports getting no money, that just doesn't seem right.

I agree with it being performance related, it's taken British cycling 20 years to go from nothing, literally nothing, to taking the cream off the top of the milk.

But when so much money is available there should be a minimum 'hand out' for sports to work with.

 

[1066familyman]

Ridiculously simplistic and cloud cuckoo land no doubt - but couldn't we just tax the shit out of the fat cat that is football in this country, set a pay ceiling on players' wages and sponsorship deals and spread it all out evenly to all sports at grassroots level so every kid in this country can get involved in sport for free at decent facilties and see where it leads them?

 

[coagulantwolf]

Ridiculously simplistic and cloud cuckoo land no doubt - but couldn't we just tax the shit out of the fat cat that is football in this country, set a pay ceiling on players' wages and sponsorship deals and spread it all out evenly to all sports at grassroots level so every kid in this country can get involved in sport for free at decent facilties and see where it leads them?

Idealistic and what I would agree as to what I want? yes
Practical and actually enforceable/legal? no.

 

[Stat Brother]

Ridiculously simplistic and cloud cuckoo land no doubt - but couldn't we just tax the shit out of the fat cat that is football in this country, set a pay ceiling on players' wages and sponsorship deals and spread it all out evenly to all sports at grassroots level so every kid in this country can get involved in sport for free at decent facilties and see where it leads them?

I didn't come here for a lecture in communism!!

This did get me wondering what 'vanity projects' the likes of Rooney et al have.

Clearly for me the net result of being paid £300,000 a week would be Team Stat taking to the start line of the Tour de France.

In the unlikely event basketball was Wayne's other sport at school, he could help find the money UK sport are removing.

 

[Billy in Bristol]

Hi All

This is my job and misguided passion, to try and get additional funding for those sports out of the limelight.

Legacy 300 was a project created by Athletes to enable people to support them and raise money for good causes at the same time. This is achieved through the auctioning off of places on Individual and Team Experiences (Such as in London http://www.docklandsgames.com and Bristol http://www.harboursidehames.com) a reserve price goes to the Athlete and myself to deliver the experience, ALL above the reserve price goes to the good cause.

Essential to the project is that it enables the Athletes
a) To provide a UNIVERSAL platform for all good causes to fundraise from.
and
b) Because the Athletes have a limited number of days they can earn from commercial activities, they can use more of these days for generating funds for good causes as they get funding as well.

I have long, long advocated that this is a great way for the popular Olympic sports and superstars to work with the unfunded sports as everyone wins, the star athlete gets paid, the sports body generates funds, even more so if the Experiences were sponsored.

Alas the unfunded sports have proved very slow to take this up, as have grass roots sports clubs.

Did try with the Handball squad, see http://partyforthepodium.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/team-of-year-sticks-together.html
but that was ignored by the media and failed and didn't much to the £173,000 raised for Good Causes £109K and Athletes £64K as of 15/02/2014.

The brutal truth is that collectively the vast majority couldn't give a rats...but having met these athletes I am amazed that they are left to their own devices and agree that a minimum level of funding should be made to ALL sports.

Final aside; best of my knowledge is that the annual direct funding received by the 10 men and women who won gold in rowing was around the one weeks wages that Wayne Rooney is going to receive.

Billy

 

[beorhthelm]

Ridiculously simplistic and cloud cuckoo land no doubt - but couldn't we just tax the shit out of the fat cat that is football in this country, set a pay ceiling on players' wages and sponsorship deals and spread it all out evenly to all sports at grassroots level so every kid in this country can get involved in sport for free at decent facilties and see where it leads them?

yep cloud cuckoo. why should football be tax to pay for water skittles, or some other fringe sport? there's a strong argument to divert some of that wealth to grass root football, cant see any logic to funding other sports though. a mid way of funding sports facilities might hold, ie the sport sciencist, physios and other support that crosses all sports.

 

[Stat Brother]

The brutal truth is that collectively the vast majority couldn't give a rats...but having met these athletes I am amazed that they are left to their own devices and agree that a minimum level of funding should be made to ALL sports.

Final aside; best of my knowledge is that the annual direct funding received by the 10 men and women who won gold in rowing was around the one weeks wages that Wayne Rooney is going to receive.

Billy

Who do you mean 'couldn't give a rats'.

Athletes, media, the public at large, all of the above?

My counter to that would be the public couldn't give a rats about Skeleton Bob or Taekwondo, but it still gets multi million pound bursary.

 

[Postman Pat]

I am sure I read somewhere recently that because the GB basketball team had had its funding removed the coach could now not afford to pick the two NBA players because their insurance would be too expensive for what little money they had left.

Luol Deng earns $14.2m P/A - If he really wanted to play for GB I am sure he could put his hand in his pocket and cover it!

This is a really tough question, we spent loads of money on swimming for little return, so I would rather see money diverted to smaller sports that we have done well in such as Triathlon and Taekwando. Swimming will have to identify the real top performers and back them, and the also rans will have to fend for themselves.

 

[Billy in Bristol]

Who do you mean 'couldn't give a rats'.

Athletes, media, the public at large, all of the above?

My counter to that would be the public couldn't give a rats about Skeleton Bob or Taekwondo, but it still gets multi million pound bursary.

Sorry was a bit vague, yes it is the majority of sports lovers who share your view. I'm not here to change it, but, to try and provide a platform for those who want to support the athletes.

 

[Stat Brother]

I am sure I read somewhere recently that because the GB basketball team had had its funding removed the coach could now not afford to pick the two NBA players because their insurance would be too expensive for what little money they had left.

Oh I meant to say my interest in this stems from an article by David Walsh in The Sunday Times, where he takes on the case of Basketball.
But that's t'other side of the firewall.