Lottery Funding & Olympics

[drdel]

Team GB has done a fantastic job of bringing home the medals and its well done to all out team members.

Depending which scoring system you use we're either second or third which for our population is brillaint.

My enthusiasm is somewhat tainted by the way the Lottery funding operates. I believe a charity is there to help fund stuff that can't achieve it by other means. Unfortunately the Lottery only funds activities which are already a success so many sports don't get a look in. Other 'good' causes inevitably get nowt or less.

In my view its some of these other sports that should also be given cash. If the current system continues then the difference between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' will get even bigger so some sports will simply die out.

This is exactly what a charity should not be causing - IMO the Lottery should not be able to sponsor/provide more than says 25% to 30% of the total budget.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The lottery funding has enabled talented people to show case their ability on the biggest stage on show - before the funding started we didn't compete - not because of a lack of talent but because people couldn't concentrate on a sport because they had to earn a living

I'm not sure the charity angle ?

Many other countries have their athletes funded by the state in the amount of billions

Which "good causes" are missing out or "getting owt"

Which sports are missing out and will die out

All the Olympic sports that GB compete in get funding of some level ( bar the people that don't require it )

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I would have thought the last two Olympics would show that the system is working quite brilliantly. Why would we shoot ourselves in the foot and stop a system that is bringing success?

 

[GB72]

I think that the argument is that lottery funding between sports is results driven so if you do not hit your performance targets then your funding is cut. The argument could be that more funding is put into underperforming sports so as we challenge across the board.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I think that the argument is that lottery funding between sports is results driven so if you do not hit your performance targets then your funding is cut. The argument could be that more funding is put into underperforming sports so as we challenge across the board.

They just had a graphic that GB got medals spread across more sports more than anyone else

I believe that the funding criteria has changed over the years to not just reward success but also support upcoming athletes with potential and to stop funding those that have been on the gravy train for ten years but have achieved nothing beyond a heat

 

[Fyldewhite]

Heard an article on the radio yesterday where the case for equal funding of sports was made. The response was that we had that for 30 years along with 30 years of mediocrity and basically failure at this level. The money is great and those sports that can demonstrate the structure and potential (eg cycling, gymnastics) are getting the funding they need to get the brilliant results they are now getting. It's up to the sports governing bodies to get their act together. The funding bodies aren't going to start throwing money at dead ducks anytime soon when the current system had shown such a great return.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Fair point but maybe concentrating on certain core sports works better? Always hard to argue either way on that although we have never been so successful than with this system whereas we tried the scatter gun approach previously and that didn't work so well. It may be brutal but it brings results and at the top level it is about results.

 

[bluewolf]

I think that the argument is that lottery funding between sports is results driven so if you do not hit your performance targets then your funding is cut. The argument could be that more funding is put into underperforming sports so as we challenge across the board.

In other words "it's better to finish as runners up in all sports than to win in some sports?"
I can see both sides of the argument, but I would probably prefer to stick with the system we have.

 

[sev112]

They just said we won golds in more sports than ANY other nation

That is very impressive and suggests that there is diversity

 

[chrisd]

A great achievement but it do wonder how many more we'd have won in London if the Russians hadn't been cheating?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

You can apply that through the years with cheats from a range of nations, sad to say.

 

[BesCumber]

I would have thought the last two Olympics would show that the system is working quite brilliantly. Why would we shoot ourselves in the foot and stop a system that is bringing success?

Because we're British dear boy.
We don't do well at games, here, don't you know.
Much better to be the plucky runner up.
So embarrassing all this winning things.


:ears:

 

[Neilds]

A great achievement but it do wonder how many more we'd have won in London if the Russians hadn't been cheating?

People seem to forget that Britain hasn't been totally clean when it comes to drug takers- Linford Christie, Dwain Chambers to name a few 😡

 

[User62651]

People seem to forget that Britain hasn't been totally clean when it comes to drug takers- Linford Christie, Dwain Chambers to name a few 

Yep they're all 'juiced' in one way or another, its just trying to stay on the right side of what's legal and what's not. Alain Baxter lost his Olympic bronze ski slalom medal in 2002 cos he took a sniff from a Vicks inhaler for a cold yet Mo Farah freely admits he takes a really strong espresso before each race, both the caffeine and the trace of ephydrine in the US verison of the Vicks inhaler are stimulants, however one's ok, t'other was not. It's a minefield. Christie raced freely until late on when he got done, general consensus the way his times and physique changed so much between his early twenties and late twenties was that it wasn't from natural gains allegedly. Flo-jo never got done but come on, she was more 'male' than Semenya! Ohorugo had question marks for a while, even Paula Radcliffe was in the mire recently with allegations from that Times report. What happend with Tyson Fury, heard he's failed some drug test also recently.
I hope young Van Niekirk is clean, that was the standout moment of the whole Olympics for me.
Trying to administrate, police, legalise and manage the whole 'drugs in sport' and gender testing must be an absolute nightmare with the goalposts shifting all the time.

 

[Oohmeoldbacksknackered]

Just playing Devil's advocate here - I haven't thought it through ...

But

The medal table over the years has been influenced by some countries condoning enhancement of their athletes performance using drugs

We have definitely enhanced our performance to way, way more than a country our size should achieve by throwing ridiculous amounts of money at it.

We funded our team to the tune of £275,000,000 of Lottery money. That's not money any of these guys and gals earned by being professional it's just money that was donated by a national 'charity'

In 2006 it was under £60M according to the BBC.

Is it the Olympic dream to buy success like this? What about the poorer nations who can't afford to compete in this way? Is that any more moral than using drugs to get an edge?

Also we've had loads of discussions on other topics about what a terrible state our country is in and is going to be in over the next few years. Is there an argument to say that some of this money would be better off going to those people who are getting support from food banks, or other absolute, life saving necessities?

This morning I'm incredibly proud of all our medal winning athletes, but I've got an undefined uncomfortable lump somewhere in the back of my craw.

 

[User62651]

Just playing Devil's advocate here - I haven't thought it through ...

But

The medal table over the years has been influenced by some countries condoning enhancement of their athletes performance using drugs

We have definitely enhanced our performance to way, way more than a country our size should achieve by throwing ridiculous amounts of money at it.

We funded our team to the tune of £275,000,000 of Lottery money. That's not money any of these guys and gals earned by being professional it's just money that was donated by a national 'charity'

In 2006 it was under £60M according to the BBC.

Is it the Olympic dream to buy success like this? What about the poorer nations who can't afford to compete in this way? Is that any more moral than using drugs to get an edge?

Also we've had loads of discussions on other topics about what a terrible state our country is in and is going to be in over the next few years. Is there an argument to say that some of this money would be better off going to those people who are getting support from food banks, or other absolute, life saving necessities?

This morning I'm incredibly proud of all our medal winning athletes, but I've got an undefined uncomfortable lump somewhere in the back of my craw.

That's not playing devils advocate, I'd say its a pretty balanced view, a view which many people would agree with.

 

[Slab]

Just playing Devil's advocate here - I haven't thought it through ...

But .............

Yeah the trouble is it never works out that way, i.e money not spent on sport wouldn't automatically be spent on xyz (worthy cause)

When they finished the Scottish parliament building and also seeing news of yet another house fire claiming kids lives I remember working it out on the train to work that the same money spent on an unnecessary building could have supplied every house in Scotland with multiple smoke & gas detectors, full motion sensor burglar alarm throughout the home and garden, fire blankets, fire extinguishers, escape tools (i.e ladders, window breakers etc) security/safety lighting... the list goes on... Every single house in Scotland fully kitted out for safety & security with the cash simply being diverted from one government building project

Never going to happen though

 

[bluewolf]

That's not playing devils advocate, I'd say its a pretty balanced view, a view which many people would agree with.

No it's not. It's overly simplistic twaddle. It conveniently ignores all the positive effects of a successful sporting event. Including the "feel good factor" that results in an increase in spending by the Public, thereby increasing tax revenues.

 

[Alucard]

I would personally rather that the NHS was funded properly, Mental health care was funded properly, schools were brought up to date, bigger prisons were built and that more lottery money went to finding a cure for cancer which affects us all in one way or another.

The UK games 4 years ago just took money from areas it ought to have been spent on to fund the games and then the infrastructure ended up in private hands at a fraction of the cost that the Tax payer paid. The olympic village was sold off for peanuts and is owned by a Kuwait family who use the homes as private rents and the Super stadium has been leased to West ham United on a peppercorn rent compared to how much it cost.

We must not forget (although the media has) that Russia (rightly or wrongly) only having less than half a team out there has helped other nations medals haul too including our own.

I hope that Mo can get to answer his front door in the USA next time the drugs testers come a knocking, instead of pretending he slept through it all but being kicked off its hinges here in the UK before the London games.

Sport should fund its self via private sponsors instead of taking money that could be better spent on more important things.
At the end of the day the athletes take the funding (Like our tennis players) and then take all the money and fame that comes with success and very few actually give back to the UK.
It seems to me that we in the UK will throw money at anything except the things that need it the most. Time will tell

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I would personally rather that the NHS was funded properly, Mental health care was funded properly, schools were brought up to date, bigger prisons were built and that more lottery money went to finding a cure for cancer which affects us all in one way or another.

The UK games 4 years ago just took money from areas it ought to have been spent on to fund the games and then the infrastructure ended up in private hands at a fraction of the cost that the Tax payer paid. The olympic village was sold off for peanuts and is owned by a Kuwait family who use the homes as private rents and the Super stadium has been leased to West ham United on a peppercorn rent compared to how much it cost.

We must not forget (although the media has) that Russia (rightly or wrongly) only having less than half a team out there has helped other nations medals haul too including our own.

I hope that Mo can get to answer his front door in the USA next time the drugs testers come a knocking, instead of pretending he slept through it all but being kicked off its hinges here in the UK before the London games.

Sport should fund its self via private sponsors instead of taking money that could be better spent on more important things.
At the end of the day the athletes take the funding (Like our tennis players) and then take all the money and fame that comes with success and very few actually give back to the UK.
It seems to me that we in the UK will throw money at anything except the things that need it the most. Time will tell

All typed whilst living abroad, can't help but see some irony in your stance, yes I except you will have paid your whack while living here, but saying how the present Government should be spent while no longer contributing fully...........