Olympic Funding

Cycling still gets a lot on money, and maybe taking that £4 million away from somewhere else sacrifices more medals. And maybe they can get their asthma inhalers from he NHS now.

Overall it's a weird system of spread betting. They had the same amount of money overall, just distributing it slightly different to optimise on ROI as they see it right now.
 
I stopped doing the Euro lottery when it went to £2,50. Psychological barrier. I was staggered with some of the sums involved. Canoeing gets a huge sum. Canoeing! Swimming is lucky as it gets a huge amount and delivers little. I heard some of the groups complaining who have been dropped but they forget they don't have a right to this money. They are not self sufficient, if they were it wouldn't be a problem. No one has a right to play sport and get paid for it. The system has moved GB from occasional medallists to serious Olympic winners. It is brutal but it works.
 
Why have sports like Badminton, Weight lifting and Wheelchair Rugby had their funding removed when they have been moderately successful in Olympic Games? I don't think the competitors in these sports can afford to be true amateurs any more.
 
delc said:
Why have sports like Badminton, Weight lifting and Wheelchair Rugby had their funding removed when they have been moderately successful in Olympic Games? I don't think the competitors in these sports can afford to be true amateurs any more.
Click to expand...

I would ask, why do they not seek private funding and allocate all this money to people that actually need it

If you want to do sport as a job, you should be able to get it done without relying on funding, yes yes, you will say it helps.. the best nearly always struggle to get what they want, making it a cake walk from promising amateur level is not for me, if you are good enough find a way, lets send the cash to upgrade nursing homes or whatever else that is infinitely more worthwhile
 
351DRIVER said:
I would ask, why do they not seek private funding and allocate all this money to people that actually need it

If you want to do sport as a job, you should be able to get it done without relying on funding, yes yes, you will say it helps.. the best nearly always struggle to get what they want, making it a cake walk from promising amateur level is not for me, if you are good enough find a way, lets send the cash to upgrade nursing homes or whatever else that is infinitely more worthwhile
Click to expand...

That's 2 seperate arguments, the lottery money doesn't just pay wages, it also builds and supports facilities and make them struggle?, that's why they struggled, they weren't given the facilities or opportunities to excel, how many missrd out because of the lack of support is a more important point.

Look at the Cycling team, completely transformed many you g lives because we have facilities and infrastructure to support them.
 
pauldj42 said:
That's 2 seperate arguments, the lottery money doesn't just pay wages, it also builds and supports facilities and make them struggle?, that's why they struggled, they weren't given the facilities or opportunities to excel, how many missrd out because of the lack of support is a more important point.

Look at the Cycling team, completely transformed many you g lives because we have facilities and infrastructure to support them.
Click to expand...

It is not really important at all how many missed out

Explain to me why Johnny who wants to be a pro Tennis player, but is not quite bright enough a star to be picked up by a sponsor should then be sent on a 3 month training academy to play tennis in the sunshine to help him find his level? I really do not get that at all.

I know people in that category, really really good, just never going to be a world champ and the thought of them being supported JUST IN CASE is ludicrous (Pretty much everyone knows a plus 2 or 3 golfer, What IF they went full time?) , what was it the medals cost approx a million quid a pop.... well that is nice.

I would mention, my long term neighbour is a world champion in a team sport (She is American) i regularly meet olympic gold medalists, some having one more than 1.

I promise you, they would be champions, regardless of any government scheme, because they were good enough that no one would ever let them NOT be sponsored.

I also know an Italian Gold Medalist from the recent Olympics, his funding consisted of here is a tracksuit, you better go practise.

Setting up training academies for all the almost good enoughs in the hope that one improves i just do not get it, seems like a massive waste of money to me and really if that next tennis player goes from being world ranked 108 to world ranked 52, do we really care, is it worth the huge amount of money? NOPE would be my response.
 
Last edited:
351DRIVER said:
It is not really important at all how many missed out

Explain to me why Johnny who wants to be a pro Tennis player, but is not quite bright enough a star to be picked up by a sponsor should then be sent on a 3 month training academy to play tennis in the sunshine to help him find his level? I really do not get that at all.

I know people in that category, really really good, just never going to be a world champ and the thought of them being supported JUST IN CASE is ludicrous (Pretty much everyone knows a plus 2 or 3 golfer, What IF they went full time?) , what was it the medals cost approx a million quid a pop.... well that is nice.

I would mention, my long term neighbour is a world champion in a team sport (She is American) i regularly meet olympic gold medalists, some having one more than 1.

I promise you, they would be champions, regardless of any government scheme, because they were good enough that no one would ever let them NOT be sponsored.

I also know an Italian Gold Medalist from the recent Olympics, his funding consisted of here is a tracksuit, you better go practise.

Setting up training academies for all the almost good enoughs in the hope that one improves i just do not get it, seems like a massive waste of money to me and really if that next tennis player goes from being world ranked 108 to world ranked 52, do we really care, is it worth the huge amount of money? NOPE would be my response.
Click to expand...
We've moved from the days of our Olympic sportsmen mainly coming from middle and uppee class backgrounds as they were the only ones who had the financial backing to compete or partake in most of those sports.
Little Jonny must already have some Tennis ability for sponsors to be looking because I'm sure they don't drive around the streets looking for kids good with a stick and a stone

Have you asked your American neighbour about the facilities and opportunities she was afforded in her youth to get to that level?

The Italian, is he any different to Justin Rose?

Are you seriously suggesting without all the investment in Sport we would produce the same results at Olympics?

If so, why are only now producing our best results?

The Olmpic motto is about taking part more than winning and if our investment inspires others to take part and hope for a brighter future then yes it's worth every penny.
 
pauldj42 said:
That's 2 seperate arguments, the lottery money doesn't just pay wages, it also builds and supports facilities and make them struggle?, that's why they struggled, they weren't given the facilities or opportunities to excel, how many missrd out because of the lack of support is a more important point.

Look at the Cycling team, completely transformed many you g lives because we have facilities and infrastructure to support them.
Click to expand...

Believe you have it spot on

The lottery funding has enabled many talented people the ability to showcase their talents and to compete and win for their nation

There are many sports within the Olympics where they aren't competing for financial gain but for glory and even then many sports have peanuts for prize money. The funding allows that talented player the chance to train and practice without having to worry about paying the bills and also provide world class facilities that also give the surrounding public and facility to use and try the various sports.

Many countries have state sponsorship for their athletes - without the lottery GB wouldn't be successful , we would be back to the days of one gold and a couple of other medals - that doesn't inspire a future generation - kids , adults all over the country now - get on a bike , try a trialathon , try horse riding , archery , swimming , gymnastics or pick up a hockey stick because they see the GB sportsmen and women star in the Olympics - without that funding those stars would have left the sport to earn a living.

The results of lottery funding speak for themselves over the last twenty years since the funding started
 
pauldj42 said:
We've moved from the days of our Olympic sportsmen mainly coming from middle and uppee class backgrounds as they were the only ones who had the financial backing to compete or partake in most of those sports.
Little Jonny must already have some Tennis ability for sponsors to be looking because I'm sure they don't drive around the streets looking for kids good with a stick and a stone

Have you asked your American neighbour about the facilities and opportunities she was afforded in her youth to get to that level?

The Italian, is he any different to Justin Rose?

Are you seriously suggesting without all the investment in Sport we would produce the same results at Olympic
I am suggesting it is only sport and those that are good enough will find a way to make it and those that cannot attract their own funding will fail. I prefer this system, produces harder competitors in the end and really i do not really care if we win 4 or 6 sailing medals or 2 or 5 cycling golds and if you are honest, neither do you.

If so, why are only now producing our best results?
Correlation is not causation

The Olmpic motto is about taking part more than winning and if our investment inspires others to take part and hope for a brighter future then yes it's worth every penny.[/Q
If TAKING part is the thing, sure use every penny to get the maximum number of people to TAKE PART, i.e. get the fatties of the couch and down to a sports centre free of charge, i prefer this BY A MILE



Is the Italian different to Justin Rose? You will have to ask a clearer question, the obvious answer would be yes
Click to expand...
 
And here was me thinking the Olympics are all about the taking part and not chasing medals. Lets cut funding from one sport as it not thought they will medal at the next olympics...what sort of message does this send to children who want to play badminton for example...£5mill cut to nada...

Crazy system and one that chases medal chances over participation and parity.
 
351DRIVER said:
pauldj42 said:
We've moved from the days of our Olympic sportsmen mainly coming from middle and uppee class backgrounds as they were the only ones who had the financial backing to compete or partake in most of those sports.
Little Jonny must already have some Tennis ability for sponsors to be looking because I'm sure they don't drive around the streets looking for kids good with a stick and a stone

Have you asked your American neighbour about the facilities and opportunities she was afforded in her youth to get to that level?

The Italian, is he any different to Justin Rose?

Are you seriously suggesting without all the investment in Sport we would produce the same results at Olympic
I am suggesting it is only sport and those that are good enough will find a way to make it and those that cannot attract their own funding will fail. I prefer this system, produces harder competitors in the end and really i do not really care if we win 4 or 6 sailing medals or 2 or 5 cycling golds and if you are honest, neither do you.

If so, why are only now producing our best results?
Correlation is not causation

The Olmpic motto is about taking part more than winning and if our investment inspires others to take part and hope for a brighter future then yes it's worth every penny.[/Q
If TAKING part is the thing, sure use every penny to get the maximum number of people to TAKE PART, i.e. get the fatties of the couch and down to a sports centre free of charge, i prefer this BY A MILE



Is the Italian different to Justin Rose? You will have to ask a clearer question, the obvious answer would be yes
Click to expand...
All the Lottery funding comes with a clause that some of it must be invested at grass roots, ie getting the fatties off the couch.

How many times have we heard anout kids inspired by the teacher to try a sport, all sport is now available to all, Sailing was poshies only, not anymore, Equestrian the same and so on and so on.

You brought up the italian and his "only got a tracksuit" that's what Justin Rose got, no other support, just a uniform, so without knowing who the italian is, how am I expected to know if he's a professional sportsman or an unemployed skiiver?
Click to expand...
 
Farneyman said:
And here was me thinking the Olympics are all about the taking part and not chasing medals. Lets cut funding from one sport as it not thought they will medal at the next olympics...what sort of message does this send to children who want to play badminton for example...£5mill cut to nada...

Crazy system and one that chases medal chances over participation and parity.
Click to expand...
Part of the funding is the sport justifying how the money will be spent and if badminton can't justify it, then they need to get a grip, they still get funding, just not the extra for focussing on the Athletes, maybe a better question would be to the badminton authorities asking them to justify why they've failed to increase standards and participation levels over the years they have received millions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Billysboots
Does positive thinking help combat illness?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
8K
Hobbit
Hobbit
Wildrover
DJ & The Olympics
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
sunshine
S
U
Rory - Olympics
Replies
15
Views
2K
snell
S
Hacker Khan
Spoty 2016
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
13K
MegaSteve
MegaSteve
W
Golf in 2015: 10 key questions
Replies
8
Views
2K
HomerJSimpson
HomerJSimpson
Top