Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PC

UK Sport Funding

18 posts in this topic

And here's me thinking 2012 was supposed to leave a legacy.

Yeah, right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's me thinking 2012 was supposed to leave a legacy.

Yeah, right.

The amount of money was always going to go down - remember that it's linked to performance, hence why cycling and triathlon's funding has gone up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass participation sports and/or sports that are genuinely globally popular but still only have 1-2 medals available at the Olympics will always struggle against the UK Sport criteria. Its brilliant for mainly individual sports which not everybody plays, which require technical investment and for which there are multiple medals available.

They also have to be Olympic sports of course - because merely being a world champion doesn't hit UK Sport criteria.

It's a very narrow, tediously technical and joylessly jingoistic approach which means that we give £7m to modern pentathlon because nobody else is likely to match that level of investment so a target of 1-2 medals is achievable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass participation sports and/or sports that are genuinely globally popular but still only have 1-2 medals available at the Olympics will always struggle against the UK Sport criteria. Its brilliant for mainly individual sports which not everybody plays, which require technical investment and for which there are multiple medals available.

They also have to be Olympic sports of course - because merely being a world champion doesn't hit UK Sport criteria.

It's a very narrow, tediously technical and joylessly jingoistic approach which means that we give £7m to modern pentathlon because nobody else is likely to match that level of investment so a target of 1-2 medals is achievable.

In short - the dosh is more likely to go to a sport played at Eton College than any Comprehensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on - to the extent that that Slough Comprehensive does not exist. In fact, the nickname for Eton is.... Slough Comprehensive!

Anyway, as an anti-elitist I'd have thought you'd be against the whole concept of taxpayer funding of elites.

A total of £276.4 million has been invested in Olympic sports for the Rio cycle, representing a 5% increase in investment from the London cycle. The funded sports are: Archery, Athletics, Badminton, Boxing*, Canoeing, Cycling, Diving, Equestrian, Fencing*, Gymnastics, Hockey (men and women), Judo*, Modern Pentathlon, Rowing, Sailing, Shooting, Swimming*, Synchronised Swimming, Taekwondo, Triathlon, Volleyball (women’s beach only)**, Water Polo (women only), Weightlifting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, as an anti-elitist I'd have thought you'd be against the whole concept of taxpayer funding of elites.

I am in favour of sport for all.

I am against elites based upon privilege perpetuated by inherited wealth, position and title. Which is then further enhanced by charitable status and the public funding of their sport, cultural and leisure activities to the exclusion of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to the exclusion of others.

who is excluding whom from what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boxing gets an increase? Typical toff's looking after their own...

Boxing and Taekwondo get increases in defiance of UK Sport's criteria about being well-run. In the former case Britain produces so many amateur boxers that a bit of investment in coaching should see more medals than we generated last time out - plus it fits the criteria of their being lots of medals available so many, many chances for podiuming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in favour of sport for all.

I am against elites based upon privilege perpetuated by inherited wealth, position and title. Which is then further enhanced by charitable status and the public funding of their sport, cultural and leisure activities to the exclusion of others.

Which of those sports are played exclusively by these outdated imaginary notions of elite groups?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boxing and Taekwondo get increases in defiance of UK Sport's criteria about being well-run. In the former case Britain produces so many amateur boxers that a bit of investment in coaching should see more medals than we generated last time out - plus it fits the criteria of their being lots of medals available so many, many chances for podiuming.

GB sent only 10 or 11 boxers to the 2012 Olympics, and came away with (IIRC) five medals. That's a very good return, and I'd expect more boxers and medals at Rio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have sympathy for sports that have seen cuts, but everyone knew the process. Hockey and others have had to suck it up in years past and they have come back stronger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hockey and others have had to suck it up in years past and they have come back stronger.

Gymnastics, for one. And now, in 2012, it has never been stronger in the entire history of the sport.

You have to take the right attitude to such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which of those sports are played exclusively by these outdated imaginary notions of elite groups?

handball? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have sympathy for sports that have seen cuts, but everyone knew the process. Hockey and others have had to suck it up in years past and they have come back stronger.

This is a genuine question as I don't know the answer: how hard is it for Great Britain to qualify for the Olympics in hockey? Is it pretty much guaranteed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally it is the top three in the Euro Hockey Nations Tournament which is played in every odd numbered year. Given that the four teams contesting the medal games tend to be Germany, Netherlands, England and Spain, that in effect is a 75% chance of automatic qualification. There is then a fallback position of winning a qualifying tournament for one of the remaining Olympics places, which is how England earned their place for Beijing. Their only notable opponents being India who were defeated in the last minute of the key clash in the group, thus setting up a final which England again won. Thus in order for GB NOT to qualify, England would have to play poorly in two tournaments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did football get more money? Are they a bit short of players and publicity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did football get more money? Are they a bit short of players and publicity?

I suppose pro-rata, footballs £30m isnt much considering the extent of the grassroots footballing structure and number of players they have, but on the other hand any child wanting to play has pretty easy access to a ball and a pitch anywhere in the country. And football is a cheap sport to stage a game

If this funding is for elite then it can surely only be for the centre of excellence they opened recently, or else what will tehy be spending it on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017