Lottery Funding for Athletes...

spen666

Was listening to the BMX rider on the lottery programme on Saturday night ( Not going to mis spell her name!)

She was asked about lottery funding to her. clearly it has helped our athletes better themselves. Many of those who benefit from lottery funding go onto become very rich at their sport as a result partly of the funding they received, and partly due to their very hard work.

Lottery funded athletes do not have to repay their funding out of future earning. AFAIK


Now contrast that with students in higher education, who have to repay ( with interest) the funding they receive to help better themselves.

Why are athletes not required to repay the funding when students are?


PS I am not a student
PPS I have never had to repay government funding given as a student
PPPS I am not intending to be a student

I therefore have no axe to grind on behalf of students

prawny

It's not all athletes though, you have to be good enough to get something.

You couldn't just get a grant so you could be BMXer for 3 years instead of getting a job in tescos

always_tyred

Student's don't pay for the costs of their courses. They have to pay a contribution, but its the tip of the iceberg for subjects such as medicine, engineering, the sciences. As a proportion of the overall cost of providing the university education, tuition fees are a token gesture.

For that reason, given the statistical likelihood of earning more as a result of having a degree is quite similar to the above argument for athletes, albeit less extreme in many cases.

Of course, you presuppose that athletes can earn money from their sport. With the exception of a small number of athletes taken to the country's heart, most of these athletes will never earn a living from competition. Most of the track cyclists and rowers, and sailors, judo players, badminton players and boxers will have to get a job when they stop competing.

Interesting factoid - do you know which company employs more olympians than any other?

Wallmart.

Don't be churlish about lottery funding.

schlepcycling

Is it something to do with the fact that student funding comes out of taxes which we all have to pay but the athletes are lottery funded which is voluntary....just a thought.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

....
Don't be churlish about lottery funding.

What is churlish about asking why those who get funding in one situation have to pay it back, but another select group don't?

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

....
Don't be churlish about lottery funding.

What is churlish about asking why those who get funding in one situation have to pay it back, but another select group don't?

The premise is that students DON'T repay the cost of their education, to a significant extent.

A counter agument to the point regarding lottery vs. tax - who buys most lottery tickets?

snig

I agree ,very good question,as the 2012 games (london games we are meant to call them even tho all the country pay towards them) get nearer,how many billions are they spending? to much if you ask me,so why cant the rich athletes pay back once they have earned over a certain amount,then that money can be put back into sports,seems fair so we never happen.

neil_sheehan2000

snig wrote:

so why cant the rich athletes pay back once they have earned over a certain amount,then that money can be put back into sports,seems fair so we never happen.

But a successful athlete can give more back to a sport than just money. How does the old saying go? "Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day; but convince children to ride brakeless bikes around a wooden track whilst eating bowls of cereal and you will nip the obesity epidemic in the bud." Or something- I'm paraphrasing a bit.

snig

neil_sheehan2000 wrote:

snig wrote:

so why cant the rich athletes pay back once they have earned over a certain amount,then that money can be put back into sports,seems fair so we never happen.

But a successful athlete can give more back to a sport than just money. How does the old saying go? "Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day; but convince children to ride brakeless bikes around a wooden track whilst eating bowls of cereal and you will nip the obesity epidemic in the bud." Or something- I'm paraphrasing a bit.

a doctor, barrister etc all give back more than money,but they still pay back their fees,if you can afford it why not,remember a % of the athletes at the 2012 games will have more money than most of us here will ever see but they will in some way be funded by the tax payer at 2012,it just seems not right to me,I think more money should be spent, if it is going to be spent at the lower levels of sport,my local baths have just been closed,yet my council tax has just increased!

neil_sheehan2000

@ snig: Yeah, you're not wrong. I was being a bit flippant really. Goodness knows how much council tax would be/ how poor local sporting facilities would be if it wasn't for lottery funding though. Although, arguably, people might have slightly more money anyway if it wasn't for the lottery. Karma forbids me from wishing that lottery money should be like the student loan for athletes though- deducting a bit from their earnings or whatever once they get past a certain threshold.

I mean, my student loan repayments don't bother me in the slightest because I'm never going to pay it back, but I wouldn't want to make anyone else get involved in a system where the interest you get charged is more than what you actually pay back, therefore spending the rest of your life in an increasing spiral of debt, with the almost certain knowledge that the interest rates will just keep going up and up. (And I'm not even on a bad wage).

A mate of mine actually works for the Big Lottery Fund- every time he spends any money at all I tell him he's frittering away people's dreams. I think he's starting to get tired of it, to be honest.

always_tyred

snig wrote:

neil_sheehan2000 wrote:

snig wrote:

so why cant the rich athletes pay back once they have earned over a certain amount,then that money can be put back into sports,seems fair so we never happen.

But a successful athlete can give more back to a sport than just money. How does the old saying go? "Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day; but convince children to ride brakeless bikes around a wooden track whilst eating bowls of cereal and you will nip the obesity epidemic in the bud." Or something- I'm paraphrasing a bit.

a doctor, barrister etc all give back more than money,but they still pay back their fees,if you can afford it why not,remember a % of the athletes at the 2012 games will have more money than most of us here will ever see but they will in some way be funded by the tax payer at 2012,it just seems not right to me,I think more money should be spent, if it is going to be spent at the lower levels of sport,my local baths have just been closed,yet my council tax has just increased!

If you were to calculate the full cost of a medical degree for a year, it would be many tens of thousands of pounds. For example, if a postdoc costs a university about £80k a year (not their actual salary, that includes o/h's) then medical doctor would cost them at least £150k, likely rather more.

So, if they get 15 hours a week for 30 weeks of the year, at a cost of, lets say £200k for a man year, you are already near £50k. Then add the teaching facilities, technician support, etc....I recall that for a science degree about 15 years ago, £10-£15k was the cost that was generally understood. That predated universities actually bothering to caluclate what it cost them to provide and maintain the facilities, the libraries and so on. Given that this has at least tripled the "cost" of staff, I'd estimate that you could easily double that for the back of the envelope approximatiguess.

So, about £70-80k a year to train a doctor.

What are tuition fees at the mo? About £3.5k p/a? Come one, a medic, scientist or engineer isn't reimbursing the state for their education. Even a clerical pursuit such as law still requires the cost of the teaching staff so at best students are paying between 5-10% of their education back.

For info - I worked in university funding for a while. Aside from the guesstimates and speculation, this is all factual.

snig

Always Tyred wrote:

snig wrote:

neil_sheehan2000 wrote:

snig wrote:

so why cant the rich athletes pay back once they have earned over a certain amount,then that money can be put back into sports,seems fair so we never happen.

But a successful athlete can give more back to a sport than just money. How does the old saying go? "Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day; but convince children to ride brakeless bikes around a wooden track whilst eating bowls of cereal and you will nip the obesity epidemic in the bud." Or something- I'm paraphrasing a bit.

a doctor, barrister etc all give back more than money,but they still pay back their fees,if you can afford it why not,remember a % of the athletes at the 2012 games will have more money than most of us here will ever see but they will in some way be funded by the tax payer at 2012,it just seems not right to me,I think more money should be spent, if it is going to be spent at the lower levels of sport,my local baths have just been closed,yet my council tax has just increased!

If you were to calculate the full cost of a medical degree for a year, it would be many tens of thousands of pounds. For example, if a postdoc costs a university about £80k a year (not their actual salary, actually) then medical doctor would cost them at least £150k (the overheads are about the same, the salaries aren't).

So, if they get 15 hours a week for 30 weeks of the year, at a cost of, lets say £200k for a man year, you are already near £50k. Then add the teaching facilities, technician support, etc....I recall that for a science degree about 15 years ago, £10-£15k was the cost that was generally understood. That predated universities actually bothering to caluclate what it cost them to provide and maintain the facilities, the libraries and so on. Given that this has at least tripled the "cost" of staff, I'd estimate that you could easily double that for the back of the envelope approximatiguess.

So, about £80k a year to train a doctor.

What are tuition fees at the mo? About £3.5k p/a? Come one, a medic, scientist or engineer isn't reimbursing the state for their education. Even a clerical pursuit such as law still requires the cost of the teaching staff so at best students are paying between 5-10% of their education back.

For info - I worked in university funding for a while.

we all know that the fees that students pay do not cover the costs,sorry to break that to you after that detailed post but even if they only pay back 10p it's still something! thats the point I'm making, if it wasn't that clear,if students pay back next to nothing to cover their costs,let others that can afford it pay back the same "next to nothing" amount rather than just nothing!

always_tyred

snig wrote:

we all know that the fees that students pay do not cover the costs,sorry to break that to you after that detailed post but even if they only pay back 10p it's still something! thats the point I'm making, if it wasn't that clear,if students pay back next to nothing to cover their costs,let others that can afford it pay back the same "next to nothing" amount rather than just nothing!

No, it was clearly nonsense - if its next to nothing what are you on about? This is like a debate about your right to have a baby - but you are a man - yes, but you should have the right.

Here are some other thigns to ponder -

- by and large, the sports which are professional, such as tennis and road cycling, don't fund their athletes using lottery money.
- athletes are sacrificing prime working years whilst being funded, students are not
- funded athletes are at the very top of their sport, either nationally or internationally. Sudents who are funded more than 95% of their education need not be.
- a few hundred athletes are funded, a few hundred thousand students are funded
- students are funded as of right, athletes are not (they have to be amongst the best to qualify)

So, how about we compare students on scholarship with athletes. Do students have to repay scholarships? No. Why should athletes?

snig

Always Tyred wrote:

snig wrote:

we all know that the fees that students pay do not cover the costs,sorry to break that to you after that detailed post but even if they only pay back 10p it's still something! thats the point I'm making, if it wasn't that clear,if students pay back next to nothing to cover their costs,let others that can afford it pay back the same "next to nothing" amount rather than just nothing!

No, it was clearly nonsense - if its next to nothing what are you on about? This is like a debate about your right to have a baby - but you are a man - yes, but you should have the right.

Here are some other thigns to ponder -

- by and large, the sports which are professional, such as tennis and road cycling, don't fund their athletes using lottery money.
- athletes are sacrificing prime working years whilst being funded, students are not
- funded athletes are at the very top of their sport, either nationally or internationally. Sudents who are funded more than 95% of their education need not be.
- a few hundred athletes are funded, a few hundred thousand students are funded
- students are funded as of right, athletes are not (they have to be amongst the best to qualify)

So, how about we compare students on scholarship with athletes. Do students have to repay scholarships? No. Why should athletes?

you seem not to be able to get the grasp of my argument! it was your comment that students dont pay anywhere near the full costs of their schooling,that is why i said well if they pay "next to nothing" let the athletes pay next to nothing,


OK YOUR LIST OF POINTS
1 let those that DO get funding pay back that is what I have said all along
2if their "sacrifice" as you put it rewards them in ££££ then pay some of the funding back if not dont pay back.
3"funded athletes are at the very top of their sport, either nationally or internationally"and? this means we tax payers/lottery (remember lottery was first ment for charity)should pay for them to be setup for life(only talking about those that are not those that aren't)
4" a few hundred athletes are funded" I think you will find its in the thousands but remember I'm only talking about those that can AFFORD it.so your saying its just a few people so lets just forget it?
5"students are funded as of right, athletes are not (they have to be amongst the best to qualify)
and by this you mean? so just because an athlete is good we/lottery pay for them to get rich! and students have the option of scholaships for the best but I still dont see your point here? alot of scholaships are funded by private people those that are not,yes lets look into that as well but my thinking is that all education should be free.to me sport is alot differant,when funds for health sevices,schools,etc are being cut but billions are found for 2 weeks of games and lottery money is being taken away from charities then asking sports stars that have been made very rich out of grants,why not pay some back,is that so wrong?I've still yet to heard from you why you so strongly disagree?

always_tyred

How do you propose to determine who has to pay it back and who doesn't?

Quite a few athletes compete in sports which receive lottery funding, and thereby benefit from funding. I honestly don't know how many are actually funded so that they do not have to work, but the numbers are comparatively tiny.

I understand your point, as far as it goes. I can't see the benefit in contructing the mechanisms by which repayment is assessed and organised, for the small number of athletes who go on to make a living from their sport, as compared to the far larger proportion who don't.

Athletes are inspirations and entertainers. Successful UK athletes inspire the rest of the population to take up sports. Without athletes competing in sports like rowing and cycling at the top level , these sports would virtually die out and the cost to the country in having an even less active population would greatly outweigh the modest lottery funding they receive.

The requirement to repay "loans" made under the lotter system would disuade some promising athletes from continuing in the sport, using the same arguments as are applied to tuition fees.

Students get a uni placement if they reach mediocrity. Beyond this modest threshold of achievement, it is a question of which university they go to, but the funding level is immaterial. The very best apply for and might get certain scholarships.

By contrast, a mediocre athlete gets nothing. Instead, an athlete has to risk a career and forsake a social life before even being in the running for funding. Given the comparative difficulties in obtaining the two sources of funding, I do not think the comparison between lottery funding of athletes and a student doing a hotel management degree (at their union bar) is in the least helpful, fair or accurate.

Students' educations are paid from taxes, which are not optional on the part of those elibible to pay for them. Athletes' lottery funding comes from playing a game and is entirely at the option of the people playing the lottery. Thus, as a result of being British and earning a wage, I must contrinute to education. Whereas, if I chose to buy a lottery ticket, I do so in the knowledge that the lottery money will go in part to prize money so that someone can get themselves an M3, in part to charities, in proportions that I cannot influence, and in part to fund sport. If I disagree, I could alternatively head for my local Ladbrooks, or play online poker, or simply donate to the charities of my choice. the funding sources are therefore vastly different.

For these reasons, I thought I'd try to compare, for example, a student who had achieved an exceptionally high level and received a scholarship of some sort, and an athlete who had achived an exceptionally high level and received lottery funding. These two groups appear to be more comparable, both potentially (but need not) financially benefit from the monies in the longer term, and neither are or should be made to repay any portion.

I don't "not comprehend" your argument, I just regard it as ill thought out and very weak.

snig

mate am going to try and keep this short as we two are not going to agree here,and as yet I'm glad we have not deteriorated into a slanging match which is very rare so cheers for that!

I have seemed to have got myself into the sitution of trying to justify my argument by comparing studemts v athletes, comparing one thing to justify another can go too far,if an argument can stand up on its own there is no need for comparision,the bottom line is I would love sport to be fully funded but life is not like that,the money has to come from somewhere and if its from my taxes I have to have a say in that,like I said before my local baths has just been closed but my council tax has increased yet again,it seems that our money is being spent on "good" courses yet the tax payer is finding it harder to make ends meet all the time,the goverment has seemed to have forgotten whos money they are spending! if they came around my house shaking a tin at least I would have a choice but as is,it is me/us paying for others to have things that in my town has just been taken away....but I was going to keep this short so will stop now,cheers for the friedly debate.

always_tyred

snig wrote:

mate am going to try and keep this short as we two are not going to agree here,and as yet I'm glad we have not deteriorated into a slanging match which is very rare so cheers for that!

I have seemed to have got myself into the sitution of trying to justify my argument by comparing studemts v athletes, comparing one thing to justify anther can go to far,if a argument can stand up on its own there is no need for comparision,the bottom line is I would love sport to be fully funded but life is not like that,the money has to come from somewhere and if its from my taxes I have to have a say in that,like I said before my local baths has just been closed but my council tax has increased yet again,it seems that our money is being spent on "good" courses yet the tax payer is finding it hard to make ends meet all the time,the goverment has seemed to have forgot whos money they are spending! if they came around my house shaking a tin at least I would have a choice but as is,it is me/us paying for others to have things that in my town has just been taken away but.... I was going to keep this short as will stop now,cheers for the friedly debate.

Understood. The whole higher education debate is serously non cycling related!!
Let alone council tax.

Eau Rouge

snig wrote:

remember a % of the athletes at the 2012 games will have more money than most of us here will ever see but they will in some way be funded by the tax payer at 2012,

Isn't this the crux of your argument? Is it actually true though? Are the athletes that are Lottery funded the same as the ones who are earning a lot of money directly from their olympic sport. My mind has gone blank, I can't think of any.

snig

Eau Rouge wrote:

snig wrote:

remember a % of the athletes at the 2012 games will have more money than most of us here will ever see but they will in some way be funded by the tax payer at 2012,

Isn't this the crux of your argument? Is it actually true though? Are the athletes that are Lottery funded the same as the ones who are earning a lot of money directly from their olympic sport. My mind has gone blank, I can't think of any.

the crux of my argument is if you get any public funding and can in the furture pay it back so it can go to others or back to public funds then why not? be that olymics or any other funding,and you cant think of any sports people that have received funding for their sport!! and are not able to pay that back! I dont think it will be fair to name names but I would say most if not all the top sports people have had funding in the past.

Eau Rouge

snig wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

snig wrote:

remember a % of the athletes at the 2012 games will have more money than most of us here will ever see but they will in some way be funded by the tax payer at 2012,

Isn't this the crux of your argument? Is it actually true though? Are the athletes that are Lottery funded the same as the ones who are earning a lot of money directly from their olympic sport. My mind has gone blank, I can't think of any.

the crux of my argument is if you get any public funding and can in the furture pay it back so it can go to others or back to public funds then why not? be that olymics or any other funding,and you cant think of any sports people that have received funding for their sport!! and are not able to pay that back! I dont think it will be fair to name names but I would say most if not all the top sports people have had funding in the past.

Footballers, rugby players, cricketers, I can't see those guys being lottery funded as individuals. The cyclists aren't, road cycling is where the money is, yet road cycling isn't funded in the UK (ask Dan Martin). Athletics is funded, but track and field athletes in the UK are not wealthy. I must be missing someone.

Capo

Blimey.

I can't think of any other country where this would even be a topic of discussion :roll:

Take the US - their top athletes in their formative years are funded to go to university as sportsmen (and if they manage to squeeze a degree in too, fair play).

Eau Rouge

Capo wrote:

Blimey.

I can't think of any other country where this would even be a topic of discussion :roll:

Take the US - their top athletes in their formative years are funded to go to university as sportsmen (and if they manage to squeeze a degree in too, fair play).

Funded by the (private) universities, for the explicit purpose of selling tickets to fans to come and watch them play, selling the rights to those games to TV and advertisers, and making a lot of money for the university to plow into it's other departments.

snig

but track and field athletes in the UK are not wealthy. I must be missing someone

lol that has to be the funniest thing I have read! these are some of the best paid sports people!(remember I'm talking about those that are well paid and yes all are not but JUST those that are)

anyway thats my last post on this tread as,its just going around in circles now.

always_tyred

snig wrote:

but track and field athletes in the UK are not wealthy. I must be missing someone

lol that has to be the funniest thing I have read! these are some of the best paid sports people!(remember I'm talking about those that are well paid and yes all are not but JUST those that are)

anyway thats my last post on this tread as,its just going around in circles now.

I don't think your average 5000m runner gets a great deal out of the sport. Maybe a few top top sprinters worldwide can, but there is very little trickle down, I would guess.

The post regarding US universities - there ARE a lot of sports scholarships, and not only in the sports which earn the university money (although, I confess that its not clear if the sports which earn the university money generate a general fund that gets used for all sports).

The draft/frachise system in US pro sports effectively renders university sports like our lower professional leagues, so far as being a source of tallent. This in turn makes them high profile and profitable. It works well, although you have to bear in mind that for the most part all popular US sports are a closed market - US, Canada and the odd Cuban, if they are a strong swimmer.