Is National sports funding Counterintuitive?

tim_wand

Is it right that the funding of National sporting bodies and the athletes within those sports should receive funding and support dependent on how many medals were realised within that sport at the last olympics?

Whilst I applaud additional monies being given to Cyclists, Boxers and Track and Field athletes as a result of successes within these sports. Is it fair or beneficial that funding to Swimming and Badminton should be cut due to a below predicted medal haul at the olympics.

Surely it is evidence that these sports need more support or at least a thorough review of development strategy.

Is it also fair that potential Uk athletes at Rio 2016 receive less support due to the failings of their predecessors at London 2012, in how many cases are we likely to be talking about the same athletes or coaches.

tiredofwhiners

tim wand wrote:

Is it right that the funding of National sporting bodies and the athletes within those sports should receive funding and support dependent on how many medals were realised within that sport at the last olympics?

Yes, its called payment for performance and works very well in most walks of life. Since it was introduced, the UK has done very well in improving its medal tally.

The money is being given to the training system, and so if the training system fails, its not sensible to keep feeding a failing system money. Better to give it to tiddlywinks if it will deliver on medals, than those which don't. There is nothing to stop good athletes of tomorrow getting sponsorship for future events if they are that good.

Swimming will now have ' a thorough review of development strategy.' and after which, it has a chance of earning its money back, but simply pouring money into failed sports is no way to run a national sports regime. After all, its the sports who came up with the targets in terms of 'give me £X and we will win Y medals' and failed.

rolf_f

tiredofwhiners wrote:

Yes, its called payment for performance and works very well in most walks of life.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it is fairly well known that performance related pay works pretty badly in most walks of life.

The problem here is that whether or not swimming has a review of it's development strategy, unless that comes with funding they'll still be being fined long term for one poor session. Any review would only be worth undertaking if it was followed up by funding - and that funding would need to be not based on performance.

On the other hand, merely chucking more money at, for example, the cycling may just end up with diminishing returns; I can't see more money would have made the Team GB cyclists performance this summer any better than it was.

Cleat Eastwood

So much for the legacy

There wasnt an olympic sport that wasnt enthusiastically endorsed by the public - why not build on that - ask what the expectations are of kids now who will hopefully have a chance to compete in 8,12, or however many years time.

Once again though it'll be left to small clubs and dedicated amateurs giving up their own time to teach and to inspire - then again did anyone really believe the tory coe. :roll:

tiredofwhiners

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

So much for the legacy

Yes its great - a world class set of facilities in a deprived area of London, money being spent on areas that will bring success rather than wasting it on activities which will never gain any publicity and hence increase participation - who is going to take up Handball if it never gets any publicity because Team GB are big time losers. Success begets success and putting money into sports which result in success, will get more into sports.

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

There wasnt an olympic sport that wasnt enthusiastically endorsed by the public - why not build on that - ask what the expectations are of kids now who will hopefully have a chance to compete in 8,12, or however many years time.

It was the home olympics - people would have watched organised snail racing if it was on, but would they have decided to take it up as a sport ? No. Asking kids today what they want to do would just get you 'XBox Call of Duty Champion'.

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Once again though it'll be left to small clubs and dedicated amateurs giving up their own time to teach and to inspire - then again did anyone really believe the tory coe. :roll:

Funny, I thought the whole policy and legacy approach was put in Labour. Simple truth - a lot of money was spent on sports for which Team GB were never good enough to qualify, and were only allowed in due to the home position. They aren't good enough and will still be getting money, but as we the public like to see Gold medals and not just participation, we shouldn't waste money on coming last.

Legacy never meant a bottomless pit of cash for sports that we are cr@p at, just because someone wants to do it.