Olympics 2024
Comments
-
The OGs happen regardless of how much funding there is for elite sport in the UK. So the value from the elite funding comes from watching GB success rather than the OGs per se. Much as I like "Team GB" dishing it out, the impact is no more than a short-term sugar rush for me. Back in the day when GB barely won any medals, I just supported people with names that I liked, or as my teens progressed, people who "presented well" in their skimpy kit and / or those who were likely to beat the Russians and East Germans, particularly those with dodgy 'taches.
Even just a handful of days after it all finished, it all seems largely irrelevant now. My youngest, who was heavily investing in watching the coverage dawn to dusk has "moved on" and is now in "Taylor Swift Concert" mode!
0 -
Not hung up on sailing particularly. Christ, I like rowing and cycling.
In answer to your question, is there any data to show that elite sport success has a significant effect on grass roots participation? I suspect there are temporary bumps, but that the overall number of people in the UK who participate in sports has remained broadly the same before/after lottery funding, the premier league etc.
I actually think the main thing it does is increase the number of people who watch sport, whereas grassroots participation is improved by cost and availability of facilities. Perhaps there's a line between facilities and elite sport, I don't know, or know whicj one is the chicken and which one is the egg.
0 -
I think I would prefer the money was spent on participation rather than gold medals. I know the theory is that gold medals lead to participation, but I'm sceptical.
0 -
Given the lack of coverage of almost all sports other than football by the likes of the BBC, then surely it is a reasonable assumption that seeing a large variety of minority sports on the TV during the Olympics is likely to increase participation in those sports at grassroots level as people (particularly kids) are exposed to them for the first time.
Yes it is likely to result in a participation bulge in the next couple of months and then levels drop off, but some will stick.
0 -
There must surely be an FT data analysis tweet for this?
The thing that jumps out at me, is "reasonable assumption".
Didn't used to be the case that we were quite so football dominated. I grew up watching some batchit crazy stuff on World of Sport, Trans World Sport and then Eurosport.
We aren't blessed with many fat wrestlers or a big talent pool of speak takraw players are we?
Even for football, does the increase in money and exposure correlate to increased grass roots participation? That's your exemplar right there, so if it doesn't work for the most popular and richest sport, why would it work for kite surfing?
0 -
Enjoying elite sport is one of the universal pleasures of human society. Every society has their own version of it. That’s the joy of the Olympics; the universal pleasure in sporting competition.
Why must it be sacrificed at the alter of parsimony (cost of hosting) and socialism (participation over elite sport)
0 -
What the heck are you talking about?
0 -
Without participation at grass roots levels in the young age groups, there will be no elite sportsfolk in the future. No-one knows which talented kids will make it to the top, so you should make the participation base (i.e. junior / grassroots) as wide as you can, to increase the chances of "the one" walking in through the door.
I don't know about other sports, but in the swim world, the majority of top GB swimmers come from families with no history of swimming. They just went through lessons and entry-level racing and demonstrated a talent that could be nurtured. So the more lesson programmes and basic race training opportunities there are, the more chance there is of finding the "Next Adam Peaty" etc, as well as providing more opportunities to the 99.99% (likely higher) of sporty kids that don't get to the elite level.
0 -
Maybe football is at saturation point. I'd hazard that participation levels in junior football are a lot higher than they were 25 years ago.
0 -
I’d suggest that the legacy of the games regarding activity and getting off the couch lasts in the region of a fortnight.
Much like Wimbledon and tennis.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Participation usually requires facilities which are often not widely available. Some sports are easy for anyone to do e.g. running, but many of the ones shown need clubs, coaches and facilities. These rarely have spare capacity, so struggle to cope with an Olympic rush.
To give a few examples:
- One of my kids used to do fencing, but the coach moved away so it ended
- I wanted to play handball, but the logistics of hiring somewhere and organising enough friends made it too hard. The few clubs that exist are usually for competent players who have moved to the UK
- I could never do BMXing due to the lack of a park (and the need to buy a BMX)
Of course, there are some sports such as rowing that are set up to receive beginners... if you live near a river/lake.
0 -
There must be solar system based games in the Universe, imagine hosting that.
0 -
Well, some of the National Lottery money also goes to grassroots facilities.
I know that they also do talent scouting and stuff, which is presumably where some of the funding is spent - I know some of the rowers and cyclists were identified that way (I guess they basically made a bunch of kids do VO2 testing).
I also think that given this has now happened over a number of Olympic cycles (starting 2008) it's not a reasonable assumption that it's a flash in the pan and we are going to somehow stop identifying new athletes for the next Games (and the one after etc), unless there's a significant change in funding.
0 -
I dont think the elite performance levels are a flash in the pan, but you've not said anything to support that there is any resulting increase in grassroots participation.
If you think the elite performance outcomes are an end in themselves and the cost acceptable, that's fine. I'm not sure I sure disagree (except to the extent perhaps that it artificially sustains sports that Team GB have identified as an opportunity to game the medals table).
0 -
Regardless of medals, I don't think sailing should receive as much funding from sport uk as athletics.
0 -
-
1. Sailing is a shit sport.
2. The funding is going to a few people to try to get a medal in their expensive hobby rather than loads of people.
3. Athletics is better.
Maybe if they only had those cheapish boats/boards it might be a better sport.
0 -
Quite!
I'm 59 and have played rugby all life since I was 11 (mainly in the Midlands but also further afield and over seas).God willing, I'll be playing again in the forthcoming season. I have played with and against ,way more plumbers, builders, postmen, salesman, undertakers, chippies, chefs, miners, lorry drivers, labourers etc etc than I have against people who do the the typical "posh jobs" (For a bit of balance, I have played with a couple of doctors and even an MP but they are very much in the minority of rugby players in my experience).
I could take you to dozens of clubs in my area and you would quickly realise that they are anything but "posh kids"
It is a stereotype that is as tiresome as it is inaccurate.
Wilier Izoard XP1 -
1) your opinion
2) elite sport funding is for elite sport, what difference does it make what sport
3) your opinion - sailors’ wages in the America’s Cup begs to differ (top sailors will command a few mill per year, let alone the prices boat designers charge)
4) you’re confusing elite sport with participation, where, if your concern is that it’s an elitist participation sport, then there’s MORE reason to fund it to make it more easily available.
0 -
A medal in athletics is worth infinitely more than a medal in sailing.
That's the key point.
0 -
I think the sport is important. It'd be silly to shove tons of money into modern pentathlon.
0 -
-
Quite, if someone said "I'm a bronze medallist " it would be very impressive regardless of the sport, but slightly less if it was men's beach volleyball than if it was javelin.
0 -
Who mentioned the medal table?
0 -
I support your conclusion, but your workings need a bit more work.
1 -
Dinghy sailing really isn't an expensive sport, certainly no moreso than golf, cycling, or most equipment based sports, and proably cheaper than the 2 I have mentioned.
You seem to be confusing the sailing that takes place at the Olympics with yacht racing which is completely different other than the skills are transferable.
1 -
That's entirely possible as I didn't watch much of it due to point 1.
0 -
Sailing is an excellent sport. Very tactical racing, and certain boats can be extremely physical taxing.
0 -
The medal table is surely just a talking point and / or ammunition for domestic political "willy waving". It's not like the winner of the medal tables controls shipping rights in the Suez Canal for the next 4 years, or anything else of any importance.
The funded sports within the Team GB campaign are assessed sport-by-sport, based on medals achieved vs expectations, and an underperforming sport won't be saved by a good overall performance on the medal table.
0 -
Why do the handful of competitors need so much funding then?
0
