If we're no good at it, spend less money on it - is this the right approach?
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d098adade16c3d8e78d1b22a446bfef7.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 8 Forum Member
My understanding is that those UK sports that didn't reach targets will now receive less funding, and will therefore presumably be even worse next time.
I must admit I'm struggling with this one - on the one hand, the overall medal haul is fantastic, but I'd like to see a good spread across a number of sports going forward
We seem to be almost invincible on cycling now, and have a system that puts athletes in one end of the machine to produce medals at the other end a few years later - maybe reducing the pleasure of seeing decent competition and unexpected success?
I'd especially like to see the team games like volleyball, basketball and yes, handball, get a boost - and surely this would also bring greater numbers of people into sports overall?
I know, I know, can't have it all, and thank God for the rowers and cyclists who got us into 3rd place!
I must admit I'm struggling with this one - on the one hand, the overall medal haul is fantastic, but I'd like to see a good spread across a number of sports going forward
We seem to be almost invincible on cycling now, and have a system that puts athletes in one end of the machine to produce medals at the other end a few years later - maybe reducing the pleasure of seeing decent competition and unexpected success?
I'd especially like to see the team games like volleyball, basketball and yes, handball, get a boost - and surely this would also bring greater numbers of people into sports overall?
I know, I know, can't have it all, and thank God for the rowers and cyclists who got us into 3rd place!
0
Comments
How exactly is that money distributed?
with the Chairwoman of UK Sports who distribute
the available funds between each sport.
She mentioned the fact that after Athens 2004
the budget for Gymnastics was slashed due to poor performances. They then went for youth development.
4 years later in Beijing Louis Smith was the first Briton in a century to win an individual gymnastics medal.
8 years later in London 2012 they won 4 medals.
GB swimming could turn to youngsters being brought through the system if a similar approach is adopted come December when budgets are allocated.
These are two different things, some sports where "we're no good at it" will receive more money as they did better than expected. So it's how well that they performed against expectations that decide the money
^^^ This, i've said it on other threads what British Swimming needs to do is have a clear out, get rid of the happy to be here brigade, & concentrate on a few Swimmers who have the hunger & desire to win. British Cycling did this after Sydney Olympics & that's reaping it's rewards.
Surely there's a difference between a winning attitude and just not being good enough?
In a way, that's worse really. All that investment over that long length of time, and one person has shouldered the burden for 4 years. 2012 actually went backwards, rather than building on the results of Bejing.
I don't think anyone is saying that should be a swimming superpower - but surely aiming at France or the Netherlands in third and fourth place on the Swimming table of medal allocations isn't too out the realms of possibility?
The Medal summary gives us in joint 15th place.
Out of all the projections, only swimming failed to meet their medal target
To me, it seems that out of all the disiplines, swimming if the main that needs to accept that randomly ploughing in maximum funding isn't guaranteed to give maximum results. Whether the funding is reduced or not, it needs a long hard look at if it is being utilised to the best advantage and if not what would be the changes to make. Just keeping the same level of funding (or even increasing it) isn't going to be enough.
Agreed but people expected a bit better based on
targets set, last 2 world championship performances,
world rankings, world record holders in the team
and comments by the swimmers themselves:
Three days before Hannah Miley attempts to get Team GB off to a golden start, Halsall insists Britain is on the verge of becoming a “swimming superpower”.
And again take Becky Adlington out of the London 2012
picture and again we only got one medal in the pool
and sadly only 3 pbs.
From what I can gather, it wasn't that on paper we weren't good enough. If people had performed to there or there abouts at their PB levels then we could possibly have upgraded some medals and won more, but sadly those kind of performances were few and far between.
When other contestants are performing to that level, or over-performing then under-performing isn't going to give much in the way of results.
I don't include Becky Adlington or Michael Jamieson in that obviously. Poor Becky seemed genuinely distraught after her bronze in the 800, and as for Michael he smashed his PB twice in a row and it took a world record to beat him in the final. I definitely think the rest of the swimming team could learn something from those two.
I'm not sure what handball would do with the money.
And in doing so Michael Jamieson smashed the British record too! Great effort from him and Becky.
Here’s a list on how the various sports were funded in the run up to London 2012 (in £millions):
Archery 4,408,000
Athletics 25,148,000
Badminton 7,434,900
Basketball 8,599,000
Boxing (Amateur) 9,551,400
Canoeing 16,176,700
Cycling 26,032,000
Diving 6,535,700
Equestrian 13,395,100
Fencing 2,529,335
Gymnastics 10,770,600
Handball 2,924,721
Hockey 15,013,200
Judo 7,498,000
Modern Pentathlon 6,288,800
Rowing 27,287,600
Sailing 22,942,700
Shooting 2,461,866
Swimming 25,144,600
Synchronised Swimming 3,398,300
Table Tennis 1,213,848
Taekwondo 4,833,600
Triathlon 5,291,300
Volleyball 3,536,077
Water Polo 2,928,039
Weightlifting 1,365,157
Wrestling 1,435,210
On a cost per medal basis by far the cheapest was Boxing
followed by Cycling and Taekwondo.
The most expensive was Hockey and Swimming
although its slightly unfair on Hockey as they only had a chance of getting 2 medals in total.
In the 2011 World Swimming Championships, GB got 3 Golds and 3 Silvers so the target of 5 medals minimum should not have been a problem.
Not even personal bests. If people had performed equal to their SEASON'S best GB would have got a lot more swimming medals
Reducing swimming's funding wouldn't necessarily be bad. If they learn from Cycling/Rowing/Gymnastics, it could lead them to focus on getting fewer people to excellence, rather than a lot to mediocrity.
don't forget tennis, which according to the telegraph didn't receive any funding:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9462987/London-2012-Olympics-Great-Britain-exceeds-medal-expectations-but-bar-to-be-set-even-higher-now.html
That's an interesting list.
It's interesting to see diving and swimming seperated - and also how much diving gets - granted it hit it's one medal target.
The cycling funding will be split between the track/road/BMX and mountain biking as well.
Tennis doesn't receive any funding from UK Sport for elite end training.
Tennis does receive £24.5m from Sport England for lower level, non elite stuff. Of course the LTA also receives c£35m from the AELTC from the revenues generated by Wimbledon.
I have to admit, I'm a bit wary about projecting World Championship results on the the Olympics - mainly because if any of the other teams were preparing like the Team GB cycling the focus wouldn't so much be on winning at the World Championships.
It could maybe be that we medalled at the Worlds because it wasn't the primary focus of the other teams. Australia topped the medal table at the cycling world championships and finished 4th at the Olympics.
1. To fund the chase for excellence and medals, which seems to work in the cases of rowing, cycling, equestrian and boxing, for example. On that basis swimming does appear to have failed.
2. To fund the grass roots, as I see it to give the opportunity for more people to participate. (Although this might bring an elite performer into the sport, the main purpose should be sport for sport’s sake.
I don’t know how much, if any, of the current funding goes to grass roots in any of the sports. Also, in what way can each sport use money to promote grass roots – is it by building facilities open to everyone, paying for the training of low level coaches, paying for low level coaching, subsidising club membership, advertising the sport, or what?
If, for example, swimming spent a lot of its money providing free swimming lessons and pool time for people who could otherwise not afford it, then that might still be a good use of part of the money. However, if the money all goes into elite training facilities, top end coaches, support staff and swimmers themselves who are unable or unwilling to actually improve the elite standard within the country, then I think that is a waste of money. In this case, either the management should identify a new way forward, with a business plan to demonstrate how actions will change, and the expected outcome, or the management should move over and let someone in who has a suitable vision and a plan to execute it, or more of the future money should be diverted towards sports with better plans and the people who can execute those plans.
True.
Who outside supporters of a particular sport knows about the world championships in that sport? With the exception of a few sports such as Tennis and Football, the Olympics is the biggest event.
True, although USA, China & Australia did very similarly at World Championships and Olympics. It is very important for a sport like swimming to peak at the Olympics though, and they could definitely learn from Cycling in that respect.
it wouldn't be about previous achievement or who deserved it.
Putting that into context our entire swimming investment is equivalent to the transfer fee announced this week for Jack Rodwell from Everton to Man City - and he aint exactly a household name.
One footballer vs our entire investment in swimming. Perhaps we have our sporting priorities wrong!
Its a real pity that some lesser sports will now get no funding – because putting it bluntly volleyball, beach volleyball, handball et al are a lot more exciting to watch than cycling or dressage. And if we never support these we are ruling out ever making Olympics/medalling.