22 Aug 2016 18:55:07
It was interesting to hear on the radio today just how little funding has gone into UK Athletics these past four years. It is tiny compared to the transfer amounts spent and academy investments by our Premier league clubs. So the question is this. If UK Athletics can produce such a fantastic medal haul on a small financial outlay where is foot all going wrong and isn't it about time we started to invest in really good coaches at grass roots level and also have a cap on transfer fees and wages. I know the latter two will prove extremely difficult to implement but to put things into context we could build several hospitals each year and take of people properly.
22 Aug 2016 19:30:40
Hereford - Do you know what the outlay is compared to other countries Athletics investments? That is the most logical comparison to make and then we can see how good our performance has been compared to the rest of the world, it's hard to find this info.
Our actual performance on the track/ field were pretty poor imo. Mo saved the day with track medals and he is Somalian really, (I know he grew up in the UK but running fast is a lot to do with genetics, hence African countries dominating long distance running for generations) .
I remember hearing that we lead the way in our Cycling technology and coaching, which I assume equates to more investment/ availability? Rowing as well I imagine. Also how many teams compete in those sports we win in? I couldn't help but notice in the Velodrome it was always the same countries, it was like 10 countries have a velodrome at home so just like how American Baseball champions claim to be 'World Champions', it's a little misleading potentially.
Typically the people with the larger population pools and investment will do well. Diving, Table Tennis and Badminton are massive in China - so they do well. Basketball in the US etc.
It would be genuinely interesting to see a table of investments made, domestic club membership numbers and sporting success for the Olympics. America have a couple of amazing gymnasts and swimmers and it massively changes things medal wise.
Football wise I agree wages should be capped, but the savings should not go into the owners pockets - not too sure that can be done though legally. Rather the players get it than the billionaire owners, but it's messy territory. In terms of using that money for more public good, you could say that about any profit making enterprise, that's what taxes are for and UK clubs and players will be contributing far more than many other business types/ individuals.
22 Aug 2016 19:43:34
In 1992 we spent just over £15m on our athletes. While for the Rio Olympics we spent over £347m. That is a phenomenal figure compared to most other countries apart from USA Russia and China.
22 Aug 2016 20:16:21
who cares what we spent, i can remember when it was a big deal if we got a gold
the last couple of olympics have been amazing.
22 Aug 2016 20:38:53
I agree Jred, it was nice to feel proud of our country. No matter how much was spent 2nd place in the medal table is a fantastic achievement. However my response was specifically dealing with what Hereford was saying, it does make it easier to win things if there are only a few competitors and if you have more money, coaching, equipment, time to dedicate than opponents.
1992 was ace as well, Christie, Gunnell, Jackson, Backley, Akabusi and others I still remember it and Schmidfield makes a great point. I would say our performance in 1992 was maybe better in track/ field, despite over 20X increase in spend. I doubt many other countries have seen that rate of increase to be fair.
22 Aug 2016 20:54:51
Perhaps the homeless and those struggling to survive. It's great to see the great achievements of those athletes but the question has to be asked if its the best use of tax payers money when there are so many people struggling to make ends meet.
22 Aug 2016 21:24:02
Most of the money came from the national lottery. A lot of athletes also use sponsors to top it up. £300 million is a drop in the ocean compared to something like what we spend in other areas.
22 Aug 2016 21:25:42
Ken although the state funds most of the athletics in the uk the lottery grant has also propped up a lot of sports and helps keep a lot of centres open.
In regards to the state funding issue I believe it started with John major as he concluded the country felt deflated after our participation and medal haul.
22 Aug 2016 21:57:31
The vast majority of medals are won by the top 10 teams in all the sports. How many countries got gold medals in sprinting or swimming? The velodrome is no different. The lottery money that's funded GB success is directed specifically towards those programs and individuals where it's believed medals can be earned. The approach then concentrates on technical as well as personal issues, from sleep patterns to female athletes shaving tendencies, and is scientific and comprehensive. It is also expansive in the sense that the success within one sport widens not only the appeal of that sport, but also opens up the possibility in areas in other sports.
What's going on in English football has nothing to do with how much the players are paid so much as a general failure to adopt a scientific approach to the national game. There simply aren't any great English coaches and the game is dominated by traditional values and poorly educated people. The humiliation in Atlanta in 1996 changed the approach to olympic sports while successive humiliations in the world of football seem to have changed little.
22 Aug 2016 23:51:26
To be fair it's much easier to find a swimming pool or a park to sprint in than it is to find your local Velodrome for 99.9999% of the world's population.
The 100m sprint champion at the Olympics is a far greater achievement than winning the Omnium in my opinion due to the sheer volume of potential competitors (everyone knew who the fastest kid at school was) . So targeting less competitive events is sensible but a bit superficial imo. Not taking anything away from the supreme athletes, but certain competitions are more competitive - there are also genetic advantages as well which have a big say in focus by national bodies.
It's going to be interesting watching China over the next few years as their population becomes more tuned in to sport and more money is pumped into it. I think 10 Velodromes have gone up whilst I have written this post, haha.