You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
International dick-waving isn't cheap (see Trident replacement).
It's not like the athletes directly receive this money. There are large programmes (and locations!) that require specialized staff, specialised equipment, etc etc.
And in some sports there are large olympic funnels (eg feeder clubs for British Cycling that pick up novice kids at the age of 5).
Doesn't really seem like much money at all
I'm enjoying pointing out to my Spanish friends that we've got the same number of golds as their position in the medals table, so thank you (British taxpayers) for helping fund this 👍
I’m enjoying pointing out to my Spanish friends that we’ve got the same number of golds as their position in the medals table, so thank you (British taxpayers) for helping fund this 👍
More like Lottery players
More like Lottery players
Anyone else notice how many of the GB athletes thanked “anyone who’s played the National Lottery” in post medal performance interviews? Felt like they’d been specifically told to mention it.
Overall it doesn't seem too bad. There's a few stand out wastes. Shooting for example. A lot of money for little return and it doesn't seem like a 'sport' that is worth encouraging more people to get involved with.
Remember that a lot of the funding is via the Lottery, rather than government/taxation, and it funds the entire sport and talent development, not just the Olympic level.
It get's talked about enough in sports articles, normal news, this place - I'm shocked that you are shocked, tbh
I think it's great. Money well spent.
hardly a surprise - add in some full time staff, equipment, travel, support for this and that , plus supporting some potential medallists and a million soon gets eaten up. The days of successful sport with repeatale results for an annual budget of a few 1000 quid are long gone.
There is a good documentary on iplayer at the moment about the shift post Atlanta and essentially how much each gold medal costs.
What's it called @jam-bo? I'm still fighting off Covid an bored beyond words!
@Tom-B
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000xpm8/gold-rush-our-race-to-olympic-glory-series-1-episode-1
Ooh cheers for that.
I'm genuinely surprised those figures arent higher
Where I live in Germany, there are 8 50 meter pools (most outdoors so only used in summer) the same number of 25 meter pools, probably the same number of athletic tracks, hundreds of km's of cycle paths and an outdoor velodrome and probably more facilities I don't even know about all with a 20km radius. And that is quite typical for the whole country.
So if Germany were to invest in medals the way Britain did, the facilities are there to give those inspired the opportunity too try out sports.
And that has been the disappointing thing in Britains sports funding over the past 20 years, while the funding at the elite level has increased and become focussed on winning medals, it has come at a time when local facilities are being shut down, sold off or gone into neglect, so the opportunity for recreational sports as part of lifestyle has become more difficult. And that is why I think labelling the spend as flag/willy waving is quite fair.
Cost per medal, lowest to highest, in sports where we won stuff.
Sport, total funding, no of medals, cost/medal
Skateboardinng £197,725 1 £197,725
Weightlifting £238,900 1 £238,900
Boxing £12,084,436 6 £2,014,073
Cycling £24,559,306 12 £2,046,609
Swimming £18,731,645 8 £2,341,456
Triathlon £7,049,372 3 £2,349,791
Diving £7,223,280 3 £2,407,760
Equestrian £12,541,195 5 £2,508,239
Taekwondo £8,223,805 3 £2,741,268
Modern pentathl £5,498,321 2 £2,749,161
Athletics £23,007,531 6 £3,834,589
Sailing £22,249,000 5 £4,449,800
Gymnastics £13,408,688 3 £4,469,563
Shooting £6,008,790 1 £6,008,790
Judo £6,564,334 1 £6,564,334
Canoeing £16,344,693 2 £8,172,347
Rowing £24,655,408 2 £12,327,704
Hockey £12,905,612 1 £12,905,612
I would be more interested to see a breakdown of the "cycling" funding to see how MTBing fared.
I would be more interested to see a breakdown of the “cycling” funding to see how MTBing fared.
Badly would be my guess.
I don’t think any of the sports receive huge amounts of money in the grand scheme of things.
Don’t know how accurate this figure is but Man United reportedly cost £650 million to run last year.
Funding levels do baffle me though. Can’t see any benefit to anyone but the athletes from Modern Pentathlon. Not exactly accessible to the public.
It would be worth investigating the MTB bit as Tom Pidcock is a road pro and gets a fair bit of stuff for free ... if he were to do it as a 'Sport GB' employee, so needed to get a physio, mechnic, nutritionist etc. via that route his cost would go up a bunch.
The killer for some sports is that you need to qualify via qualification races, competitions, in differing countries - then the cost adds up.
A lot of money for little return and it doesn’t seem like a ‘sport’ that is worth encouraging more people to get involved with.
Hardly fair considering the cost is pretty much from having a single facility where athletes can shoot pistols with Home Office approval. Then there is the cost of ammunition, targets etc. It might not be your sport but please don't dismiss other people's interests.
The whole cost /medal comes across a bit cost of everything vs value of nothing tbh.
The killer for some sports is that you need to qualify via qualification races, competitions, in differing countries – then the cost adds up.
And Tom Pidcock, despite great results this year, only qualified because someone lower down the World Cup pecking order failed to finish in the top 25 at a race IIRC
If those numbers cover the four year Olympic cycle rather than annual cost, then that looks really cheap to me and worth every penny.
That per medal tally is a little unfair - eg: hockey there's the 15/16 that go to the games (or a performance squad of however many) 'sharing' that £12M to win that one medal. Same with rowing (although they did seem to underperform) - pairs, 4's and 8's, you can also argue for eg: team pursuit vs a single sprinter in cycling.
How many athletes are supported by UK Sport per sport and how many total win medals?
Really surprised that athletics gets less funding than rowing or the cycling. I would have expected it to receive 3 or 4 times as much considering the variety of events covered by athletics and the fact that track and field is the centrepiece of the Olympics.
The breakdown athletics versus rowing would be interesting.. athletics still has a lot of amateur coaches, people outside the 'system', plus if you decide to support a medal potential 8 , that's 8 times a wage etc.
Real question - if you're on GB funding does that count as employment- so Nat ins. etc?
iirc funding is divvied out on the basis of likelihood to return a medal and not whether it’s a centrepiece event/group of events.
Allot of athletics of funded via sponsors certainly for the elite
Let’s face it the Olympics for the past few has been a international peeing up the wall contest funded my poor people’s gambling. I have serious issues with using this money to fund people’s hobbies. We’ve all seen the horrendous behaviour that medal based funding had brought cycling and rowing. The body shaming that goes on in gymnastics. I also hate talent identification programs finding kids that have the physical potential in a sport to gain medals for medals sake rather than developing kids who are passionate about a sport who might not be as good strikes me as a bit Rocky IV.
What from Leeds will lead to more people from a more diverse background mountain biking Leeds Urban bike park or Tom Pidcocks gold. Forget the Olympics and fund grassroots sport and local facilities.
I haven’t checked the figures but looks like Ireland’s rowing investment has paid off in orders of magnitude greater than GB’s. 😉
But apparently the Olympics united 8 billion people 🤣
@Stainypants - how do you feel about the truly obscene amounts of money spent on football and the preening primadonnas who play, encouraging fans to spunk stupid amounts of money on replica team strip, changing designs regularly to maximise the amount they can squeeze from the suckers fans?
I’d be perfectly happy to never hear or see anything about football ever again.
Meanwhile I’ve probably watched more of this Olympics than I have in the past, and enjoyed all of it.
What from Leeds will lead to more people from a more diverse background mountain biking Leeds Urban bike park or Tom Pidcocks gold. Forget the Olympics and fund grassroots sport and local facilities.
We can do both. Big events like the Olympics, and particularly the cycling and skating, gives more validity to these activities and the medal winners have been great ambassadors for the sports.
A couple of random Google results:
https://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/news/the-national-lottery-community-fund-supports-new-forest-inclusive-cycling-charity/
https://www.tnlcommunityfund.org.uk/funding/grants/0030073010
https://www.lifecycleuk.org.uk/article/bike-recycling-project-gets-lottery-funding
Lottery money to elite sport and to grass roots activity
To me it is worth every penny I remember being a kid and watching Olympics and winning next to nothing.
The tide changed big time in 2008 and I don’t ever want it to go backwards.
The trouble is that there's no evidence that elite sport encourages participation.
I guess if we want to spend money to feel good about ourselves then that's ok but it isn't usually presented like that is it.
I know the TdF had a big impact but I would've thought the British success in the Olympics has had a lot to do with the growth in cycling in this country.
If seeing glasses half empty was an Olympic event, we'd be top of the bloody medal table.
Didn't they build a replica BMX track in Telford to train on, that couldn't have been cheap?
Funding goes towards training venues, equipment, coaches, doctors, physios, nutritionists, psychologists, living costs of the athlete who are luckily enough to get it, training camps abroad, and probably a load of other things people don't even think about.
sure I don't agree with the way some of the funding is given out but overall I like watching the Olympics/Paralympics.
@countzero the difference is that football is a business and people have a choice to subscribe to Sky or go to a football game.
The national lottery cash is is effectively a tax on gambling and therefore public money. If lottery money was spend on Harry Kane’s wages then you’d have a point.
24 million pounds for two rowing golds or 12 urban bike parks or dozens of BMX tracks and skate parks. What would make the biggest difference to more people’s lives. I’m glad you enjoyed the Olympics it’s cost the UK a quarter of billion to get those medals a quarter of a billion to ensure that those few are they best at their hobbies in the world.
12 urban bike parks or dozens of BMX tracks and skate parks.
The lottery has been funding things exactly like that. I reckon right now you'd have a very good chance of getting funding if you put in an application. You might even get the council and public on side... thanks to the Olympics and our medal wins
The national lottery cash is is effectively a tax on gambling and therefore public money. If lottery money was spend on Harry Kane’s wages then you’d have a point.
A lot of football clubs have betting companies as sponsors
I missed the bit where you were forced to buy a lottery ticket.
Can’t see any benefit to anyone but the athletes from Modern Pentathlon. Not exactly accessible to the public.
Yeah, and the ‘laser run’ wasn’t anything like as interesting as the name promised. I was hoping for a running man style event.
Hardly fair considering the cost is pretty much from having a single facility where athletes can shoot pistols with Home Office approval. Then there is the cost of ammunition, targets etc. It might not be your sport but please don’t dismiss other people’s interests.
The whole cost /medal comes across a bit cost of everything vs value of nothing tbh.
Not buying that.
As a country we target (no pun intended) funds at Olympic sports for 2 reasons as far as I can fathom. First is for a jingoistic "Aren't we amazeballs" and entertainment lite reason. Gets some stuff on the telly and watercooler moments. Second is to persuade a flabby nation to shuffle around a bit more and be a bit inspired to be a bit more active, reducing NHS bills and making us all lead marginally healthier lives.
Shooting sports fail miserably on both these at the Olympics. It was almost entirely absent from the the BBC coverage so apart from a few die hards prepared to seek it out on an obscure discovery sub channel it will have passed most completely by. It was largely absent because we (the great British public) don't really care about it and also with our medal hopeful not there, there was little to see in terms of chest thumping celebration. But even if the nation had gone gun crazy and taken up the 'sport' in droves after spaffing our load at the thrills of the Olympic visual spectacle it would have made exactly zero difference to our overall health. No one is ever going to be a bit more healthy being a bit more Amber Hill.
What I do agree with is valuing costs per medals is a bit naff. With swimming having 35 medal opportunities and say hockey having 2. Same goes for comparing our famous Olympians medal hauls - Kenny with 8 is incredible but he got 3 shots at a medal for every games. Ainslie just the one. There should be a much broader metric about impact on society at large and take up of amateur sport post games success.
I know the TdF had a big impact but I would’ve thought the British success in the Olympics has had a lot to do with the growth in cycling in this country.
There was a definite boom after both the London Olympics and the TdF although how long it lasted is debatable. It looks great on TV and then peopl go and try it and it's cold, wet, difficult, requires a decent amount of fitness and skill and, critically, the roads (and drivers on them), are terrible.
Elite success at the Olympics is built from 5-10 years previously when talented youth riders are spotted and put onto development programmes. Any youth inspired by Tokyo and looking to get into any sport will be looking at 3-4 years of decent results in youth competition, talent spotted and 3-4 years of proper training backed up by talent before reaching that level.
Every year in cycling there were one or two riders who would make it. I remember routinely seeing Tao G-H's name in Youth races as he went up the age categories, Elynor Backstedt (now a pro for Trek Segafredo) was always up there in Youth Girls. Fred Wright (now rides for Bahrain Victorious) was very high in the overall Youth Series in about 2015, same with Pfeiffer Georgi (she's Team DSM now) You see the names - the vast majority come in through the British Cycling club system then talent teams. It's quite interesting looking at old Youth results. But there's not really a short cut. It needs the opportunities to compete (which usually involves parents with deep pockets and a willingness to travel around the country alongside a network of people willing to organise races that very few people outside of that immediate circle really care about - it's difficult to get sponsorship and media coverage for things like that!) and a governing body with the resources to find and develop that talent.
Having safe accessible facilities is of course a major part of that. Closed circuits, BMX tracks that are well used and have a good network of people using them regularly.
International dick-waving isn’t cheap
What a horribly cynical viewpoint.
Funding sport doesn't just buy medals. People such as yourself are forever complaining about the UK being lazy and inactive. For people to want to do sport, you need to create role models with whom people can identify; you need to raise the profile of diverse sports and generate interest; you need to get people interested generally. The Olympics and other sporting competitions do all these things. And the facilities and programmes that generate medals also create involvement. If you're a kid, and you know someone who goes to gymnastics club, you're more likely to go yourself.
Personally I'd like to see even more funding. My kids or I could go to gymnastics club for example, but I've no idea how to get into say shooting, or equestrian sports, or motorsport. Or even skateboarding - I could buy a board and go to my local skate park but I won't get any kind of instruction or club to help me so I'd clearly just fall off all over the place. We need facilities and clubs, and we need them to be publicised and the sports to be normalised.
it’s cold, wet, difficult, requires a decent amount of fitness and skill and, critically, the roads (and drivers on them), are terrible.
The solution to that is more velodromes and dedicated racing circuits. It's pitiful how few we have. And people are currently whinging about Cardiff Council wanting to build a nice new outdoor velodrome and circuit on waste ground in the bay. The argument seems largely to revolve around the fact that we already have an outdoor facility at Maindy. That's true, however that is in a residential area and is likely to be better used to create housing in a nice well-served area and the sports facility can be built bigger and better where no-one wants to live.
We need facilities and clubs, and we need them to be publicised and the sports to be normalised.
This - see my point previously about parents being willing to drag their kids all over and be lucky enough to have a facility nearby and a supportive club using it.
Councils though don't have that long-term view - they don't see that building a quality BMX track (as opposed to pouring a bit of concrete on the ground and waiting for it to rain) could lead to an Olympic medal in 10 years time.
Rowing to get it's funding cut? I'd rather see the money in athletics facilities that anyone can use. It's ridiculous that athletics and rowing gets the same funding!
I have serious issues with using this money to fund people’s hobbies.
Isn't the whole point that it's turned the sports in question from being people's hobbies to being their careers?
I do share some of your concerns, and it'd be useful to see more convincing research on the relationship between Olympic success and wider participation / public health benefit.
Perhaps there's already been some on the post 2012 cycling boom, for example?
Shooting sports fail miserably on both these at the Olympics. It was almost entirely absent from the the BBC coverage so apart from a few die hards prepared to seek it out on an obscure discovery sub channel it will have passed most completely by. It was largely absent because we (the great British public) don’t really care about it and also with our medal hopeful not there, there was little to see in terms of chest thumping celebration. But even if the nation had gone gun crazy and taken up the ‘sport’ in droves after spaffing our load at the thrills of the Olympic visual spectacle it would have made exactly zero difference to our overall health. No one is ever going to be a bit more healthy being a bit more Amber Hill.
You're looking at the health aspect rather one dimensionally. What about the mental health aspect of it all? Shooting in general is a social activity, on just the air side I can think of four common classes that cater from the very young to the very old and vary in physical ability from being able to negotiate a course across terrain to sitting at a table. And that's just static targets, the clay stuff is truly skillful. Contrary to your opinion it is also quite physical, I'd love to see how you get on hefting a target rifle from a standing position and nailing shot after shot. Of course bench rest is the opposite but as said it caters for all physical abilities.
Like I say, cost of everything and value of nothing.
It’s ridiculous that athletics and rowing gets the same funding!
What's ridiculous is the arse-about-face mechanism where if you do well, the funding comes rolling in and you continue to do well and more funding comes and so on but if you do badly, the funding gets cut and...well then you're stuck in a bit of a hole with no funding to improve things so you do badly next time round and the funding gets cut further.
I'm not suggesting that you just throw money at everything but there needs to be some sort of "special measures" option whereby a governing body can be overseen by Sport England, UK Sport etc for the next funding cycle. What went wrong, why did [sport] not do well this time around, what can be done to fix it? questions asked, oversight (and if necessary root and branch overhaul) completed and then new funding commenced.
You’re looking at the health aspect rather one dimensionally. What about the mental health aspect of it all? Shooting in general is a social activity, on just the air side I can think of four common classes that cater from the very young to the very old and vary in physical ability from being able to negotiate a course across terrain to sitting at a table. And that’s just static targets, the clay stuff is truly skillful. Contrary to your opinion it is also quite physical, I’d love to see how you get on hefting a target rifle from a standing position and nailing shot after shot. Of course bench rest is the opposite but as said it caters for all physical abilities.
I get that there is a social aspect to it as a pastime. But so does bridge and the WI and we don't spend out on that. But the social aspect can be gained from a sport that promotes mass participation in an activity that is social AND physically healthy. That's where the money should be going.
And the physical side. I'm not entirely naïve on the hefting a gun around side of life. I lugged around an SA80 for enough years professionally to have an idea. But when you have the temerity to rock up to the Olympics (and get a bronze) with this many chins you are going to have to try a bit harder to persuade me there is any necessity to lead a healthy life to get to the top of the sport pastime.
I have serious issues with using this money to fund people’s hobbies
I think I'm taking this out of context a bit but the total amount is how much . How much of a Eurofighter would the entire budget buy or of a piece of motorway ... you get my point, especially as money is actively being printed at the moment, so it's not like this money would be spent on the NHS, old people etc.
Should there be such a focus on the olympics and success - well if you lost everything you won't inspire many people to start. The point about the problems with coaches is valid, and inclusion very much so, but that requires better oversoght, not just slashing the funding.
What went wrong, why did [sport] not do well this time around, what can be done to fix it?
Did we not play a very canny game a few years ago with our funding - identifying sports/events with relatively little interest and funding from other nations where an injection of cash was mostly likely to receive medal reward. I suspect what went wrong might often be that the pickings have got thinner in that specific sport rather than the nation's athletes have personally regressed. I guess you then need to decide if you are going to remain a cynical and go searching (and funding) your new cheap shot elsewhere or throw money at your previous gold mine in hope that it'll make a difference.
@convert, a quick Google image search says he's not the fat knacker you seem to be implying he is. Also an ex-rugby player that got injured out the game and took up shooting instead.
Or are we only considering something as a sport based on the base physical ability of its participants? That sounds nice and inclusive, doesn't it?
Also, an SA80 is nothing like a target rifle and I doubt you would stand in a hold for minutes at a time. Different gun with different use case.
Deleted what I was going to write as molgrips, as ever, has put it far better. And more politely.
I suspect what went wrong might often be that the pickings have got thinner in that specific sport rather than the nation’s athletes have personally regressed
I reckon that's about right. We grabbed some low hanging fruit in the velodrome where it was pretty amateurish before but other teams have now caught up. Loads of records went this year.
Or are we only considering something as a sport based on the base physical ability of its participants? That sounds nice and inclusive, doesn’t it?
🙂 That made me laugh!
The Olympics....inclusive! It is meant to be and always should be a harsh competitive elitist institution. That is its very reason for being. People with different physical attributes will of course rise to the top in different events but its not some sort of inclusive school sports day where everyone gets a lollypop and a pat on the back with new events added so everyone gets their time to shine.
You're the one denigrating legitimate sports as pastimes and hobbies based on your perception of the physical ability required and as such calling into question their worth for funding.
I was arguing that there is a lot more to this than just physical ability and in any case you were wrong on that front as well.
Of course the Olympics are the elite level, nobody has said otherwise.
I don't want to single out Matthew wotsit and it's a shame for him he got injured playing rugby, but the chap evidently isn't currently a posterboy of physical fitness.
Also, an SA80 is nothing like a target rifle and I doubt you would stand in a hold for minutes at a time.
I know that I can't hand stitch for long periods of time because my fingers cramp up, and its blimmin hard to stitch in a straight line. Not sure that really makes the case for sewing as an olympic sport...
as above, the whole point of the Olympics (always has been) that it's [I]elite[/I] athletes. Shooting on it's own is a ****ing joke in the context of Olympic sports (MP is ok tho 😃). If you can have that, you can have darts, snooker, chess & tiddlywinks.Or are we only considering something as a sport based on the base physical ability of its participants? That sounds nice and inclusive, doesn’t it?
Or are we only considering something as a sport based on the base physical ability of its participants? That sounds nice and inclusive, doesn’t it?
Well - yeah!
Sport is generally recognised as system of activities based on physical athleticism or physical dexterity although you could get into long winded arguments about things like darts and games requiring a high degree of mental acuity and tactics etc like Go or chess.
The concept of inclusion doesn't mean "everyone must be able to achieve it".
It'd be nice if everyone had the opportunity to progress to their best level - which is where things like safe accessible facilities, funding, a good support network and so on come in.
But the Olympics should be the pinnacle of sporting elite and excellence, not watered down until it includes anything that could possibly be thought of as "something more than sitting on a couch".
I don't think I am the only one but you are absolutely right that I wholeheartedly disagree that gun sports are in fact sports. They are pastimes like darts, croquet and snooker, just one where a lot of the participants have a bit of an unhealthy fascination with the colour green. Absolutely nothing wrong in being a pastime and as I've said in another thread whilst my days of squeezing the trigger of a gun at human targets are thankfully long over I still have an air rifle and fire a .22 in a range from time to time so feel at least a little qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
Anyway, unnecessary thread diversion so I'll end there as we clearly will never agree on this or persuade the other otherwise.
it doesn’t seem like a ‘sport’ that is worth encouraging more people to get involved with.
Why ever not? As stated one of them must be one of the only events where you were not allowed to practice in this country. Hence we. I gut not be so competitive. The air pistol, rifle and shotgun are all practiced and we are competitive. Let’s see your reaction time on trap and skeet when you don’t know where the clay is coming from. Shooting is also in the modern pentathlon as one of the key cavalry skills lasers not pellets.
Personally, I don’t view surfing and skateboarding as Olympic sports. And karate has made its one appearance.
Btw price per medal should be weighted by colour 5 for a gold 3 for a silver and 1 for a bronze, for example. Our success in cycling was a deliberate calculation on the number of medals available.
Well – yeah!
Sport is generally recognised as system of activities based on physical athleticism or physical dexterity although you could get into long winded arguments about things like darts and games requiring a high degree of mental acuity and tactics etc like Go or chess.The concept of inclusion doesn’t mean “everyone must be able to achieve it”.
It’d be nice if everyone had the opportunity to progress to their best level – which is where things like safe accessible facilities, funding, a good support network and so on come in.But the Olympics should be the pinnacle of sporting elite and excellence, not watered down until your gran could get a medal by standing up from her chair without falling over.
You misunderstand.
I'm not advocating moving the goalposts for success, I'm asking what the criteria of a sport should be for participation.
Put it this way, if someone who is old or disabled can do it does that mean it's no longer a sport?
Glad you mentioned physical dexterity, that's shooting in the bag (as far as I'm aware bench rest isn't an Olympic event).
@convert I don't suppose we will convince each other. I admit it can be taken as a pastime, it depends entirely on how much effort you are willing to expend but on that same note you could say the same for many sports, most notably cycling (commuters vs roadies?).
But by funding the portion that excel and providing the facilities for them to do so those below that level get the benefit too, whether that is physical or mental matters not a bit IMO, from bitter experience that mental health benefit shouldn't discounted.
That all aside the green thing is absolutely necessary, have you ever seen how easily a HFT target spooks? 😉
And as for physical appearance, the current gold medal weightlifter in the heaviest category is only 27 stone. Yes you read that correctly. Ok he’s 6’6” tall.
What the data shows is that it’s hard to really pick talent and fund it successfully. The next gold medal shooter may never have shot before since access to a range is challenging. British Cycling have a program of going into schools and testing kids. My friend and out former club coach found a World Champion just that way. If other sports did the same, we’d probably excel in those too.
Shooting is also in the modern pentathlon as one of the key cavalry skills
Don't worry, I'd chuck modern pentathlon out too. Less of a demand for cavalry skills these days. I appreciate it is a significant part of the history of the modern Olympics (Allegedly invented by Coubertain himself) so probably isn't going anywhere
Cycling have a program of going into schools and testing kids. My friend and out former club coach found a World Champion just that way.
Yep, that's how Jo Rowsell got talent spotted.
The Olympics and other sporting competitions do all these things.
To state that so unequivocally presumably you have some really good evidence that that's the case @molgrips ?
I'm all for more facilities but lots of Olympic facilities end up being mothballed/under-used/badly maintained/out of reach etc. I bet we could design better places for normal people if we weren't so hung up on elite sport.
Do I really need to caveat everything with 'in my opinion' grum?
Do you think people would be watching sailing or Tae Kwondo on telly if it weren't for the Olympics? Or MTBing or climbing for that matter? Do you think people would even know what modern pentathlon is? I'm not sure I would. And I sure as hell wouldn't know anything about curling.
I wholeheartedly disagree that gun sports are in fact sports
Who cares? Does it require a great deal of skill and does it make for a good competition? Then it's fine by me. And so what if it is a hobby or pastime? Isn't that what cycling is for most of us? What's wrong with doing a pastime in a club? Seems to me to have lots of benefits and no downsides.
Do I really need to caveat everything with ‘in my opinion’ grum?
Well when you're being quite strident I just would imagine you'd have a good reason to be, not just an un-informed hunch.
I didn't think I was being that strident. But still, I do think that the Olympics raises the profile of many if not most sports. Don't you think?
Who cares? Does it require a great deal of skill and does it make for a good competition? Then it’s fine by me. And so what if it is a hobby or pastime? Isn’t that what cycling is for most of us? What’s wrong with doing a pastime in a club? Seems to me to have lots of benefits and no downsides.
And I'd heartily agree. Pastimes and hobbies are great. Spoke to a lad the other day who is 'into' drystone wall building. Apparently you can take it very seriously and go to drystone wall building competitions. Happy days if that's your bag. But the Olympics is for sports and (to me) shooting is not a sport. But that's a sidetrack......the thread is about GB funding and that's where relatively/very sedate sports/pastimes (call them what you will) appear (to me) to not have the same value in bothering to fund as more active events if one of the main purposes of the funding is to encourage grommets back in the UK to be inspired after watching it to do active stuff in the their day to day lives.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/netball/58146088
Given the broader societal benefits I'd say netball deserves a place in the Olympics (and GB funding a team) more than shooting ever will.
I know that I can’t hand stitch for long periods of time because my fingers cramp up, and its blimmin hard to stitch in a straight line. Not sure that really makes the case for sewing as an olympic sport…
Absolutely not the same thing. If you'd ever seen a 10m air rifle scorecard you would know how far off you are.
I wonder, how many of the anti-shooting folk would do away with archery?
I think the biggest problem here is peoples lack of understanding of sports coupled with an expectation that results only come from pure physical effort. You're quick to defend road and track cycling as skillful when folk think its just pedalling fast, why is this case different?
Absolutely not the same thing. If you’d ever seen a 10m air rifle scorecard you would know how far off you are.
If you'd ever seen a hand-stitched triple Irish chain quilt you would know I'm not.
See - we can all have opinions.
I wonder if the Olympics was being started from scratch now, which sports would end up in it?
Assuming it wasn't just about who could line the pockets of the IOC.
It was almost entirely absent from the the BBC coverage
BBC weren't the main rights holder, another discussion would be why this was (other then others bidding more) and how strategically the BBC showing everything would link into other national/government strategies to get more people into sports.
Finland have it about right.
I wonder, how many of the anti-shooting folk would do away with archery?
I'd do away with archery in its current format.
Holding a massive bunch of carbon scaffolding complete with sights and taking turns to shoot at a stationary target is dull.
Bring it back to basics. Barebow, moving targets (or moving archer) and run it as a test of both fitness and shooting skill.