Tokyo 2020 funding

semi-pro waster

semi-pro waster

semi-pro waster

Man of Honour
Joined
27 Sep 2004
Posts
25,821
Location
Glasgow
I don't know if anyone has noticed the news yet about Olympics funding for Tokyo 2020 but there's some curious choices in there.

Badminton gets nothing at this stage despite meeting the medal target. Cycling loses around £4.5m despite Team GB owning the velodrome - is this just to level up the playing field a bit or because Team GB were massively overfunded with cycling and are still expected to dominate to the same degree? Shooting gets a £3m bump although it's inarguably not got the same level of appeal as some other sports in the games who have had their funding reduced. Gymnastics also gets a £2m bump in funding although I can see the argument for that as a sport that's much easier for people to take part in.

There's still around £9m unallocated though so some of these decisions might alter I suppose.
 
What shocked me is the world of difference between the Olympic and Paralympic funding. I know a few paralympians and I know how hard they work. I would just love to see the funding gap narrowed. Personally, I find watching them compete just as, if not more inspiring.
 
frankly, how has the funding been maintained at a similar level to Brazil despite the current cuts and cost savings being applied elsewhere in the uk economy ?
The Olympics threads now seem to have disappeared on Oc's but a quick google reminds the 5.5million each medal is costing, with negligible push down into a more active general population.
It would be interesting to know which sports have had the largest sustained boost in public participation, that might be a criteria to decide on individual sport funding.
 
How can a mass participation sport like badminton receive zero funding while shooting gets £7m, Modern Pentathlon £7m, Taekwondo £10m?

Seems like a farce.

UK Participants 2015/2016

Badminton: 703,800
Taekwondo : 24,500
Modern Pentathlon: Best I can find is less than 6,700
Shooting: 91,900
 
Last edited:
SpeedFreak said:
How can a mass participation sport like badminton receive zero funding while shooting gets £7m, Modern Pentathlon £7m, Taekwondo £10m?

Seems like a farce.

UK Participants 2015/2016

Badminton: 703,800
Taekwondo : 24,500
Modern Pentathlon: Best I can find is less than 6,700
Shooting: 91,900
Click to expand...

They aren't bothered about getting people into sport and playing games but getting medals which is a bit sad really.
 
MikeTheNative said:
They aren't bothered about getting people into sport and playing games but getting medals which is a bit sad really.
Click to expand...

That's very true, it is all about the medal count :(
The daft thing is that we get more medals in the Paralympics and they get less funding. Perhaps the reduced funding to the Olympics is because the Paralympians have put them to shame by doing better with less ;)
 
Last edited:
looks as though we can blame

Who does UK Sport report to?

UK Sport is accountable to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. UK Sport has a very clear remit at the ‘top end’ of Britain’s sporting pathway, with no direct involvement in community or school sport. Among the key organisations responsible for grassroots sport are the Home Country Sports Councils (Sport England, Sport Wales, sportscotland and Sport Northern Ireland).
Click to expand...
so uk sport just do there own thing with tax payer / lottery funds.

investment principles

At the heart of our investment approach is our philosophy of targeted investment – a commitment to channel the resources needed towards athletes and sports with the greatest chance of succeeding on the world stage, both in the immediate future and in the longer term. This philosophy demands we reinforce excellence, support talent, challenge under-performance and reject mediocrity. Put simply, we strive to invest the right resources, in the right athletes, for the right reasons.
Click to expand...

ironically the chief operating officer is from badminton
Prior to joining UK Sport, Simon worked for the International Badminton Federation (IBF) for six years, fulfilling a number of roles including Head of Marketing, where he was responsible for overseeing the sport’s event bidding processes, and its global television and sponsorship operations and rights distribution.
Click to expand...
 
Well at least the British Olympic chairman, who have input to UK sport, was changed end of November from the master of the UK Olympic success & legacy, did not see that in the news, but things can only get better.

I suppose the Olympic candidates want the money but signing up for a deliverable in 4 years time as opposed to results/funding for intermediate world championship etc. must feel like a big compromise on a career - do they ever speak out ?
 
Toxophilus said:
That's very true, it is all about the medal count :(
The daft thing is that we get more medals in the Paralympics and they get less funding. Perhaps the reduced funding to the Olympics is because the Paralympians have put them to shame by doing better with less ;)
Click to expand...

The Paralympics are a lot easier to win for us because most countries can barley afford, if at all, to give their disabled anywhere near similar level of support they get here for normal life let alone partake in sport.

Also add the fact there are considerably less people that would be able to qualify as a Paralympian. So less competition just down to numbers of potential participants.
 
SpeedFreak said:
How can a mass participation sport like badminton receive zero funding while shooting gets £7m, Modern Pentathlon £7m, Taekwondo £10m?

Seems like a farce.

UK Participants 2015/2016

Badminton: 703,800
Taekwondo : 24,500
Modern Pentathlon: Best I can find is less than 6,700
Shooting: 91,900
Click to expand...

Doesn't that just show there are already lot of badminton players so they don't need help? :D

Though I'd be interest to know where the shooting figure comes from?
 
Last edited:
seemed relevant -
About funding do the authorities place any restriction on which country the athlete should live(prinicpal residency)
and thus, also, their responsibilities to be a figure-head for that particular sport in the UK ?

The, now withdrawn, dual nationality embargo for Farah in the USA highlighted his situation for me, and I think if athletes want to
represent a country they should be predominately there , contributing to the local sport infrastructure(training/facilities/science) , and economy.
Maybe there are alreaady many sportsman examples, like Farah, living abroad ? as opposed to occassional training camps.
[The nationality of F1 drivers is unimportant in their sport, footballers equally have 'private' funding, although winter sportsman may need an exception]
- probably more of a gd topic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom