Very interesting figures, Floyd. For that sort of money, I think we should expect a few golds.
What I'm not clear about though is exactly what it means. Is that money spent just on training the Olympic teams or does it include money that's been spent on sport infrastructure so that ordinary people may participate? If it's the latter I'd say that that's evidence of a good Olympic legacy and is money well spent. If it's the former, no matter how much people have enjoyed those golds, I'd say that's a case of taking Olympic elitism a step to far and that perhaps in a time of recession we need to re-adjust our priorities.
Having seen the figures on your other thread, where it states that this equates to 80p per person per annum, I'd like to say that I think I've had my 80 pence worth of enjoyment from the Olympics so I'm happy that they carry on :-)
[edit] In fact I got my money's worth just from the Tour de France win, before the Olympics had even started.
Goalball gets the least funding of any Olympic or Paralympic sport so I'm even more pleased I have tickets for it in September now.
I actually thought athletics would get comparatively more than, say, double hockey. Maybe funding is relative to the levels of outside sponsorship of the sport.
Having seen the figures on your other thread, where it states that this equates to 80p per person per annum, I'd like to say that I think I've had my 80 pence worth of enjoyment from the Olympics so I'm happy that they carry on :-)
[edit] In fact I got my money's worth just from the Tour de France win, before the Olympics had even started.
Thats 1.60 a year in our household well worth it, as I said before just hope they can continue this funding for future Olympics.
Very interesting figures, Floyd. What I'm not clear about though is exactly what it means. Is that money spent just on training the Olympic teams or does it include money that's been spent on sport infrastructure so that ordinary people may participate? If it's the latter I'd say that that's evidence of a good Olympic legacy and is money well spent. .
Yes, I was interested in this too, but judging by the individual sports federation statements, and UK Sport's own website, these sums are for the sport as a whole, in order to leave a legacy. The contributions are issued in cycles
If this is the case then UK Sport should be shouting it from the rooftops in every paper and TV programme, because it is a fantastic legacy.
For example the weightlifting people have written
“The support we receive from makes a tremendous difference to our athletes. Many are now training full-time and under the guidance of performance coaches and specialist support staff, which enables them to focus 100 per cent on their sport goals and increases their chances of success at London 2012.” British Weightlifting Performance Manager Fiona Lothian
Weightlifting received public funding for the first time for the London cycle (2009-13) following a decision backed by Government to give every sport the chance to build a sustainable legacy from hosting the Olympic Games.
When London won the right to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012 UK Sport was asked to submit a range of funding options for sports.
The Government responded in March 2006, by announcing an additional 2012 performance funding package of £300 million, £200million from public funding, with a further £100m to be found from the private sector.
UK Sport moved quickly to increase funding for those sports already part of its performance pathway and bring a number of new sports onto the pathway including weightlifting.
This decision means British Weightlifting will receive £1.3million over the 2009-13 funding cycle to help it build a lasting legacy from London 2012.
Since then weightlifting has developed a new training facility at Leeds Metropolitan University. This is a facility that has been specifically designed for Olympic weightlifting and Paralympic powerlifting and is one of the few placed in the UK which can host weightlifting and powerlifting squad camps.
The investment has also given British Weightlifting the chance to build a world class performance system to identify and support athletes for the future. Five athletes currently receive development funding, including Commonwealth bronze medallist Zoe Smith.
Since 2011 Smith has been steadily improving, training full time since February 2012. Smith lifted the Olympic A standard in the 58 kg weight when finishing fourth in the European Championships in April 2012 and has since been selected as part of the five-strong GB team for London 2012.
The UK Sport Coaching team also supported an induction and performance development process for five newly appointed coaches to the Weightlifting and Powerlifting team.
I've watched very little football and what I have watched just made me cringe. It's a bit like turning out to watch the Kent Senior Cup Final and finding no first teamers playing. Waste of time unless you go back to making it all amature. Same with Golf and Tennis, it just dilutes it all.
I've watched very little football and what I have watched just made me cringe. It's a bit like turning out to watch the Kent Senior Cup Final and finding no first teamers playing. Waste of time unless you go back to making it all amature. Same with Golf and Tennis, it just dilutes it all.
Agree with this, I went to watch a game at wembley, possible the most boring game of football I have watched on par with woman's football which is shite!
I've watched very little football and what I have watched just made me cringe. It's a bit like turning out to watch the Kent Senior Cup Final and finding no first teamers playing. Waste of time unless you go back to making it all amature. Same with Golf and Tennis, it just dilutes it all.
Agree with this, I went to watch a game at wembley, possible the most boring game of football I have watched on par with woman's football which is shite!
I guess you missed the USAvs Canda Women's game then (and quite a few others as well)
I've watched very little football and what I have watched just made me cringe. It's a bit like turning out to watch the Kent Senior Cup Final and finding no first teamers playing. Waste of time unless you go back to making it all amature.
Same with Golf and Tennis, it just dilutes it all.
Agree with this, I went to watch a game at wembley, possible the most boring game of football I have watched on par with woman's football which is shite!
I guess you missed the USAvs Canda Women's game then (and quite a few others as well)
Sorry just my point of view, it always reminds of a very poorly controlled game of FIFA
I think sports like Football and Cricket get crowds in but I do agree they do not fit with tradition, neither does tennis or golf. If the IOC don't want to add too many more than fair enough, I do believe the Olympics has to stay with tradition to a certain extent, athletics,swimming etc are the main focus.
Football has been in all Olympics bar two. Surely that fits in with tradition? It's also arguably the World's number one sport. I've enjoyed every game I have watched at the Olympics.
just because its the number 1 sport doesn't mean it should be in there though. Boxing is ok but it is amateur, if names like Mayweather and Klitschko were there then it wouldn't be right. I don't think Tennis, golf or football should be there. Like boxing, football could be done by amateurs, the England C team or whatever. I like the Olympics to be the lesser sports, and with big names there it means the Olympics gets slightly ruined IMO
I've watched very little football and what I have watched just made me cringe. It's a bit like turning out to watch the Kent Senior Cup Final and finding no first teamers playing. Waste of time unless you go back to making it all amature. Same with Golf and Tennis, it just dilutes it all.
I think sports like Football and Cricket get crowds in but I do agree they do not fit with tradition, neither does tennis or golf. If the IOC don't want to add too many more than fair enough, I do believe the Olympics has to stay with tradition to a certain extent, athletics,swimming etc are the main focus.
Football has been in all Olympics bar two. Surely that fits in with tradition? It's also arguably the World's number one sport. I've enjoyed every game I have watched at the Olympics.
just because its the number 1 sport doesn't mean it should be in there though. Boxing is ok but it is amateur, if names like Mayweather and Klitschko were there then it wouldn't be right. I don't think Tennis, golf or football should be there. Like boxing, football could be done by amateurs, the England C team or whatever. I like the Olympics to be the lesser sports, and with big names there it means the Olympics gets slightly ruined IMO
One of the reasons they changed the football to allow pros was because of the difficulty in defining amateur. People in Ryman league two get paid, people moaning about how poor the football is with international u23s playing are going to love watching Sunday league footballers at Wembley...
As for the big names, you don't want Bolt, Wiggins and the like taking part then?
I think sports like Football and Cricket get crowds in but I do agree they do not fit with tradition, neither does tennis or golf. If the IOC don't want to add too many more than fair enough, I do believe the Olympics has to stay with tradition to a certain extent, athletics,swimming etc are the main focus.
Football has been in all Olympics bar two. Surely that fits in with tradition? It's also arguably the World's number one sport. I've enjoyed every game I have watched at the Olympics.
just because its the number 1 sport doesn't mean it should be in there though. Boxing is ok but it is amateur, if names like Mayweather and Klitschko were there then it wouldn't be right. I don't think Tennis, golf or football should be there. Like boxing, football could be done by amateurs, the England C team or whatever. I like the Olympics to be the lesser sports, and with big names there it means the Olympics gets slightly ruined IMO
One of the reasons they changed the football to allow pros was because of the difficulty in defining amateur. People in Ryman league two get paid, people moaning about how poor the football is with international u23s playing are going to love watching Sunday league footballers at Wembley...
As for the big names, you don't want Bolt, Wiggins and the like taking part then?
bolt and wiggins are big names mostly because of their success in the Olympics though which is fine. I am talking about premier league players on 100k a week, arguably the best tennis player ever in Federer and Tiger Woods in the Olympics? I don't think it fits in with the tradition of the Olympics. The tradition is that it is an amateur sport. I realise no sports are as amateur as they used to be, but for many sportsman in the Olympics, they get funding, sponsorships etc, but not many strictly get paid to perform
Here are the figures for funding of every GB sport at these Olympics and Paralympics. Makes interesting reading, surprised at the level of canoeing. http://www.uksport.gov.uk/sport/summer/
Found out last night that Eton Dorney was built and funded (long before the Olympics) to the tune of £17 million by Eton College
Olympic Sport Funding award (£) 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 Total £264,143,753
Swimming will be taking a bit of a hit funding wise as many sports below their level have done well like Gymnastics.
Suspect we must have one of the biggest budgets but money doesn't mean instant success.people have to work for it and be well organised as in the cycling and rowing albeit the latter is more elitist in a sense.
Some sports will never improve with limited money given to them..is that a case of the relavant organisers not really that bothered about doing well in those events or just a case of some have to miss out.
I think sports like Football and Cricket get crowds in but I do agree they do not fit with tradition, neither does tennis or golf. If the IOC don't want to add too many more than fair enough, I do believe the Olympics has to stay with tradition to a certain extent, athletics,swimming etc are the main focus.
Football has been in all Olympics bar two. Surely that fits in with tradition? It's also arguably the World's number one sport. I've enjoyed every game I have watched at the Olympics.
Beat me to it, sorry 1990, but as Offy says, you really need to do more research before you post mate. And I mean that in a kind way, not patronising.
Not enough cricket playing countries perhaps? At least not those with a vote on the IOC. Agree current format football should be cut, though the 3/4 million+ (a guesstimate?) or so spectators to the football games this year might argue, as would the national football associations!
yer true but there's only 7/8 countries who participate in rowing/cycling really so cricket could beat that.
Really? A quick look at the medal table will show you that 18 - EIGHTEEN - different countries have won medals in the rowing and 15 - FIFTEEN - have won medals in the cycling. And these are only the ones to win medals remember, not total participants.
no need to be patronizing either
I apologise, I wasn't trying to be patronising. Just merely pointing out that your post was factually inaccurate and the real facts took a two second Google search to establish. Not my fault you feel a bit silly.
I don't feel silly at all. I meant track cycling where only around 6 nations take it seriously, and only 9 countries win medals. M
Not enough cricket playing countries perhaps? At least not those with a vote on the IOC. Agree current format football should be cut, though the 3/4 million+ (a guesstimate?) or so spectators to the football games this year might argue, as would the national football associations!
yer true but there's only 7/8 countries who participate in rowing/cycling really so cricket could beat that.
Really? A quick look at the medal table will show you that 18 - EIGHTEEN - different countries have won medals in the rowing and 15 - FIFTEEN - have won medals in the cycling. And these are only the ones to win medals remember, not total participants.
Not enough cricket playing countries perhaps? At least not those with a vote on the IOC. Agree current format football should be cut, though the 3/4 million+ (a guesstimate?) or so spectators to the football games this year might argue, as would the national football associations!
yer true but there's only 7/8 countries who participate in rowing/cycling really so cricket could beat that.
Really? A quick look at the medal table will show you that 18 - EIGHTEEN - different countries have won medals in the rowing and 15 - FIFTEEN - have won medals in the cycling. And these are only the ones to win medals remember, not total participants.
no need to be patronizing either
I apologise, I wasn't trying to be patronising. Just merely pointing out that your post was factually inaccurate and the real facts took a two second Google search to establish. Not my fault you feel a bit silly.
I don't feel silly at all. I was referring to track cycling, where only about 10 countries won medals, and only 5/6 nations take it seriously be regularly entering teams in world cups. Have to admit that the rowing surprised me. When I referred to the 7/8, I was talking about countries that put effort into the sport, but rowing does have around 12. My point was that cricket could match that though, and it could easily.
I think sports like Football and Cricket get crowds in but I do agree they do not fit with tradition, neither does tennis or golf. If the IOC don't want to add too many more than fair enough, I do believe the Olympics has to stay with tradition to a certain extent, athletics,swimming etc are the main focus.
Football has been in all Olympics bar two. Surely that fits in with tradition? It's also arguably the World's number one sport. I've enjoyed every game I have watched at the Olympics.
Beat me to it, sorry 1990, but as Offy says, you really need to do more research before you post mate. And I mean that in a kind way, not patronising.
Admittedly, I worded it terribly but I meant football does not fit in with Olympic tradition. Although Football has been in so many Olympics, I don't feel the Olympics have any value in football. For many athletes at the games, you hear about how its a 4 year cycle and the Olympics is the ultimate. Although Murray's win was his biggest of his career, is it as big as winning Wimbledon? No it isn't. In 4 years time, will Woods, Donald etc value it as much a major? I very much doubt it. Would Sturridge be less gutted if he missed a pen in 2 years time? Most definitely not. For me, the Olympics is defined by these people who put their heart and soul into training every day with the aim of going to the Olympics. For this reason, sports like football, cricket, tennis and golf do not have a place in it.
I think sports like Football and Cricket get crowds in but I do agree they do not fit with tradition, neither does tennis or golf. If the IOC don't want to add too many more than fair enough, I do believe the Olympics has to stay with tradition to a certain extent, athletics,swimming etc are the main focus.
Football has been in all Olympics bar two. Surely that fits in with tradition? It's also arguably the World's number one sport. I've enjoyed every game I have watched at the Olympics.
just because its the number 1 sport doesn't mean it should be in there though. Boxing is ok but it is amateur, if names like Mayweather and Klitschko were there then it wouldn't be right. I don't think Tennis, golf or football should be there. Like boxing, football could be done by amateurs, the England C team or whatever. I like the Olympics to be the lesser sports, and with big names there it means the Olympics gets slightly ruined IMO
One of the reasons they changed the football to allow pros was because of the difficulty in defining amateur. People in Ryman league two get paid, people moaning about how poor the football is with international u23s playing are going to love watching Sunday league footballers at Wembley...
As for the big names, you don't want Bolt, Wiggins and the like taking part then?
bolt and wiggins are big names mostly because of their success in the Olympics though which is fine. I am talking about premier league players on 100k a week, arguably the best tennis player ever in Federer and Tiger Woods in the Olympics? I don't think it fits in with the tradition of the Olympics. The tradition is that it is an amateur sport. I realise no sports are as amateur as they used to be, but for many sportsman in the Olympics, they get funding, sponsorships etc, but not many strictly get paid to perform
There is no logic to your argument though. Highly paid best sprinter - ok, highly paid best golfer - no, highly paid cyclist - yes, highly paid tennis payer - no... As you say the tradition is amateur, but that went years ago, there is no such thing as some sports being not "as amateur as they used to be" there is no grey area here, you either allow pros - whether they earn £15,000 a year or £1.5m - or you don't. All the athletes are pros now
I think sports like Football and Cricket get crowds in but I do agree they do not fit with tradition, neither does tennis or golf. If the IOC don't want to add too many more than fair enough, I do believe the Olympics has to stay with tradition to a certain extent, athletics,swimming etc are the main focus.
Football has been in all Olympics bar two. Surely that fits in with tradition? It's also arguably the World's number one sport. I've enjoyed every game I have watched at the Olympics.
just because its the number 1 sport doesn't mean it should be in there though. Boxing is ok but it is amateur, if names like Mayweather and Klitschko were there then it wouldn't be right. I don't think Tennis, golf or football should be there. Like boxing, football could be done by amateurs, the England C team or whatever. I like the Olympics to be the lesser sports, and with big names there it means the Olympics gets slightly ruined IMO
One of the reasons they changed the football to allow pros was because of the difficulty in defining amateur. People in Ryman league two get paid, people moaning about how poor the football is with international u23s playing are going to love watching Sunday league footballers at Wembley...
As for the big names, you don't want Bolt, Wiggins and the like taking part then?
bolt and wiggins are big names mostly because of their success in the Olympics though which is fine. I am talking about premier league players on 100k a week, arguably the best tennis player ever in Federer and Tiger Woods in the Olympics? I don't think it fits in with the tradition of the Olympics. The tradition is that it is an amateur sport. I realise no sports are as amateur as they used to be, but for many sportsman in the Olympics, they get funding, sponsorships etc, but not many strictly get paid to perform
There is no logic to your argument though. Highly paid best sprinter - ok, highly paid best golfer - no, highly paid cyclist - yes, highly paid tennis payer - no... As you say the tradition is amateur, but that went years ago, there is no such thing as some sports being not "as amateur as they used to be" there is no grey area here, you either allow pros - whether they earn £15,000 a year or £1.5m - or you don't. All the athletes are pros now
I do understand what you're saying, but most of Bolt's and Wiggins achievements have come in the Olympics. Whereas the tennis players and golfers are world famous for major tournaments such as the majors and the slams. Although then you do have Wiggins in the TDF. Not all the athletes are pros though, thats completely wrong. I think its a tough one because obviously the olympics is no longer an amateur competition. But I like the Olympics being the pinnacle for the athletes, its much better to watch people who you don't really see for 4 years and the Olympics means so much to them. As I said, it doesn't to the likes of the footballers and probably won't to the golfers.
Comments
What I'm not clear about though is exactly what it means. Is that money spent just on training the Olympic teams or does it include money that's been spent on sport infrastructure so that ordinary people may participate? If it's the latter I'd say that that's evidence of a good Olympic legacy and is money well spent. If it's the former, no matter how much people have enjoyed those golds, I'd say that's a case of taking Olympic elitism a step to far and that perhaps in a time of recession we need to re-adjust our priorities.
[edit] In fact I got my money's worth just from the Tour de France win, before the Olympics had even started.
I actually thought athletics would get comparatively more than, say, double hockey. Maybe funding is relative to the levels of outside sponsorship of the sport.
If this is the case then UK Sport should be shouting it from the rooftops in every paper and TV programme, because it is a fantastic legacy.
For example the weightlifting people have written
“The support we receive from makes a tremendous difference to our athletes. Many are now training full-time and under the guidance of performance coaches and specialist support staff, which enables them to focus 100 per cent on their sport goals and increases their chances of success at London 2012.”
British Weightlifting Performance Manager Fiona Lothian
Weightlifting received public funding for the first time for the London cycle (2009-13) following a decision backed by Government to give every sport the chance to build a sustainable legacy from hosting the Olympic Games.
When London won the right to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012 UK Sport was asked to submit a range of funding options for sports.
The Government responded in March 2006, by announcing an additional 2012 performance funding package of £300 million, £200million from public funding, with a further £100m to be found from the private sector.
UK Sport moved quickly to increase funding for those sports already part of its performance pathway and bring a number of new sports onto the pathway including weightlifting.
This decision means British Weightlifting will receive £1.3million over the 2009-13 funding cycle to help it build a lasting legacy from London 2012.
Since then weightlifting has developed a new training facility at Leeds Metropolitan University. This is a facility that has been specifically designed for Olympic weightlifting and Paralympic powerlifting and is one of the few placed in the UK which can host weightlifting and powerlifting squad camps.
The investment has also given British Weightlifting the chance to build a world class performance system to identify and support athletes for the future. Five athletes currently receive development funding, including Commonwealth bronze medallist Zoe Smith.
Since 2011 Smith has been steadily improving, training full time since February 2012. Smith lifted the Olympic A standard in the 58 kg weight when finishing fourth in the European Championships in April 2012 and has since been selected as part of the five-strong GB team for London 2012.
The UK Sport Coaching team also supported an induction and performance development process for five newly appointed coaches to the Weightlifting and Powerlifting team.
Same with Golf and Tennis, it just dilutes it all.
I guess you missed the USAvs Canda Women's game then (and quite a few others as well)
Sorry just my point of view, it always reminds of a very poorly controlled game of FIFA
COE OUT.
As for the big names, you don't want Bolt, Wiggins and the like taking part then?
Suspect we must have one of the biggest budgets but money doesn't mean instant success.people have to work for it and be well organised as in the cycling and rowing albeit the latter is more elitist in a sense.
Some sports will never improve with limited money given to them..is that a case of the relavant organisers not really that bothered about doing well in those events or just a case of some have to miss out.