Few would have been envious of UK Sport towards the back end of last year. As the official body solely tasked with allocating Team GB its funding for Rio 2016, their decision was never going to be universally popular. Indeed it hasn’t been – handballers feel ‘misled and cheated’, basketballers ‘devastated’, swimmers ‘disappointed’ – it is fair to say that from this decision there have been winners and losers. This, however, is a microcosm of negativity which when overlooked makes way for a logical and achievable plan that sets Team GB in excellent stead for even more success.
It can’t be underestimated how much of a highly charged decision this was, one that had to be got right. With the 2012 Olympic Games being an unprecedented success, politicians and celebrities alike quickly clamoured to pay lip service to the ‘generation’ that had been inspired. This was a high pressure decision.
And they delivered.
Firstly, let’s look at overall funding given to British athletes in the run up to Rio 2016. Total spending is up to £347 million which will be spread over four years; this is an 11% increase from London 2012. Positive. The percentage split between Olympic and Paralympic funding? A 4% swing in favour of paralympians meaning the current split is now 80/20. This is both positive and warranted.
Burrowing deeper, however, it is clear that this is a deeply meritocratic financial strategy that is unashamedly blinkered in putting British sporting success at the heart of its agenda. At times this is ruthless, and UK Sport has been frank in its stance on sports without a genuine chance of success in Rio – they will not be generously funded, if at all. Basketball is one sport which fits into this category; on the back of underwhelming performance in London, it will now receive nothing from UK Sport as oppose to the £8.5 million it enjoyed in the run up to the 2012 games. What is poignant is that UK Sport are adamant that it is not an underperformance in London which triggers spending cuts, rather it is an absence of hope for success in Rio. The Minister for Sport Hugh Robertson backs this approach, using basketball as the example: ‘Basketball teams are expensive. If they have no chance of qualifying for Rio, would you want to fund them and then take the money away from a cyclist or rower who has a good chance of getting a medal?’
It is evident then that UK Sports’ policy is that sports will be allocated funding in accordance to the amount of promise they hold for Rio 2016. This egalitarian attitude is refreshing. For example, take cycling. The most fruitful of all sports at London with a medal haul of twelve (eight gold); its funding is now up by 17.5%, standing at £30.6 million, the second best funded sport by UK Sport. Likewise boxing – an incredible success story from London. Sourcing Team GB five medals (three gold), it sees its funding climb from £9.55 million to £13.8 million – a 44.5% rise, the largest increase of any UK Sport-sponsored sport.
What makes UK Sports’ decision even more credible, however, is the tactics involved in where it has placed its funding. Sir Chris Hoy, our greatest ever Olympian and bearer of six gold medals from London 2012, has spoken about possibly retiring. Is there a link between this and cycling funding increasing? Not to do the other British cyclists a disservice for they have earned every penny of their funding, but if the potential retirement of our greatest ever Olympian has triggered UK Sport to release more funds which would dissuade him from retirement and instead convince him to give his all one last time then this is a very coy move. Furthermore, we have seen boxing’s funding increase – the average age of the Team GB boxing squad at London 2012 was 24. This is a squad worth investing in. The rigour and precision of decisions like this can be traced throughout the spending review.
So it appears that while there are a minority of sports within Team GB that have suffered from these planned measures, the general message from UK Sport is this: if your sport exhibits potential for success in Rio, you will get funding; if it doesn’t then you won’t. This formula is simple, effective, and sends out the correct message for 2020 Olympics.
It seems that Team GB have been rewarded with a funding body as competent as its athletes.
About the Author
