Should the government fund elite sport?

A snowHead

I think that if a governing body invites somebody to be a member of a National team then the governing body has an obligation to fund the programme, I don't expect a teenager to have to find the funding themselves. I don't expect that this funding should come from taxes.

This is what is being done now for British ski racing, the funds seem to have been found through commercial sponsorship by the board of BSS. There used to be a small amount of Sports Council funding to SSGB, it was enough to run a limited National programme and to pay for the office support for all the other registered racers, the problems started when Alain and Chemmy got respectably good and needed more costly support. The first interview question to recent prospective CEOs of SSGB should probably have been to ask them what sponsorship leads they had.

I guess I was the last person in the thread to use the term "punter", I'm sorry. There are only a limited number of times that a training course can be used before the ruts become too deep, this is reduced further if people take different lines down it. The next time somebody, often a boarder, is chewing up a course that I have spent an hour or so setting on snow that I had to pay extra to use then I will just thank them for letting me take an early lunch.

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

PJSki, Agenterre (and stoatsbrother/axsman, who I've had some heated exchanges with too),

Just want to say - for my part - that I would never refer to recreation skiers as 'punters', and you won't find that I've done so on this thread. I was involved in the tourism industry long before I became involved with the elite level of skiing, and I have the utmost respect for the members of the British public that venture beyond our shores to enjoy the snow. There was a time when Brits abroad were a laughing stock to European locals in the mountains, but that was long, long ago. When I'm on the hill today, I'm proud to be British, whether I'm representing GB or not.

If you've misread my comments on this thread as disrespectful to non-racers, then I apologise for my part in that. I'm not an alpine racer myself, so if any sentiment of that kind did seem to come across, I assure you it was imagined. I do like a good old heated debate though, and I've enjoyed my part in this one. I do and will continue to do my best to leave any personal gripes at the door. It's only a forum, after all!

snowHead

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Looks like the Aussies have recently decided to continue their funding of elite sports:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE64A22B20100511

Of course one way to fund elite sports may be in some sort of student loan type arrangement. Qualifying atheletes get funded but once their personal sports income (say personal sponsorship, appearance fees, prize earnings tops say 25K) they have to start paying back on a % basis. If they are not succesful in their sport no payback, if they are then maybe there is a way of taxing them , eg successful tennis players who take personal lottery funding and then make a lot. Bit complicated though.

After all it is free · Last edited by After all it is free on Fri 4-06-10 11:21; edited 1 time in total

GrahamN, Some valid stuff in what you write, but one of your observations is indicative of one of my earlier concerns ie that people who question are somehow anti ski-racing.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Axsman, if you look up you'll see Agenterre's point flying over your head. His (satirical) point was that if we could pick and choose how our individual tax contributions are distributed he wouldn't want to fund nuclear weapons, just as you don't want to fund Chemmy. It's a personal preference. If it was a question of either/or then you might be close to having a point, but it isn't and you don't.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

The point is facile. Everyone gains from an effective national defence (whatever means might be chosen), so everyone should contribute (even if they lose the argument about the means). But there are many millions who couldn't give a stuff whether or not a British person wins a skiing medal and it is not fair to ask them to contribute to the likes of Chemmy Alcott (even if she could thereby be given a realistic chance of medal winning).

snow reports

Dr John, do you want to disclose an interest here?

Dr John, Wot laundryman, said. wink

You know it makes sense.

laundryman, ok, I'll give you that. But humour me on something I've mentioned before in this thread:

I have BUPA. It's a personal choice, and I work hard for it, so don't let's start judging. Point is, I don't use the NHS, and so I don't benefit from it at all.

Around 3/4% of the country don't benefit from state education. Some of them probably "don't give a stuff" whether the majority of kids have decent teaching or facilities, or books since their kids go to schools that cost £1000s a year instead.

These people don't benefit from these things provided by the state with public money. I put it to you (playing devil's advocate) that they should therefore be able to opt out of contributing.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

A snowHead

Agreed, totally. I've said as much throughout the thread - elite funding is hard to justify. The methodology of the arguments against is where I've had a problem. In this case, axsman's idea we should only pay taxes for the things we individually benefit from is unrealistic. It's just not as black and white as that.

Lots of people do care about elite sport and national teams, believe it should be funded centrally, and benefit from it. Lots of people don't and think the opposite. Government expenditure is 'in for a penny in for a pound' by nature. It's a conundrum; there is a divide of opinion and yet government policy has to be polarised - either they
fund it or they don't.

This discussion doesn't have an answer where all the other side of the argument can be discredited as stupid or nonsensical. There has to be some kind of argument in favour of funding elite sport, or we would not be in a state where elite sport is funded. Any attempt to make it into a black and white issue is futile.

A snowHead

fatbob, Nail, on head, hit. Toofy Grin

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

welove2ski,(for the umpteenth time) I wasn't saying that we should 'only pay taxes for things we personally benefit from'. I was saying that our tax monies should not be used to support activities that only provided ENTERTAINEMENT TO MINORITIES. hope that's clear (now). rolling eyes

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Agenterre, sorry to tar you all with the same brush, but my perception was skewed by stoatsbrother, who along with PJSki has been one of the main protagonists here, commenting "For me - as a reasonable recreational off-piste skier and a truly abysmal mountain-biker- there is almost no connection between what I do on skis and Alpine Ski Racing." If that disconnect exists, I believe it's based more on prejudice than reality. What elite skiers do is exactly the same as we do, but at a hugely higher level of competence, and there is a continuum between us. I know how my own skiing (which is also predominantly off-piste - despite me being one of the "racers" here, this is really only a sideline) has been transformed out of sight since I started race training, and that has only been with involvement of coaches who cover both elite and grass-roots skiers.

There is also a very strong bias expressed here against anything involving the governing bodies, spilling over to denigrating the activities in which they are involved. Fine, they may be a bit of a shower, but I see the events organised through them on a weekly basis involving hundreds of kids striving to get better and enjoying themselves doing so. Those events also acts as an incentive for further privately financed activities - as a trivial example, my local slope would be several hundred quid a year worse off just from my own slope fees if that didn't exist. And as I said above, it's not just racing either; our region is supporting an increased amount of freestyle, which is attracting a significant amount of sponsorship. No-one has said the support should be entirely from the state, but that support is a valuable part of the full package.

I do agree with you that there should be much greater opportunity for sponsorship. Individual sponsorship is clearly easier the higher profile the athlete, so there is probably a fair argument for reducing the proportion of central funding the higher up the ladder the athlete gets. At youth level the opportunities for that sponsorship are probably fairly limited, but at senior level, if an athlete is going to make it I would expect they should have a individual profile that should be pretty attractive to sponsors. While I have come in to contact with some kids who do stand a chance at making it in professional competitive sport, I do get slightly concerned at some of the mid-teens I see who put a huge amount of effort into time on snow etc., but are never going to make it at the top level - at what point do they have to stop living the dream and face reality? It would be interesting to get david horsley's perspective on this transition, given his connection with our unfunded, top-ranked Nordic skiers.

BTW, does anyone know what the funding make-up is of the US ski team? In the home of free enterprise, is it entirely privately funded? There are of course huge numbers of US residents who never get anywhere near a mountain, so any argument we make about difficulties of access for large sectors of the population should apply to an even greater extent there.

As for the hypothecation question - of course my example was extreme, but I do think it is valid. If, as I believe, success at elite levels gives a general societal advantage then it's valid for general societal support. As I also believe (at risk of diverting this thread even further OT) that our renewing Trident brings no enhanced security to this country, and actually reduces it (I also recognise that I'm in a minority on this one), no I don't buy the "common good" argument for that - but hypothecation for the goose is hypothecation also for the gander. Of course nuclear defence is in a totally different league to support of a few elite athletes, but then so are the sums involved.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

GrahamN, missing the point there old chap. By a mile. I think you are obtusely misinterpreting what I mean by connection.

Of course we are all on planks using some of the same core skills, honed to an infinitely higher level in racers. But for 99% of recreational skiers there is no participation and no desire to participate in competition. And no connection at all with the competitive element. In fact we ski because it is a social and a transcendent experience, usually as part of a holiday, and to escape stresses and competition of everyday life. Many of us actively do not want to compete. The trouble here is that the people who are asking for more central funding on this thread all come from the 1% of competitive skiers who seem not to understand the motivation of the rest of us.

This is lack of connection between recreational and competitive skiing is totally different from football or tennis or Golf, where the minute one hits a ball one is counting and competing

So when some numpty says we should be grateful to elite skiers for what they do and fund them accordingly, some of us get a bit testy Wink

The key determinants of whether a wider number of children skiing on surfaces other than fridges and plastic at a young age are going to be 1) whether the parents want to take them on a ski holiday and 2) whether there is a school trip. To say that funding UK alpine athletes is going to lead to a big increase in the overall number of children skiing and is therefore going to confer societal benefits is unevidenced and a pipe-dream.

To put it clearly, neither my equipment, my technique or my enjoyment of skiing will suffer if there is no UK alpine ski team. And I believe that there would also not be an decreased number of recreational holiday skiers, or a statistically significantly lower total number of children skiing (may be a few less racing on plastic and in fridges) and no consequent societal loss. After all, it did not take high level performance by UK team snowboarders to bring about the huge increase in boarders over the last 20 years.

SKi racing is not at the heart of skiing as a recreational and leisure pursuit. Sorry - that is just the way it is.

However that doesn't mean I don't admire racers, and occasionally will contribute to their funds, but I would not choose state funding of skiing as a tool to increase population fitness or effect societal change.

As regards governing bodies - they have only themselves and their recent history to blame if the perception of them is rightly negative. You do not throw good money after bad. The way things fell apart around the time of this years Olympics is a national disgrace. Don't you agree?

I do agree about Trident btw.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Without wishing to go back through 6 pages (!) can anyone explain the difference between funding elite, minority interest sports and elite, minority interest arts - ballet, opera etc.

I have always been taught, and over time have come to support the view, that the maturity of a society is measured by how many "non productive" occupations it can support - artists, poets, musicians, and yes, sports people. The same argument applies to documentary film making, or any TV that isn't an instant ratings hit, or science reasearch - going to the moon anyone? No-one knew what spins offs would come of that, but they were prepared to take that chance that there might be something. Or nothing

No, the quality of life is about more than just doing what is deemed necessary, or producing a return. It is about having the capacity to support the speculative, the risky, the driving force behind human achievement and progress. But how can sport do this - what has a sporting hero ever done for us? Who knows the value of the even in its simplest form, the 'feel good factor', or the medical / saftey advances which come about, but I'm glad I live in a society where we can afford to do it, rather than one where every last bean is spent on a hand-to-mouth existence.

It would be a grey old world if there was no provision for the 'nice' things in life.

PS I am wholly against the principle of more medals =more cash, since it biasses in favour of particular sports with individualism at their heart. How many cycling track gold medals are available at an olympics? about 12 (although I understand some have been dropped for 2012) How many basketball gold medals? 1
Seems a little odd to base your funding on that, when the latter is the second most popular sport in the world (just not in the UK!).

PPS I'd like to see the cogent argument that says spending billions on a defence force makes my life better - does interfering in Afganistan inprove my QoL?, how about Iraq?
As above, the fact that I can't hypothecate my tax contribution is probably just as well for those who continue to argue that in today's civilised (for the most part) western world, maintaining a 'nuclear deterent' deters anyone. It's globalisation and simple economics that does that.

After all it is free

From http://www.ussa.org/foundation

"The U.S. Ski and Snowboard Team Foundation is the non-profit, fundraising arm of the U.S. Ski Team and U.S. Snowboarding (tax ID #84-6030639). It was incorporated in 1964 as a 501(c)3 to raise money to support year-round athlete training, coaching, development, competition and educational needs. The U.S. Ski Team and U.S. Snowboarding receive no federal funding or subsidies and operate solely through private donations from individuals, corporations, and foundations. The money raised by the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Team Foundation supports athletes in all USSA sports including alpine, cross country, adaptive, freestyle, jumping, nordic combined and snowboarding."

Indirectly of course as a ski consumer I reckon I've paid more towards the US team than the GB through use of my Visa card, puchase of goggles, gloves, lift passes etc.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

we are globally renowned for our historic contribution to the performing arts. We have also produced some tin pot skiers.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

JimW, very fair points. To cut through the chaff - the proponents of state funding have suggested that funding elite competitive skiing will lead to increased uptake of skiing by younger people and societal benefits. If we lived in an alpine country, or in Scotland, I suspect they might be right. It is they who argue utility.

fatbob, makes a very good point that better teams manage to do without such funding and to be at the top of a pyramid of excellence.

If we can throw money at the bottom of the pyramid, and help more disadvantaged children take up the sport I would be in favour, but what the pro-funding people seem to be arguing for is a trickle-down (their words) from the elite.

snow reports

You know it makes sense.

rob@rar, Data for 2005 shows the US as having 2.2% GDP given charitably, 1.1 % in the Uk, ( and 0.14% in France for 2006). But 32.8% of US giving goes to churches/religious organisations.

But the lower tax economy in the US perhaps means that it is effectively a hypothecated voluntary tax, with corporations having a culture of pro bono and corporate community responsibility activity. Difficult to see how you inculcate that here.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

A snowHead

And, old bean, I think you are missing the point by a mile as well.

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

GrahamN, have you read the thread?

1) The equipment development argument has been used by a couple of pro-funding posters as a justification for central funding.
2) No one has given any evidence that UK team elite success in skiing would lead to increased total participation, and the growth of snowboarding strongly suggests it isn't necessary.
3) And if you think that more than a tiny proportion of people in the UK give a toss if someone British wins Alpine races, and that National Pride will soar... rolling eyes

I bet those studies were about athletics, football, cricket etc...
4) I would bet a large amount of money that a far higher proportion of people who sail race, than people who ski. I have raced in boats, and most of the people who I know who sail have done so. Same for rowing, and probably half the MTBers I know have raced. None of my skiing friends ever race. The disconnect between the competitive and leisure elements is real.

I too hate football - but funding grass-roots level participation in it and athletics are where I would start if I were aiming to involve more young people, increase general fitness and enhance national pride. It is about reach, potential, media interest, cost to participate etc etc.

I really do think the racers on this thread are deluding themselves about the significance of ski racing, even to other skiers.

You'll need to Register first of course.

little tiger, do you think I have never been to the US or on a NASTAR course? Similar experience to fatbob, huge queues waiting for the rope to drop so people can hike ridges.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

stoatsbrother,

After all it is free

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

little tiger, But there are course at PCMR and JH. And no queues seen there by me.

and btw, Fatbob actually seemed to be suggesting that the US system was a good thing. He was just supporting my observation that even in the US, racing was an activity of a tiny minority of skiers.

Help!!

Should the government fund elite sport?

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste