 Poster: A snowHead
|
Axsman, I've just realised that I tick two really bad boxes for you - I'm a solicitor and I've also been a professional fundraiser for the arts, for an opera company and for a symphony orchestra ie horror of horrors, organisations which also receive public funding.  However, in both cases, I was fundraising not only for the core programmes, but also for associated education programmes, of which I think you and stoatsbrother would have approved. And, quite rightly - in accordance with your arguments, with which I sympathise - it was a lot easier raising funds for the education programmes than for core repertoire work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
welove2ski, SportScotland - "We invest Scottish Government and National Lottery resources to support people in Scotland to participate, develop and achieve in sport. "
Hardly an unbiased view then. "Scottish Quango in favour of increased funding for er, Scottish Quango Shocka" LOL 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Axsman, thank you, kind sir. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Axsman, blimey. If that's your basis for refuting an established part of socio-political theory, then I'll cite another source.
Ravenscroft, whose definition is recognised by the European Sports Charter, says that sports "produce a range of social benefits, such as the maintenance of moral standards and improved social welfare; to produce a range of psychological benefits, such as the enjoyment of leisure and the advancement of personality; to produce certain physiological benefits, such as an improvement in the nation’s health and fitness; and to improve the quality of life of the nation."
This isn't revelationary stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Axsman wrote: |
| That was my basis for pointing out the lack of impartiality in the source you cited. |
How can that statement lack impartiality if you agree that it's an established part of socio-political theory?
| Axsman wrote: |
| As far as 'maintain moral standards' goes - what century are you living in? |
Several policy-related reviews of the potential social value of sport (Sport England, 1999; Collins et al, 1999; Best, 2001; Department of Culture, Media and Sport, 1999; Coalter et al, 2000, Cabinet Office, 2002) list the prevention of youth crime as an issue to which sports can make a contribution, both in terms of diverting young people from crime and in the rehabilitation of offenders.
| Axsman wrote: |
| just because you enjoy 'sport' why should I pay for it? Education - fine, information - great, but direct tax support for people who kick a ball around for a living? No thanks. |
Because the social benefits extend beyond your or my own personal enjoyment, as discussed.
| Quote: |
| P.S. I note you are not exactly devoid of a vested interset in this subject - how's the website and when are you going to link back |
I believe the website is motoring along strongly, and thank you for asking! I'm afraid I only write for the website though, and post here from time to time as a representative 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Axsman, if all you've got left is a flippantly-observed, isolated counter-example, I'd say we've made progress. Using sport to cut crime is - again - not the most revelationary of concepts.
Here's a link about the Splash Extra programme, one of the more effective schemes in the last decade.
"Street crime and robbery decreased by as much as one-third in areas where the schemes operated, contributing to an overall reduction of 5.2% in the crime rate."
You really don't have a leg to stand on. Sport produces social benefits. It's an established fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
welove2ski, et al. May I suggest your discussion- a very reasonable one to have, is off topic - but does merit a new thread in its own right - why not start one?
Getting back OT, as a bystander I'm glad this matter has now been resolved - there were overtones that were a little unpleasant at times. With the experience of this project, perhaps Snowheads is not the best vehicle for making donations like this- it's hassle for admin, Paypal charges accrue, and questions of accountability can arise. Maybe the best way is to suggest to the intended recipients that they set up an account into which we can pay direct, if we wish?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| welove2ski wrote: |
Skiing in the UK provides thousands of children each year with quality leisure time, and the opportunity to achieve something. And that's before we consider the normal retail of lessons and recreational snowsports at domestic slopes. These public health and social gains that you say don't exist in the UK already do.
|
Being slightly less extreme in view than Axsman I tend to agree that this is a good thing as part of an overall leisure portfolio of assets available to the public (although largely provided by private concerns). I doubt however that many of the kids are motivated to do so by the role-model of elite UK Alpine skiers. Far more likely that parents, schools, general coverage like Ski Sunday or Freesports on 4 or computer games (e.g. SSX series) have an influence.
Perhaps a mod would like to separate out this debate into a separate thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
fatbob, a very good point well made. And that is surely the crux of the debate, not whether sport in general is socially beneficial (of course it is, despite what Axman would have you think). All I would say is:
1) Snowsports in the UK is an example of a sport that has not been developed to the point where the influence and inspiration drawn from the elite level really works. This does not represent a reason to not invest in the elite level. With successful administration - and the funding that would invariably follow through the current awards system - the elite level of snowsports (please let's shy away from just talking about alpine) could be developed into a powerful role model, like in other sports.
2) The vast majority of government funding for sport in the UK is determined by the pyramid model. Success at the elite level is awarded with funding that flows down the pyramid to the general public. The social benefits of government investment in grassroots sport cannot be fully accessed without elite success. I'm not saying this is right way to do things, just a point of interest.
I also agree that this should be modded into a new thread - it's taken on a life of its own!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| welove2ski wrote: |
| I also agree that this should be modded into a new thread - it's taken on a life of its own! |
I'd come to that conclusion myself, so here it is 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
| 1) Snowsports in the UK is an example of a sport that has not been developed to the point where the influence and inspiration drawn from the elite level really works. This does not represent a reason to not invest in the elite level. With successful administration - and the funding that would invariably follow through the current awards system - the elite level of snowsports (please let's shy away from just talking about alpine) could be developed into a powerful role model, like in other sports. |
Elite snowsports will never have much influence in this country. The best it could hope for is to have a big influence over a very small number of people, which is where we are now and where we will stay.
| Quote: |
| 2) The vast majority of government funding for sport in the UK is determined by the pyramid model. Success at the elite level is awarded with funding that flows down the pyramid to the general public. The social benefits of government investment in grassroots sport cannot be fully accessed without elite success. |
Rubbish.
| Quote: |
| I'm not saying this is right way to do things, just a point of interest. |
You've got your facts wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
PJSki, yep - I'd love to see some evidence for those assertions.
To give one counter example - about one of biggest growing participant sports in the US in kids now is Soccer. Not a huge amount of elite success there.
In the UK distance running is becoming more and more popular and yet apart from Paula-the-public-pooper, what widely known elite role models are there?
weluv2bepaidtocompete can you actually give some evidence for all these ex cathedra statements you make?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
stoatsbrother, It seems to me that snowsports have a fair bit in common with cycling, both have a lot of participants who are not involved in any competitions. Has the amount spent on British competitive cycling made much difference to the average leisure cyclist ?
You wrote earlier in the thread that you compete in cycle races but wouldn't enter a ski race. I'm the opposite, I have cycled since I was a child but have never raced, I even had close friends who were in the local cycling club and now live fairly near the National Cycling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I'm going to try to annoy representatives of both sides of the argument now:
| Axsman wrote: |
| competitive sport has somehow managed to stay popular for thousands of years without the support of the tax base |
But state-sponsored sport existed in Greek and Roman times.
welove2ski, quoting self-promotion from a quango that's commissioned at least 98 "research" reports (which I'm quite sure would never say the public pays too much, whatever the facts) is perhaps evidence of too much central funding into sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Oh yes!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
2) The vast majority of government funding for sport in the UK is determined by the pyramid model. Success at the elite level is awarded with funding that flows down the pyramid to the general public. The social benefits of government investment in grassroots sport cannot be fully accessed without elite success. I'm not saying this is right way to do things, just a point of interest.
|
I disagree. Lets take a look at a sport where it is viable to really get to the top whilst living in the UK - whitewater kayaking. England, Wales and Scotland have some of the best whitewater rivers anywhere in the world, when it rains, anyway. We have had some olympic level success in kayak slalom, and almost all the government money that goes into kayaking gets spent on competetive slalom. The BCU (British Canoe Union) does absolutely NOTHING to help general recreational paddlers - in fact they are making it harder, by making the coaching ladder considerably more expensive and time consuming - that's another story though. The vast majority of paddlers get absolutely NOTHING from the elite level government funded slalom paddlers, so why do they get the money? It certainly does not filter down to grass roots level, as slalom is so different from recreational paddling. Participation would increase much more by dropping elite athlete funding and putting it straight into grass roots stuff - anyone with the inclination to compete should fund it themselves - they can reap their own awards from that. However, even without the funding, the kayaking has had the 'highest increase in participation' of UK watersports for the last few years - it does not need government funding as it is so popular anyway, so frankly the best thing would be for the government to stop giving any money to UK paddlesport.
Another way to look at things is that if something is popular enough to deserve funding, it will not need it as people will pay for it anyway. If a sport/art/whatever cannot survive financially on it's own, is that not an indication that people are not interested in it, and so therefore there is no point pumping money into it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
rjs, I wouldn't disagree with that. The UK success has largely been in track cycling, which seems to be cool to do again, but way fewer tracks around than in the 50s and 60s. I'd bet that more people in the UK compete in cycling than skiing - but a huge chunk of those will be doing MTBing, or Time Trialling which really bears no relationship to any Government funding stream. I would just like paymetorace to understand that elite sports performance has little impact on getting skiers to race or on the kit they use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
PJSki
To give one counter example - about one of biggest growing participant sports in the US in kids now is Soccer. Not a huge amount of elite success there.
|
The US Men's team (ranked 14th by FIFA) are in the World Cup Finals and were quarter finalists in 2002.
The US Women's team has the distinction of winning two Women's World Cups in 1991 and 1999 (placing third in 1995, 2003, and 2007); the Olympic Gold Medal in 1996, 2004, and 2008; and seven Algarve Cups and six CONCACAF Women's Gold Cups.
If that's not elite success, I don't know what is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| rjsa huge chunk of those will be doing MTBing, or Time Trialling which really bears no relationship to any Government funding stream. |
I'm afraid you're wrong. MTBing has a British Team that reports to and is administered by British Cycling, a quango which receives millions in government funding each year. In time trials, British Cycling essentially runs Team Sky, looking after British interests in the discipline.
On a separate note, stoatsbrother, please quit with the personal insults. It's completely unnecessary.
| clarky999 wrote: |
| Another way to look at things is that if something is popular enough to deserve funding, it will not need it as people will pay for it anyway. If a sport/art/whatever cannot survive financially on it's own, is that not an indication that people are not interested in it, and so therefore there is no point pumping money into it? |
As I said a few posts ago:
| welove2ski wrote: |
| Some sports/activities don't have a strong natural business model. Skiing in Britain is one of these. The cost is extremely high and the potential for the national governing body to generate revenue is low. |
The same with cycling. Does this mean they should be left to die?
stoatsbrother/PJSki, evidence. I suppose I should probably play my hand: I'm involved with the management of British freestyle skiing - I have first-hand experience of how the funding system works. I'm also an athlete on the national team, so I've got two perspectives on the whole thing.
To preempt axsman and stoatsbrother shouting me down for bias (surprise surprise, my opinions are connected to my own personal beliefs and professional exploits): yes, this does mean that I believe passionately in developing government support for snowsports in the UK. I don't think that makes my point of view invalid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Mike Pow, Re US men's team - indeed they did well in 2002 - but would I be right in saying that actually the surge in popularity predated 2002 by sometime? And they haven't won a lot other than that? MLB/NFL/College Football/NHL/NBA/NCAA all still hugely more present on US media too. And 14th isn't actually that good given 300,000,000 population and how many people now play soccer there when young.
I don't think the women's success is hugely relevant to this argument, because sadly, like the women's game in the UK, they don't get that much media coverage, so it is difficult to accept welove2ski's thesis that popular participation and social benefits can only follow the example of elite success, preferably centrally funded.
Could it be that the success at elite levels often follows rise in popularity, rather than vice versa? I don't know the answer btw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| Quote: |
2) The vast majority of government funding for sport in the UK is determined by the pyramid model. Success at the elite level is awarded with funding that flows down the pyramid to the general public. The social benefits of government investment in grassroots sport cannot be fully accessed without elite success. I'm not saying this is right way to do things, just a point of interest.
|
The BCU (British Canoe Union) does absolutely NOTHING to help general recreational paddlers - in fact they are making it harder, by making the coaching ladder considerably more expensive and time consuming - that's another story though. The vast majority of paddlers get absolutely NOTHING from the elite level government funded slalom paddlers, so why do they get the money? |
Yep, the idea that funding injected into the top of any sport will find its way down to the grassroots is laughable. Basically all the money disappears into the pockets of professional coaches and the like. From there it probably gets spent on nice cars and big houses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| welove2ski wrote: |
stoatsbrother/PJSki, evidence. I suppose I should probably play my hand: I'm involved with the management of British freestyle skiing - I have first-hand experience of how the funding system works. I'm also an athlete on the national team, so I've got two perspectives on the whole thing.
To preempt axsman and stoatsbrother shouting me down for bias (surprise surprise, my opinions are connected to my own personal beliefs and professional exploits): yes, this does mean that I believe passionately in developing government support for snowsports in the UK. I don't think that makes my point of view invalid. |
You have a vested interest. Elite level skiing does not deserve government funding. Your sport simply doesn't have the reach to make it in any way shape or form an inspirations to anyone but the very small number of people who are interested it. My advice to you is to go and get a proper job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| PJSki wrote: |
| Your sport simply doesn't have the reach to make it in any way shape or form an inspirations to anyone but the very small number of people who are interested it. My advice to you is to go and get a proper job. |
That's a pretty poor thing to say. You, sir, have a warped and entirely misinformed view of the reality of elite sport.
And you're right to call it my sport - because with foul words like that, it certainly isn't yours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
welove2ski, dont waste your breath trying to debate with whoever pjski is.. he / she definitely has some problems
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Maybe an elite sport needs to be funded in order for it to gain a more broad appeal and thus result in a wider-spread uptake at recreational level which in time eventually might (though nothing is ever guaranteed in life) filter through to more British athletes aspiring to and eventually reaching similar levels to Chemmy?
To say that something shouldn't be funded because at this point in time it is not a mass sport in Britain is a bit like saying you are not allowed on to the German ski team unless you are from Bavaria (and ideally Upper Bavaria) as otherwise you will never be able to compete internationally - that would have been a bit of bummer for Katja Seizinger seeing that she is from Datteln in North-Rhine Westfalia (which is quite close to the Dutch border) and not exactly known as an area from which famous German skiers normally hail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
schneeflocke, how much money does the German government give its elite skiers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| welove2ski wrote: |
| clarky999 wrote: |
| Another way to look at things is that if something is popular enough to deserve funding, it will not need it as people will pay for it anyway. If a sport/art/whatever cannot survive financially on it's own, is that not an indication that people are not interested in it, and so therefore there is no point pumping money into it? |
As I said a few posts ago:
| welove2ski wrote: |
| Some sports/activities don't have a strong natural business model. Skiing in Britain is one of these. The cost is extremely high and the potential for the national governing body to generate revenue is low. |
The same with cycling. Does this mean they should be left to die? |
Frankly, yes! It's not popular, it's a minority sport, what is gained by pumping public money into it for the benefit of very few people? You're saying taxes should be used to keep a sport going for the sake of it, even though the majority of people don't give a damn about it!
I really don't buy the 'equipment we use comes from governemnt funded elite skiers' either - the most recent technologies in skiing, such as rocker, pin tails, fatter skis, etc have come about by people such as Shane McConkey messing around with different shapes, funded by CORPORATE sponsers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
I really don't buy the 'equipment we use comes from governemnt funded elite skiers' either - the most recent technologies in skiing, such as rocker, pin tails, fatter skis, etc have come about by people such as Shane McConkey messing around with different shapes, funded by CORPORATE sponsers. |
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
PJSki,
I haven't got the faintest idea...
However,
http://www.ski-online.de/content.php?folder=2207
It appears that the DSV is a trust and not state funded and the above link says that since its foundation approx. 30 years ago it provided financial support totalling approx. 1.5 million Euro to German wintersport athletes (4/5 of this were donated by sponsors, 1/5 was raised by services provided/profits made by the DSV). I'm sure there is also some state funding somewhere but can't seem to find any data on that. Sorry.
However, should anybody on this site hold dual citizenship (i.e. british/german) then the below link shows you how to qualify through the various levels on to the German team:
http://ski-online.de/content.php?folder=2388
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| schneeflocke wrote: |
Maybe an elite sport needs to be funded in order for it to gain a more broad appeal and thus result in a wider-spread uptake at recreational level which in time eventually might (though nothing is ever guaranteed in life) filter through to more British athletes aspiring to and eventually reaching similar levels to Chemmy?
To say that something shouldn't be funded because at this point in time it is not a mass sport in Britain is a bit like saying you are not allowed on to the German ski team unless you are from Bavaria (and ideally Upper Bavaria) as otherwise you will never be able to compete internationally - that would have been a bit of bummer for Katja Seizinger seeing that she is from Datteln in North-Rhine Westfalia (which is quite close to the Dutch border) and not exactly known as an area from which famous German skiers normally hail. |
But why should the taxpayers have to fund it's growth in appeal? What benefits would it bring to the UK? What would we actually get out of making skiing Britain's no.1 sport? Why should we attempt to make people want to ski? And how many people these days actually aspire to racing? Freeride/Freestyle seems to be where skiing is going these days - and as far as I'm aware there is no government funding for this - no need either, it's popular, and so funds itself.
You're second paragraph makes no sense. Not providing money doesn't mean people can't spend their own money to get where they want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
welove2ski, You obviously know about elite freestyle skiing... but...
Teamsky looks after British interests in Time Trialling?! Teamsky is a recently formed pro-team, mainly road-racing based. You might want to look in to the RTTC/CTT - the body which looks after UK amateur time-trialling - which does get money from British Cycling - but do you want to look at the number of people who actually Time-Trial now as participants compared with the 1970s when Alf Engers was king, and central funding wasn't around?
MTBing - I think one could convincingly argue that the Forestry Commission and its Scottish and Welsh equivalents has done rather more than Elite Athletes for publicising/increasing participation. Never heard any of my racing biking mates mention Steve Peat or the Athertons - brilliant as they undoubtedly are. Too far removed from our level perhaps.
You just don't get it that you keep making non-logical jumps, and making non-evidenced claims for the utility of central funding of elite athletes as leading to wider population uptake. And you have yet to demonstrate that there is any trickle-down effect in UK skiing to justify your "be grateful to us elite athletes and give us the money" stance. A very different stance from Chemmy btw.
You obviously have to say this stuff in order to make your pitch and get funding for your program, but that doesn't mean we have to believe or agree with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
clarky999,
| Quote: |
You're second paragraph makes no sense. Not providing money doesn't mean people can't spend their own money to get where they want.
_________________
|
Huh? I didn't say that they are not providing money. I;m pretty sure that there is some state funding in the German system (I have no idea how much though). As a matter of fact Katja Seizinger's father happens to be quite a rich industrialist. She did area come from an area of Germany where skiing would be considered a minority sport and therefore somewhat elitist which would not be the case in more southern parts of Germany towards the Austrian and/or Swiss border where the overall uptake is much higher purely for geographical reasons.
But yeah, once you are in the system, you will of course be funded. It is arguably harder though to get to level where any kind of funding is available if you do not come from an area "traditionally" associated with a certain sport (and your father happens not to be a millionaire...).
Makes more sense now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I get what you mean. At first it read like you were comparing not providing funding with not allowing participation.
| Quote: |
To say that something shouldn't be funded because at this point in time it is not a mass sport in Britain is a bit like saying you are not allowed on to the German ski team unless you are from Bavaria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stoatsbrother, thank you for correcting me on the cycling front - my understanding of the sport, gleaned from a couple of bubble rides at Fort William with GB team MTB racers - was obviously misinformed.
Please, don't take what I'm saying as "be grateful to us elite athletes and give us the money". I certainly don't think that. From an athlete perspective, life without government funding is extremely difficult. The top athletes could not be where they are without it. Which has nothing to do with making a pitch - funding is awarded on results, and nothing more.
The majority of this thread has been about establishing the fact that sport - in general - provides positive social benefits. With that seemingly put to bed (thank God!), the discussion has shifted to whether the elite level plays a part in producing these benefits. As a sport that receives little funding, and has little elite success, skiing is a bad example. We need to establish whether elite level sport in general plays a part in producing social benefits.
The links are tenuous, I agree. I am very passionate about sport, but defending the pursuit of Olympic medals on the basis of national spirit and pride will always get shot down around here. It's worth something I think, but that probably won't hold given some of the opinions being thrown about...
So, I would put it to you that:
1) A successful elite level provides a pinnacle for younger athletes and kids to aspire to, which aids mass participation. Elite level success > increased media interest > increase public interest > increased participation.
Kids that are inspired by Sir Chris Hoy want to be like him (the same with football and Wayne Rooney, but we'll stick to government-funded sport). If we believe that the actions of these elite athletes do not affect the aspirations (and so actions) of the general public, then we know something that millions of pounds in endorsement deals and millions in TV figures do not.
2) Increased participation has economic reverberations that outweigh government investment. At an elite level, major championships etc can serve as economic stimulus to a region. That's the main reason anybody bothers to host them! They make money as long as people turn up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
welove2ski,
| Quote: |
Increased participation has economic reverberations that outweigh government investment. At an elite level, major championships etc can serve as economic stimulus to a region.
|
FWIW, that argument has, mutatis mutandis, also been proved on numerous occasions in respect of the arts. For example, 'The Economic Importance of the Arts in Britain' by John Myerscough, published by the Policy Studies Institute over 20 years ago now, but still oft quoted.
Sorry if slightly O/T.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
1) A successful elite level provides a pinnacle for younger athletes and kids to aspire to, which aids mass participation. Elite level success > increased media interest > increase public interest > increased participation.
|
But do we need taxpayers money to fund this? Do we need these athletes to be British to inspire us? Or should we just let Red Bull and other corporate entities continue to sponsor those at the top? For example, in skiing, Shane McConkey (US)has inspired me much more than Alain Baxter, in kayaking Steve Fischer (SA) has inspired me more than... actually I can't think of any government funded paddlers at all!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
's ? 
