 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
If we have national teams in such sports and we (the country) expect the athletes to represent the country in national and international events, then surely the athletes can be expected to receieve assistance in achieving a national standard and to make representative appearances? If not then we need to disband all national representation and allow the athletes to fight for their own sponsorship and represent the likes of Sky, Gillette or Budweiser etc instead
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Hurtle, difficult to disagree with that on a regional basis. But not all the money necessarily has to go to "elite art" eg the major London Orchestras and Opera Houses? I remember the controversy after "The glory of the garden"
clarky999, exactly my point. And if those UK freestyle elte skiers were really deserving of support - in a part of skiing where most of the funding stream to the top athletes in the world seems (to an outside observer) to be commercial/corporate direct to individuals - shouldn't they be getting funded that way too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I've not had chance to read the full thread, but the opening question is worded incorrectly. It should read "Should Public money fund elite sport?". The Government spends 'our' money.
Answer. No.
Reasons: There are that there better uses for the money.
The Olympics are a case in point. Imagine how many community Sports facilities could be provided with the cash that's gone in to (anther set) of infrastructure in East London. Even our 'National Sports Centers' are down at heal. The driveway for the one next to us has the largest \ deepest pot holes that I've ever seen.
Unfortunately somewhere we've moved away from "Sport for All".
If athletes chose to pursue their sport as a career that is their choice, but I don't think it's fair that the public should pay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Lottery funding for sports = good thing. People have the choice of paying for this by choosing whether or not to participate in the lottery.
Government encouragement/funding for sports that a majority of the UK population could if motivated participate in at some level (eg athletics, swimming, cycling, football, cricket, martial arts, etc) for everyone's benefit = good use of money.
Government funding for minority sports = letter to my MP asking why despite having to consider cutting funding for things that are really worthwhile to the UK (eg science and engineering research budgets) they are giving it to a bunch of people who chose to participate in said minority sport.
Seems pretty simple to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
rayscoops, fair point - and I'd absolutely agree for Olympic participation, but can anyone/organisation decide to start a national team for any minority sport in the meantime and expect entitlement to funding for events other than the Olympics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Lets not forget that representational 'Amateur' Elite sport is sponsored, nothing professional.....e.g Bradley Wiggins is not paid by British Cycling for competing in the TdF, but is funded for anything Team GB on the track.....William Fox-Pitt does not get his horses' vet bills paid for by Team GB for a knock picked up at Badminton.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should public funds and lottery funds be used to support participation and competition at a grass roots level? If the answer to that question is yes the next questions seems to be should public funds and lottery funds be used to support elite athletes compete up to an including the highest levels of competition in which it is unlikely that there is sufficient commercial support available to sustain a viable level of participation?
I can't see the point of supporting grass roots participation if there is not a viable route for those kids who have the talent and motivation to make it to the world stage in their chosen sport. Equally, focusing support on a small number of elite athletes while ignoring the sport's foundations is unsustainable. So you're either in the game and you have a strategy to support participation and excellence from bottom to top, or you get out of the game altogether.
Out of interest, how many sports in the UK are sustained purely by private and/or commercial funds?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| ... can anyone/organisation decide to start a national team for any minority sport in the meantime and expect entitlement to funding for events other than the Olympics? |
No I don't think they can. Sport England, for example, has a list of recognised sports. So presumably if you're not a recognised sport you're not able to apply for funds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| 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. |
The same thing could be said for the England Men's team. And unlike the US, soccer is the No.1 sport in England.
| Quote: |
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. |
The US Women's team gets plenty of media coverage and regularly has higher attendances than the men's team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Out of interest, how many sports in the UK are sustained purely by private and/or commercial funds? |
From what perspective? Grass Roots or Elite competition?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| The Voice of Reason wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Out of interest, how many sports in the UK are sustained purely by private and/or commercial funds? |
From what perspective? Grass Roots or Elite competition? |
Both perspectives. Are there any sports which are funded top to bottom by only by private or commercial funds with no recipt of any kind of public or lottery funding?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
rob@rar, Can certainly think of individuals competing at Elite level with only private funding, but I guess they are an exception.....(and these individuals are competing at something far more expensive than skiing  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Pow, I stand corrected.
rob@rar, I guess it is weluvtoski's insistence that there is significant trickle down from elite athletes to UK recreational skiing which I find most oddd
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| If we have national teams in such sports and we (the country) expect the athletes to represent the country in national and international events, then surely the athletes can be expected to receieve assistance in achieving a national standard and to make representative appearances? If not then we need to disband all national representation and allow the athletes to fight for their own sponsorship and represent the likes of Sky, Gillette or Budweiser etc instead |
People who participate in unpopular, minority sports have no business swanning around the globe at public expense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Does anyone know how mass-participation sports were funded in the Victorian heyday of codification of football / rugby / cricket? My hunch is that mass-participation was not funded through national taxation (or national borrowing).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
stoatsbrother, I think he's over-playing his hand, but maybe if we look at it from a perspective of bottom-up is it really sensible to say to kids "yes, we'll support your best endeavours to participate and get good at your chosen minority sport, but when you start to reach an international standard of performance (in a sport we understand can't fund itself through sponsorship alone) we won't offer you any more support..."? As I said, get in the game or get out of it.
Out of interest I just checked the Football Association's annual report for 2008, the latest available I think, and they are in receipt of grants from Sport England, the Department of Culture Media and Sport, anf the London Development Agency totalling nearly £120 million.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| Does anyone know how mass-participation sports were funded in the Victorian heyday of codification of football / rugby / cricket? My hunch is that mass-participation was not funded through national taxation (or national borrowing). |
Weren't the kids too busy down the pits or up the chimneys to play sport?
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Wed 2-06-10 9:40; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
laundryman, I would think that back in the day, participation of amateur and professional sportsmen (think Jardine and Larwood as an example) and the formation of works teams funded the growth of 'popular' mass participation sports
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Some interesting stuff here, I haven't thought about some of these generic subjects for some time.
'Government Funding for Sport ' -- I buy that that government should fund sports at a 'Grass-Roots' level along the lines of 'Sport For All', investing in basic infrastructure to enable kids in particular to participate. Too many schools have been allowed to run-down their curriculums and even sell - off playing fields. This funding has to be managed within the context of other priorities though. The government's 'investment' in the Olympics is exactly that ... other cities/countries have benefitted economically from staging them. I hope we do the same.
'Government Funding for 'The Arts' - No idea where it all goes but would always be the lowest priority of all out of the public purse for me. Below any sport ...and I would justify that on the participation argument.
'Lottery Funding for Sport' -... all lottery grants are a lottery. It was a major mistake not to take the 'slice' straight into government coffers, this could and probably should be reversed. All we have is 14 'Fund Manager' quangos acting with god-given rights but with little/no public accountability, so it has understandably become a free-for-all with committee-driven allocation criteria.
Any individual is perfectly entitled to 'fight for funding' though whilst this lottery system exists. I just dont see it as a right and would prefer to see government in charge. An unprecedented case of government making a mistake in 'isolating' income from the public purse ...
'Elite Athletes' -- I can see no reason for any monies to be allocated to them in any sport. If Demand & Supply doesn't work for sponsorship from the private individual/sector then that says more about the sport or the athlete's standing. I see even less value in subsidising athletes to achieve that level ( whatever it really means) .... success is, financially, outside the grasp of many youngsters in many professions due to the hardships that they will have to go through, but beyond university there is little/no public-funded financial help available.
'Funding of Specific Sports' & Value - for-Money. Never really thought about this before  Certain sports have high participation costs, high infrastructure costs and, consequently, limited participatory appeal and as such should never get any money from the public purse, not sure where you draw the line .... my brain is addled but obvious examples are: Motor Sport, Equestrianism, Golf and .. boarding/skiing. Head & Heart not always in the same place!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
stoatsbrother, I think he's over-playing his hand, but maybe if we look at it from a perspective of bottom-up is it really sensible to say to kids "yes, we'll support your best endeavours to participate and get good at your chosen minority sport, but when you start to reach an international standard of performance (in a sport we understand can't fund itself through sponsorship alone) we won't offer you any more support..."? As I said, get in the game or get out of it.
Out of interest I just checked the Football Association's annual report for 2008, the latest available I think, and they are in receipt of grants from Sport England, the Department of Culture Media and Sport, anf the London Development Agency totalling nearly £120 million. |
That money is justified due to the huge demand to take part in football. Football really is a special case, unlike ski racing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
back then it was the whole gentleman vs players mainly paid for by betting in one way or the other..so lottery funding is nothing new in a way
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stoatsbrother,
| Quote: |
But not all the money necessarily has to go to "elite art" eg the major London Orchestras
|
Indeed, but that's why most of them have developed regional programmes - the Philharmonia's is particularly impressive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| laundryman wrote: |
| Does anyone know how mass-participation sports were funded in the Victorian heyday of codification of football / rugby / cricket? My hunch is that mass-participation was not funded through national taxation (or national borrowing). |
Weren't the kids too busy down the pits or up the chimneys to play sport? |
In slightly later times, the pit villages were a production line for fast bowlers such as Larwood, Voce and Trueman. The same goes for rugby league players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
The BBC reported that Sport England grants for the next few years included these:
Cricket: £37.8
Rugby Union: £30.7m
Rugby League: £29.4m
Tennis: £26.8m
Football: £25.6m (in addition to the £60m already given to the Football Foundation)
Cycling £24.3m
Swimming: £20.9m
Badminton: £20.8m
Athletics: £20.4m
Netball: £17.3m
Rowing: £9.1m
Table tennis: £9.3m
So to partly answer my question, even the most wealthy sports with huge commercial income and sponsorship revenue are happy to take public funds to support their sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar,
| Quote: |
| I can't see the point of supporting grass roots participation if there is not a viable route for those kids who have the talent and motivation to make it to the world stage in their chosen sport. |
You are giving people the chance to participate in sport for enjoyment, fitness and well being. It's not a viable career choice other than for the very few.
By definition, the ability to attain 'International' level in any given sport will only be possible by a tiny minority of participants. They will need help, but not from public funds. Better to use funds raised by the respective National Governing Bodies from Commercial sponsorship, TV and personal sponsorship.
If kids want a career in Sport then better they choose one with plenty of TV cash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
rob@rar, Sport England pony up cash based primarily on results, hence the reason for second rate skiers (based on WC and Olympic results) getting best part of bog all......however, IIRC, the sliders got a nice fat increase in their funding after winning a Gold in Vancouver.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| So to partly answer my question, even the most wealthy sports with huge commercial income and sponsorship revenue are happy to take public funds to support their sport. |
Everyone is happy to take public funds. Therein lies a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| david@mediacopy wrote: |
| You are giving people the chance to participate in sport for enjoyment, fitness and well being. |
Well, if this thread is typical of public opinion I think giving kids the opportunity to become winners is at least as important as giving them the opportunity to participate. From what I see of kids who become committed to participating in a particular sport it is the opportunity to beat other kids in a sport they are passionate about is the key motivation.
| Quote: |
| It's not a viable career choice other than for the very few. |
Agreed, so perhaps the elite funding should not mean that grassroots support is inadequate, assuming that you offer any grassroots support. If you don't offer grassroots support probably no point in elite support either.
| Quote: |
| Better to use funds raised by the respective National Governing Bodies from Commercial sponsorship, TV and personal sponsorship. |
Do you accept that there are some sports, perhaps even many, that will not be able to run a national team which can be competitive internationally if its only source of funds were commercial sponsorship, TV and personal sponsorship? To me skiing seems to fall in to that category, but I don't really know of the funding works so I might well be entirely wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
rob@rar, what we do not have there is a breakdown on how much goes on Elite Sport and how much on Grassroots. Do you have a breakdown for that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
The BBC reported that Sport England grants for the next few years included these:
Cricket: £37.8
Rugby Union: £30.7m
Rugby League: £29.4m
Tennis: £26.8m
Football: £25.6m (in addition to the £60m already given to the Football Foundation)
Cycling £24.3m
Swimming: £20.9m
Badminton: £20.8m
Athletics: £20.4m
Netball: £17.3m
Rowing: £9.1m
Table tennis: £9.3m
So to partly answer my question, even the most wealthy sports with huge commercial income and sponsorship revenue are happy to take public funds to support their sport. |
Yeah but how much of that is lottery funding and how much is public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| The Voice of Reason wrote: |
| rob@rar, Sport England pony up cash based primarily on results, hence the reason for second rate skiers (based on WC and Olympic results) getting best part of bog all......however, IIRC, the sliders got a nice fat increase in their funding after winning a Gold in Vancouver..... |
Yes, I understand that. But I think we're talking about the principle rather than the practice of sport funding?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
rob@rar,
| Quote: |
| Do you accept that there are some sports, perhaps even many, that will not be able to run a national team which can be competitive internationally if its only source of funds were commercial sponsorship, TV and personal sponsorship? To me skiing seems to fall in to that category, |
We could spend ages defining what being 'competitive' really means but if there are sports who cannot fund 'elite' participation without government funding then, no, they shouldn't participate. I have no idea about 'Winter Sports' funding either but looking to the taxpayer is, in my opinion, the wrong place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| rob@rar, what we do not have there is a breakdown on how much goes on Elite Sport and how much on Grassroots. Do you have a breakdown for that? |
Unfortunately not, at least not without spending an inordinate amount of time to break it down by sport. According to its most recent annual accounts Sport England spends about 60% of its funding on sustaining participation and about 25% on developing and accelerating talent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I am trying to get SWMBO to cough up some information, but she is currently stuck in another quango meeting about funding in Elite sports 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| According to its most recent annual accounts Sport England spends about 60% of its funding on sustaining participation and about 25% on developing and accelerating talent. |
Interesting ... if you had asked me what it should have been .. I would have said c. 100:0 !
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Agenterre wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| According to its most recent annual accounts Sport England spends about 60% of its funding on sustaining participation and about 25% on developing and accelerating talent. |
Interesting ... if you had asked me what it should have been .. I would have said c. 100:0 ! |
No right or wrong about this, just shades of opinion. Just out of interest, how would you answer a question from a 13 year old kid selected for the GB childrens ski team about how she could afford to race at an international level if she kept on working hard and winning races?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, how about "your parents will need to find a corporate sponsor"?
There are an infinite number of good causes on which one might imagine spending public money, but limits have to be drawn - hurt feelings of ski racer starlets notwithstanding. Or, we could give in to sentiment every time, without a care in the world until we run out of money ... which, in case you hadn't noticed, has happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, I'd hope that I could honestly and positively reply that her family's support would be number 1 ( and they have after all funded her to her current level) , and that if she achieved 'enough' the National Association had a scheme in place to assist her financially ... without having to get into the issue of where the money came from. Obviously in 'My World' the National Association would have to get its funding through non-governmental routes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
laundryman, Agenterre, that's a perfectly reasonably answer, although I think it would be fair to the child to add that there are very slim chances of finding corporate sponsors who will fully fund a world class athlete in a sport with very little public exposure . Do you think there is any value in public funding for competitive sport at any level?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar,
| Quote: |
| From what I see of kids who become committed to participating in a particular sport it is the opportunity to beat other kids in a sport they are passionate about is the key motivation. |
No argument there. And I fully agree that 'grass routes' sport is a must.
| Quote: |
| Just out of interest, how would you answer a question from a 13 year old kid selected for the GB childrens ski team about how she could afford to race at an international level if she kept on working hard and winning races? |
Same as you would a kid who's winning karting races and wants to be the next Hamilton or Button. Get out, raise the money to race. If a NGB chooses to put up a 'National' team they should find a way of funding it without recourse to public money.
I'm amazed at the public funds going to sports with big TV income - Tennis, Football, Rugby and Cricket. Wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
