Letting the side down
When the President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Jacques Rogge, finally ended months of speculation by announcing London’s winning bid to host the Olympics in 2012, the British sporting community, and indeed the nation itself, was immersed in a rapturous celebration on a scale scarcely witnessed before. London’s reward may be great but its challenge is equally immense.
Surrounding much of the media talk of ‘value for money’ and the exciting prospects of archery at Lord’s and tennis at Wimbledon, has been the enthusiastic reception given to plans to regenerate some of London’s poorest districts. The bid team often talked about the cultural integration that the Olympics would bring and the opportunity to use the Games as a vehicle to increase the importance of sport in the public mindset.
In essence, the challenge is to use this opportunity, through various means, to create a British team capable of winning a large number of medals in 2012. Ultimately, this for many is how the Games will be judged. The sense of pride and adulation that chorus’ of the National Anthem would bring will undoubtedly exceed any fears expressed by accountants' penny-pinching.
The time-frame to achieve such success is at least a generation, which brings the seven year gap between now and then into a much sharper perspective. Currently however, British sporting success at international level is limited to say the least. Qualification in the latest Athletics World Championships in Helsinki often involved a Briton scrambling to secure a fastest loser position rather than dipping on the line to secure a position on the rostrum.
Instead, current success comes in what some describe as being the ‘minority’ sports, such as equestrianism and kayaking. Clearly the capacity for participation in such events is limited • whatever the new facilities 2012 may bring. Despite this, the current trend of sports funding policy is to further fund these successful ‘minority’ sports at the expense of more traditional pursuits, such as track and field.
More widely, this is linked to the ever more prevalent notion of efficiency in sport; that an input of investment must lead to a result on the rostrum. Lottery and other sources of funding are often dependent upon success. The number of elite athletes funded will decrease to 40 next year, down from 161 in 1998, with projected spending down to £7.2 million over four years. Here lies a patent contradiction in the challenge facing British sport.
Olympic sport is fought more on the grounds of endeavour, grit, commitment, pride and determination rather than on strict economic rules. Removing funding from ‘under-performing’ athletes is a perverse and counter-productive exercise, revealing a disappointingly defeatist attitude. Instead of rising to the challenge of competition, Britain appears to be running away from the competition, chasing ever fewer windows of opportunity in the hope of success.
It seems foolish to gamble many millions (£750 million 2012 target) in Lottery funding on the Olympics without being prepared to risk a few million on the athletes. Further still, why fund the creation of new expensive facilities in minority sports when the opportunities to expand in more traditional pastimes are plentiful? Whilst this will save money and may be more efficient, it will undoubtedly cause a disincentive to tomorrow’s generation of athletes.
This is not to say that the ’minority’ sports should be forgotten, but instead to say that, as ambassadors in 2012, Britain has a different set of objectives than it normally does. In short, Britain must align itself closely to the objectives of the Olympic movement • wider participation, using sport to bring people together and encouraging personal development to name just a few.
That is why when the government plans to increase school sport, invest in developing athletes and divert funds into coaches and infrastructure, it must make sure the ‘top’ athletes in all sports are not left behind.
5th Oct 2005