Martin Galpin | Racing Driver | number66.net

The BBC is reporting that eight Olympic sports have had their London 2012 funding cut following an overall budget shortfall of £50 million. In total, eight Olympic sports have had budgets cut by 50% or more with Shooting (-75.5%), Wrestling (-68.1%) and Fencing (-59%) hit hardest.

Before I say anything more, I’d like to state where I stand on these matters. I am, overwhelmingly, in favour of the London 2012 Olympic Games. I do not disagree with the funding expectations of athletes or with the investment in sporting and public infrastructure it requires. What’s more, I have little doubt that there is indeed, a correlation between a nation’s investment in sport and its Olympic medal success. After all, I know this to be true in motor sport.

The table below summarises the largest funding cuts.

Let’s take Fencing as an example.

For the Beijing 2008 Olympics, Team GB fielded three athletes: Martina Emanuel, Richard Kruse and Alex O’Connell. They were allocated £3.07 million for the games and their efforts yielded zero medals.

For London 2012, Team GB will be allocated £1.26 million, representing a 59% decrease when compared with the previous games.

Is £1.26 million too little or too much? If in London 2012, Team GB were to again field three athletes, it would represent a cost of roughly £400,000 per athlete, or £100,000 per athlete per year. Or, if they were to double the number of athletes (six), pay each athlete a salary of £20,000 per year, they would still have £780,000 to spend on coaching, promotion and facilities over the four year period.

That doesn’t seem so bad to me.

So here’s the question: how much public funding should sports really receive? Should there be a relationship between the level of funding a sport receives, its contribution to the UK economy and the level of participation both in terms of audience and competitors? If this is the case, is it right that grass-roots motor sport receives little, if any public (or lottery) funding, especially considering as an industry, it contributes an estimated £6 billion to the UK economy?

I don’t think for one moment that public money should fund the career of any young racing driver. However, shouldn’t there be more balance? If that same £1.26 million allocated to Fencing over a four year period was also allocated to motor sports – what impact could that have on grass-roots participation?

No related posts.