As you can see from our news section UKSport have made their funding decision for the Rio Cycle as part of their No Compromise approach to elite funding.

There has been an understandable argument in the media over the last few days from those sports that hoped to retain or gain funding up to 2016. There is also a wider but less vocal sports world outside the Olympics who want to know why as a country we only value Gold medals.

In response to some of this criticism the following was quoted in MVP magazine about the attitude of UkSport

UK Sport chief executive Liz Nicholl has been forced to defend her claims that sportspeople who do not win Olympic medals are unable to serve as an inspiration for the next generation.

Nicholl, speaking in response to suggestion that a loss of funding for certain sports would damage the way in which its leading performers reach out into the community, attracted widespread criticism after MVP highlighted her statement that: "They are hardly role models if they are not winning – they become role models by winning."

It earned a rebuke from the GB basketball captain Drew Sullivan, who claimed the agency's definition of a role model meant "my kids shouldn't actually be looking up to me because I've not won any Olympic medal."

Whatever Liz Nicholl meant the position of UKsport has now been driven to the point that all the public money now being used to drive elite sport in this country is justified on Gold medals at the Olympics. We know how we got to this situation. We know the initial boost to extra funds from the Treasury was to ensure success at a home games in 2012 (especially in comparison to the £billions being spent on hosting) by investing in our team. However, this was done at the expense of many minor sports who lost their funding and the clear impression left was that post 2012 things would return to normal.

Our main concern at the Think Tank is twofold.

Where and how the policy decision was made to only concentrate on Gold medal chances at Olympic & Paralympic Games. There are only a handful of sports at these Games so the consequences for potential world champions in other non Olympic sports is dramatic.

Secondly if the decision is to back this idea of No Compromise (there is always compromise in everything) to what policy end and based on what evidence? It is clear that there are elements of inspiration for some people by seeing Gold medal performances and equal evidence that for many there is no noticeable change in behaviour. The role models are too unattainable. So is it about increasing participation and if so why drive only towards successful Olympic sports? There was evidence at the growth in interest in Handball for example. The team didn't need to win Gold to create a boost. It is also the case that there are lots of non Olympicssports that create the water cooler moment. Shouldn't other popular sports be backed too? So if it isn't about participation it must be about international prestige and soft power? is it really about the national pride generated from coming 3rd in the medal table? Are we really that concerned as a nation that we are willing not to fund basketball to be successful by 2020?

These are big questions which seem to have been lost in the debate. No Compromise has become the defence for the current position and there is to be No Alternative. Where did we hear that before?

What do you think - what should we be doing.