Food for Thought: ‘No Compromise’- Where is the Value in Medals?

Posted: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 13:07

Food for Thought: ‘No Compromise’- Where is the Value in Medals?

UK Sport's decision to withdraw funding from six Olympic sports recently has caused a furore amongst commentators criticising the 'No Compromise' approach to achieving Olympic medal success. It is argued that UK Sport's policy is disproportionate and exacerbates inequality among sports at the top level that may take decades to overcome. For the critics, the stand-out sport among those left behind is basketball, an accessible sport with growing popularity (the biggest grassroots base of any Olympic team sport) and good support in schools and the inner-cities. A blow to a sport whose fans and followers of the professional American basketball league, the NBA, will soon be able to watch NBA games in Britain as the league looks to export its product across the Atlantic and make the most of its UK appeal.

The counter-argument and standpoint of UK Sport Chief Executive Liz Nicholl is that UK Sport is simply fulfilling its remit as the organisation responsible for delivering champions at the top level. This means the most likely sports to win medals will continue to receive funding, while those where chances of medal success are regarded as slim will suffer. After all, what is UK Sport's purpose as a strategic body?

'UK Sport has a very clear remit at the 'top end' of Britain's sporting pathway, with no direct involvement in community or school sport.' (http://www.uksport.gov.uk/pages/about-uk-sport/)

UK Sport is in an invidious position, caught in the funding paradox: you can't be seen to reward failure, yet how are struggling sports supposed to become successful without financial support? Setting aside the bizarre 'snakes and ladders' magnitude of the approach adopted by the UK Sport decision-makers (basketball has gone from £9m of financial support provided to nothing in one year), is UK Sport not after all doing exactly what it should be, and those who have lost out are not happy about it? In short, the answer is yes.

The important questions to pose here are: what is the true value to the UK of maximising medal-hauls at Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games and World Championships in this manner? Where is the evidence that top-level success is at all linked to raising standards in the society that wins, whether those benefits are in health, the economy, education or social cohesion? Success doesn't even necessarily lead to increased participation, as we in Great Britain have found out after a home Olympics where we experienced our greatest ever sporting success and nearly two years later grassroots participation levels are no higher. Tennis, a perennially useful example, continues to experience falling participation levels despite two Olympic medals in 2012 and the first Wimbledon men's champion in 77 years in 2013. The social value of medals is simply pride and profile, with the further purpose of generating more corporate shills-cum-celebrities to fill up Jonathan Ross's interview schedule and to advertise for banks and fast-food franchises.

There is no doubt that funding strategy across the last five Olympics, boosted by the introduction of the National Lottery, has reaped enormous improvement in medal success, but is this just success for the sake of success, the ability to hold our heads up high and keep sports' viewing and attendance figures ticking over to attract more commercial sponsors? Maybe government and UK Sport would re-think their strategy if they thought about the social and developmental benefits to the wider population of international achievement in sport-- if there are any.

Luke Regan

Sports Think Tank

Tags: 2012, London 2012, Olympics, Sport, Sport for development, UK Sport

Comments

No comments yet, why not be the first?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.