Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Changes ahead? Scathing review into UKA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • fchd
    commented on 's reply
    ... and sailing is basically a more expensive sport to compete in than athletics, gymnastics and swimming

  • trickstat
    commented on 's reply
    I wonder if some sort of virtual assessment was done estimating how various sports might have done if Tokyo had happened this year. My guess is this would have suggested lesser results for gymnastics and swimming than in Rio. I'm not sure if you can justify a sport having higher funding leading up to 2024 based on great results in 2016 achieved by people who have largely gone off the scene 8 years later. I have no idea what the current prognosis for sailing is.

  • gghurdler
    replied
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/55371552

    Funding for the next Olympic cycle is announced, as expected monies will be given to basketball, squash and weightlifting that are under represented. What I didn’t see coming was the severity of the cuts to the core Olympic sports - athletics 10%, swimming 11% and gymnastics 10%. The swimmers and gymnasts in particular did superbly in Rio, I fail to see why they should be the ones to take the brunt when it comes to funding cuts.

    Munday and Grainger talk of a more inclusive approach with more money going to sports that might be taken by kids in cities and towns, which has its merits, yet Sailing which only produced 3 medals in Rio and is participated in by barely anyone still receives more money than gymnastics and swimming
    Olympic sport Amount awarded
    Archery £2,134,257
    Athletics £22,175,520
    Badminton £3,154,358
    Boxing £11,395,507
    Canoeing £12,108,836
    Cycling £27,601,684
    Diving £8,463,542
    Equestrian £11,085,964
    Gymnastics £12,510,990
    Hockey £12,376,622
    Judo £5,446,804
    Modern pentathlon £4,391,183
    Rowing £22,212,008
    Sailing £21,338,088
    Shooting £5,802,749
    Swimming £16,590,017
    Taekwondo £7,776,898
    Triathlon £6,806,550

    Leave a comment:


  • Laps
    commented on 's reply
    This is very true but the article I read as being about UK Sport funded coaching positions and a quota percentage target to be met in four years.
    All good if there are more resources (as if?) and competition for places but someone will be trying to meet this percentage target regardless.

  • trickstat
    commented on 's reply
    If a country has the worst athlete welfare in the world it will not have consistent success as too many athletes will be driven away. Either from the sport or, if the opportunity exists, to another country. I will agree that it takes a lot more than outstanding athlete welfare to have a high level of success.

    I don't know whether this is an indirect acknowledgement of prior failings or not.

  • trickstat
    replied
    More female coaches means more coaches which tends to be a good thing for the sport.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grassmarket
    replied
    Originally posted by LoveSprints1 View Post

    I'm fine with a 'socio-political' agenda if it enables more of the great and potentially great female coaches to gain opportunities to excel. Not sure why you would imply that female coaches won't deliver sporting success. Perhaps you can expand?
    If.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic_phrase
    Last edited by Grassmarket; 13-11-20, 21:06.

    Leave a comment:


  • LoveSprints1
    replied
    Originally posted by Grassmarket View Post
    Another instance of how lottery funding will now be used to push a socio-political agenda rather than sporting success.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/54911500
    I'm fine with a 'socio-political' agenda if it enables more of the great and potentially great female coaches to gain opportunities to excel. Not sure why you would imply that female coaches won't deliver sporting success. Perhaps you can expand?

    Leave a comment:


  • Grassmarket
    replied
    Another instance of how lottery funding will now be used to push a socio-political agenda rather than sporting success.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/54911500

    Leave a comment:


  • larkim
    commented on 's reply
    Laps - as a general comment though, many / most / lots of ardent fans of athletics in the UK have spent the last 10 years complaining about the fact that UKA just chases medals, and in that criticism most of them have failed to make the valid point that you address; there was little choice about having a focus on medal goals at major champs as that was led by the funding approach. I also don't agree that they'd opt voluntarily to do something "easy". Glory is always sought after because quangos know they need to keep a level of relevance to ensure their funding.

  • Grassmarket
    replied
    Yeah, Laps is right. UK Sport - the Lottery - funds elite Sport. Sport England, Scotland etc. funds grassroots. But now elite sport won’t be medal focussed, then medals will be rarer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Laps
    commented on 's reply
    larkim
    Grassmarket's point makes sense to me.
    Your's doesn't because UKA had no choice but to use the bulk of the money it received to fund elite athletes for the purpose of winning medals. UKA always had UK Sport standing over them with a big whip. Whether UKA could have achieved a lot more for the grass roots, coaching and broader development across the events and still done UK Sport's bidding is a matter of opinion. There were signs eg in selection policy that they resisted some UK Sport pressure (compare with swimming, cycling selecting only finals (or future finals) contenders, no no-hopers).

    You can expect the most successful coaches (medals) across the sports to not put up with the new obsessions and interference and they will go elsewhere. That process is already under way imo.

  • larkim
    replied
    Originally posted by Grassmarket View Post

    It is a universal rule of life that if you gave quangocrats a choice between doing one difficult thing - winning medals - and one easy thing - looking after athlete’s welfare - they will always, always choose to do the easy thing. It’s a requirement of sporting success that a large number of unsuccessful athletes must make room for a small number of successful ones. Naturally this is never popular amongst the larger number.

    British Sport’s Golden Age 2000-2016 is now officially dead & buried.
    This makes no sense whatsoever. UKA have been roundly critised for years for focussing solely on medals (the "difficult" thing apparently) which you seem to be suggesting they'd never choose to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • philipo
    replied
    Originally posted by Grassmarket View Post

    It is a universal rule of life that if you gave quangocrats a choice between doing one difficult thing - winning medals - and one easy thing - looking after athlete’s welfare - they will always, always choose to do the easy thing. It’s a requirement of sporting success that a large number of unsuccessful athletes must make room for a small number of successful ones. Naturally this is never popular amongst the larger number.

    British Sport’s Golden Age 2000-2016 is now officially dead & buried.
    how true sir.!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Grassmarket
    replied
    Originally posted by Occasional Hope View Post
    Surely what we need is both?
    It is a universal rule of life that if you gave quangocrats a choice between doing one difficult thing - winning medals - and one easy thing - looking after athlete’s welfare - they will always, always choose to do the easy thing. It’s a requirement of sporting success that a large number of unsuccessful athletes must make room for a small number of successful ones. Naturally this is never popular amongst the larger number.

    British Sport’s Golden Age 2000-2016 is now officially dead & buried.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X