Money does not buy success

[Money does not buy success.] Yes, it does…..it just doesn’t guarantee success!

Well, we seem to agree on that point. 🙂

And you are absolutely right about those having the support of their families, but not just financial support, having a much greater chance of success. So what should be done about it?

To me, it seems that the funding through Sport UK is exactly the right thing to do; and it seems to be working. Look where Team GB came in the medals table, look who we beat, France, Germany, Australia, Russia…..Russia!!!

But as ever in the UK we have those who somehow manage to find a cloud for every silver-lining…

…if there was a Olympic gold-medal for ‘putting-ourselves-down’ Team GB would win every time! 😀 (Without any extra funding!)

Or do we just give-up, say ‘it is too hard’ and not even try? :rolleyes:

No I didn’t say that at all, but going back to the original post, yes of course
money can bring success. Although it doesn’t guarantee it.

A youngster who has parents willing to spend a lot of money to take them all
over the country to competitions, is more likely to succeed than a child
whose parents have no money, or no interest. That’s just a fact of life.

So what you’re saying is that top international athletes (those that can afford it) train where the best facilities, best trainers, best physiotherapists, best nutritionists, best psychologists and best tacticians are to be found?

And the best place to find all these things is in a country where there has been significant investment in sport for decades and where those with experience (many of then former Olympic competitors themselves) are to be found?

Maybe in years to come that place will be the United Kingdom?

Or do we just give-up, say ‘it is too hard’ and not even try? :rolleyes:

Different strokes for different folks as the saying goes. The USA has the collegiate system for athletics which will always be much stronger than anything GB can provide. Having implied US domination of track events, which Country do Usain Bolt and Johan Blake run for?

Regards,

kev35

Then again, where do a lot of the top European athletes do their training,
Or like Mo Farah, actually live ?

Even Andy Murray and Laura Robson didn’t learn their tennis in the UK.

We’ve had to suffer years of watching our sportsmen and women, largely, being also-rans, and our football and cricket teams humiliated (the huge wages, of some footballers, han’t turned them into world beaters, so maybe some more skilful training might be in order?)

Yes, it’s strange how footballers in particular can command weekly wages of £100,000 plus and play magnificently for their clubs and then appear to be a wholly different (and not so good) player when pulling on an England shirt. Of course, I’m sure it’s the stress brought on by donning an England shirt that affects performance rather than, as a cynic might suggest, any consideration of the financial reward they reap whilst playing for their clubs.

Regards,

kev35

I just don’t see how we will ever be able to compete with the likes of the
USA in swimming and track events. Especially when we can’t master the
task of handing over the baton in a relay race.

I just don’t see how the USA will ever be able to compete with the likes of Team GB in Cycling and Rowing.

Different strokes for different folks as the saying goes. The USA has the collegiate system for athletics which will always be much stronger than anything GB can provide. Having implied US domination of track events, which Country do Usain Bolt and Johan Blake run for?

Regards,

kev35

Dear lord, change your name to Jimmy, and put “Dismal” in front of it.
One thing that I fervently hope that these Games have killed off is the idea, propounded by “Those Who Know Best,” that sport is bad for youngsters, since their delicate little minds shouldn’t have to suffer the trauma of tasting defeat; maybe if that trauma had been around a bit more, those “little darlings” might not have rioted, last year, when they were told they couldn’t have what they wanted.
If it stops school sports fields being turned into monolithic housing estates, I, for one, will rejoice. We’ve had to suffer years of watching our sportsmen and women, largely, being also-rans, and our football and cricket teams humiliated (the huge wages, of some footballers, han’t turned them into world beaters, so maybe some more skilful training might be in order?) Sports clubs (e.g. Marlow Rowing Club – not exactly as famous as Leander, just upstream in Henley,) locally, have announced huge increases in applications for membership. Jamaica says that virtually every little boy wants to be a sprinter; I wonder why.

Of course we all (I hope) feel proud of what our athletes have achieved.

Although saying that, in a couple of years time, many of us will struggle to
remember the names of more than half a dozen of of our medal winners.

Then we can ask, “What apart from the medals, has the investment
brought us ?” Only a small handful of the winners will go on to profit
from their success to any great extent. Most will go back to their jobs or
college, and carry on as usual.
Will it have brought more youngsters into sport, perhaps. Mostly only for those
whose parents can afford to finance them.

I just don’t see how we will ever be able to compete with the likes of the
USA in swimming and track events. Especially when we can’t master the
task of handing over the baton in a relay race.

Paul178 is close but not quite correct. Money can buy performance in the shape of improved times or scores and better technique. What it cannot assure is better outcomes in terms of places on the leaderboard. The former is down to the individual but the latter depends on factors that are outwith their control.

It is worth looking a little deeper into what support and funding means and what it might take to get an athlete into an Olympic final or equivalent at Rio. If you were starting from scratch in a “minor” sport such as; for example; shooting, Tae Kwon Do, BMX cycling, sprint canoeing. Then you would require an initial intake of 70-80 candidates to start with. All of them will have some experience and have demonstrated the qualities and aptitude you seek. After about 12 months, 20-30 will probably have withdrawn or otherwise eliminated themselves. Year 2 will see the number further reduced to around 30-40 with a lead group of 10, a second tier of 15 and the remainder being “long shots” or development athletes. By the end of year 3, the lead group will be down to 6 and the second group will number around 10. Everyone else will be in the group preparing for the Olympics after Rio.

The lead group will be in full time training by the 18 month to go point and the second tier will be spending at least 50% of their time in training. By the 12 month point it is unlikely that you will be making any changes, your contenders will come from the lead group. At the selection point you will now have to pick 3-4 athletes to go forward to the Olympics, probably with a 60-80% assurance that one of them will make a final.

Now the cost, you will have to pay for the following for an athlete in full time training:

Equipment
Accommodation
Living expenses
Loss of earnings element & pension contribution (you are after all asking them to put their life on hold for a couple of years or so)
Coaching
Physio, Nutritionist, Sports Science consultant, medical support etc.
Training facilities, gym etc.
Relocation expenses (They need to move to where they train)
Travel & Accommodation for international matches and overseas training
Admin support

You can probably add a few more items as well.

The annual cost is roughly £100,000 – 120,000/athlete/year

Add your second and third tier costs to this and you are probably looking at about £6m+ over an Olympic cycle.

You can of course get lucky with the odd individual but when you look at the resources that the Chinese put into their selection and training, you need really exceptional individuals and lots and lots of luck!

exmpa

Money might not buy success, but it makes failure more bearable – ask any bank manager.
Years ago, a group of us ran a model exhibition, at Stoke Mandeville, raising money for the sports stadium (until “Elf & Safety” banned it because we were overcrowding the venue,) and the manager told me how the first “Games” were a very ad hoc affair, with only tented accomodation available, and, without thinking, they had them laid out alphabetically; this meant that Iran, Iraq, and Israel, were next to each other, but everything passed off peacefully.
Thursday, BBC2 9.00p.m., “The Best of Men” is the dramatised story of Dr. Ludwig Guttman, who started the Stoke Mandeville saga.

I agree with heslop01, Those injured soldiers, and the other folks, have had at least the guts to get off their Ar*** and had something to aim for in life, rather than sitting down and vegitating. The best of luck to them, and as you stated, just look at their medal tallies:)
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Makes a change from torquing about Usain Bolt

Paralympics next is that a waste of money too?????

No it isn’t, the entire ethos of the Olympics is Equality and the paralympians of Team GB have done very well for years, take Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson for example, across the Olympiads of Barcelona 92, Atlanta 96, Sydney 00 and Athens 04 – she got eleven gold medals! Where she won all four of these distances in Barcelona and Sydney – 100m 200m 400m and 800m

Also, some paralympians (as someone myself and family know) are representing our nation after serving us in War in Iraq or Afghanistan and have lost use of their legs etc due to explosions – the sport offering them a chance to find something to use their disability and change that to an ability.

Edit:

As I mentioned about the Paralympics, the medal tally of team GB from Beijing is remarkable compared to the Olympics … the total was 102 with 42 Gold! … Paralympics a waste of money? No.

There’s worse things so spend the money on. It’d only end up going to happiness surveys or leftist/liberal “art” instead.

Paralympics next is that a waste of money too?????

I’m sure that would have, at one time, been the perception of the public. Perhaps it is the perception of the BBC as they obviously didn’t value it as much as Channel 4 who aim to provide over 150 hours of coverage of the event.

However, times are changing. I think a small part of this change has been seeing the progress of veterans from Afghanistan overcoming their disabilities to achieve success. The walk to the Pole springs to mind and the torch carrying by the most gravely wounded soldier from Afghanistan. All these things are starting to make changes. Inclusivity being the absolute key. For one who was not particularly bothered about these Olympics I have to say I have thoroughly enjoyed what I have seen and I watched a lot more than I ever expected to. I fully expect to gain the same enjoyment from the Paralympics.

As I was told many years ago, disability is a ten letter word. Seven of those letters spell ABILITY and that is what should be considered most. Concentrate on the sheer level of ability. Oscar Pistorious has the following as a motto “You’re not disabled by the disabilities you have, you are able by the abilities you have.” He completes the 400 metres in around 45 seconds!

Yes, it’s been expensive to stage and Paul has brought up just how expensive it is to fund some of the British teams participating. But that money has come and gone, and, I suspect, was a drop in the ocean compared to what the shenanigans of the bankers have cost this Country.

Regards,

kev35

Cycling got 7 gold 1 silver 1 bronze for a cost of over 26 million.

Boxing clubs,cycling clubs even hand ball clubs are all reporting their inundated with folk interested in watching and wanting to be involved in their sports.
If this just brings one more future world champion or even a gold medal in rio Or reduces the level of obesity ,diabetes and heart disease in the country then yes its worth every penny of the investment.

Paralympics next is that a waste of money too?????

Yes, it does…..it just doesn’t guarantee success! :rolleyes:

So, by your reckoning the best thing to do to win gold-medals in Rio in 2016 is to cut all funding to British Olympic sport?

Or do we somehow just fund the stuff we’ll win at!

To early in the morning to do the sums but a Diving bronze cost £6,535,700

two gold and one Bronze in boxing cost £9,551,400

So back to what I said Money does not buy success.

The Cinderella sports who were not funded or at least underfunded have got us Gold. So it still shows that sacrifice, guts and determination to win not cash is worth more…

That’s a pretty sweeping comment; do you have any figures to back it up?

Boxing seems to have got £9,551,400 in funding for the Olympics.

Here are the recipients of UK Sport funding before London 2012 from government figures:

http://www.uksport.gov.uk/sport/summer/

Anybody care to do the maths to show cost per gold-medal for each sport?

Diving got less funding than boxing?