Olympics funding: Some Team GB sports told to expect cuts
A number of Great Britain's Olympic teams could lose their funding, despite the government recently announcing investment of £508m through to 2016.
Athletes or sports that are not expected to reach the Rio Games in 2016 will not receive any money.
Hugh Robertson Sports minister“We will fund any sport where we think there is a realistic chance of a medal in Rio or in the 2020 Games”
Sports like handball and volleyball, which relied on host-nation places to compete in London, could be affected.
"There's no point funding sports that are not going to qualify," said sports minister Hugh Robertson.
The policy is known as 'no compromise'. Supporters say it is the fairest and most accountable way of channelling public finances into developing elite level athletes for competition.
Critics, however, insist that investment is needed to develop Britain's less popular sports to allow Britain to compete at international level.
"We will fund any sport where we think there is a realistic chance of a medal in Rio or in the 2020 Games. The base cutoff is if a sport does not qualify for an Olympics, that is very important," clarified Robertson.
"But remember that even if there are sports that don't attract funding, they can still get funding through Sport England and so on to develop their talent into a position where they will qualify for a Games in the future."
The British Volleyball Federation, who lost men's coach Harry Brokking on Tuesday through not being able to fund his salary, received over £3.5m from UK Sport in the build-up to London but did not meet all their performance targets.
And rower Katherine Grainger, who won a gold medal at London 2012 in the women's double sculls and has three other Olympic silver medals, insisted that elite sports funding must be based on an athlete or team's ability to succeed.
"This is accountable money, public money," she said. "It has to be based on performance and it always has been.
Pinsent: 'Money brings Olympic success'
"Every athlete comes in knowing that if they perform there's more chance of the support and the funding being there. If they don't, they're not going to get that. So no-one's surprised if the better they are the more support they'll get."
Baroness Sue Campbell, chair of UK Sport, said: "Investing in sport in an expensive business - world class success is expensive. We are investing the viewers' money, whether its coming from the government or Lottery.
"To invest large amounts of public money in people who quite frankly aren't going to get there is not good investment."
Comments
Jump to comments paginationAll posts are reactively-moderated and must obey the house rules.
Elsewhere on the BBC
-
Be kind, rewind
The cassette is making a comeback, but can business capitalise on a trend without falling victim to a fad?
-
~RS~q~RS~v=~RS~z~RS~27~RS~)

Comment number 236.
Hoppers16th August 2012 - 14:12
It's a shame if there are such cuts, the Olympics has been so good for the nation and so rare for us to have genuine success
http://samhopwood.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/a-post-apocolympic-sporting-world.html
Link to this (Comment number 236)
Comment number 235.
gareth16th August 2012 - 10:38
@ian182 not short sighted my point was uk sport only deal with elite level your argument is best aimed at sport england & that studies have shown that after major sporting event the sports have massive interest & increased participation but majority of the newcomers stop after 3-6 months
Link to this (Comment number 235)
Comment number 234.
photo76216th August 2012 - 8:04
The question is, whether financial support to sports is cost effective?
Does the invested money layed out, bring a greater return.
Everthing to do with government should at least "attempt" to balance, why not sports funding. It's not how many medals we gain. It's how much those medals are worth to the nation.
I'm all for UK pulling in funds to the GDP.
Sport with CashBack. AK
Link to this (Comment number 234)
Comment number 233.
Nick S15th August 2012 - 22:10
225. The_Boss. I loved the Olympics and don't much care for football, but I think you're probably right. Would you say it's a good thing though?
I have a 10 year old. Given a choice of her emulating Hoy/Ennis/Trott or any number of other Olympic stars or a footballer, I know what I'd rather choose!
Link to this (Comment number 233)
Comment number 232.
emsti15th August 2012 - 20:44
Wow - that has got to suck. Organizers spend a crazy amount of money on the crappy closing ceremony - it was a rather sad affair. The athletes are the ones who made the games work, kept up their end of the bargain. ridiculus!
Based on the performance of the ceremonies - the public should get their monies back from the organizers.
Link to this (Comment number 232)
Comments 5 of 236