• strike posted an update 2 weeks, 6 days ago

    5 medals £28 million spent.. was the winter Olympics worth the money for great Britain?

    • My 50p share has been well spent in keeping me entertained.

    • What is the ‘worth’ of success in international sport of any sort?

      • Tends to make people feel better when a member of the tribe does well against the other tribes, aka foreigners.

    • Isn’t it lottery funded? Therefore thanks to all the gullible fools that paid for lottery tickets, I really enjoyed the games and didn’t pay a penny.

      Joking aside, we only complain that we’re rubbish at everything if we don’t win anything and that we should invest more. We’re not going to compete with serious nations on pluck and great British spirit.

      I enjoyed the events where we weren’t really represented as well – I think the lack of representation in many events means you can enjoy the sport in its own right and not get hung up on unrealistic jingoistic expectation.

    • It seems much cheaper than many other sports e.g. premiership football (and more interesting), the people are not paid masses and inspire whole generations on occasions. If 12.5 million people watched it thats only £2 each. For me the summer olympics are more inspiring than winter, but I think definitely worth it.

    • That money goes into supporting winter sports at different levels. I imagine tens of thousands of people will have benefited from this funding to some extent.

      • In what way? Funding for summer Olympics is very much ring fenced for competitors and then only for those with a realistic chance of being competitive. Unless new facilities have been built which are open to all that £28 million has no legacy.

    • Not really. Basketball is played by more people in inner city’s, the money would be better spent there than on middle class sports for the esoteric few..

      • The ‘whataboutbasketball’ argument in the context of winter Olympic funding has been quite funny.

        • Really?

          I think it’s a fundamental question. If we are spending tax money on sport, do we spend it widely on mass participation to improve the health and wellbeing of a wider population, or do we take the East German approach and focus on high achieving athletes in niche sports, and potential future high achievers for reasons of national pride and spurious trickle down arguments? http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rio-2016-team-gb-olympic-medals-55m-each-can-we-justify-brits-slump-sofa-a7198906.html

        • Not really. That money could be used in inner city areas to promote a grass roots sport which has far more participation than bob sleigh or whizzing down an icey slope on a tea tray.

          It cuts right to the heart of the issue about promoting sport.

        • I don’t think there are any winter sports to roll out to the inner-city masses – maybe ice hockey?

          Otherwise seems a shame to abandon a major international get-together for the sake of £28m – compared to about £20bn we spent hosting the summer olympics.

          Skeleton was good tv

      • If it was spent on Basketball, it would go to the national team and its hangers-on (coaches, managers, physios etc.) rather than grass roots. However those at the top are already exceptionally well paid, as they are performing in the USA and getting megabucks. Do we really want to hand more money to people who are already (or approaching) millionaire status.

        • However I have absolutely no time for spending money on maintaining a small number of middle-class winter sports enthusiasts in the manner in which they’d like to become accustomed.

          And I certainly do not understand why someone born in the USA, who lives in the USA, and only has 1 parent who came from GB but now lives in the USA being funded by any money from GB. (And I don’t care if she got a medal – she’s a yank, not British.

          • I worked with a Winter Olympic sportsman. He spent the winter six months a year living out of the back of a 15 year old van going from event to event. I think his funding covered travel costs, but that was about all.

            • 28+ million pounds – Some cream off a hell of a lot of money. Some people get a good living from what is dished out, but that doesn’t mean everybody does, or even those that deserve/need it do.

              Maybe someone needs to look at who actually gets what. I do know that the number of (questionably needed) people at head office for athletics has multiplied dramatically – I have no reason to believe that it isn’t any different in every sport that gets funding.

              The greedy follow the money.

        • @oldgal I think you just about get my point. There are alot of grass roots sports played in the inner city areas of the UK which could seriously be better funded and are played by lots of kids in those areas.Basketball is easily the best example. Lots of kids play it.

          Basket ball s funding in the UK for the Olympics is zero. Basically because the Olympic team does not do well so funding was dropped.

          It is a real shame.

    • If funding is there to ‘buy’ medals, the Norwegians are 16 times better at it than us …

    • As rule the uk doesn’t have the climate so it has to spend money on it’s winter athletes. The Norwegian budget is half the uks for example. But then generally you can train on your own doorstep there.