A call for change: UK Sport's unfair and unbalanced funding of Team GB

UK Sport's current funding model is predicated on a singular focus: winning medals. This approach, while seemingly logical from a competitive standpoint, is deeply flawed when considering the broader societal context. Sports with the highest chances of securing medals, such as athletics, sailing, rowing, and canoeing, receive the lion's share of financial support. Meanwhile, other sports that enjoy greater public participation and could play a significant role in improving national health are left to self-fund their Olympic journeys, often an insurmountable task given the high costs involved.

The Public Health Crisis: An Overlooked Opportunity

Since the 2012 London Olympics, sports participation rates in the UK have remained stagnant. According to recent statistics, 22.6% of UK adults are completely inactive. This inactivity contributes significantly to the burgeoning public health crisis. Obesity rates are at an all-time high, with 69.2% of men and 58.6% of women classified as overweight in the 2022/2023 period. Additionally, mental health issues are on the rise, with one in four people expected to experience some form of mental health problem each year. In the wake of the pandemic, these figures are only likely to worsen.

It is well-documented that physical activity plays a crucial role in improving both mental and physical health. Therefore, it stands to reason that part of UK Sport's funding should be directed towards increasing public participation in sports. However, this is not the case. Instead, the bulk of the funding continues to support a narrow range of sports that do not resonate with the wider public.

Misplaced Priorities: The Funding Disparity

The disparity in funding allocation is glaring. For instance, sports such as swimming, which enjoys widespread popularity and accessibility, receive significant funding—£19 million in the case of Paris 2024. This investment not only supports elite athletes but also inspires public participation, given swimming's accessibility. In contrast, sports like athletics, sailing, and canoeing, despite their success in securing medals, see low participation rates and yet continue to receive substantial funding. Cycling receives the most funding of all Olympic sports for Team GB, and given their past success, it’s easy to see why. However, a closer look at the numbers reveals that 95% of the public’s cycling activities take place on the road, not on the track where Team GB typically wins most of its medals. In fact, only about 50,000 people in the UK regularly participate in track cycling.

Consider the example of badminton and basketball. Badminton, a sport with over 760,000 participants playing at least twice a month, has seen its funding decrease from £7.6 million for Beijing 2008 to less than half that for Paris 2024. This is despite its significant popularity. Basketball, a sport played by nearly as many people as athletics, canoeing, and sailing combined, has seen its funding plummet from £7.1 million for London 2012 to a mere £1.4 million for Paris 2024. Without sufficient funding, these sports struggle to develop elite athletes, thus perpetuating their cycle of underrepresentation at the Olympics.

The Success Paradox: Skateboarding's Example

A stark example of the funding disparity is seen in the case of skateboarding. Sky Brown's bronze medal at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, achieved at the tender age of 13, brought significant attention to the sport. Prior to her success, skateboarding received a paltry £178,165 for Tokyo. Following her medal win, funding for skateboarding surged to £1.8 million. This reactive approach underscores a fundamental flaw: success should not be the sole determinant of funding. A more proactive strategy, investing in sports with high participation potential, could yield broader benefits.

The Consequences of a Medals-First Approach

The obsession with medals has far-reaching consequences beyond just participation rates. There have been alarming reports of athlete abuse in heavily funded sports like cycling, rowing, canoeing, archery, judo, and gymnastics. The intense pressure to win medals can create toxic environments where abuse and bullying flourish. This raises a pertinent question: is there a link between the heavy focus on funding determined by medal prospects and the abuse cases in these sports?

A Vision for a Healthier Future

UK Sport must reevaluate what success at the Olympic Games truly means. Is it solely about winning more medals and climbing higher on the medal table? Or is it about fostering a healthier, more active society that may one day organically top the medals table?

The "Inspire a Generation" campaign from London 2012 promised to boost participation in sports across the UK. Yet, the reality is that this campaign has not delivered on its promise. Participation rates have not significantly changed, and the UK public is becoming increasingly unhealthy. The campaign has, ironically, served better as a case study for future host cities to learn from rather than a blueprint for sustainable sports participation growth.

The Wealth Factor: Tennis and Golf

It's also worth noting that some of the most popular sports in the UK, such as tennis and golf, do not receive funding from UK Sport. These sports are considered wealthy enough to fund themselves, given their substantial commercial backing and the high income generated from events and sponsorships. This decision is justifiable, but it highlights a broader issue of how funding decisions are made based on financial viability rather than public benefit.

To genuinely inspire a generation, UK Sport must shift its funding strategy. A more balanced approach that considers public accessibility and participation rates, alongside medal prospects, is essential. By investing in popular and accessible sports like badminton and basketball, UK Sport can create a more inclusive sporting culture. This, in turn, would foster a healthier nation, reduce public health issues, and, eventually, lead to organic success on the global stage.

In conclusion, it is high time for UK Sport to take a long, hard look at its funding priorities. The goal should not be just to win medals but to build a healthier, more active society. This holistic approach will not only benefit public health but also create a sustainable model for future sporting success. The true measure of success at the Olympics should be the inspiration it provides for the nation to get moving, stay healthy, and ultimately, thrive.