Olympic Legacy, already losing pace

06 February 2014 09:38

This year, I believe we are seeing how some of the shine of the Olympics is already being chipped away from. West Ham’s confirmation in becoming the new owners of the Olympic stadium, that is costing not only more money from the government via the Olympic budget but also from us, the tax payers pocket, once again. In less than two years the stadium has been used for the event, the one year anniversary, and a few tours. In January 2014 the Stadium has now started reconstruction and a lot of that hard effort and work is now being destroyed. A sad sight if you’ve seen any of the pictures.

Funding before the 2012 Olympics was the biggest we’ve ever seen (65 million). Several sports that had never received funding had a boost, and sports that performed so well at Beijing also were enforced further with that money. And results showed that this money had been used well with 65 medals in total, 29 of them gold. Now, funding of those ‘under-performing’ sports has been stripped away. Basketball, water-polo, weightlifting and synchronised swimming are all the sports that have been hit. This is what UK sport had to say;

Liz Nicholl, chief executive of UK Sport, said: "This is a very significant point on our journey to Rio 2016 and Tokyo 2020.

"While there is a clear understanding now that our investment is based on merit and must be aligned behind our best medal prospects, it doesn't make the decisions any easier and I recognise it is a difficult time for the sports and athletes who have been withdrawn from funding.

"To continue funding sports where the evidence is telling us they cannot win a medal by 2020 would be a high risk strategy that compromises opportunities elsewhere." (Source BBC)

I understand that the statement means that funding needs to given to the sports that benefit most and will win medals in the next few Olympics. But I still can’t stop thinking this is a cheap way for money to be given to the performing sports and get results for all to see. Otherwise people might complain and questioning where the money is going. The other side of the coin is the niche sports, the wider range sports need funding more than ever and without that funding may not be able to exist. This would be a real shame. Also all the new participants who were inspired to choose a sport not in the mainstream as it interested them and could lead to an Olympic medal will not only now not be able to get that opportunity. Also it could stop people from wanting to do these sports in the first place, as why would you do a sport with no funding e.g. basketball when if you do cycling you’re more likely to be chosen and supported, even if basketball could be more accessible.

I believe more equal funding in general could help, as it would allow a fair chance and opportunity to shine whoever you are and more medals could be spread through each sport and become a more naturally competitive country, whatever the sport. To finish consider this; it’s not right for the best student to get all the support and the credit, for the struggling student to be left at the back of the class, forgotten.

 

Source: DSG