UKC

I listened to an interesting debate on the Radio about whether Team GB were simply buying medals at Rio with financial investment. The correlation between the two is statistically significant but in my view it is not causal.
Medals are won by competitors who perform well on the days of their events. This is largely a result of the training & preparation that they do beforehand and the money makes that more possible to do. However it is not automatic - they still have to deliver when tested and not all of them do. Thankfully many of them have achieved amazing results this year and created huge enjoyment and pride for their supporters and I for one believe that the investment is worth its weight in Gold, Silver & Bronze.
I am fully aware of the arguments about how money is spent by National Sporting bodies and there are examples of where the elite has benefited at the expense of the grass roots - there needs to be a balance - Climbing may well find itself embroiled in that discussion now that it is a Sport in the 2020 Tokyo games.
No doubt there are other views out there.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

I'm sure the money helps, especially in sports that require expensive kit - rowing, cycling, sailing, equestrian, but it still needs people to perform (manager and coaches as well as participants). Money hasn't helped the abject English football team...

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

"Does money buy medals?"

If professional footballers are anything to go by, then the answer's a resounding "no".

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Genuine questions re. football:

Compared to the people competing in the Olympic team sports, how much of the preceding 4 years do the England footballers actually spend training & competing together with the ultimate aim of winning the world cup?

Yes, they're paid a lot, but they spend 95% of their time training & playing with people who, come the internationals, will be on the opposing side. I recollect someone saying a few years ago that the number of foreign players in the Premier League was such that the England manager might have to start picking a bunch of players from the Championship.

It's the equivalent of spending 3.95 years rowing with a load of Kiwis, Aussies & Germans, then getting thrown in a boat with 7 other Englishmen just before the race.

As a matter of interest, do the more successful international teams:

1. Spend more time together between, and in the lead up to, major tournaments?

2. Draw on a pool of players who play in a less internationally "diluted" league than the Premier League?

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Watching some of the boxing decisions makes it seem like you can literally buy medals

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
Sadly the correlation of state investment vs success is inescapable even if some countries do it better than others (UK spending of £ 5.5 million per medal is about 1/3 of aussie spending). Its not just about supporting talent and honing the hard work, its all the other support stuctures. Medal winning is an industry. Also someone mentioned the boxing... aside from obvious dodgy decisions we see there are highly unlikely results occur pre-qualifying that benefit home boxers. The IOC has got to be going for a medal in the competition for the most corrupt sporting body in the world. Despite the hot air, past and probable present drug cheats from a huge number of nations still thrive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_athletics

In the UK much of the funding comes from the lottery which really amounts to a regressive tax moving money from the the poor to fund predominantly middle class interests. I'd like to see the lottery stopped and sport and arts funding come from taxes.

So celebrate the success of clean talented athletes but don't get too nationalisticly proud about things.

In reply to Offwidth:

This. Money doesn't buy the medals in non-judged sports (and I'd like to think it doesn't in judged sports either, but...) but creates the framework that allows for part/full time athletes, quality, informed coaching and good equipment. If athletes have the opportunity to get closer to their genetic ceiling than those of other nations who may not have full time coaches, and may have to work for a living, then they'll more likely do better. Commitment/dedication is a given at this level of course.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


why ? do englands player get paid more than other countries player?

In reply to tim000:

why ? do englands player get paid more than other countries player?

More than the Icelandic players I would suspect...

In reply to tim000:


I dunno, but the FA has shit-tonnes of money.