Post by Dan Dare on Aug 11, 2024 15:33:40 GMT
Where Team GB appears to have come unglued is in confronting the dilemma: is Sport for All the proper objective, or in a competition like the Olympics is it more sensible to prioritise elitism?
Take athletics. Team GB took just under seventy athletes to Paris, by far the largest of its squads, around a third of whom were 'diverse'. They won a total of ten medals, including a solitary gold. The boxing team, half of whom were black won just one bronze, with all but one of its members being eliminated in the first round (including all three blacks).
On the other hand, the much smaller (and non-diverse) rowing squad won eight medals including 3 golds. Other sports which contributed more golds include equestrianism with two, and cycling, also with two.
So which has delivered the most bang for the buck, Sport for All or Elitism?
Is there a case for defunding sports like athletics and boxing which tend to produce many more also-rans than champions, and increasing funding for sports we are actually good at?
Take athletics. Team GB took just under seventy athletes to Paris, by far the largest of its squads, around a third of whom were 'diverse'. They won a total of ten medals, including a solitary gold. The boxing team, half of whom were black won just one bronze, with all but one of its members being eliminated in the first round (including all three blacks).
On the other hand, the much smaller (and non-diverse) rowing squad won eight medals including 3 golds. Other sports which contributed more golds include equestrianism with two, and cycling, also with two.
So which has delivered the most bang for the buck, Sport for All or Elitism?
Is there a case for defunding sports like athletics and boxing which tend to produce many more also-rans than champions, and increasing funding for sports we are actually good at?