phil752 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Just read the each Gold medal cost £4.1 mill on funding, that around £275 mill to sent our athletes there wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santo Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 That's the cost per medal, not per gold medal. It includes the cost of coaching, sports science, equipment and facilities. 35% of all the athletes we sent medalled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 We've done very well to finish second in the medal table - trouble is now though, if we finish fourth or fifth in Tokyo they'll be a big inquest into "what went wrong"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 We've done very well to finish second in the medal table - trouble is now though, if we finish fourth or fifth in Tokyo they'll be a big inquest into "what went wrong"! Yes, and any sport that doesn't improve their haul will get their funding taken away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil752 Posted August 22, 2016 Author Share Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) That's the cost per medal, not per gold medal. It includes the cost of coaching, sports science, equipment and facilities. 35% of all the athletes we sent medalled. your right its £4.1 per medal ---------- Post added 22-08-2016 at 18:34 ---------- i was just wondering how much money do other EU countries pay to support their teams. Edited August 22, 2016 by phil752 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santo Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Yes, and any sport that doesn't improve their haul will get their funding taken away. Well, not necessarily. UK Sport sets medal targets and in Rio the total exceeded the target by some distance. Whether they decide to make the target for Tokyo as high as that attained in Rio remains to be seen. Russia will be back by then.... The rowers actually fell short by a medal but got more Golds than expected. ---------- Post added 22-08-2016 at 18:39 ---------- your right its £4.1 per medal ---------- Post added 22-08-2016 at 18:34 ---------- i was just wondering how much money do other EU countries pay to support their teams. No idea to be honest. Other countries give medal bonuses but we don't. America do: $25k for a Gold. Italy pay €100k for a Gold IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 your right its £4.1 per medal ---------- Post added 22-08-2016 at 18:34 ---------- i was just wondering how much money do other EU countries pay to support their teams. Less, as far as I am aware the Dutch have spent around 20 million euros on the whole lead-up and actual games. It is important to note though that both the Dutch and Brits received a large amount of that in lottery funding. I am also not sure, with the reported figure for the UK, whether that includes the funding of grassroot level Olympic sports, the Dutch amount doesn't, but the British might, which would explain the discrepancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomgeg Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Just read the each Gold medal cost £4.1 mill on funding, that around £275 mill to sent our athletes there wow. Worth every penny if it gets youngsters playing sport. Plus the feel good factor seeing the smile on Nicola Adams face. Doesn't most of the money come from lottery funding? If so that seems to be one of the good ways to spend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Let me comment before some ill informed person makes the comment of "I would rather have the money spent on hospitals and schools". Well the lottery money cannot be used that way because the 12 distributors who decides who gets lottery funding are independent of government. It is money well spent on the Olympic sports and a greater share of funding should be considered if it leads to more medals in my opinion. The athletes are an inspiration and great representatives of the nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santo Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) Less, as far as I am aware the Dutch have spent around 20 million euros on the whole lead-up and actual games. It is important to note though that both the Dutch and Brits received a large amount of that in lottery funding. I am also not sure, with the reported figure for the UK, whether that includes the funding of grassroot level Olympic sports, the Dutch amount doesn't, but the British might, which would explain the discrepancy. Elite athletes (ones that have medalled) get £65k max per year. That's £260k per elite athlete for the four year cycle. Here is how the funding works: http://www.uksport.gov.uk/our-work/investing-in-sport/how-uk-sport-funding-works ---------- Post added 22-08-2016 at 18:52 ---------- Let me comment before some ill informed person makes the comment of "I would rather have the money spent on hospitals and schools". Well the lottery money cannot be used that way because the 12 distributors who decides who gets lottery funding are independent of government. It is money well spent on the Olympic sports and a greater share of funding should be considered if it leads to more medals in my opinion. The athletes are an inspiration and great representatives of the nation. Agreed. And anyone that shows sufficient promise can get the funding. Edited August 22, 2016 by Santo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now