1 Performance in Athens in 2004 and
Turin in 2006
1. UK Sport is a non-departmental public body, working
within a framework laid down by the Department for Culture, Media
and Sport. Since 1999 UK Sport has used National Lottery money
to support elite athletes competing at the highest levels of sport
for the United Kingdom or Great Britain. UK Sport provides support
through its World Class Performance Programme, which has two elements:
- funding for national governing
bodies of sport to provide coaching and other services for athletes
who meet specified performance criteria;
- a contribution towards the living and sporting
costs of these individual athletes.[4]
2. UK Sport is not the sole funder of elite sport
in the United Kingdom. The home country sports councils[5]
also play a role, including by funding sports (such as rugby union
and cricket) that compete at elite level on a home country basis.
The home country sports councils also take the lead in funding
a number of sports (such as badminton and hockey) which compete
primarily at home country level but which come together to compete
as Great Britain at the Olympic Games. The activities of the home
country sports councils are not covered by this report which considers
the support UK Sport provides to elite athletes.[6]
3. In the period from April 2001 to March 2005 (the
Athens Olympic cycle) UK Sport provided total funding of
£83.5 million for national governing bodies and athletes
in 17 Summer Olympic sports and 15 Paralympic sports (Figure 1).
At April 2004, ahead of the Athens Games, some 500 individual
athletes, both able-bodied and disabled, were being supported
through the World Class Performance Programme.:[7]
Figure 1: Funding for Summer Olympic and Paralympic sports for the Athens Olympic cycle, 2001 to 2005
| Sport
| Funding
|
| £ million
| %
|
| Olympic sports
| |
|
| Athletics
| 11.3
| 13.6
|
| Rowing
| 10.6
| 12.7
|
| Cycling
| 8.1
| 9.7
|
| Sailing
| 7.2
| 8.6
|
| Swimming
| 6.5
| 7.8
|
| Other1
| 24.4
| 29.2
|
| Sub-total
| 68.1
| 81.6
|
| Paralympic sports
| |
|
| Swimming
| 4.5
| 5.4
|
| Athletics
| 3.4
| 4.1
|
| Other2
| 7.5
| 9.0
|
| Sub-total
| 15.4
| 18.4
|
| Total
| 83.5
| 100.0
|
Notes
1 Covers 12 other
Olympic sports, none of which received total funding of over £5 million.
2 Covers 13 Paralympic
sports, none of which received total funding of over £2 million.
Not all figures cast correctly due to rounding.
Source: C&AG's Report, Figure 1
4. In Athens, Great Britain finished 10th
in the Olympic medal table, meeting UK Sport's target of
8th to 10th, and 2nd behind China
in the Paralympic medal table, missing the target of 1st.
UK Sport agreed medal targets with all of the sports it funded,
with the exception of swimming where the new Performance Director
felt he was not in a position to judge the squad's medal potential.
However, the majority of sports did not meet the agreed medal
targets (Figure 2). Six Olympic and four Paralympic sports
won no medals at all, having received funding totalling £13.7
million.[8]
Figure 2: Medals won against target in Athens 2004 by sport
| OLYMPICS
| | PARALYMPICS
|
| Sport
| Medal target
| Medals won
| | Sport
| Medal target
| Medals won
|
| Athletics
| 7
| 4
|
| Athletics
| 38 |
17 |
| Cycling
| 5 |
4 |
|
Swimming |
36
| 52
|
| Sailing
| 3 | 5
| | Table tennis
| 8 | 2
|
| Rowing |
3 |
4 |
|
Archery
| 5
| 2
|
| Gymnastics
| 3
| 0
| | Equestrian
| 4
| 8
|
| Shooting
| 3
| 0
| | Cycling
| 3
| 7
|
| Canoeing
| 2
| 3
| |
Judo |
3 |
1 |
| Equestrian
| 2
| 3
| |
Boccia
| 3
| 0
|
| Diving
| 2
| 1
| | Wheelchair tennis
| 2
| 2
|
| Judo
| 2
| 0
|
| Powerlifting
| 2
| 1
|
| Triathlon
| 2 | 0
| | Shooting
| 2 | 1
|
| Taekwondo
| 2 | 0
| | Wheelchair basketball
| 1 | 1
|
| Modern pentathlon
| 1 | 1
| |
Wheelchair rugby |
1 | 0 |
| Archery |
1 |
1 |
|
Sailing |
1 | 0
|
| Weightlifting
| 1 | 0
| | Wheelchair fencing
| 1 | 0
|
| Swimming
| -
| 2
| |
| |
|
| Total
| 39
| 281
| |
| 110
| 94
|
Note
1 The total excludes
the medals won in badminton which is largely funded by Sport England
and received £291,000 of funding from UK Sport, and boxing
which is exclusively funded by Sport England and received no funding
from UK Sport.
Source: C&AG's Report, Figures 11 and 12
5. In terms of the funding provided by UK Sport,
the effect of sports not achieving their Athens medal targets
was to push up the average cost per medal - from £1.7 million
to £2.4 million for an Olympic medal, and from £100,000
to £200,000 for a Paralympic medal.[9]
6. UK Sport also awards funding (£2.6 million
between 2001 and 2005) in support of Winter Olympic sports. Ahead
of the Turin Games (which took place in February 2006 soon after
the Committee's initial hearing), UK Sport was funding 40 athletes
in five disciplines, and its target was for Great Britain to win
two or three medals. In the event, Great Britain won one
medal - silver in the women's skeleton bobsleigh.[10]
7. Medal-based performance indicators do, however,
have some limitations, including the relative nature of medal
winning and the narrowness of the margin between success and failure.
In the Athens Olympics, for example, the one one-hundredth of
a second victory in the men's 4 x 100 metres relay on the last
day made the difference between Great Britain finishing 10th
or 13th in the medal table, and UK Sport meeting or
missing its target.[11]
8. UK Sport told us that, while setting targets in
performance sport could be difficult, goal setting was critical
to success and could be done with a reasonable degree of confidence
as the positions in preceding world championships were a good
indicator of likely performance at Olympic Games. In addition,
athletes competed on the international stage often over many years
so national governing bodies were able to chart the relative progress
of their athletes, giving them confidence in the goals they set
for squads and individuals. Setting targets was, however, more
difficult in Paralympic sports where new athletes could emerge
as potential medallists in the period prior to a Games as a result
of becoming disabled after an accident.[12]
9. UK Sport had reviewed performance in Athens with
a view to identifying why some sports were successful, while others
failed. Sailing was among the most successful sports, and here
meticulous attention to detailed planning and implementation had
helped the British team to win five medals and finish as the best
performing squad for the second Olympics running. Sailing had
a strong team ethic and it set clear goals which it pursued professionally.[13]
10. The former Performance Director of British Cycling,
who now works for UK Sport, was clear that the key ingredient
for success was a ruthless approach to excellence, with resources
focused on supporting a small group of committed athletes and
staff. UK Sport considered another key success factor was the
world class coaches who were now supporting British athletes.
As regards what could have been done better in Athens, UK Sport
had found some examples of poor health management of athletes
and that technical clothing issues in one or two sports had made
a significant difference.[14]
11. UK Sport was also looking to learn lessons from
overseas and we asked in particular about Australia which had
again performed well in Athens, winning 49 medals and finishing
fourth in the Olympic medal table. UK Sport said that Australia
had been fostering elite sport for some 25 years through an established
network of sports institutes, whereas in the United Kingdom elite
sport had been funded for less than a decade. Several people who
had previously occupied leading positions in the Australian institutes
were now working in this country, bringing first hand knowledge
of what had worked, and what not worked, in Australia. In UK Sport's
view, Australia was within Great Britain's sights and, if momentum
was maintained, could be overtaken.[15]
12. We were interested in how UK Sport's funding
of £68 million for Summer Olympic sports during the Athens
Olympic cycle compared with levels of funding overseas. UK Sport
assured us that other comparable countries were funding their
elite athletes to a similar extent but was unable to provide much
evidence to back this up, and the information subsequently provided
by the Department shed little further light. We understand UK
Sport is working with European counterparts to compile comparative
data but we were surprised at how little seems to be known simply
about the amounts of money our competitors are spending.[16]
13. During the Athens Olympic cycle, 73% (£60.6
million) of World Class Performance Programme funding went to
national governing bodies to provide a comprehensive package of
support services to their athletes. Although the services were
valued by athletes, levels of take-up were variable, particularly
in more technical, innovative areas such as sports science. UK Sport
noted that in some of the most successful sports, particularly
cycling, rowing and sailing, science and medical support were
at the core of the national governing bodies' programmes but in
sports like athletics, where individual athletes were not part
of a centralised system, take-up had depended on whether an athlete's
personal coach was engaged with the national governing body's
programme. Athletes and coaches were, however, developing a greater
understanding of the benefits of sports science and medicine,
and UK Sport expected take-up of these services to increase.[17]
14. The remaining 27% (£23.0 million) of funding
was spent on athlete personal awards - around £12,000 a year
on average - which provide a contribution to athletes' living
expenses and sporting costs. In some countries overseas athletes
could earn bonuses based on their performance at major championships.
UK Sport considered there was a place for bonuses of this kind
but supported through the commercial sector rather than with public
funding, and it had discussed with the British Olympic Association
the possibility of the Association taking a lead on this matter.[18]
15. In addition to the Olympic and Paralympic medal
tables, UK Sport has a number of other performance measures for
the World Class Performance Programme. During the course of the
Athens Olympic cycle, however, UK Sport's performance reporting
was erratic, and there were problems with the accuracy of the
performance results which were reported to Parliament. Specifically,
performance against the target for 'the number of medals won at
major international championships' had been overstated. Over the
three years prior to the Athens Olympics, UK Sport had included
in the published results 83 medals won in events not taken into
account in setting the target. The effect was to turn underperformance
into apparent success.[19]
16. UK Sport explained that the errors in reporting
performance had arisen because information on targets was compiled
in one part of the organisation, while data on results was collated
by another team. Both sets of data were correct but put together
they presented an incorrect picture. UK Sport had adjusted its
arrangements so that full accountability and responsibility now
rested with one department.[20]
4 C&AG's Report, para 1.2, Figure 4 Back
5
Sport England, Sport Scotland, the Sports Council for Northern
Ireland and the Sports Council for Wales. Back
6
C&AG's Report, para 1.7 Back
7
C&AG's Report, paras 3, 2.16 Back
8
C&AG's Report, paras 3.2-3.4, 4.5-4.7; Qq 20-21 Back
9
C&AG's Report, paras 3.3-3.4 Back
10
ibid, Figure 5; Qq 1-4 Back
11
C&AG's Report, para 3.7 Back
12
Qq 64, 81, 107-108 Back
13
Qq 26, 149 Back
14
Qq 26, 150 Back
15
C&AG's Report, Figure 2; Qq 19, 45, 57 Back
16
Qq 46-56, 109-111 Back
17
C&AG's Report, paras 2.2, 2.8-2.12; Qq 116, 119 Back
18
C&AG's Report, paras 2.13, 2.18, 2.24; Q 11 Back
19
C&AG's Report, paras 3.9, 3.12-3.14 Back
20
Qq 12-13 Back
| 
