2 Planning for Beijing in 2008 and
London in 2012
17. At the time of the Committee's hearing, UK Sport
had awarded funding of £98 million for Summer Olympic
and Paralympic sports for the Beijing Olympic cycle. UK Sport's
funding decisions had been driven by its target for Great Britain
to move towards 8th in the Olympic medal table in 2008,
and all the sports which underperformed in Athens had seen that
reflected in the decisions for Beijing. Of the six Olympic sports
which won no medals in Athens, gymnastics, judo and triathlon
had had their funding cut and reductions in the number of athletes
who were funded; shooting, taekwondo and weightlifting were being
funded at a similar level but with reductions in the number of
funded athletes.[21]
18. Subsequent to the Committee's hearing, UK Sport
announced increased levels of funding for Olympic and Paralympic
sports for the Beijing Olympic cycle following the announcement
in the Budget 2006 of a total funding package of £600 million
for the years leading to the Games in London 2012 (see para 27).
19. In its funding decisions, UK Sport took note
of the significance of sports to the public, and looked at what
sports had achieved in the past and what they had the potential
to achieve in four years time. From April 2006 UK Sport was also
assuming responsibility from Sport England for the talent development
programmes which provide support to athletes who have the potential
to compete at world class level in around eight years time.[22]
20. UK Sport identified three groups for the sports
it funded:
- sports such as cycling, rowing
and sailing which were already achieving at a significant level
and where the aim was at least to sustain the current level of
performance;
- sports which could and should do better, such
as athletics, swimming, judo and shooting;
- small sports where there were relatively few
athletes with medal potential.[23]
21. UK Sport's aim was to work with underperforming
sports to make sure they had the support needed to achieve their
full potential. In the case of athletics, performances in recent
years had been disappointing. For example in Athens four medals
won against a target of seven. As athletics accounted for 15%
of the available medals, it was crucial for the British team to
perform well in future Olympics. UK Sport had therefore been working
closely with the national governing body, UK Athletics, and there
had been a number of changes, including a new Performance Director
who took up post in March 2005.[24]
22. Looking ahead, we asked about the possibility
of UK Sport supplementing its lottery income with commercial sponsorship,
as happens in some other countries, such as the Netherlands where
there is a culture of private sector involvement in supporting
elite sport. In early 2005 UK Sport was planning to raise
£4 million from sponsorship during the Beijing Olympic
cycle, but subsequently concluded that it was not best placed
to manage sponsorship directly since the delivery of benefits
to sponsors rested with national governing bodies, the British
Olympic Association and the British Paralympic Association. UK
Sport also considered there was a risk that it would end up competing
with these key partners and therefore decided to remove sponsorship
from its plans. Subsequent to the Committee's hearing, however,
the Government announced that the Department and UK Sport were
to develop proposals for raising £100 million of sponsorship
in the period to 2012.[25]
23. We also asked whether there was a medal table
target for the Olympics in London in 2012. UK Sport told us it
had made a submission about funding for 2012, which was being
considered by Ministers, and that it was unable to set a target
until it knew what resources were available, although its long
term aim was to be among the top five nations.[26]
24. Following the hearing, however, we learned that
UK Sport's 2003-06 funding agreement with the Department included
a target of 5th place in the Olympic medal table in
2012. Then around a week after the hearing, the Committee received
a copy of UK Sport's funding submission to Ministers[27]
which set out five funding options, each with a target finishing
position for the medal table in 2012. The submission stated that
"UK Sport's ultimate goal…is to finish 4th
in the 2012 Olympic medal table, finishing as top European nation,
and retain our 2nd place in the Paralympics whilst
aiming for the top spot".
25. Following an exchange of correspondence between
the Chairman and the Department[28]
about the apparent disparity between these documents and the answers
given at the hearing, the Committee decided to take further evidence
from the Department and UK Sport. On the question of its
funding agreement with the Department, UK Sport said that the
word 'target' had been misused. While it had a longer term goal
to lead the United Kingdom to become one of the world's top five
sporting nations, it had no confirmed target. The Department regretted
the way language had been used and agreed that various published
documents had confused long term aims and specific, measurable,
agreed and resourced targets.[29]
26. On UK Sport's funding submission to Ministers,
the witnesses acknowledged that the submission had included a
range of funding scenarios and associated targets, and that this
had not been made fully clear at the earlier hearing. The witnesses
confirmed, however, that no firm target for 2012 had been set.[30]
27. Subsequent to the Committee's hearings, the Government
announced in the Budget 2006 a total funding package of £600
million for the years leading to the Games in London in 2012.
In addition to £300 million already committed from the National
Lottery, the Government is to provide funding of £200 million,
and the Department and UK Sport are to bring forward proposals
in the PreBudget Report later in 2006 to lever in £100
million of sponsorship.[31]
21 Ev 20-21; Qq 7-9, 29 Back
22
Qq 22, 129, 152 Back
23
Q 120 Back
24
C&AG's Report, para 4.24; Qq 5-6, 120 Back
25
C&AG's Report, paras 4.37-4.39; Qq 122-126 Back
26
Qq 83-91, 95 Back
27
A sporting chance for 2012 - options for the Chancellor's Pre-Budget
Report Back
28
Ev 22-23 Back
29
Qq 155-156, 167-169 Back
30
Qq 153-155, 176, 179 Back
31
Budget 2006 (HC 968, 22 March 2006) Back
|
