Tokyo 2020: Team GB Aspiration Fund keeps developing sports treading water, for now

EN GARDE: Will a lack of funding keep British fencers out of Tokyo 2020?
(British Fencing)

By Steven Oldham

On the face of it, the UK Government's £3m Tokyo 2020 Aspiration Fund for non-UK Sport funded British teams can only be seen as a good thing. 

Grants of up to £500,000 should not be readily dismissed by sports currently receiving nothing from the public purse, and one off-investments of this size are astronomical for developing sports like wheelchair rugby, and the new to the Olympics karate and surfing.

However, given that almost half the current cycle is over, and the Games less than two years away, the timing of last week's announcement is a little strange. 

Most sports, predictably, have reacted positively. British Fencing, Badminton England and Skateboard England are among the governing bodies preparing bids.

British Handball however, pointed out that qualification in their sport is underway and the decision to issue this funding was made far too late with both men's and women's teams already eliminated. A lack of funding since being axed from the ruthless World Class Programme after London 2012 was also mentioned, stating it was unrealistic to expect a vast improvement in the short time between now and the Games in any case.

Airing this negativity publicly may backfire in the long run for them. They could still apply for the money for the community and health sides of their sport, and secure a decent amount to improve their teams and facilities ahead of the 2024 Games. Whether they do remains to be seen.

The cap of £3million also leads to the very real possibility of a sport/s submitting a bid and still being refused money. The five new sports joining the Games in 2020 bring the number of unfunded Olympic sports in Team GB to 19.

UK Sport's medal-hungry strategy of financing the most successful sports makes sense when looking at the results table, but at the same time leaves developing sports well behind in glory, exposure and legacy. It's a Catch-22 situation for these sports, success brings funding, but with no funding, rarely comes success.

This is why despite this money being opened up to these sports, realistically it's a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed to make them regularly competitive. If a sport secures the full £500,000 backing on offer, that's still a fraction of what Team GB's modern pentathletes (£6.65m) were afforded for the Tokyo cycle, who failed to get among the medals in Rio.

Funding will be given not only on potential sporting improvement, but the impact sports can have on their communities, increasing participation and the benefits to both physical and mental health. 

These criteria are met by most sports, but particularly team games such as basketball and volleyball. Basketball has huge participation numbers anyway, especially among the younger members of society the tagline 'Inspire A Generation' was made for. 

It's no secret British Basketball have had financial issues, needing a bailout from UK Sport this year to ensure the men's team could complete World Cup qualifiers, ultimately unsuccessfully. Having the real possibility of having to disband their teams lingering over their heads cannot be conducive to good performances on court.

Decisions on funding being granted are expected in December, and I feel every one of these marginalised sports needs to apply. Regardless of their realistic hopes of making 2020, the funding could help massively improve existing facilities and attract further investment down the line. 

This can only benefit sports needing to attract new members, while also improving performance. Not applying now will presumably not be viewed kindly in the eyes of UK Sport and with five new sports vying for money, and decisions to be made following the public consultation over the 2024 cycle, now is the time they need to be proactive.

Tokyo 2020: UK government Aspiration Fund met with mixed response by unfunded sports

 

MEDALS: Langridge and Ellis' bronze didn't save badminton funding
(Team GB photo)

By Steven Oldham

Team GB sporting bodies reacted in a variety of ways to last week's announcement of a £3m government-funded 'Aspiration Fund' for Tokyo 2020's Olympic and Paralympic Games. 

Announced by Sports Minister Tracey Crouch, the fund is open to applications from sports not currently backed by UK Sport's World Class Programme, which is heavily weighted towards teams with the most medal potential.

Perhaps the most controversial exclusion from the current funding cycle was badminton, which lost all funding despite delivering a bronze medal in the men's doubles through Chris Langridge and Marcus Ellis at Rio 2016.

Badminton England Chief Executive, Adrian Christy, said: "This is fantastic news for those sports that were left unfunded following the Tokyo 2020 investment decisions." 
"It is a really strong indication that, even when funds are tight, every sport does matter and we now look forward to developing a compelling application to UK Sport to support our players, maximising our qualification chances for 2020."

Funding will be capped at £500,000 for team sports and £275,000 for individual events, with the possibility of applying sports still missing out. 

Badminton, and Great Britain's archers, earnt a partial reprieve in March with the announcement of UK Sport's 'Medal Support Programme' which saw some athletes provided with funding. 

However, not all reaction is positive. Despite acknowledging any extra funding is welcome, the timing of the announcement has come too late for some sports. 

British Handball Chairman Paul Bray said: “While we welcome any new money for unfunded sports, as far as handball is concerned this announcement comes much too late. We will continue to lobby UK Sport to take a fairer long-term approach to funding and look forward to the outcome of the recent consultation”

British Handball also pointed to the timing of the announcement with qualification for Tokyo already underway, and the lack of funding they have received since being cut adrift after the London 2012 cycle. 

As well as a plan to improve sporting prowess, sports must demonstrate their ability to inspire greater participation and benefit local communities.

This bodes well for basketball, which despite high participation numbers, particularly among the young generation, receives no funding. British Basketball received a one-off £195,000 payment earlier this year from UK Sport; in order for them to fulfil World Cup qualifying fixtures amid ongoing concerns about the squad's financial viability. 

Other likely applicants include wheelchair rugby, fencing and weightlifting. The sports making their Olympic debut in Tokyo - including skateboarding, climbing and surfing - are also eligible to apply.

More reading: 

Olympics: Five cult heroes from Rio 2016

Tokyo 2020: UK Sport axe badminton funding despite first Olympic medal in 12 years

Olympics: How will Agenda 2020 change the future of the Games?

Tokyo 2020: UK Sport axe badminton funding despite first Olympic medal in 12 years

 

Bronze winnners Chris Langridge & Marcus Ellis (The Telegraph)

 By Steven Oldham 

A first Olympic medal in 12 years in Rio wasn't sufficient enough for Team GB's elite badminton players as UK Sport today surprisingly withdrew all financial support for the Tokyo 2020 cycle.

The controversial decision to cut badminton's comparatively modest £5.7m funding (in contrast, GB's rowers gained £32.6m towards Rio) leaves the team's top players looking at uncertain futures leading to the next Olympiad. 

Chris Langridge and Marcus Ellis became the country's first badminton players to secure an Olympic medal in over a decade by winning bronze in the men's doubles in Rio. 

UK Sport had only set the team a target of 0-1 medals at this Games, and their statement today gave no reason as to why badminton funding was removed regardless of Langridge and Ellis' success. 

Archery, fencing, weightlifting and wheelchair rugby also became victims of UK Sport's successful but ruthless policy which rewards sports with 'podium potential' only.  

The policy definitely gets results, but at what cost?  The much-discussed legacy of London 2012 in Great Britain will again be debated as the list of non-funded sports grows ever longer. 

Team sports including handball, basketball and synchronised swimming were jettisoned as soon as London was over. The 'Inspire a Generation' tagline will be a failure if children see no progression to the top in these sports.  Basketball is one of the country's most popular sports by participation but the national team will only go so far without solid financial backing.

In contrast, 42% of UK Sport funding now goes to just 4 sports - rowing, athletics, sailing and cycling.

Any potential funding for the new sports to the Olympic programme - including karate, surfing and sports climbing - will be decided at a later date. 

WINNERS AND LOSERS:

Rowing continues to be the best funded Olympic sport, at £32.1m over the next four years. This is down roughly £500,000 on the Rio cycle. Many sports take a small hit as overall funding is reduced by £9m to £265m. 

Britain's shooters are the big winners in this round of funding, with their figures bucking the trend, leaping to £7m from £3.9m. Two bronze medals in Rio could be considered a lesser haul than Peter Wilson's solitary gold medal from London 2012. 

Hockey and gymnastics both receive an extra £2m, with the gold-medal winning exploits of the women's hockey team and double-champion Max Whitlock.

British Cycling, however, has lost over £4m despite dominating once again in Rio, a Games in which Laura Kenny became the most successful British female Olympian of all time.

In the Paralympics, the loss of wheelchair rugby funding is compounded by rises for the majority of other disability sports, including an eye-catching 342% increase in wheelchair fencing funding to £668,000. Para-athletics takes over from swimming as the most funded sport with £11.8m to swimming's £11m.

MORE READING:

Badminton's Olympic legacy boosted by creation of NBL

Olympics: Five cult heroes from Rio 2016 

"Legacy? What legacy?" ask British basketballers, weightlifters and water polo players as UK Sport funding withdrawn

Olympics: How will Agenda 2020 change the future of the Games?



Olympic athletes gather in Lausanne, Switzerland for the launch of Agenda 2020 last month (IOC)


By Steven Oldham


The International Olympic Committee's Agenda 2020 will reshape the Games as we know them by focusing on the key themes of affordability, legacy and inclusion.

Since IOC President Thomas Bach introduced the set of 40 (20+20) proposals last month, it is clear that the future of the Olympic movement is changing to reflect economic and social issues faced by the world.

Simplifying the bidding process to host future Games and reducing the costs of doing so is one of the central proposals. Being able to submit joint bids with other cities or countries is a step in the right direction, as is the reduction in presentations by bidding cities. With the IOC also covering some logistical fees for bidders, this should drive down overheads and make hosting the Games an attractive, viable option to a broader range of nations than in previous years.

This will open up the prospect of a first Middle Eastern Games, for example. After securing both the 2019 World Athletics Championships and the 2022 football World Cup, Qatar would be the obvious candidate in this part of the world. However, the sheer scale of the event might mean a joint bid with neighbouring countries could be more realistic.

Another option would be a Nordic Games - and not necessarily a Winter one, given that Sweden has previously hosted the Summer Games. Both Norway and Finland have experience in hosting Diamond League and European Championship athletics respectively.

Hopefully, these reforms will help avoid another situation like the bidding process for the 2022 Winter Olympics, which will now only be contested by Beijing and Almaty after four European cities, for various reasons, withdrew their candidacy in quick succession this year.

Wherever future editions are held, a key part of bids will be legacy plans after the Games have left town.  IOC members will be keen to point to London as a good example, which used a good mix of existing and temporary facilities. New builds are also well used - the Olympic stadium will host the 2017 World Athletics Championships and will become West Ham United's new home. The Copper Box regularly hosts professional boxing and is home to handball and badminton teams as well as community sports facilities. Next year, the Lee Valley Hockey Centre will host that sport's Euro Championships.

Sadly, this is not always the case - just ten years ago, the Games returned to Athens, the birthplace of the Olympics. However, ill-thought plans to build stadia exclusively for beach volleyball, softball, taekwondo and so on have led to them standing derelict and in ruins.  Costing an estimated €9bn, the Greeks have precious little left to show for their money.

The abandoned Olympic Aquatic centre in Athens, ten years on
(Milos Bicanski)

The IOC are looking to take a more hands-on and supportive role for prospective hosts in the sustainability of their infrastructure to avoid this in future. The use of existing facilities is to be further encouraged, and to avoid potential white elephants, temporary arenas will be preferred to costly unviable stadia.

Another aim of Agenda 2020 is for the Games to be ever more inclusive. This includes a target of 50% participation rate for female athletes and the principle of non-discrimination against athletes is to be expanded to include sexual orientation.

The commitment to gender equality follows the first Games in which every country included at least one woman in their team. Concerns about non-participation of women in the Olympics were eased by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Brunei all including women in their teams for the first time at London 2012 but there is still work to be done to reach the desired 50/50 split.

Women's sport continues to grow in popularity and it is vital that the IOC is seen to be trying to balance the number of places to make the event as a whole fairer and representative of participation levels at the grass roots.

Another point of the gender equality recommendation was to encourage the introduction of mixed gender team sports. In recent days, FINA have announced the introduction of mixed diving and synchronised swimming competitions to their events. Whilst there is no guarantee these disciplines will be added to the Olympic programme, the IOC will no doubt look favourably on this development.

Agenda 2020's proposals will no doubt affect how we view the Olympics. Work is now needed by the NOCS to implement them. If they succeed in making the Games fairer, more cost-effective and inclusive, the movement will have changed for the better.

The IOC are due to vote on the Agenda 2020 proposals at the 127th IOC session on December 8-9. This article is not a full summary of the proposals - I have concentrated on what I feel are the most important aspects. A full list of the 40 proposals can be found on the Olympic website here



Will future Olympics feature synchronised swimming with
men competing alongside women? (Sports Tribe)

More reading:

"Legacy? What legacy?" ask British basketballers, weightlifters and water polo players as UK Sport funding withdrawn
 
Rowing's struggle for sponsorship despite Golden Games is a big worry for minority sports

Badminton's Olympic legacy boosted by creation of NBL

England's Helen Clitheroe not retiring after Commonwealth Games...but risks being 'strung up' if she guns for Rio 2016!

I'm the world champion, but I want Paralympic gold too says British powerlifter Ali Jawad

"Legacy? What legacy?" ask British basketballers, weightlifters and water polo players as UK Sport funding withdrawn

By Steven Oldham

UK Sport's announcement of Rio 2016 funding cycles has today brought bad news for some Olympic sports.

Great Britain's basketball, weightlifting, water polo and synchronised swimming teams will not receive any central funding at all for the next Olympic Games in Brazil.

These sports join handball and wrestling on the scrapheap, shut out by UK Sport's commitment to awarding medal potential in future Games.

These latest cuts are in contrast to other sports who are celebrating receiving a bigger slice of £350m in funding - the winners include hockey, judo and taekwondo.

Unfortunately, the future is not so bright for the sports without funding - GB teams were entered for the first time at London 2012 in basketball and handball, and the water polo teams entered for the first time in over 50 years.

It was obvious without the experience, infrastructure and pedigree of their rivals the British teams would struggle in these events.  The athletes are not miracle workers - it's the equivalent of expecting Gibraltar to win Euro 2016 despite never having entered continental competition before.

While funding cuts are nothing new to underachieving sports, the promised legacy of London 2012 will be pretty non existent in these sports now.  It's a vicious circle - under performance leads to lower funding, which leads to less money to invest in improving existing talent and attracting newcomers.

Other top-level British Olympic teams have struggled to attract outside commercial sponsorship including rowing, as I blogged last year.  If they found it hard to get a deal with all their medals and extra TV coverage, what chance have a group of synchro swimmers got?

It was commendable for the home nations to be represented in every sport at our home Games two years ago.  It is equally galling for these smaller sports to be swept under the rug now the Olympic goodwill factor has subsided.

Follow @spoldham on Twitter

Rowing's struggle for sponsorship despite Golden Games is a big worry for minority sports

By Steven Oldham

Despite picking up their biggest ever haul of medals in last year's Olympics, Great Britain's rowers will be flying cattle class to this year's World Championships in South Korea.

The lack of a title sponsor backing GB Rowing since Siemens quietly pulled out last December have left the bean counters cutting back on goodies such as first class travel and bonuses for medallists in August.

In the six months since Siemens withdrew their support, no replacement has been found and that means one of Team GB's most consistent and successful teams have lost out on £6m of funding.

Don't get me wrong - rowing is still very well funded compared to the majority of it's Olympic contemporaries - and the success at London 2012 saw an increase of National Lottery funding of over £5m for the next cycle to the Rio 2016 Games to £32.6m.

Compared to other minority sports such as handball, basketball and men's water polo which have lost all funding, rowing is still doing very well for itself.

But the fact that one of, if not the best team in the world, cannot find a sponsor is very worrying for all Olympic sports, particularly considering it's less than a year since London 2012 enthralled the world.

Siemens are not alone in tightening their belts as the world economy still continues to drag its heels along the road to growth.  Aviva shocked UK Athletics and the watching interested by dropping their title sponsorship of the Olympics' blue riband event not long ago. 

The lack of commitment and desire shown by big business to be associated with GB Rowing is a kick in the teeth for the heroes and heroines of London 2012 with many of them treading water to stay afloat financially.  And with no sponsor for rowing, the likes of handball have no chance.  The GB team played what looks like their last game against Italy last month and with no funding available, players unable to afford to travel to games and no backing for the sort of legacy hoped for, handball sadly looks likely to be a one-summer wonder with few remembering the action from the Copper Box last summer.

Follow @spoldham on Twitter