Opinion — Funding elite competitors versus encouraging children to take up sport

A gold medal is among the most expensive things a government can buy. I largely agree that the money spent preparing a small squad for the Olympics or the World Cup would do more good if most of it went on getting children into sport, although elite funding should be reduced, not abolished.

The case for shifting the budget is one of reach. An Olympic programme concentrates coaches, sports scientists and overseas training camps on a few hundred individuals, whereas the same sum could put swimming lessons, safe pitches and trained instructors within reach of millions of pupils. The return is also more durable: a child who enjoys sport at eight is likely to stay active as an adult, which makes grassroots sport a comparatively cheap way to tackle childhood obesity. Even judged by medals alone, mass participation makes sense, because champions have to be discovered before they can be trained, and a country with more children playing has a deeper talent pool. Spending on the top of the pyramid while the base stays narrow is therefore poor value for public money.

This does not mean elite athletes deserve nothing. International success produces a rare moment of national pride, and a televised final is often what makes a child ask for a first pair of boots. Moreover, without some support, gifted teenagers from poor families would have to abandon training to earn a living. Yet inspiration has limits that defenders of elite funding tend to overlook: a girl inspired by a role model on screen still needs a pool, a coach and an affordable club the following morning. Where those are missing, enthusiasm fades within weeks, and the medal has bought a celebration instead of a sporting culture.

I therefore largely agree: governments should move the greater share of sports funding towards schools and community facilities, while keeping a modest elite programme that those young players can aspire to join.