Public Funding For Snow Sports Ends This Month

Chemmy Alcott - No more public funds.

In a bitter twist in the strange ebbs and flows of public funding, British competitive snow and ice sports see an increase of approximately £3.8m this month but that total includes a £620,000 cut in the budget for our elite boarders and skiers – which represents all of their former public funding in fact, while sliding-on-ice sports see a £4.5 million increase in funding.
The previously announced cuts by UK Sport which administers lottery funds for elite athletes which come in to force this month sees the £372,000 public funding for skiing and the £248,000 budget for snowboarding go completely.
Women's bobsleigh will get half a million pounds additional funding to £2.4m; short-track skating £1.8m to £2.8m; skeleton's 1.3m more to a new total of £3.4m and curling's £900,000 more to now receive £2.1m.

I've never understood the rational (if there is any rational) for funding for relatively minority sports such as skiing and boarding.
It seems to be based on the current whim of someone in the funding body.
I certainly don't understand the basis for the funding of the various sledging events and curling compared with skiing/boarding. Is it something about the likelihood of a gold medal at Olympics and World Championships?
I would have thought that there was considerably more "interest" in competitive skiing and boarding from the public than for curling and the skeleton?
It seems a bit of chicken and egg to me - we get so few skiers in the world top twenty that it doesn't seem worth funding ......
Ah well ....

Although these were lottery funds. It's hard to support pseudo public funds being spent on skiing and snowboarding in the current economy.

In 2008/2009 there were approximately 1.2 Million people who take annual ski holidays in the UK*

The elite skiers and boarders, in association with their sponsors should set up a lottery with the prize of a sponsored heli-skiing trip with the athletes. This would probably raise far more than the 600k they previously got from the national-lottery.

*(http://www.skirebel.com/magazine/archives/4523)

I believe the awards are based on results to some extent. We won medals in ice sliding events and curling of course so they get more, but got none in skiing and boarding so they get nothing. That is the rationale being used I believe. The problem of couse then is how you're supposed to turn the situation round when you're even worse off. Oh and some of the athletes point out they have 'podiumed' - just not in the Olympics but in other world class events. But then there's the bigger question of which sports should be funded anyway and which are the more popuylar - presumably the existence of 'Ski Sunday' and 'J2Ski' rather than 'Bobsleigh Sunday' or 'J2 Bobsleigh' means ski and board are more popular ad the great British public would rather see us do well in them. Quite like the lottery idea! Someone told my Wayne Rooney gets more a week than the UK ski and board team used to get each year before the cut so maybe he could help out?

Should the public coffers be used to pay people to play sport?

I beleive that public coffers should be spent on providing facilities to encourage many to participate in sport for their current & future health. Realistically skiing is holiday that few can afford to do more than once or twice a year.
Is that going to transform the health of the nation? Is funding a handful of elite skiiers on the off chance they might be successful on a world stage and encourage others to take up the sport likely to succeed?

It may sound harsh but if you want to make a living from your sport it's up to you or your team to find sponsorship. Otherwise join the millions of amateur sportsmen & women who play their sport for pleasure and pay for that out of their own pocket.

As a taxpayer I don't see spending my money on the British ski team as worthwhile. I'd rather the money was spent on playingfields, gyms, swimming pools and the skiing facilities in Scotland so that amateurs can take part in sport and exercise.

I have heard the same that money will go to the more successful disciplines, my concerns are how do we expect to become successful if the downhill guys are not supported financially in any way :evil:

Do we need to be successful?

It is one I can't quite get my head round! I completely agree with Andy's comments. But then I try to join parallels with other sports. If we take tennis, interest in the sport in the UK has risen a lot (I understand) with Andy Murray doing so well, and his early year success was down to public funding (I understand again). So there is public payback a little in terms of entertainment, national pride and national health. You could argue we don't have many high profile snow sports people to get behind and fewer people following it anyway, but then the counter argument is more public money might make better skiers and a snowball effect (sorry). But then I watch a lot of biathlon on Eurosport and get behind non British teams because they're such great athletes, as well as the Brits who usually place in the 50s. I suppose you have to look at what the public funding is buying in terms of public entertainment, public health and national pride and that remains open to debate. Also how much should ski resorts, tour operators and media that can cash in on any national pride and public interest generated by the elite athletes contribute. But despite all this soul searching, cutting all money and giving such proportionately huge sums to ice sliding sports doesn't seem right/logical/fair.