Does UK Sport's funding work? How many medals do Team GB really need?

Twenty minutes: that is how long GB badminton, archery and weightlifting will have to make their cases when they arrive at UK Sport on Monday, begging bowls in hand, PowerPoint presentations at the ready, desperate to reverse the decision to annihilate their Olympic funding. Twenty minutes to enrich their balance sheet by seven shiny figures. Twenty minutes to save jobs. Twenty minutes to turn around the direction of their sport.

It sounds a tad hyperbolic but Chris Langridge, a Rio bronze medallist in the badminton men’s doubles, believes it is that stark. “Government aid pays for everything from coaches to shuttlecocks,” he says. “Without elite funding our youngsters coming through would probably have to stop. You can’t beat the world’s best while also doing a part-time job to pay the rent.”

Langridge was making an understandably emotional case for a change of heart after GB Badminton’s funding was given a shock buzz-cut from £5.9m to zero in December, despite hitting its medal target in Rio. But UK Sport does not do emotion – and rarely changes its heart.

On Tuesday four more sports will be in the firing line. Their best hope will be to argue that UK Sport’s decision to lump them in the fourth band of funding – which applies to sports unlikely to get a medal in Tokyo – is wrong and instead they should be in band three, for sports with a genuine hope of at least one medal

Badminton probably has a better chance than most of a reprieve. Its situation does seem unfair when contrasted with modern pentathlon, which was awarded £6.97m over the next four years – allowing it to fund 18 athletes, most of whom will never see the inside of an Olympic village. Other sports, however, are likely to follow in the forlorn footsteps of synchronised swimming, water polo, goalball, wheelchair fencing and visually impaired football – all of which lost their elite funding in 2014.

Are we sure this cull is healthy? UK Sport will point to the remarkable consequences of their “no compromise” approach, which turned a solitary gold in Atlanta in 1996 into 67 medals at the Rio Games, as proof it works. No one disputes it has in the past. When it comes to the medal table money talks: the more gold-tipped bullets you fire the more will inevitably reach their target.

But we are increasingly becoming aware of the consequences of success. British Cycling’s reputation has been shredded by bullying and sexism allegations and question marks over its governance and competence, given it appears unable to find records of a package transported to Sir Bradley Wiggins in 2011. Rowing, too, has faced allegations of bullying by coaches. How many other sports would emerge smelling of roses if subject to similar scrutiny?

Spending more money on fewer sports could also lead to thorny questions about whether £25m and £17m for sailing and equestrianism, which are perceived to be elitist, is really the best use of public funding – especially when some cheaper and some Paralympics sports have lost out.

The UK Sport funding model also ignores the fact that some sports are harder to win medals in than others. It is easier for a British sailor or equestrian to win a gold medal than a basketball or badminton player because of the countries they are up against.

Yet there is a more fundamental question here: how many medals is enough? No one would dispute that Britain felt better about itself as a country because of the successes in London and Rio. A report by the LSE in 2012, prepared for British Cycling and Sky, also showed a significant uplift in the number of non-cyclists who were motivated to take up the activity as a result of Team GB’s cyclists. Yet no other sport can show that success has led to rocketing participation rates. Britain has been fantastic at rowing, equestrianism and sailing for many years, yet how many of us have taken up these sports?

And while no one disputes that role models are important, there is little correlation between medal success and sporting take-up among children who are not into sport. Instead the biggest influencers are parents. The child’s peer group and how much they play and enjoy sport at school are also important. Medals have not stopped Britain becoming increasingly obese or sedentary either. A survey in 2015, for instance, found 62.9% of adults were overweight or obese.

Would we really feel any less excited if we won 50 medals, say, instead of 67? Yet UK Sport’s thirst for success is never sated. In December Chelsea Warr, its director of performance, suggested 81 medals at Tokyo 2020 was possible. “I’ve spoken to lots of people in our system who say we are operating on four out of six cylinders at the moment, so there are definitely improvements to be made,” she said. There were even claims that Britain should shoot for No1 in the medal table, ahead of the US.

Would a compromise really be that bad? A sweet spot of enough medals to keep its paymasters and public happy while helping athletes in smaller sports such as badminton cling on to their Olympics dreams would surely not be the end of the world.

Sport England announces latest funding

Netball, rugby union, table tennis and tennis have been given significant government grants for grassroots sport but the Football Association must wait to find out how much funding it will get over the next four years as it is under government pressure to reform itself or lose public money. It has, however, been allocated £5.6m for its disability and women’s development programmes over the next four years.

Netball got the biggest award, with £16.9m for development and £3m to help the England team prepare for the 2019 World Cup in Liverpool. The GB basketball team, ignored by elite funding agency UK Sport, also received £1m for the national team, with a further £4.7m going to basketball development in England. The Rugby Football Union has been given £12.6m, Table Tennis England £8.3m, the Lawn Tennis Association £8.2m and British Athletics £7.3m. PA