Does GB success at the Olympics simply prove that the more money we spend on sport?

Question

the more medals we get?

Answer 1

No to be fair Team GB have looked very focused except for a few  

Answer 2

There's certainly a strong correlation.  With the difference between first and second measured in hundredths of a second it stands to reason that if throwing a lot of money at training techniques, equipment, infrastructure etc. might provide the advantage necessary to win more medals.  There are also certain sports that require more investment for facilities than others, and without those facilities (e.g. indoor 50m swimming pools, rowing venues etc.) a country really has no chance.  

Answer 3

I don't think so,  I believe many of the athletes were spurned on by the feel good factor of 2012

Answer 4

It certainly looks like it.

Answer 5

Don't know, but we're not a bad country overall, despite political oppositions always trying to put the dampener on our great country by talking about it as if it's worse than it is, just because they want to get into power.  

We managed to fend off a world recession in the last 10 years and maybe it helped the country as a whole.

I don't think money is important, as look how much football players get paid, and then they just act like spoilt and lazy chavs who want to be celebs more than sports people.

Answer 6

No because they spent 3x as much on athletics than they spent on cycling and athletics has not delivered one gold medal yet.

Answer 7

I believe thats how it works. Here in Australia they spend big on sporting fascilities and that why is were one of the best. Personally i think they spend too much money on image rather than the suffering economy.

Answer 8

Unfortunately I think I would say yes. I wish that were not the case, but the Brits have put heaps of money into facilities and coaching and it has paid off. good luck to them.

Answer 9

In a way, but you have to be ruthless too, because one of the reason the cycling was so very successful was that many excellent riders did not make the team. Because what they have done is get the best man/woman for the job/medal. They knew that Chris Hoy was a likely medal winner in the cycling, he and several others were hand picked so to speak and peoples past glories were not taken into consideration. This i think is the only way we are going to continue on, and if athletics doesn't get its thinking out of the dark ages and starts doing this too even with all the money thrown at it you still will get results like we have had at this Olympics, one gold and two bronze i think.

Answer 10

Yes, in the case of Britain I think it does.  The funding that is coming into British sport from the National Lottery has really made a difference.  It allows us to poach the best coaches from around the world, the best equipment, sports psychologists.  It also enables our best athletes to focus on training and competing while not having to worry about holding down a full-time job or gaining sponsorship to make ends meet.

What has made the real difference is the way that the money is allocated.  When an athlete performs well they get lottery funding, but if they don't perform their funding is reduced or discontinued.  This sends out a message to athletes that if you don't perform the money will be allocated to others that do.  

As a result the attitude of the athletes has changed.  I also think that the British team management has changed which is now leading to better results overall.