If Olympic medal costs $15m each no wonder Naija has none.

[AreaDaddy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19144983

Olympic success: How much does a gold medal cost?


How much does an Olympic gold medal cost? With a minimum six grams of gold and a large chunk of silver, the pithy answer is about £450. But as Britain basks in the glory of what is shaping up to be the most triumphant Olympics for Team GB in more than 100 years, it is worth reflecting for a moment on the reasons behind the success.

Talent, punishing training regimes, pride in a home games and fervent support have of course played a key part in so many record-breaking performances. But, in the end, as cynical and unpalatable as it may sound, the main reason behind the team's overall success is cold, hard cash.

Medal bonanza
In the Atlanta Games in 1996, the British team won a grand total of one gold medal, and 15 in all. The following year, National Lottery funding was injected directly into elite Olympic sports for the first time. The return was instant. In the Sydney Games of 2000, the British team won 11 golds - the first time Britain won more than 10 golds since the Antwerp Games in 1920 - and 28 medals in total.

Athens in 2004 saw a similar return, the last games before the Olympic Committee awarded the 2012 games to London.

Investment in Olympic sports in the UK immediately rocketed in preparation for the country's first games since 1948, and again the return was both immediate and spectacular - the British team won 19 golds and 47 medals in total in Beijing in 2008.



"When Great Britain went to Beijing, the team benefited from £235m investment in training programmes in the years running up to the Olympics - that's a fourfold increase on what was spent [in the run up to Athens]," says Prof David Forrest, a sports economist at the University of Salford.

"We spent an extra £165m and got 17 more medals, so that's about £10m a medal."

'Big impact'

This massive increase in investment in elite sports was funded in large part by the National Lottery. "Lottery funding in the 90s has a lot to do with [Great Britain's recent success]," says Stefan Szymanski, professor of sports management at the University of Michigan.

"That devotion of financial resources, particularly on building up elite teams, has had a big effect on Britain." In fact, the Lottery accounts for about 60% of funding for GB's Olympic teams' preparation for the London Games. Almost 40% comes directly from the UK exchequer - in other words, directly from our pockets via taxes.

This equates to about 80p a year per UK taxpayer. About £7m also comes from money raised by Team 2012, mainly through corporate sponsors. Just how big an impact all this money has had becomes even clearer when you look at individual sports.

In Beijing, the most successful sports were those that received the most funding. Between them, athletics, cycling, rowing, sailing and swimming accounted for half of all Olympic team funding. They also accounted for 36 of the 47 medals won.

The same pattern can be seen in the current Olympics - almost half of all funding went to these five sports and, so far, together they have won 27 out the 40 medals won. Of course, there is a chicken and egg element here, as funding is rewarded on the basis of success.

Once the pattern in established, however, it is hard to break, as the more successful sports get more money, allowing them to become even more successful.


Closed sports
In fact, there are some sports that are in effect closed to all but the most wealthy nations. "We have identified four sports where there is virtually no chance that anyone from a poor country can win a medal - equestrian, sailing, cycling and swimming," says Prof Forrest.

He points to a study suggesting there is one swimming pool for every six million people in Ethiopia. Wrestling, judo, weightlifting and gymnastics, he says, tend to be the best sports for developing nations.

For the majority of other disciplines, money is key.

According to Prof Szymanski, 15% of all Olympic medals ever awarded have been won by the US, with European countries accounting for 60%.

"These are two very rich and relatively highly populated regions. The combination of these two is probably what goes to producing Olympic medals over the long term," he says.

Real Difference

Australians are certainly starting to question the role of money in their team's relatively poor performances in London - at time of writing, the country is lying 24th in the medals table, with just one gold.

Kevan Gosper, Australian member of the International Olympic Committee, can see one very obvious reason. "We've been down on the sort of financial support that we were accustomed to when compared with the financial support that's coming through from other countries, particularly here in Europe," he told Australia's ABC radio during an interview from London.

"That really cost us... the money is the difference between silver and gold." For other countries, it's the difference between finishing on the podium and finishing nowhere.

"If you start thinking of [the games] in terms of 'how has my country performed relative to others', then you can get rather cynical, because the shape of the medals table is driven mainly by just how rich a country is," says Prof Forrest. But with Team GB's haul so far costing each UK taxpayer less than 10p a medal, you won't find too many Britons complaining. Add in a conservative £12bn cost of hosting the games at £400 per taxpayer, and some may not feel quite the same.

[Comrade Machel]

I guess most discerning folks have noticed this already and explains why Britain dey collect medal left right and centre .


I think it explains why athletics especially sprints are the most popular disciplines. Everyone can understand the rules and empathise with the athletes because we have all run before and its something anyone can do quickly cheaply (pair of trainers lowest denominator). How something like rowing, i dont know the rules (if any), the boat is prohitively expensive and more importantly i have no idea how hard it is to row a boat like that

Britain collects most of her medals in those sports that most would consider leisure fun activities that require financial spending (high barriers of entry)

[phantomjournalist]

It's not a surprise. The more money you have backing you in sports, the more likely you are going to be successful.

[soothsayer]

what about Kazakhstan, Iran, Egypt, Kenya, New Zealand , Grenada ....
its not just about money,

[marko]

long term investments has clearly paid off for the UK!! there are no short cuts to sucess, some other nations spend less money but they do have an effective traning program, what does Nigeria do??

[soothsayer]

long term investments has clearly paid off for the UK!! there are no short cuts to sucess, some other nations spend less money but they do have an effective traning program, what does Nigeria do??

http://www.lotteryfunding.org.uk//UK/uk ... case-study

this link shows the investment put into particular sports...
case study with cycling.. started in 2005. It was not that long.. they got success in Beijing.

I think those who do not have the money tend to rely on the expertise of previous world champions,
to build a team of coaches and train up new talent. Its like an apprentice course,
where champions build champions. But even a teacher will fail if he doesn't have tools and proper
environment to work in.

[pajimoh]

I mentioned the investment the UK made per medal in earlier threads. One cannot deny the fact that a full time athlete will perform better than one that has to hold down a daily job, train when time permits, run around looking for sponsors and has no money to invest in top coaches.

The UK invested in state of the art facilities and coaches. Athletes became full time sports men and women. They can train as many hours per day as they deemed fit. They have no money worries about holding down another job. With such overwhelming advantage countries like Nigeria can never achieve the same success with our lackadaisical attitude to sports

[Guv007]

Of that 15m per gold medal, 14.5 would be chopped and five hundred thousand spent.

[Oba]

The thing is that if Nigeria spent the same amount of money, the country may still not achieve results. It's not only about how much you spend, but WHAT you spend the money on. The money went into research, providing world class facilities and support and monetary support to players, getting wide-ranging teams of professionals to support the process, down to those who designed helmets that are state-of-the-art, with aerodynamic properties etc. Noticed how even the lenses of the helmets have an 'unusual' tint? I'm sure that wasn't for fashion but would have something to aid the vision of the cyclist to get him to run that little bit faster. Even having the best coach in the world, instructing athletes, without the same kind of support the coach has, will not yield the same result.

We've reached the point where raw talent is no longer enough to even give you a 'slim' chance of something.

[Tbite]

The thing is that if Nigeria spent the same amount of money, the country may still not achieve results. It's not only about how much you spend, but WHAT you spend the money on. The money went into research, providing world class facilities and support and monetary support to players, getting wide-ranging teams of professionals to support the process, down to those who designed helmets that are state-of-the-art, with aerodynamic properties etc. Noticed how even the lenses of the helmets have an 'unusual' tint? I'm sure that wasn't for fashion but would have something to aid the vision of the cyclist to get him to run that little bit faster. Even having the best coach in the world, instructing athletes, without the same kind of support the coach has, will not yield the same result.

We've reached the point where raw talent is no longer enough to even give you a 'slim' chance of something.

Some athletes still get away with raw talent though. Usain Bolt does have a physiological advantage to other athletes. Watch the way he was running the 200m as a Youngster. His technique was terrible yet he was the best in Jamaica.

Till today Usain Bolt still doesn't have the perfect technique in both the 100 & 200 and others like Yohan Blake work harder than he does. Around the bend in the 200m he isn't that good and in the 100m the efficiency of his joint/limb movements are not good.

So raw talent still does help, but with that said even Bolt has World Class training.

We might not necessarily need the best training in the world, but we will need some adequate facilities and preparation.

[Oba]

The thing is that if Nigeria spent the same amount of money, the country may still not achieve results. It's not only about how much you spend, but WHAT you spend the money on. The money went into research, providing world class facilities and support and monetary support to players, getting wide-ranging teams of professionals to support the process, down to those who designed helmets that are state-of-the-art, with aerodynamic properties etc. Noticed how even the lenses of the helmets have an 'unusual' tint? I'm sure that wasn't for fashion but would have something to aid the vision of the cyclist to get him to run that little bit faster. Even having the best coach in the world, instructing athletes, without the same kind of support the coach has, will not yield the same result.

We've reached the point where raw talent is no longer enough to even give you a 'slim' chance of something.

Some athletes still get away with raw talent though. Usain Bolt does have a physiological advantage to other athletes. Watch the way he was running the 200m as a Youngster. His technique was terrible yet he was the best in Jamaica.

Till today Usain Bolt still doesn't have the perfect technique in both the 100 & 200 and others like Yohan Blake work harder than he does. Around the bend in the 200m he isn't that good and in the 100m the efficiency of his joint/limb movements are not good.

So raw talent still does help, but with that said even Bolt has World Class training.

We might not necessarily need the best training in the world, but we will need some adequate facilities and preparation.

Of course talent is part of it, but even for Usain Bolt, 'raw talent' with Nigeria's excuse for training = no medal. Simples.

[mcal]

what about Kazakhstan, Iran, Egypt, Kenya, New Zealand , Grenada ....
its not just about money,

...kpom!

Organization, the willingness to be patriotic on the part people in-charge. Country 1st as oppose to my pocket 1st.

[okjazz]

Its not just how much each country spends. Another study found that 50% of British medalists attended private school. Whereas in the general population only 7% of people go to private schools. In other words, the Olympics are mostly for rich people. Oustide of athletics , boxing and running, it really helps if you come from a wealthy background.

[Oba]

Its not just how much each country spends. Another study found that 50% of British medalists attended private school. Whereas in the general population only 7% of people go to private schools. In other words, the Olympics are mostly for rich people. Oustide of athletics , boxing and running, it really helps if you come from a wealthy background.

I think what that points to is that these guys have been developing, using world class facilities for long. The rowing events are held at Eton College.... if the facilities are good enough to host an Olympics, it's no surprise kids spending formatory years using those facilities, are developing into world class, medal-winning talent.

[soothsayer]

Its not just how much each country spends. Another study found that 50% of British medalists attended private school. Whereas in the general population only 7% of people go to private schools.

In other words, the Olympics are mostly for rich people.

Oustide of athletics , boxing and running, it really helps if you come from a wealthy background.

I think what that points to is that these guys have been developing, using world class facilities for long. The rowing events are held at Eton College.... if the facilities are good enough to host an Olympics, it's no surprise kids spending formatory years using those facilities, are developing into world class, medal-winning talent.

Maybe rich is a bit over the top, but we get your point..
but what about weightlifting? wrestling? Judo? table-tennis? even road cycling is not that advanced.. you just need a bicycle...
the sports you referring to are generally equipment based. Even so , there are sports clubs you can join that while may be an issue for the very poor, it is not beyond the access of working class. A lot of parents sent kids to these after school sports clubs, even Nigeria used to have them, don't know if they still exist. We should not make it worse than it seems.

[soothsayer]

Its not just how much each country spends. Another study found that 50% of British medalists attended private school. Whereas in the general population only 7% of people go to private schools. In other words, the Olympics are mostly for rich people. Oustide of athletics , boxing and running, it really helps if you come from a wealthy background.

I think what that points to is that these guys have been developing, using world class facilities for long. The rowing events are held at Eton College.... if the facilities are good enough to host an Olympics, it's no surprise kids spending formatory years using those facilities, are developing into world class, medal-winning talent.

It is about commitment ,Lewis Hamilton father was not rich..... he made sacrifices....
A lot of the tennis players parents make sacrifices, williams sisters.. If you look into the background of
a lot of these parents you will find they sacrificed "jolly, jolly" for their child
they become the child's coach, they sacrifice weekends to take them to practice.
so the real question is..... do we have parents willing to make sacrifices for
their child to participate in a sports career. In majority of times the answer is probably no.
The rather leave it to the school coach ..... to do all the work, they are the same type
of parents who leave all the learning up to the teacher and pay little attention to child
education until his test results or exam results show up.

[phantomjournalist]

The thing is that if Nigeria spent the same amount of money, the country may still not achieve results. It's not only about how much you spend, but WHAT you spend the money on. The money went into research, providing world class facilities and support and monetary support to players, getting wide-ranging teams of professionals to support the process, down to those who designed helmets that are state-of-the-art, with aerodynamic properties etc. Noticed how even the lenses of the helmets have an 'unusual' tint? I'm sure that wasn't for fashion but would have something to aid the vision of the cyclist to get him to run that little bit faster. Even having the best coach in the world, instructing athletes, without the same kind of support the coach has, will not yield the same result.

We've reached the point where raw talent is no longer enough to even give you a 'slim' chance of something.

Some athletes still get away with raw talent though. Usain Bolt does have a physiological advantage to other athletes. Watch the way he was running the 200m as a Youngster. His technique was terrible yet he was the best in Jamaica.

Till today Usain Bolt still doesn't have the perfect technique in both the 100 & 200 and others like Yohan Blake work harder than he does. Around the bend in the 200m he isn't that good and in the 100m the efficiency of his joint/limb movements are not good.

So raw talent still does help, but with that said even Bolt has World Class training.

We might not necessarily need the best training in the world, but we will need some adequate facilities and preparation.

Yup. There's just no way Usain gets by on raw talent alone. That does not happen anywhere in sports. Forgot his aloof demeanor in competition, the guy has amazing work ethic. He said himself that he lost both the 100m and 200m in Jamaica to Blake because he slacked off and became complacent. When you're at the top level, you have to work twice as hard just to stay on top.

[pajimoh]

what about Kazakhstan, Iran, Egypt, Kenya, New Zealand , Grenada ....
its not just about money,

It's about money and tradition. Other nations will win one or two golds that is inevitable but look at the nations that wins more than 5 gold and you'll see either tradition or serious investments.

The Kenyans have now made middle and long distance running their own - that is down to tradition and climate.

Iran is big on greco-roman wrestling. It's a tradition that is now paying dividends and I'm sure they've invested in the sport as well.

Other nations benefit from athletes training abroad.

So far United States has won over 2000 gold medals and one athlete has more than a few African nations put together.

That shows you what money can do in sport. They have good facilities, good trainers, good competition and their athletes are highly priced assets. The training starts from schools etc. It's a lifestyle that is even difficult to quantify in monetary terms

[Molue Conductor]

what about Kazakhstan, Iran, Egypt, Kenya, New Zealand , Grenada ....
its not just about money,

...kpom!

Organization, the willingness to be patriotic on the part people in-charge. Country 1st as oppose to my pocket 1st.

the bolded still makes it about money

[Riversboy]

what about Kazakhstan, Iran, Egypt, Kenya, New Zealand , Grenada ....
its not just about money,

Olympic success ain't rocket science in theory. If you don't have excess money to pump into it, you focus your resources either on sports where you have a comparative advantage (like Kenyans and Ethiopians at long distance running), or on sports that have pleeeenty medals to give away (martial arts, boxing, swimming, shooting, archery, weightlifting...), or on individual sports that have fewer associated costs.

It's all here.

RB.

[Riversboy]

what about Kazakhstan, Iran, Egypt, Kenya, New Zealand , Grenada ....
its not just about money,

It's about money and tradition. Other nations will win one or two golds that is inevitable but look at the nations that wins more than 5 gold and you'll see either tradition or serious investments.

The Kenyans have now made middle and long distance running their own - that is down to tradition and climate.

Iran is big on greco-roman wrestling. It's a tradition that is now paying dividends and I'm sure they've invested in the sport as well.

Other nations benefit from athletes training abroad.

So far United States has won over 2000 gold medals and one athlete has more than a few African nations put together.

That shows you what money can do in sport. They have good facilities, good trainers, good competition and their athletes are highly priced assets. The training starts from schools etc. It's a lifestyle that is even difficult to quantify in monetary terms

You raise a great point about tradition (you can put that under the heading "comparative advantage" in my earlier post). The decay of the public space in Nigeria has meant we have lost or not developed traditions that could have given us comparative advantages in certain sports.

For example: I was visiting with my mother while the C2 canoe event was on. She mentioned to me how when she was a girl growing up in Okrika, her uncles used to row against currents that strong. She said even old men (like my great uncles) would have to do it if they still wanted to be mobile, as canoe was the only means of transport (this was in her lifetime, mind you), and the young men would race atimes. She was so convinced they could at least challenge at these games. Problem is, hardly anybody in Okrika rows anymore, ESPECIALLY not recreationally. Missed opportunity.

RB.

[realtrouble]

Its not just how much each country spends. Another study found that 50% of British medalists attended private school. Whereas in the general population only 7% of people go to private schools. In other words, the Olympics are mostly for rich people. Oustide of athletics , boxing and running, it really helps if you come from a wealthy background.

I think what that points to is that these guys have been developing, using world class facilities for long. The rowing events are held at Eton College.... if the facilities are good enough to host an Olympics, it's no surprise kids spending formatory years using those facilities, are developing into world class, medal-winning talent.

It is about commitment ,Lewis Hamilton father was not rich..... he made sacrifices....
A lot of the tennis players parents make sacrifices, williams sisters.. If you look into the background of
a lot of these parents you will find they sacrificed "jolly, jolly" for their childhttp://forum.cybereagles.com/posting.php?mode=quote&f=26&p=3585016#
they become the child's coach, they sacrifice weekends to take them to practice.
so the real question is..... do we have parents willing to make sacrifices for
their child to participate in a sports career. In majority of times the answer is probably no.
The rather leave it to the school coach ..... to do all the work, they are the same type
of parents who leave all the learning up to the teacher and pay little attention to child
education until his test results or exam results show up.

Plain and simple commitment from the parent, sporting authorities and sport men and women