From Yahoo:
What is a gold medal really worth?
By Sarah Modlock
Even the most indifferent couch potato would be hard-pressed not to get excited about Britain's Olympic success in Beijing.
But behind the smiles and glittering prizes, there is another question: what is the price of this success? And will we be able to afford to emulate this performance when we play host to the games in four years time?
Gold Rush
At the time of writing, Britain has won 43 medals - including 18 gold - which makes this our most successful Olympics since London in 1908, when we topped the medals table for the first (and last) time with a haul of 56 golds. Contrast this with our 36th ranking in the medals table at in Atlanta in 1996 (one gold) and we certainly seem to be to on the up.
So what has enabled these dazzling performances? Well, obviously, there is the sheer devotion and skill of our athletes over many years. But money is also key: in this case, £190m of it. This works out at well over £10m per Team GB gold, and almost £5m per medal.
If Atlanta did one thing, it prompted a closer look at the financial support needed for our Olympians. With the public unlikely to stomach significant use of taxpayers' funds, it became clear that alternative funding could be the answer.
Yet when Sir John Major launched the National Lottery in 1994, even he could not have imagined the impact it would have.
"Most of the money the lottery raises goes on social services, church roofs, heritage sites and public football pitches - yet the UK's Olympic success shows you can literally buy gold medals," observed the Financial Times this week. "I have been up every morning at six watching, and I bet millions of others have," Sir John recently told Radio Four. "I have always taken the view that there are two things in life that for most of us are important: sport and arts. I don't think they should be available only to people who can pay."
From archery to wrestling - where does the cash go?
Judging from the funding table, below, he appears to be right. Government figures for lottery investment between 2006 and 2009, and the cost per medal - starting with the most efficient - show that the link between investment and return is particularly strong.
The impact of Lottery funding on Team GB
Sport |
Total funding (£m) |
Squad Size |
Gold medals available |
Medals Won (G/S/B) |
Cost per medal (£m) |
Cost per gold medal (£m) |
Cycling |
17.49 |
28 |
18 |
14 (8/4/2) |
1.25 |
2.19 |
Sailing |
17.19 |
18 |
11 |
6 (4/1/1) |
2.86 |
4.30 |
Swimming |
16.70 |
68 |
34 |
6 (2/2/2) |
2.78 |
8.35 |
Rowing |
20.05 |
49 |
14 |
6 (2/2/2) |
5.01 |
10.25 |
Canoeing |
10.79 |
28 |
16 |
2 (1/1/0) |
5.40 |
10.79 |
Boxing |
4.66 |
11 |
11 |
*2 (-/-/1) |
3.23 |
? |
M Pentathlon |
4.66 |
4 |
2 |
1 (0/1/0) |
4.66 |
- |
Equestrian |
9.62 |
15 |
6 |
2 (0/0/2) |
4.81 |
- |
Athletics |
20.38 |
153 |
47 |
4 (1/2/1) |
5.09 |
20.38 |
Gymnastics |
7.25 |
19 |
18 |
1 (0/0/1) |
7.25 |
- |
Weightlifting |
1.44 |
10 |
15 |
- |
- |
- |
Synchronised Swimming |
1.62 |
9 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
Wrestling |
1.99 |
18 |
18 |
- |
- |
- |
Table Tennis |
2.22 |
14 |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
Taekwondo |
2.28 |
4 |
8 |
- |
- |
- |
Archery |
2.37 |
6 |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
Fencing |
2.72 |
18 |
10 |
- |
- |
- |
Handball |
2.99 |
30 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
Water Polo |
3.13 |
26 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
Triathlon |
3.90 |
6 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
Basketball |
3.99 |
24 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
Volleyball |
4.04 |
32 |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
Diving |
4.59 |
12 |
8 |
- |
- |
- |
Shooting |
4.82 |
31 |
15 |
- |
- |
- |
Judo |
5.48 |
14 |
14 |
- |
- |
- |
Badminton |
6.96 |
24 |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
Hockey |
8.57 |
32 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
TOTAL |
191.89 |
703 |
294 |
43 (18/13/12) |
4.57 |
10.67 |
* To be decided
Unsurprisingly, at just £1.25m per medal and little more than £2m per gold, cycling tops the list. Six sports come in at less than £5m per medal. Tellingly, all the sports that received at least £10m in lottery funding won at least one gold, while only two sports that received less than £5m - boxing and the modern pentathlon - won medals of any colour.
Is the future gold?
So with all this good feeling and success bubbling around us - and the obvious connection between money and gold - can we expect to ride a wave of sporting prowess into 2012?
When he was Chancellor, Gordon Brown pledged £500 million in his 2006 Budget for public sport investment in the run up to 2012. £300 million of that came from the lottery and another £200 million from the taxpayer. He expected this to be boosted by an extra £20 million annually from the private sector, but this is not coming thick and fast, although it has to be said that many athletes enjoy ongoing private sponsorship which is absolutely crucial to their training and success. Like many observers, Major warns that diverting lottery funds away from sports facilities will limit future Olympic success. He says that ministers are diverting a "good deal" of Lottery money into other expenditures, which does not bode well. "Those expenditures are worthwhile but they were not what the Lottery was intended for," he says. "Without the facilities at local level for young people, they're not going to be drawn into the sport. Money is the root of all progress and it needs to be continued."
Ultimately, Team GB could end up paying the price for its own success. But whatever happens, it looks as though the British public and the government will have to invest a little faith in something else, and the very thing that recent events seem to have proved: the old adages that nothing breeds success like success, and that it pays to win.
**
You may want to consider the opportunity cost of all this. Which is better - £ms on a sport where a few excel or those same £ms on improving facilities for everyone?
Many people will have got a buzz from the successes - but has the buzz diminished as the successes have mounted up?
The ways of measuring success. The table Can be measured in different ways with at least five alternatives







