That isn't really a problem.

Not a problem, but it makes it harder to achieve the elite standard due to reducing the talent pool in each sport.

[listThe Athletes still have to achieve a relative level of success to justify future funding and Sports/athletes like Basketball have lost funding for not performing. If anyone wants to 'dismiss' GBs success due to disparity in funding then I assume that when comparing the relative strengths of Super League and the NRL/England and Australia that they will be equally dismissive of Australias success and no longer bemoan our own shortcomings.

From personal experience I have seen the impact of the School Sport Partnerships since their inception in the early 2000s on increasing diversity of opportunities, developing competitive sport, hight quality PE and School sport as well as developing school to club links. There was a time that if school students weren't into Football, Netball, rugby, Hockey, athletics and Cricket then sport wasn't considered for them and this has had a big shift with the diversity of opportunities that are now able to be supported initially in schools. Elite athletes have often pointed to the SSPs as a major influence on their early career.

Well done to Jade Jones. Olympic Gold Medallist, and fifth hardest woman in Flint.

Nothing wrong with purchasing Olympic medals 1972: 20, 23, 23 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ?CMP=fb_gu

Nothing wrong with purchasing Olympic medals 1972: 20, 23, 23 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ?CMP=fb_gu

The millions of people (children especially) who are inspired by the games has a profoundly positive impact on many areas of society.

"Who needs to cheat with drugs when medals go to money? Perhaps the best answer is for countries that have no money to be allowed drugs, to level the playing field. They are cheaper."

What a load of nonsense, that's how sport works, those that can and do invest reap the rewards. Britain cant win in that case, if we don't invest people complain about abject failure if we do invest its tantamount to cheating?!

Team GB's success in the Rio Games is a vindication of state investment in elite sport.

For all the savage cuts in public spending, elite-level sport has remained austerity-proof as UK Sport received a 29% increase in funding last year, adding to the £350 million invested in Olympic sport during the current four year cycle.

The sadness is that Team GB's performances in elite sport contrasts with a crisis at grass roots level. As many as 10,000 school playing fields have been sold off since 1979, and over a quarter of the population engage in less than 30 minutes physical activity per week, and that includes walking!

For all the grandiose talk of folk being [i'inspired'[/i by an Olympic legacy since the 2012 games in London, participation in sport in England has declined, contributing to an obesity epidemic and mental health issues. This decline is more marked among the most economically deprived groups who have suffered the most from punitive cuts in local authority funding.

Each medal at Rio has cost an average of over £9 million of public money. This same public money being used to provide the very best training environments and facilities for an elite of super athletes, many of whom, particularly in rowing and sailing, are drawn from privately educated social elite classes.

Meanwhile, as a result of squeezed council budgets, hundreds of parks, playing fields, swimming pools and leisure centres have either been closed or cut back in what they can offer. Sport and leisure budgets in the UK are down by at least 25% since 2009-10.

As the supremely fit elite Olympic athletes harvest their medals for Team GB, the rest of the population grows visibly less fit and obese.

Three cheers for Team GB?

Not from me.

There are some figures that show there's still a lot of work to do, though is this endemic of society being entrenched in a fascination with technology, social media and other less strenuous activities.

The sale of playing fields has declined to an almost standstill since 1997. Primary school sport funding is at the highest it has ever been with schools due to receive upwards of £16000 a year to develop PE and School sport through the primary Sports Premium funding.

I see daily the impact that the Olympic legacy and the investment in school sport has on the young people in the 65 schools I work in. While there's work still needed there's so many success stories and so much positive work going on.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... ng-fields/

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... ng-fields/

So yes, though still a concern, a much slower rate than the 10000 up to 1997. School sport has taken a direction of CPD for teachers so that the impact of high quality PE is more sustainable. Our partnership does employ 30 coaches/qualified PE teachers who work alongside the school teachers to support their development. There are 450 government funded School Games Organisers nationally who have driven up participation, competition, disability sport, health and well being programmes and Sports leadership to develop employability skills. School sport is better supported than at anytime during my career and I don't need the national press to advise me on that.

Sensationalist media and opposition party skew the argument in their favour without applying context, surely not. As I said... "However a Department for Education spokesman said: “These school playing field figures represent a tiny proportion of the total playing field land across the country and consent has only been granted where schools have demonstrated there is no impact on their sports curriculum.

“We are investing £160 million a year to PE and school sport and this will be doubled next year to £320 million through the primary PE and sport premium.

“One of the most common uses for the PE and sport premium is to up-skill and train existing staff so that there isn’t a reliance on external sports coaches.”

The sale of school playing fields not at an [i'almost standstill'[/i then.

I'm pleased we've established that fact.

From the link I provided above...

[iOther official figures show a big fall off in the number of sports coaches teaching a variety of sports from archery, wrestling, hockey to football in schools.

They show that between 2011 and 2015 that number of Level One coaches – who are qualified to run a safe and enjoyable games session in schools - fell by 65 per cent to 1,125.

More advanced Level Two coaches – who can work unsupervised - in schools in England and Wales was down 23 per cent to 2,249.

The number of more technical Level Three coaches was down by 9 per cent and Level Four coaches or “master coaches” who a “deep understanding of learning techniques” were down by 11 per cent.[/i

And it's an ageing and sick population (rather than immigrants) which is causing the biggest squeeze on the NHS.

Well depends what your interpretation of a figure around 550+ a year up to 1997, dropping to one of around 30 a year is.

Your other bit about school sports coaches, yes I'm fully aware as this shows a trend to a more sustainable model of upskilling existing teachers.

This of course is how forums work though, why engage in asking someone whos worked in the industry for 15 years when you can be your own Internet expert relying on media soundbites.

Is this the same William who told us all about how much he was looking forward to the 2014 FIFA World Cup (that clean cut FIFA organisation) now criticising the Olympics.