Archery funding doubled

Kerf

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
I see in the news today that archery is to benefit from a funding increase from UK Sport. In fact, according to the BBC, archery’s funding has doubled/will double in the run up to Paris 2024. Does that mean AGB will now be more able or willing to help struggling grass roots clubs and stop using hobby archers as a cash cow to fund its Olympic dreams (loaded question!)?
 

KidCurry

Well-known member
As UK Sports first line of their remit is
" The primary role of UK Sport is to strategically invest National Lottery and Exchequer income to maximise the performance of UK athletes in the Olympic and Paralympic Games and the global events which precede them."
I would probably say it will not benefit grass roots clubs.
 

dvd8n

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
I see in the news today that archery is to benefit from a funding increase from UK Sport. In fact, according to the BBC, archery’s funding has doubled/will double in the run up to Paris 2024. Does that mean AGB will now be more able or willing to help struggling grass roots clubs and stop using hobby archers as a cash cow to fund its Olympic dreams (loaded question!)?
Have you got a link? I couldn't find it on the BBC website.
 

Kerf

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
As UK Sports first line of their remit is

I would probably say it will not benefit grass roots clubs.
I was rather hoping that AGB would be able to use the extra UK Sport cash to fund their “elite” programme thus freeing up a concomitant amount currently being taken from the membership fees - though I suspect you’re right.

As far as I can see GB has won a grand total of 4 (four) Olympic medals in the “modern” era. Team medals in 1988 and 1992 and individual medals in 1992 and 2004. They were all bronze. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the individual athletes but that seems a pretty poor return for the millions AGB has spent.
 
Last edited:

dvd8n

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
I have been of the opinion that UK Sport has been a toxic influence in UK sport for a while now, it's focus on medals leading to a culture of bullying, to a culture detrimental to the physical and mental wellbeing of elite athletes, and to diverting attention away from grassroots sports.

UK Sport do seem to have finally recognised this and are making all the right noises in the article, but no, I don't think that the money will directly help clubs.

I actually found the last podcast from AGB quite hopeful with them recognising that they could be doing more at club level. My big fear is that this money will remove the need for that and allow them to continue in their old ways.
 
Last edited:

ATH

New member
I see in the news today that archery is to benefit from a funding increase from UK Sport. In fact, according to the BBC, archery’s funding has doubled/will double in the run up to Paris 2024. Does that mean AGB will now be more able or willing to help struggling grass roots clubs and stop using hobby archers as a cash cow to fund its Olympic dreams (loaded question!)?
Again this has come up recently. Almost all of the funding for the olympic program already comes from UK sport funding. Recently in 2019 just 1.6% of the membership fee went towards the olympic program, or 76p from the senior fee. So perhaps that contribution could be removed yes, but it's not going to be a night and day difference like your implying. I get that it's tempting to paint this picture of a governing body that exists purely to fund the elite pathway but its utterly not the truth. The vast majority of the membership cost goes towards... the cost, of providing services to the membership.

As for your second comment on results, if you cast your mind back to 2016 AGB was indeed performing poorly for the investment put in, to the point where UK sport axed the funding for the tokyo cycle. It was only due to performances since then with multiple medals at world championships, world cups, and the european games, while running on a fraction of the budget allowed previously, that the olympic program has come back to the point where it's proved its worth again. It's a very different group of athletes, coaches and staff now and frankly we deserve to be judged on our own merits.
Bear in mind that UK sport has cut back on almost every other sport in their program, they wouldn't increase funding for us now if they didn't think we had the potential to get results in Paris and beyond.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mk1

ATH

New member
I have been of the opinion that UK Sport has been a toxic influence in UK sport for a while now, it's focus on medals leading to a culture of bullying, to a culture detrimental to the physical and mental wellbeing of elite athletes, and to diverting attention away from grassroots sports.

UK Sport do seem to have finally recognised this and are making all the right noises in the article, but no, I don't think that the money will directly help clubs.

I actually found the last podcast from AGB quite hopeful with them recognising that they could be doing more at club level. My big fear is that this money will remove the need for that and allow them to continue in their old ways.
I actually agree to an extent with this. The UK sport "no compromise" approach was too far, its clearly been toxic in some of the larger sports groups (think cycling, gymnastics especially at the moment), and their willingness to cut off entire sports so they could continue to pump money into the larger bodies was short sighted in my mind. The new approach does seem to be a step in the right direction.
 

KidCurry

Well-known member
I have been of the opinion that UK Sport has been a toxic influence in UK sport for a while now,...
I think things started going down hill when the 'Professional Archer' entered the fray. In the 70s 'Pro' archers were excluded from comps in the UK if I remember correctly. Archery seemed more fun then. I would still like to see amateur status reinstated and rewarded in archery.
 
Last edited:

KidCurry

Well-known member
I think things started going down hill when the 'Professional Archer' entered the fray. In the 70s 'Pro' archers were excluded from comps in the UK if I remember correctly. Archery seemed more fun then. I would still like to see amateur status reinstated and rewarded in archery.
.... or even divide Archery GB into AGB and AGBPro. I would like to know when I'm up against fully/partially funded archers. I think UK Darts still have a professional and amateur status.
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
As far as I can see GB has won a grand total of 4 (four) Olympic medals in the “modern” era. Team medals in 1988 and 1992 and individual medals in 1992 and 2004. They were all bronze. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the individual athletes but that seems a pretty poor return for the millions AGB has spent.
The funding is also for Paralympic archery, where Team GB have won multiple medals, including golds...

As for your second comment on results, if you cast your mind back to 2016 AGB was indeed performing poorly for the investment put in, to the point where UK sport axed the funding for the tokyo cycle.
Of course, that ignores the fact that at Rio 2016 the team achieved the requested performance (an individual top 8 finish), so the cutting of funds following wasn't expected (as with an number of other sports that had also achieved their requested performance levels and then got funding cut). When you're told your future funding is dependent on achieving certain results, getting those results and then still getting your funding cut...
 

dvd8n

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
I think things started going down hill when the 'Professional Archer' entered the fray. In the 70s 'Pro' archers were excluded from comps in the UK if I remember correctly. Archery seemed more fun then. I would still like to see amateur status reinstated and rewarded in archery.
I can see where you are coming from, but personally I've always had an issue with the professional / amateur distinction in sport.

I know that we all like to imagine the plucky individual competing and winning solely for the love of the sport, but let's be honest - it was never about that. It started as a means to keep independently wealthy gentlemen of means from having to mix with the smelly working classes, which then transmogrified into a competition between states to see who could best hide their sponsorship.

Plus I'm not convinced that it's just the pros that drain the fun from competitions - I've been to competitions where competitors disappear before the end of the shoot because they weren't in the running for a medal, or their score wasn't high enough and a DNF was a better outcome for them. It makes you feel really special when you move up the results table because the person in front of you just couldn't be ***ed.
 

Jontiboy

New member
Hi why bother with the chuffing Olympics! I remember having a whip round for a lad at a shoot! ( a roofer ) who had his benefits stopped because he was unavailable for work representing his country!! has any body any further info on this? or was it a scam? I would like to know
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
Hi why bother with the chuffing Olympics! I remember having a whip round for a lad at a shoot! ( a roofer ) who had his benefits stopped because he was unavailable for work representing his country!! has any body any further info on this? or was it a scam? I would like to know
Wasn't that Simon Terry 28 years ago...??
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
It was true and more than one athlete clobbered by that. I recall someone who got a medal was clobbered by the system as well as a winter olympics competitor
Now my worry is that AGB will spend the Sport Uk money how it should but then commit itself to more slaries and the like that wil eat into the rest of the income that is generated by our subs when we can never gain any benefit from it.
The UK morphed intoa communist bloc country as far as sports go in the Blair era with the emphasis on reaching predetermined results that were too ambitious a benchmark and then blaming the athletes and their coaches when they failed to shine. Lets face it, if you are 8th in the world and the matches are determined by face to face contests then 4th is the most likey best result from a favourable draw in sports like boxing, judo etc. for events like shooting, canoeing ect where a time trial or similar preliminary round is used then bad luck means you go home early and good luck may get you a medal if some of the other front runners screw up.
The other thing we dont have for minority sports in the UK is any decent level of sponsorship. going back to my shooting days I used to coach a student who was a modern pentathlete and knew another student who was good at clay busting. I also knew Prince Jefri of Brunei who was looking for someone to mentor having fallen out with his brother and was no longer the head of the brunei olympic assoc so put them in touch and under him they did "rather well"
 
I was rather hoping that AGB would be able to use the extra UK Sport cash to fund their “elite” programme thus freeing up a concomitant amount currently being taken from the membership fees - though I suspect you’re right.

As far as I can see GB has won a grand total of 4 (four) Olympic medals in the “modern” era. Team medals in 1988 and 1992 and individual medals in 1992 and 2004. They were all bronze. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the individual athletes but that seems a pretty poor return for the millions AGB has spent.
 

mk1

It's an X
Supporter
Now my worry is that AGB will spend the Sport Uk money how it should but then commit itself to more slaries and the like that wil eat into the rest of the income that is generated by our subs when we can never gain any benefit from it.

I'm really not sure why someone would be concerned about money being spent properly and then imply that it wouldn't be. Budgets are worked out in advance of grants being given so grants cover what is needed.
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
I was saying that I am concerned once the money is spent as allocated will they then spend more money from elsewhere on the same thing.
If a grant is given for say a staff position and that position is then determined to be at a higher salary (lets say the minimum wage has changed as an example) the person will still have to be paid but the top up will come from more general membership funds and there is no possibility that any benefit can be had by the wider membership as a result of the post being created.

Used to get it all the time with research funding in universities. Some depts have got it so wrong they end up subsidising the research to the tune of 50% of the entire departments budget. Some loss leader.
 

mk1

It's an X
Supporter
I was saying that I am concerned once the money is spent as allocated will they then spend more money from elsewhere on the same thing.
If a grant is given for say a staff position and that position is then determined to be at a higher salary (lets say the minimum wage has changed as an example) the person will still have to be paid but the top up will come from more general membership funds and there is no possibility that any benefit can be had by the wider membership as a result of the post being created.

Used to get it all the time with research funding in universities. Some depts have got it so wrong they end up subsidising the research to the tune of 50% of the entire departments budget. Some loss leader.
Somehow or other that doesn't happen, there is an overall budget and it's pulled down as required. Successive annual finance reports will bear that out. You have to remember that UK Sport has been working with governing bodies for quite some years now and will be well aware of wage increases and such. membership money is used to help fund the non Olympic strands of performace on a very tight budget - compound and field archery with most if not all of the archers having to self fund to events. Unless I go and look at the reports I don't know what the 76p a head was spent on in 2019 as ATH states in his post but I suspect it was this.
 
Top