What do we mean by success?

Tweet

The newspapers are full of praise for the athletes from the UK who took part in the Rio Olympics, and rightly so.  The performance of many of them was outstanding and deserving of the praise being heaped on the individuals concerned.  However, whilst assessing the success of individual athletes is comparatively straightforward, assessing the overall performance of countries is rather less so.

The Western Mail highlighted one aspect of that in this article on Saturday, pointing out that, on the basis of the population of Wales, the nation performed very well indeed, coming in second overall on the basis of medals per head.  It would not give an independent Wales a very high ranking in the official medal table, of course, but that merely highlights that countries with larger populations are likely to do better, overall, than countries with smaller population.  Having a lower position in the medal table takes away nothing from the successes of any of the individuals concerned.

But it is clear that, for some, the overall ranking is the more important measure.  On that basis, I saw another alternative table last week.  This one shows how, if the EU had competed as a single team, it would have overwhelmed all the other competing terms, finishing miles ahead of anyone else.  Again, calculating the rankings in this way takes away nothing from the successes of any of the individuals.

Reactions to both of the alternative tables have varied, inevitably, but what they demonstrate is that most people start out with a view about what is the ‘right’ basis for competing, and it seems unlikely that that preference is based solely on a desire to be seen as one of the worlds’s sporting superpowers.  There are more political factors at work here.

And that brings me to another point.  One alternative table that I’ve not yet seen (and I don’t know how easy it would be to produce) is a ranking based on the amount spent to win each medal.  If one were to be produced, I suspect that the UK would be quite a long way down in terms of value for money, with the team having a very high cost per medal.  There is clear evidence that targeted spending can and does produce results in terms of medals, if that’s what’s important.

At one level, that may not matter.  Any state is perfectly free to decide how much to invest in its sportsmen and women, and to set a target for how many Olympic medals it wishes to win as a result.  That’s more or less what John Major’s government did some years ago, and over time that focus has produced more medals.  It’s rather less clear, though, that it’s increased participation in sport; indeed, there is plenty of evidence that participation may be falling as facilities are closed or reduced in the light of spending cuts elsewhere.  Increasingly we have a well-funded elite and a poorly funded remainder, as a result of a deliberate act of government policy (and by successive governments of both colours).

It leads me to wonder whether the objective is more to do with ‘bread and circuses’ than any real concern for sporting prowess and performance.

Games and pennies

Tweet

It's hard to disagree with much of what Jeff Jones had to say last week about the idea of bringing the Commonwealth Games to Wales.  The experience of other countries shows that it's a costly project, and particularly difficult for any government with no tax-raising powers; there is inevitably a danger that other areas of spending will be hit.

When I saw the first reports about the proposal, I was – and remain – concerned about the Cardiff-centric nature of the plans.  The Olympics demonstrated clearly how holding an event in one part of the country can suck resources in from elsewhere.  It looked like another example of Wales emulating the way the UK behaves – pouring resources into the south-east at the expense of the rest.

The scheme's supporters talk about the "economic benefits" – another parallel with the Olympic hype.  I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now.

And yet, for all that…

For those of us who want Wales to become a confident, outward looking member of the international community, who wouldn't want to see Wales hosting the premier sporting event in which we actually compete as a nation in our own right?  And, to repeatt the point I made in relation to the Olympics, isn't there more to events celebrating human endeavour and achievement in the field of sports than mere pounds and pennies?

None of that makes the cost questions go away – but Wales is not the only nation competing in the Commonwealth Games to be facing financial difficulties.  If all those worried about the cost failed to bid, there'd be no games at all.  Economics rules, OK.

If we want to see major sporting events like this continue, and if we want them to continue to be held in a range of different countries (and why shouldn't all those countries participating aspire to host them?), then we need a different approach to funding.

My preferred option would be to see all countries involved contributing an annual amount – based perhaps on GVA/head – to a central pot which can then be used to assist host countries in turn, rather than allowing the whole burden to full on one country at a time.

But at the least, we can move away from the attitude which encourages each host in turn to promise – and then try and deliver – the most lavish overall plan and to outdo its predecessor.  There's too much emphasis on the premises and ceremonies, and not enough on the sport itself.