British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby athleticshushmail » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:21 am

Article by Metro:
Christian Malcolm and others will no longer be funded by British Athletics
http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/14/uk-athlet ... e-4145520/
athleticshushmail
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:22 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby JumboElliott » Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:54 am

I don't understand the use of a country using government money to pay for athletes to compete at the Olympics in the first place.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2111
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby gh » Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:41 am

And every other country on the planet probably can't understand why the U.S. doesn't.
gh
 
Posts: 46294
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby JumboElliott » Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:04 pm

What about Japan with the corporate running teams?
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2111
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby Wang Lung » Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:35 pm

gh wrote:And every other country on the planet is thankful the U.S. doesn't.


fixed
Wang Lung
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:39 pm

gh wrote:And every other country on the planet probably can't understand why the U.S. doesn't.

The American university system (NCAA & NAIA) is certainly government funded.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby JumboElliott » Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:13 pm

Big difference between state and federal funds.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2111
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:28 pm

JumboElliott wrote:Big difference between state and federal funds.

Why? Is state money less green than federal money? :? Besides, I pretty sure state schools get both state and federal funds.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby JumboElliott » Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:59 pm

Because not every American pays taxes in all 50 individual states.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2111
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby lionelp1 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:30 pm

If the 38 million people of California pay state taxes, via head of households, to assist athletes then its paid by individuals, thus Jumbo is not correct. The comment that a guy in the state of NY does not contribute to such athletes, whilst correct, is a red herring. 38 million people is larger than many other countries.
Just the sort of comment one might expect from a "corporate" fan . When you buy your next Nike trainers I am sure a cent or two of Nike's income and expenditure account includes for support of athletes in the various states in the Union where such athletes live.

The phrase "government money" is not correct and rather meaningless, "taxpayers" money I understand .
lionelp1
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:48 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby deroki » Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:40 am

gh wrote:And every other country on the planet probably can't understand why the U.S. doesn't.



I thought USATF gave out training grants...? Not the level of funding some other countries provide, but some funding none the less...
deroki
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:54 am

JumboElliott wrote:Because not every American pays taxes in all 50 individual states.

Are you discounting the American university system because there are people in our society who live off government assistance, and thus are non-tax payers? If that's your argument, it's completely irrelevant since that same situation exists in western European countries like the U.K. which are more socialist than the U.S. The main point is that athletes in the American university system, including many foreign athletes, are being subsidized by government funding.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby mump boy » Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:55 am

British sports people aren't funded by taxes, they're funded by profits from the National Lottery
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:06 am

Is the UK's national lottery publicly run or privately run? I ask this because money is fungible and there are many states in the U.S. who use lotteries as an additional source of tax revenue.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby Midnightfeast » Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:59 pm

The UK lottery is run by Camelot (which is owned by Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan), 12% of the sales go to the UK government as duty. 28% go to good causes, such as sport funding.
Midnightfeast
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:43 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby JumboElliott » Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:10 pm

mump boy wrote:British sports people aren't funded by taxes, they're funded by profits from the National Lottery

So they're funded by taxing the poor.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2111
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby shivfan » Fri Oct 18, 2013 11:39 pm

Well, it's a system that seems to be working, judging by the position Britain ended up in after the London Olympics....

The Lottery Funding pays for not just track and field athletes, but even for the minor sports, like taekwondo. IFRC, Britain finished third in the medal table, above Russia, which is a new high.

The only drawback is that for some athletes, it can create a situation where some British athletes don't feel the need to push themselves harder. When some British athletes went to train in Jamaica, that attitude was observed, leading to Asafa Powell making the blanket observation that this funding made some British athletes "lazy".
shivfan
 
Posts: 2586
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:30 am
Location: Just outside London

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby lionelp1 » Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:09 am

why dwell in the land of facts when ignorance is displayed by a poster as to the UK Lottery
.
It does not take too much effort on the net to find out the history, purpose and contributions of the Lottery to British sport overall with reference also to the Lottery contribution to UK Olympic and Paralympic sports since 1994 when the PM Major introduced the concept here..
The Lottery is created from taxed income at the pleasure of the citizens and is doled out to good causes, the arts and, of course, sports here from Camelot, the company receiving the income. The amount allotted for Sports, a percentage of the total amount is controlled by UK Sport.
Lotteries are world wide and the USA has exactly the same Lotteries but not rewarding sport investment and individual athletes in the same way as here in the UK , I assume.

The money from Lottery tickets which goes to Olympic and Paralympic Sports is significantly supplemented by taxation of the individual although this latter amount is reducing in these straightened times.

The total contributed to Olympic and Paralympic Sports by Camelot to UK Sport at 2011 has been £183.5 million out of a total of £313 million as at 2011

The British seem perfectly happy that, apart from those that wish to buy the tickets in the hope of a possible reward, they are subsidising sports in general, and Olympic and Paralympic sports in particular.

A fairly civilised way to raise the cash to support athletes, imo, as opposed to shoe companies plus other state support as in in the USA
lionelp1
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:48 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby mump boy » Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:32 am

JumboElliott wrote:
mump boy wrote:British sports people aren't funded by taxes, they're funded by profits from the National Lottery

So they're funded by taxing the poor.


Taxes are compulsory, playing the lottery is not. It is also extremely patronising to assume only 'the poor' play the lottery
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:37 am

mump boy wrote:Taxes are compulsory, playing the lottery is not. It is also extremely patronising to assume only 'the poor' play the lottery

But as I said before, money is fungible, and it makes no difference to the athlete which pile of government money is being used to fund them. For the last four years, Brianna Rollins has been supported by Clemson University, a public college in the state of South Carolina. Quibbling over whether the funds that supported her came from the South Carolina Education Lottery or from some other pile of state funds is pointless, since the lottery has no effect on the Clemson's track budget. Ultimately, the South Carolina taxpayers make up the difference between what the lottery raises and what the state legislature allocates for education, so the lottery has no effect on the bottom line of South Carolina's education system, because government-run lotteries are nothing but a shell game. Some may argue that lotteries are a fairer form of taxation since it's completely voluntary, but that a whole other argument all together, and has nothing to do with the fact that government-run lotteries are by definition a form of taxation, no different than the taxes raised from other vices such as tobacco and alcohol.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby gh » Sat Oct 19, 2013 5:30 am

mump boy wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:
mump boy wrote:British sports people aren't funded by taxes, they're funded by profits from the National Lottery

So they're funded by taxing the poor.


Taxes are compulsory, playing the lottery is not. It is also extremely patronising to assume only 'the poor' play the lottery


The poor disproportionately play, at least on these shores

<<....Studies of lottery ticket sales in North Carolina, South Carolina, California, Texas and Connecticut found that per capita lottery sales are consistently higher in the poorest counties and tickets are more likely to be purchased by unemployed individuals.

Statistics from South Carolina highlight the lottery’s reliance on low earners: people in households earning under $40,000 made up 54 percent of frequent players, while constituting only 28 percent of the state’s population. Meanwhile, a PBS report earlier this year showed that, for America’s very poorest, the lottery is a heavy expenditure: Households that earn at most $13,000 a year spend 9 percent of their money on lottery tickets.

“Lotteries set off a vicious cycle that not only exploits low-income individuals’ desires to escape poverty but also directly prevents them from improving upon their financial situations,” a 2008 study by Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business noted. The study, aligning with national statistics, found that people who felt poor were found to buy double the number of lottery tickets. ....>>

check this google for multiple articles along the same line (I'm no economist, but the conventional wisdom is certainly that they're a selective tax on the poor):

"are lotteries a tax on the poor?"
gh
 
Posts: 46294
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby lionelp1 » Sat Oct 19, 2013 10:15 am

Tax on the poor? I am not overly impressed with a posturing rather snobby view about lotteries being a "tax on the poor" . All our significant taxes are not voluntary, sadly :( .
People do as they wish with their taxed income and I know personally some very financially well off people who get a harmless pleasure from spending a couple of quid trying to win a very large amount.
I used to gamble on the roulette before retirement in various clubs in London for the fun of winning and never won much. I am not poor. My wealthy boss used to spend money on the horses and loved it; lost mostly but that cash went to the bookies , not useful social expenditure .

Those who give money to the UK National Lottery( and other European Lotteries, like Euromillions) via their 1 or 2 few pounds per week enable a great deal of money to be allotted to many varied causes and whilst this may save Central Government from spending the amounts so spent on the arts and sports, I see no harm, rather I see great benefits in such an investment. The British spend a fortune on gambling, whether on lottery tickets, or on the horses and this is done by all income groups.
lionelp1
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:48 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby Gabriella » Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:32 am

Let's be honest here; it's the poor scrubbers on 75quid a week dole money that spend 10quid of it on the lottery. That is the reality. However, the point is it is voluntary, so it isn't a tax.

Ideally lottery players should have more say in what lottery funding goes to, but as it stands they/we don't and most accept a certain amount being spent on sport and the arts, not just more obvious charitable causes.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby lionelp1 » Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:51 pm

Gabriella , when you talk shite , you make a great job of it. Firstly, the Camelot stats on the profile of the average punter makes absolute rubbish about 75quid a week scrubbers. A lot of poorer people spend no more than a quid a week but collect for friends and neighbours. My local newsagent in town, WHSmith, will tell you that the average ticket purchase is between 1 and 2 per head; your 10 quid a week statement is beyond absurd.
Whats the stuff about 75 quid a week?? The unemployed adults and families in the UK receive after filling in the forms etc a lot more than £75 a week( Must have got your facts from the Guardian via the Toynbee creep)
Well over £20,000 a week if you know the way to claim the benefits. You would need to be part of a family with kids, ok, but the £75 a week people reference is , as you really know, misleading in the extreme, if it purports to be the average payment received by the lottery players.
I would suggest you do better to stick to multi-events!!
lionelp1
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:48 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby jjimbojames » Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:22 am

lionelp1 wrote:Gabriella , when you talk shite , you make a great job of it. Firstly, the Camelot stats on the profile of the average punter makes absolute rubbish about 75quid a week scrubbers. A lot of poorer people spend no more than a quid a week but collect for friends and neighbours. My local newsagent in town, WHSmith, will tell you that the average ticket purchase is between 1 and 2 per head; your 10 quid a week statement is beyond absurd.
Whats the stuff about 75 quid a week?? The unemployed adults and families in the UK receive after filling in the forms etc a lot more than £75 a week( Must have got your facts from the Guardian via the Toynbee creep)
Well over £20,000 a week if you know the way to claim the benefits. You would need to be part of a family with kids, ok, but the £75 a week people reference is , as you really know, misleading in the extreme, if it purports to be the average payment received by the lottery players.
I would suggest you do better to stick to multi-events!!

£20,000 a week IS a lot more than £75 a week, but it's also surely a lot more than any family on benefits gets! I'm assuming that's an annual figure!? :D :wink:
jjimbojames
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:16 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby iain » Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:38 am

lionelp1 wrote:Gabriella , when you talk shite , you make a great job of it. Firstly, the Camelot stats on the profile of the average punter makes absolute rubbish about 75quid a week scrubbers. A lot of poorer people spend no more than a quid a week but collect for friends and neighbours. My local newsagent in town, WHSmith, will tell you that the average ticket purchase is between 1 and 2 per head; your 10 quid a week statement is beyond absurd.
Whats the stuff about 75 quid a week?? The unemployed adults and families in the UK receive after filling in the forms etc a lot more than £75 a week( Must have got your facts from the Guardian via the Toynbee creep)
Well over £20,000 a week if you know the way to claim the benefits. You would need to be part of a family with kids, ok, but the £75 a week people reference is , as you really know, misleading in the extreme, if it purports to be the average payment received by the lottery players.
I would suggest you do better to stick to multi-events!!


:lol: :roll:
iain
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:50 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby mump boy » Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:22 am

mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby eldanielfire » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:44 am

Gabriella wrote:Let's be honest here; it's the poor scrubbers on 75quid a week dole money that spend 10quid of it on the lottery. That is the reality. However, the point is it is voluntary, so it isn't a tax.

Ideally lottery players should have more say in what lottery funding goes to, but as it stands they/we don't and most accept a certain amount being spent on sport and the arts, not just more obvious charitable causes.


While countries like the USA have a historic poor buy tickets culture in the UK the lottery is a rather middle class tickle and not dominated by one social economic group.

This is backed up by studies. The lack of historic poor culture in lottery buying is owed probably due to the lottery being a relatively recent introduction and always been a centre piece on the establishment institution the BBC.
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby John G » Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:40 am

eldanielfire wrote:While countries like the USA have a historic poor buy tickets culture in the UK the lottery is a rather middle class tickle and not dominated by one social economic group.

This is backed up by studies. The lack of historic poor culture in lottery buying is owed probably due to the lottery being a relatively recent introduction and always been a centre piece on the establishment institution the BBC.



Can you provide details of the studies that back up your view? I'd like to believe what you write is true but the only study I can find, from 2009, provides contrary evidence:
"Manual workers and the unemployed are significantly more likely to play National Lottery scratch cards than those in the top managerial, professional careers and supervisory and clerical posts, research for the public theology think tank Theos has shown".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -poor.html
John G
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby mump boy » Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:23 pm

Who cares

There's no compulsion to buy a ticket, if you don't like were the proceeds are being spent go to bingo instead :roll:
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby jackbean » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:19 am

JumboElliott wrote:
mump boy wrote:British sports people aren't funded by taxes, they're funded by profits from the National Lottery

So they're funded by taxing the poor.


I know! What a dopey comment by mump boy - stealth tax, but a tax nonetheless.
jackbean
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:45 pm

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby mump boy » Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:38 am

jackbean wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:
mump boy wrote:British sports people aren't funded by taxes, they're funded by profits from the National Lottery

So they're funded by taxing the poor.


I know! What a dopey comment by mump boy - stealth tax, but a tax nonetheless.


It's not a tax, there is no compulsion to pay it, it is a personal choice.

If you donate to the local hospital, a veterans charity or youth club is that a tax as well ??
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby John G » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:09 am

mump boy wrote:
jackbean wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:
mump boy wrote:British sports people aren't funded by taxes, they're funded by profits from the National Lottery

So they're funded by taxing the poor.


I know! What a dopey comment by mump boy - stealth tax, but a tax nonetheless.


It's not a tax, there is no compulsion to pay it, it is a personal choice.

If you donate to the local hospital, a veterans charity or youth club is that a tax as well ??


Mump, I'm not an economist but I think the lottery acts like an indirect tax, such as VAT. Most items we buy that include VAT are not things that we absolutely have to buy - there's some choice in it.
John G
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby fez » Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:27 am

The poor also give more money to charity as a percentage of their income then the rich.

Is it not possible that many lottery players are attracted by its altruistic side, as well as the possibility of winning millions? As opposed to simply gambling on the horses or in a casino, which serves no other purpose.
fez
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:17 am

fez wrote:The poor also give more money to charity as a percentage of their income then the rich.

Is it not possible that many lottery players are attracted by its altruistic side, .

Anything is possible but I would bet in 99.99999 % of the cases, the motivation is the prospect of winning money, not altruism.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8811
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby Wang Lung » Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:25 pm

fez wrote:The poor also give more money to charity as a percentage of their income then the rich.

Is it not possible that many lottery players are attracted by its altruistic side, as well as the possibility of winning millions? As opposed to simply gambling on the horses or in a casino, which serves no other purpose.


LOL I've worked in a charity run gambling house for 20 years now. It's a bingo hall. Our swim team is funded by proceeds. We net about 18% from a gross of $2,000,000 per year. First of all, 80% of the gross is sourced from welfare. Even a lot of the regular players don't even know we are a charity. Very little altruism occurring. Second of all, in my opinion, if you have enough money left over after receiving your unemployment check, that you can afford to gamble with it, you are receiving too much benefit. Even though we are beneficiaries, I don't like it.

The local newspaper did a profile of a woman on welfare who was complaining she couldn't make ends meet. Yet, there she was, every Saturday night, in our bingo hall, spending $28 a session. They didn't bother mentioning that. To Fez's point, I imagine her percentage of giving is a larger percentage than most. But there ain't a darn thing altruistic about it.
Wang Lung
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby Daisy » Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Wang Lung wrote:Second of all, in my opinion, if you have enough money left over after receiving your unemployment check, that you can afford to gamble with it, you are receiving too much benefit.

But if you look at it from Lonewolf's perspective they see it as a chance to get more money, however unlikely that might be. I agree that altruism probably has nothing to do with their behavior.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gabriella and 13 guests