Winning streak

tauringhuang.

Aug 21st 2008
From The Economist print edition

Why Britain’s athletes have done so well

Reuters

Britain’s cycling heroEVERY four years in summer, the British prepare for their team to be gallant losers in the Olympics. But this August has brought winner upon winner. As The Economist went to press, the British team stood in third place in the medals table with 17 golds, behind only China and America, the most since 1908 when Britain hosted the games and fielded a third of the competitors, including all of them in some events.

With some exceptions, such as Rebecca Adlington’s two golds in the pool, Britain’s medals were concentrated in three “sitting-down” sports: cycling, sailing and rowing. The achievements of the cyclists, winning eight golds, four silvers and two bronzes, were especially notable; Chris Hoy (shown in the picture) scored a golden hat-trick. Their success offers some clues to why Britain has staged such a comeback.

A shot of public money has undoubtedly helped a lot. In 1996 British Cycling, which runs the sport, was so short of cash it could not afford to send officials to the under-23 European Championships; it even required its cyclists to return their tracksuits afterwards. In Beijing the British cyclists’ high-tech bikes and budget were the envy of the velodrome.

With extra cash has come greater professionalism. As well as state-of-the-art bicycles, British Cycling has been able to afford some of the leading advisers in the sport, focusing on areas as varied as nutrition and sports psychology. It has also set up an academy system that has helped foster talented young riders, who are now beginning to make their mark.

The way public cash is awarded, using a formula gauging past and potential performance against targets, has sharpened the incentives to take a more professional approach. Underperforming sports risk losing financial support. As Stefan Szymanski, a professor of economics at City University’s Cass Business School, points out, this is a more credible threat to sports with a small following, such as cycling. It works less well in events such as athletics, where high public interest makes it difficult for UK Sport, the main body which doles out the cash, to cut funding too drastically.

Britain’s success is not without detractors. The rationale behind public funding of elite athletes is that success at the top will lead to greater public participation. Yet critics fear that it may mean less money for recreational sports facilities, which would have the opposite effect.

Despite such worries, Britain has exulted in the success. That suggests an unlikely victor ludorum: John Major, a much derided prime minister, whose establishment of a national lottery in 1994 has been instrumental in getting so much extra money into sport.