Express & Star

All that money for lousy five medals – why bother?

So Great Britain and Northern Ireland won a total of five medals at the Winter Olympics.

Published
Lizzy Yarnold won gold, the second of her career, at the PyeongChang Winter Olympics as one of five medallists for Great Britain - but was it worth it questions this reader

Only at a cost of around £5 million funding from the National Lottery each!

If you discount the medal won thanks to ‘crowd funding’ – because the funding for the two women bobsleigh event was cut off – then add a further £1 million to the average ‘cost’ per medal. How absolutely blooming stupid.

We’re not a place that has huge amounts of snow and ice for these athletes to practice on, and of the five medals won only one was a ‘gold’ for winning, the others were for finishing third. Not a very good return for the ‘investment’ of so much money.

I think 35 countries took part in these Olympics, less than a quarter of the countries that take part in the Summer Games, but still we managed one winner.

But really, couldn’t that money have been better invested in sports which have a higher take-up? Something like basketball? A sport that had its Olympic funding from the National Lottery withdrawn after ‘failing’ at the last Olympics!

It’s ridiculous that a sport like basketball should lose it’s funding when there are many more youngsters playing it than can even afford to get near a snow slope.

Yes, I’m an old cynic who was never good enough or big enough to represent my country on a sporting field, but why should we find the money to fund what are basically rich people’s sports?

M Gough

Wolverhampton