UK Athletics Funding - How are the decisions made?

It's always been like this. It's crap. They need less subjective criteria.

Maybe the idea is that the better athletes are more likely to get sponsorships to fund their athletics while the slightly less good athletes are given the funding as they are less likely to get sponsorships?

The policy I believe is;

To fund athletes that will medal

To fund up and coming athletes that have a high chance to madel in future

Established athletes passed their peak that have less chance to medal will have funding reduced or cut.

These leave some strange discussion but I believe it’s done on progressive improvement.

lotteryfunds wrote:

Maybe the idea is that the better athletes are more likely to get sponsorships to fund their athletics while the slightly less good athletes are given the funding as they are less likely to get sponsorships?

Possibly, but doesn't explain Mo Farah, who has only just been removed from funding this cycle!

Tried and Trusted wrote:

lotteryfunds wrote:

Maybe the idea is that the better athletes are more likely to get sponsorships to fund their athletics while the slightly less good athletes are given the funding as they are less likely to get sponsorships?

Possibly, but doesn't explain Mo Farah, who has only just been removed from funding this cycle!

The funding is means tested above £38k so sponsorship shouldn't make a difference. For the high profile athletes the main benefit is the medical support and free training camps, not the £7-28k they earn too much to be entitled to anyway,

Another one... do they need to fund that many for the relays..... SMH

How many would be ok for you? The squad they enter has 6 members in it. 16 athletes funded. Doesn’t exactly seem excessive.

Tried and Trusted wrote:

lotteryfunds wrote:

Maybe the idea is that the better athletes are more likely to get sponsorships to fund their athletics while the slightly less good athletes are given the funding as they are less likely to get sponsorships?

Possibly, but doesn't explain Mo Farah, who has only just been removed from funding this cycle!

Mo Farah is very well known in the UK and the absolute pet of UKAthletics so it's hardly surprising he was favoured

Lynsey Sharp hasn't PBd since 2016. She hasn't raced in 2 years. She now has a child. The event has moved on.

She's unlikely to make a podium in future.

gggg wrote:

How many would be ok for you? The squad they enter has 6 members in it. 16 athletes funded. Doesn’t exactly seem excessive.

ZERO

Mad Jock McMad wrote:

Lynsey Sharp hasn't PBd since 2016. She hasn't raced in 2 years. She now has a child. The event has moved on.

She's unlikely to make a podium in future.

But amazingly still on the highest level of funding, higher than Eilish McColgan. This will be another 4 years of top level funding.

I do feel sorry for her as she missed out on Olympic bronze but its kind of amazing. Melissa Bishop is older and has had a child too but Sharp's form has been poor for 2 - 3 years before she got pregnant.

They use a pretty stupid formula called “what it takes to win” to help make funding decisions. It’s based on athletes who have been on the podium at the Olympics and the times they ran at an age/year before they got a medal. That and they highly favour athletes who have the ‘right’ coaches.

It's a joke. The UK team choose their favourites and distance runners suffer as there is no Head of Endurance yet who can advocate for them. Jess Judd, McColgan and Amy Eloise Markovc all deserved better. McColgan is currently Britain's best distance runner (male or female) by a long shot.

Markovc deserved funding because she shows up and performs well. She qualified for the Olympics and she went to European indoors to represent her country and came back with the gold medal. That deserves reward. Athletes will take these regional competitions more seriously if they are seen to be rewarded for them.

Anyway, UKA continues to be the clown show it has been for years. Anyone who succeeded in UK athletics does so in spite of the system, not because of it

Just wait to see the mass of para athletes on funding and if there is to parity of funding there would be 6 times the funding for para.

And how much of UKA HQ costs are para and when parity how much more

Uka is nearly a para organisation ; get used to it.

Relay medals count to medals tallies just the same… 3 of the teams are genuine medal contenders

High hopes wrote:

It's a joke. The UK team choose their favourites and distance runners suffer as there is no Head of Endurance yet who can advocate for them. Jess Judd, McColgan and Amy Eloise Markovc all deserved better.

......

Anyway, UKA continues to be the clown show it has been for years. Anyone who succeeded in UK athletics does so in spite of the system, not because of it

Could not agree more. Endurance athletes suffer every single time - 16 sprinters for the relays and loads of our top distance runners missing. Are all these sprinters podium potential? Will any of them prove unclean and lose medals for the whole team?

Also, what is UKA doing with all the money from road race permits? It certainly isn't making its way to the clubs that are the greatest developers and talent in the UK.

As for Marc Scott, having won the three Great Runs recently, he's proven himself. at the top level on the roads. Likewise Dr Sesemann and Jake Smith, etc. both of whom are missing from the lists,

UKA need specific measurable objectives rather than simply throwing money at athletes who aren't racing and are not proving their podium potential. The current system is ridiculous and needs to change.

My 9 year old daughter has more, and tougher competition at her school sports day than most para athletes do.

Butchart wasn't eligible for funding. He's serving a "suspension" for faking his COVID test.