€160m spent

clear thinking

So in the run up to the olympics the ISC shelled out €40m a year.

The Brits spent £65m a year.

So how in the name of Sonia O'Sullivan are we so rubbish at all sports.

To me the level of spends smacks of pure wastage last seen in the mccreevy horsey prize money give aways. Is this €40m spent on coaches and athletes or to pay blazers types who couldnt even combine braincells to organise a piss up in a brewery without the taoiseachs intervention.

This level should easily finance 400 athletes and the same again in coaches and support.

am i missing something.

Pro rata that spend on sport should be kicking back 30 odd olympic medals, not just the 4 boxing and one tainted gg medals???

tang1

clear thinking wrote: »

So in the run up to the olympics the ISC shelled out €40m a year.

The Brits spent £65m a year.

So how in the name of Sonia O'Sullivan are we so rubbish at all sports.

To me the level of spends smacks of pure wastage last seen in the mccreevy horsey prize money give aways. Is this €40m spent on coaches and athletes or to pay blazers types who couldnt even combine braincells to organise a piss up in a brewery without the taoiseachs intervention.

This level should easily finance 400 athletes and the same again in coaches and support.

am i missing something.

Pro rata that spend on sport should be kicking back 30 odd olympic medals, not just the 4 boxing and one tainted gg medals???

If you spent 40m on Shamrock Rovers in coaching, players etc are they going to win the Champions League, no. Why, there not good enough. Unfortunately SOME and i emphasize the word some, of our athletes are like that to. No doubt we do have some athletes capable of competing at the highest level.

GreeBo

tang1 wrote: »

If you spent 40m on Shamrock Rovers in coaching, players etc are they going to win the Champions League, no. Why, there not good enough. Unfortunately SOME and i emphasize the word some, of our athletes are like that to. No doubt we do have some athletes capable of competing at the highest level.

would you like an apple to go with that orange?
you cannot compare a team sport to an individual one.

Royal Legend

where did you see this €40m per year figure, i find that one hard to believe as we only spent 8m in the last six years on the high performance boxing setup

thirtyfoot

The Brits spent £265m on the Olympic sports this year.

rom

Direct quotes from these two sources. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9470453/London-2012-Olympics-Government-guarantees-athlete-funding-to-2016.html In the four-year period before London 2012 UK Sport awarded £265 million to Olympic sports and around £50 million to Paralympic disciplines. = 315M pounds = 400M Euro http://www.irishsportscouncil.ie/News_Events/Latest_News/2012/10_5_million_euro_high_performance_package_announced_by_Irish_Sports_Council.html It means €40 million will be invested by the Council over the four year cycle of 2009 to 2012 UK got 10 times the funding and 13 times the medals QED

thirtyfoot

rom wrote: »

Direct quotes from these two sources. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9470453/London-2012-Olympics-Government-guarantees-athlete-funding-to-2016.html In the four-year period before London 2012 UK Sport awarded £265 million to Olympic sports and around £50 million to Paralympic disciplines. = 315M pounds = 400M Euro http://www.irishsportscouncil.ie/News_Events/Latest_News/2012/10_5_million_euro_high_performance_package_announced_by_Irish_Sports_Council.html It means €40 million will be invested by the Council over the four year cycle of 2009 to 2012 UK got 10 times the funding and 13 times the medals QED

Also, I estimate half of that €40m goes to Olympic sport, 25% to NGB (not all Olympic sports) and 25% to High Performance. Rest goes to FAI, GAA, IRFU and then what are essentially participation strategies. So its more €20-25 versus the Brits on €400m.

Royal Legend

So in contrast to the OP's figures, we are as expected UNDERFUNDED.

tang1

Royal Legend wrote: »

So in contrast to the OP's figures, we are as expected UNDERFUNDED.

No great surprise there really. Rob Heffernan said as much this evening on Newstalks 'Off the Ball'.

Krusty_Clown

Not so, clear thinking.

myflipflops

Funding of elite athletes gets a lot of airtime around here. Really, it is not the main issue for Olympic sports.

We are a tiny country population wise and there are 3 sports that exist above all others and hoover up the vast majority of sporting talent in the country, particularly the male talent.

If you want to develop success in the Olympics, aim for 12-16 years time and start over. Put together a plan to attract young people into minority sports and build a proper coaching regime on top of that.

Personally, considering the monopoly that soccer, GAA and rugby have over boys sports, i would focus nearly completely on getting girls involved in Olympic sports and develop from there.

RayCun

clear thinking wrote: »

So in the run up to the olympics the ISC shelled out €40m a year.

You're reading it wrong.

This total funding package of investment [€10 million package of support for 2012] is on a par with 2011 which had a final year total of €10.3 million. It means €40 million will be invested by the Council over the four year cycle of 2009 to 2012.

That's €40 million over four years. €10 million a year.

At that though, you can't be sure you're comparing like with like. Some things that are covered by the Irish 40 million might be covered by other sources in GB, and vice versa.

clear thinking

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Not so, clear thinking.

Sports council 2010 report (where's 2011 btw?) show a spend in excess of €40m in that year, higher spends in hte previous years.

walshb

clear thinking wrote: »

So in the run up to the olympics the ISC shelled out €40m a year.

The Brits spent £65m a year.

So how in the name of Sonia O'Sullivan are we so rubbish at all sports.

To me the level of spends smacks of pure wastage last seen in the mccreevy horsey prize money give aways. Is this €40m spent on coaches and athletes or to pay blazers types who couldnt even combine braincells to organise a piss up in a brewery without the taoiseachs intervention.

This level should easily finance 400 athletes and the same again in coaches and support.

am i missing something.

Pro rata that spend on sport should be kicking back 30 odd olympic medals, not just the 4 boxing and one tainted gg medals???

We could spend 1 billion a year and still we may not get the medals you crave.

And what exactly is rubbish in your eyes? Finishing outside the top three on the planet?

rom

Actually if you think about it due to population we did much better than the UK for what we spent but then again that is why they focus on boxing.

ecoli

Just on relation to fund wastage, research carried out by the ISC actually points to the Government actually seeing nearly 150% return on every euro invested in sport. Puts into context athletes wasting the taxpayers money somewhat:

http://www.irishsportscouncil.ie/News_Events/Latest_News/2010/Irish_Sports_Council_Publishes_New_Research_into_Economic_Impact_of_Sport.html

Krusty_Clown

rom wrote: »

Actually if you think about it due to population we did much better than the UK for what we spent but then again that is why they focus on boxing.

Well, while we did do better than Great Britain by head of capita, the difference was only marginal. We ranked 22nd out of 85 countries, with Great Britain ranked 23rd.
Ireland: 917,650/medal
Great Britain: 957,876/medal
From: www.medalspercapita.com

If you associate a weighting system with medals (Gold=4 Silver=2 Bronze=1), then we don't fare quite as well, with Great Britain coming 15th, to our 24th position. But who's counting!
From here.

Pisco Sour

clear thinking wrote: »

So in the run up to the olympics the ISC shelled out €40m a year.

The Brits spent £65m a year.

So how in the name of Sonia O'Sullivan are we so rubbish at all sports.

To me the level of spends smacks of pure wastage last seen in the mccreevy horsey prize money give aways. Is this €40m spent on coaches and athletes or to pay blazers types who couldnt even combine braincells to organise a piss up in a brewery without the taoiseachs intervention.

This level should easily finance 400 athletes and the same again in coaches and support.

am i missing something.

Pro rata that spend on sport should be kicking back 30 odd olympic medals, not just the 4 boxing and one tainted gg medals???

LOL! 30 Olympic medals! Only 8 countries across the planet won 30 medals or more. Countries that failed to reach your criteria include Italy (60 million) and South Korea (40 million), while Spain (40 million) and Brazil (190 million approx) are not even close, both winning an unforgiveable 17 medals! Even if you had got your facts correct (which you didn't) you're expectations for a country of 5 million people, from whom the majority of sporting talent is hoovered up by non Olympic field sports, are over the top silly! How do you expect a country of 5 million to win 30 medals, especially given the fact that Olympic sports are not taken very seriously in Ireland, through the media, participation or funding?

The others have already ridiculed your "facts" enough but I'll add one extra bit. Last I checked 1/3rd of all sports funding in Ireland goes to horse racing, which lets be honest is barely even a sport, but more a gambling exercise. If you made gambling illegal then 90% of horse racing "fans" wouldn't be seen under the sheds of Leopardstown or the Curragh. While GAA is the biggest drain on talent to Olympic sports, horse racing is by far the biggest drain on funding!

I would consider 5 medals a very good performance and hopefully we can push on from that in Rio.

clear thinking

Specifically I find it rubbish that we have zero track and field medals.

I find it rubbish that, outside boxing, no other sport medalled or came close apart from elite type sports of sailing and horses, the latter recieving separate and mad levels of money from the government.

I'd agree with targeting womens sport for participation, its the easist sector to grow. ANd a push to end the pint drinikng mini marathoners should go with that!

But the ISC reports that I can find showed something like 40% of funding going to egg chasing, kick ball and bog fighting. This is crazy too since these "critical mass" sports can attract comparably massive sponsorship and need no help from the ISC

I think we should be more ambitious, there should be an intermediate phase to link mass participation to elite (ie expand carding, incentivise clubs to funds scolarships on a matching funds basis, get returning scholars to stay in the sport) for non-big-three sports.

From an athletics pov i'm not too bothered about olympic golds, its not comparable to boxing, but more athletes getting to olympic finals, B standards getting sent for the experience if no A's go and generally promoting a culture of success would be nice.

RoyMcC

Pisco Sour wrote: »

While GAA is the biggest drain on talent to Olympic sports, horse racing is by far the biggest drain on funding!

Would not the horsey people point to the economic activity generated by their industry? Athletics (I'm sad to say) has plenty of costs associated with it but little income.

So true about the talent drain, discussed elsewhere

walshb

Several of sailors did quite well. Your expectations are IMO ridiculous and not at all accurate.

clear thinking

clear thinking wrote: »

So in the run up to the olympics the ISC shelled out €40m a year.

Fact - look at their 2010 annual report.

clear thinking wrote: »

The Brits spent £65m a year.

Fact, another poster confirmed with paper quotes

clear thinking wrote: »

Pro rata that spend on sport should be kicking back 30 odd olympic medals, not just the 4 boxing and one tainted gg medals???

Fact: - i'm not saying its a target for a small country, cop on, i'm saying bang for buck 5 medals costing €40m is terrible compared to the brits 60 for €80m.

Try reading the post first. I'm just putting it out there, big money is spent, the last ISC VFM report dates to 2007 so who knows if it is an effective use of taxpayers money.

Your point on horses however is well made.

walshb

BTW, horese racing is most definitely a sport, and a very tough and physical and competitive one too. Every bit a sport as a man running 100 metres down a track!

Hard Worker

RoyMcC wrote: »

Would not the horsey people point to the economic activity generated by their industry? Athletics (I'm sad to say) has plenty of costs associated with it but little income.

So true about the talent drain, discussed elsewhere

While athletics has very little economic monetary value, it has great social and health benefits. 200 kids training on a Tuesday and Thursday evening at a club means that anti social behaviour is reduced and less people ending up in hospital in later years with all sorts of ailments brought about by sedentary lifestyles.
The funding that goes to the horse industry will have economic benefits, and that's about all.

clear thinking

walshb wrote: »

BTW, horese racing is most definitely a sport, and a very tough and physical and competitive one too. Every bit a sport as a man running 100 metres down a track!

Midgets riding inbred donkeys. Much better than GAA so.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

BTW, horese racing is most definitely a sport, and a very tough and physical and competitive one too. Every bit a sport as a man running 100 metres down a track!

I have lots of respect for the likes of Ruby Walsh, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people only tune into the sport because they have money on some horse, not through any undying passion for a particular jockey or horse. Yes there are anoraks who love the sport for what it is, but remove the gambling aspect from it and watch the attendances dwindle to 10 men and a dog!

Anyway, going off topic now.

jeffontour

clear thinking wrote: »

I find it rubbish that, outside boxing, no other sport medalled or came close apart from elite type sports of sailing and horses, the latter recieving separate and mad levels of money from the government.

Rob Heffernan would argue that he was damn close to a medal. And I don't think you can argue that walking is an "elite type sport". It's only one example but it's a valid one that reflects the less than clear thinking you're employing in your posts.

Pisco Sour

clear thinking wrote: »

I find it rubbish that, outside boxing, no other sport medalled or came close apart from elite type sports of sailing and horses, the latter recieving separate and mad levels of money from the government.

Rob Heffernan finished 4th.

clear thinking

jeffontour wrote: »

Rob Heffernan would argue that he was damn close to a medal. And I don't think you can argue that walking is an "elite type sport". It's only one example but it's a valid one that reflects the less than clear thinking you're employing in your posts.

Touché on his 4th place, but I do not see what is unclear about wondering why a €160m spend has yielded such poor results when there is an easy comparison with the UK's spending.

walshb

Pisco Sour wrote: »

I have lots of respect for the likes of Ruby Walsh, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people only tune into the sport because they have money on some horse, not through any undying passion for a particular jockey or horse. Yes there are anoraks who love the sport for what it is, but remove the gambling aspect from it and watch the attendances dwindle to 10 men and a dog!

Anyway, going off topic now.

Yes, but it's a sport no matter who watches it. You claimed it was barely even a sport, and used gambling and attendances when stating this. That has nothing to do with whether or not it's a sport. If those guys raced the way they do in front of nobody, it's still a sport, and a damn fine one too!

Same way if Bolt and Blake raced down the track at 44 kph with nobody watching them. Doesn't make it barely a sport.

Tombo2001

myflipflops wrote: »

We are a tiny country population wise and there are 3 sports that exist above all others and hoover up the vast majority of sporting talent in the country, particularly the male talent.

That there is an interesting point.

Maybe Athletics Ireland should especially be encouraging female participation given that 50% of girls are not already playing football/ hurling/ GAA to begin with (for the most part).

thirtyfoot

The OP argument is we spend too much money on sport. Their solution is to spend more money on sport (through expanding carding etc). I'd love to have such clear thinking to come up with that.

myflipflops

jeffontour wrote: »

Rob Heffernan would argue that he was damn close to a medal. And I don't think you can argue that walking is an "elite type sport". It's only one example but it's a valid one that reflects the less than clear thinking you're employing in your posts.

It's not an elite sport in that it is a very accessible event to compete in but it probably has a lower participation rate than either sailing or equestrian in Ireland.

He is correct in saying that we weren't anywhere close to a medal in the big participation sports of swimming and track. Worryingly, we weren't anywhere close to a final in either.

As I have said before, you have to make allowances for the swimmers considering how recently we built our first Olympic sized swimming pool.

thirtyfoot

clear thinking wrote: »

Touché on his 4th place, but I do not see what is unclear about wondering why a €160m spend has yielded such poor results when there is an easy comparison with the UK's spending.

I think you are missing a digit on the UK numbers, ie, the 2 before the 65,000,000.

RayCun

clear thinking wrote: »

Touché on his 4th place, but I do not see what is unclear about wondering why a €160m spend has yielded such poor results when there is an easy comparison with the UK's spending.

A €40m spend, not a €160m spend.

It means €40 million will be invested by the Council over the four year cycle of 2009 to 2012.

CoachDudie

So the track and field team did embarrassingly bad at the Olympics apart from one or two exceptions but the excuses flow in.
Number one excuse is that participation in other sports like GAA, soccer and rugby take away athletes that could compete. This may be the case but surely it would be the same for boxing and show jumping? Yet we picked up medals in these. More people are involved in atletics than sailing yet they matched best results.
Another excuse is our population of 6 million, well a look at the medal table for track and field shows us that Finland 5.4, Estonia 1.2m, Bahrain 1.2m, Qatar 1.8m, Puerto Rico 3.7m, Botswana 2m, Slovenia 2m, New Zealand 4.4m and more (got lazy looking it up) all got medals so that excuse is invalid.
No excuse can hide from the fact that our track and field team didn't perform, something needs to be done, not excuse after excuse thrown out.

Krusty_Clown

CoachDudie wrote: »

well a look at the medal table for track and field shows us that Finland 5.4, Estonia 1.2m, Bahrain 1.2m, Qatar 1.8m, Puerto Rico 3.7m, Botswana 2m, Slovenia 2m, New Zealand 4.4m and more (got lazy looking it up) all got medals so that excuse is invalid.

While I think that some of your arguments have some validity, in the above statement aren't you conveniently overlooking the other 40 or so countries that didn't get any track and field medals?

RoyMcC

I'm not sure anyone is looking for excuses Coach D, reasons certainly. Excuses imply that one shrugs one's shoulders and accepts the status quo. I don't see anyone here doing that, just maybe pointing out one or two discrepancies in the figures. But a few of the reasons are clear to see and we gotta try to work through them.

The 'post-mortem' thread was one of the best I've seen for constructive contributions for improving the sport, wherever one might choose to place it on the performance table.

PS - bloomin' hot here today in Jersey, have a good weekend all.

downthemiddle

CoachDudie wrote: »

So the track and field team did embarrassingly bad at the Olympics apart from one or two exceptions but the excuses flow in.
Number one excuse is that participation in other sports like GAA, soccer and rugby take away athletes that could compete. This may be the case but surely it would be the same for boxing and show jumping? Yet we picked up medals in these. More people are involved in atletics than sailing yet they matched best results.
Another excuse is our population of 6 million, well a look at the medal table for track and field shows us that Finland 5.4, Estonia 1.2m, Bahrain 1.2m, Qatar 1.8m, Puerto Rico 3.7m, Botswana 2m, Slovenia 2m, New Zealand 4.4m and more (got lazy looking it up) all got medals so that excuse is invalid.
No excuse can hide from the fact that our track and field team didn't perform, something needs to be done, not excuse after excuse thrown out.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54644045@N08/5055032357/

thirtyfoot

CoachDudie wrote: »

No excuse can hide from the fact that our track and field team didn't perform, something needs to be done, not excuse after excuse thrown out.

There is a thread looking at the reasons/excuses and what can be done, called post-mortem or something along those lines. The vast majority of excuses and suggestions don't suggest fund more, have a read. Jog along there and provide your high performance wisdom if you wish.

Someone getting the Irish funding wrong by 100% and the UK funding wrong by £200m and trying to explain this to them is not making excuses for athletes, its more about explaining to someone their numbers are wrong.

This thread has got me worrying about the black hole that is the Irish education system.

CoachDudie

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

While I think that some of your arguments have some validity, in the above statement aren't you conveniently overlooking the other 40 or so countries that didn't get any track and field medals?

I'm sure those other 40 countries aren't happy either but part of my point was that the excuse of our population size isn't valid. Comparing us to other countries is futile, we should have our own standards. I only listed them to show population size is irrelevant.

CoachDudie

RoyMcC wrote: »

I'm not sure anyone is looking for excuses Coach D, reasons certainly. Excuses imply that one shrugs one's shoulders and accepts the status quo. I don't see anyone here doing that, just maybe pointing out one or two discrepancies in the figures. But a few of the reasons are clear to see and we gotta try to work through them.

The 'post-mortem' thread was one of the best I've seen for constructive contributions for improving the sport, wherever one might choose to place it on the performance table.

PS - bloomin' hot here today in Jersey, have a good weekend all.

No one can admit the performance of the track and field team was appaling, look through this thread, the population excuse and other sports taking away talant have dominated it.

CoachDudie

downthemiddle wrote: »

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54644045@N08/5055032357/

You're a troll for pointing out some facts?

CoachDudie

thirtyfoot wrote: »

There is a thread looking at the reasons/excuses and what can be done, called post-mortem or something along those lines. The vast majority of excuses and suggestions don't suggest fund more, have a read. Jog along there and provide your high performance wisdom if you wish.

Someone getting the Irish funding wrong by 100% and the UK funding wrong by £200m and trying to explain this to them is not making excuses for athletes, its more about explaining to someone their numbers are wrong.

This thread has got me worrying about the black hole that is the Irish education system.

I didn't start this thread, it has nothing to do with me. I didn't comment on the funding or any of that.
I think you're right about the Irish education system. You can't even read properly.

Krusty_Clown

CoachDudie wrote: »

I'm sure those other 40 countries aren't happy either but part of my point was that the excuse of our population size isn't valid. Comparing us to other countries is futile, we should have our own standards. I only listed them to show population size is irrelevant.

Population aside, statistics show that half of the countries who enter the Olympics go home without any track and field medals. Ireland have medalled at 12 of the 28 hosted summer games (in all disciplines). Medals just are not a foregone conclusion. They are not easily won, and take spectacular individuals to do spectacular things at the right time, to win one. Perhaps we just don't have any spectacular individuals in T&F at the moment. This is not an excuse (more of a general consideration).

tang1

If there was the 'Non- Acceptance of other Peoples opinion Olympics' this thread would win a gold medal!!

thirtyfoot

CoachDudie wrote: »

I didn't start this thread, it has nothing to do with me. I didn't comment on the funding or any of that.
I think you're right about the Irish education system. You can't even read properly.

So, this thread is about funding and how bad we did relative to the funding.

OP says we spent €40m a year versus the UK on £65m.

In fact it seems we spent €40 over 4 years of which half goes to Olympic sports so thats €20m over 4 years. The UK in the same time spent anywhere between £265m and £305m.

The OP argument was that since the Brits spent only twice what we spent, how come we did so bad. The problem is the Brits spent probably 20 times what we did. Knowing that, is the OP still shocked at our performance. I think thats the gist of this thread. As you said yourself, you didn't comment on any funding despite the whole thread's relevance being brought into question by the wrong numbers. I think the funding element is key, no? Or are you just looking to wind people up. If so, there is a thread for that as I have already pointed out but perhaps that thread is too constructive for you, ie, its focusing on solutions and not excuses, in the main.

I'll be your huckleberry though. The reason the Irish athletes (athletics) underperformed (Oh my God, look there I said it) is because they are either not good enough or they are not prepared properly. That preparation may have commenced 10-12 years ago. Its not up to scratch and its got nothing to do with money. What can we do about it? Please refer to other thread for some suggestions if you are genuinely interested.

CoachDudie

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Population aside, statistics show that half of the countries who enter the Olympics go home without any track and field medals. Ireland have medalled at 12 of the 28 hosted summer games (in all disciplines). Medals just are not a foregone conclusion. They are not easily won, and take spectacular individuals to do spectacular things at the right time, to win one. Perhaps we just don't have any spectacular individuals in T&F at the moment. This is not an excuse (more of a general consideration).

Yes a lot of countries don't win medals but how many of those have a miniscule amount of funding? Just to make it clear, when I talk about the appaling performance of the Irish T&F team, I'm not just talking about the lack of medals. We all know how difficult it is to win them but the lack of athletes appearing in finals is the real dissapointment.

CoachDudie

thirtyfoot wrote: »

So, this thread is about funding and how bad we did relative to the funding.

OP says we spent €40m a year versus the UK on £65m.

In fact it seems we spent €40 over 4 years of which half goes to Olympic sports so thats €20m over 4 years. The UK in the same time spent anywhere between £265m and £305m.

The OP argument was that since the Brits spent only twice what we spent, how come we did so bad. The problem is the Brits spent probably 20 times what we did. Knowing that, is the OP still shocked at our performance. I think thats the gist of this thread. As you said yourself, you didn't comment on any funding despite the whole thread's relevance being brought into question by the wrong numbers. I think the funding element is key, no? Or are you just looking to wind people up. If so, there is a thread for that as I have already pointed out but perhaps that thread is too constructive for you, ie, its focusing on solutions and not excuses, in the main.

I'll be your huckleberry though. The reason the Irish athletes (athletics) underperformed (Oh my God, look there I said it) is because they are either not good enough or they are not prepared properly. That preparation may have commenced 10-12 years ago. Its not up to scratch and its got nothing to do with money. What can we do about it? Please refer to other thread for some suggestions if you are genuinely interested.

I think it was established a long time ago that the OP was wrong with his numbers. No need to go over it. Funding helps but it's not the reason things are in a bad way.
The standard of coaching at youth level all the way up has a major bearing. I'll find that thread you speak of and give my ideas but I'm sure they wont get a great response like all my contributions. You athletics people are very touchy.

RoyMcC

Here it is Coach D. Coaching and the lack/quality of it has had a fair airing.

BenMicheal

Was reading the Daily Mirror yesterday (Don’t Judge) and during one of the opinion articles the journalist suggested that funding for athletics should be cut and given to on the dole GAA players who player for local clubs! - Might be slightly off topic but made me laugh!

In terms of the debate all things considered - Athletics is a long term money maker (reduction in numbers relying on health services, anti-social behaviour & the emerging spending in schools on programs to fight obesity to name but a few) this, as economic research suggests is where money can be saved! Sports like Horse racing GAA Rugby etc bring in high short term tax yields via VAT etc. and as the lifetime of a government (on a good day) is 5 years in Ireland and not the 15 - 20 years that it would take to see large scale benefits from the athletics route.

If you had your contract in work up for renewal every five years you would always take the short term option to try safe guard your job - it’s not politics, it’s human nature. As long as it continues Ireland will never get the funding to succeed on the level some people expect they should in this post!

This trend is seen throughout Irish society - you only have to look at the funding Trinity College gets compared to say DCU to find another example!