³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

in answer to your question no

completly agree sport shudn't be about makin rich people richer where do these fines go should go to grass roots lost count how many meaninless fines chelsea hav had recently they got one for treatment of anders frisk few years ago but clearly not enough put them off

hope special olympics are success and put a smile on participants faces one of few occasions in sport wen its not the winnning but takin part

WOW, the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ have finally caught up with everyone.
This has been going on for years and the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ finally realise it?
Waste of a Blog in my mind for something that has been going on for years!

Gordon,

A good blog and a good question. The answer is that unfortunately I can't really see it.

Having worked with Special Olympics GB (appropriately enough on funding applications to Sport England and scoping their sponsorship strategy) they're a great bunch, and are on a very important and valuable mission, but they're up against it. They have limited resources, but I think the problems are more fundamental.

One of the great difficulties (in my opinion) is that socially, we are not as comfortable dealing with people/athletes/children with learning difficulties, as we are with those with physical disabilities (although the situation is hardly perfect in the case of physically impaired athletes either). I'm afraid that this appetite extends to the field of sponsorship.

Another is that the disability sector of the sports industry is an absolute feeding frenzy, particularly now, in a tighter financial climate. There are so many different organisations fighting for (and worthy of) support - the British Paralympic Association; MENCAP Sport; English Federation of Disability Sport (and similar in the other home countries); Disability Sport Events (DSE) to name but a few as well as UK Deaf Sport, British Blind Sport etc.

You're right to discuss funding transparency and structures - if we were starting from a blank sheet of paper, surely we would draw a picture where the NGBs have responsibility for the development of their sport across the board, and are responsible for men/women/children of all abilities and capabilities?

With regard to 'leaning on the sports' to provide support through WSPs - this is fine, but the truth is that the success of the NGBs, in the eyes of the media and the general public, is measured in Olympic Golds, the Ashes, and World Cup Winners' Medals. Until this changes, I can't see the flow of funds altering course.

"Is it time to seriously worry if sport's losing its moral compass?" Eh? Sport is entertainment that is, necessarily, also big business. Funding for the Special Olympics is required, but why do you come to an absurd conclusion that it's Ronaldo's or Real Madrid's fault?

Why not just collect all those returned expenses claims from the corrupt MPs and pass that on to the Special Olympics? Target the crooks, not those who bring a great deal of enjoyment to people, such as the world's best footballers.

Your blog stinks of envy. If you really wanted to help the Special Olympics, you need to address the political issues surrounding people with disabilities and how they are treated by the government, rather than a silly, ill-informed and cowardly tirade against successful sports people.

I completely agree with you. The role of the public sector should be to fund things which can't get funding elsewhere. If football can't fund itself now with the billions sloshing around, then either wages are too high or morals too lax. All it's about is the sport across Europe agreeing to set a code of conduct and enforcing it through UEFA.

I don't think though that there should be an immediate cessation of relations between a sport and public funding as soon as they get a sponsor. Times can change and sponsorship can go, but a tapering off through a decade seems about right to me for a sport like cycling or swimming which seem to be getting their acts together.......

I do think though that if public money is used to fund young sports stars in highly remunerated professional sports, then they should repay those grants if they become really successful. That imposes a discipline and maturity which is healthy, it secures a return for the funding body and can show next generation youngsters that repayment is not impossible.........it's like the Southamptons of this world nurturing footballers - they should get a return for their work. To Arsenal's credit, they coughed up to the tune of £12m for Walcott.......

For Special Needs, that's different. That's pure charity/subsidies and a society is to a certain extent judged on how it deals with such situations. No Ronaldos there, no Federers: just those less fortunate than ourself.

When you strip the paint off Britain, you'll find out its morals.

I'll let you judge what you think they are.......

Gordon,

I agree with much of your thinking here - wouldn't it be nice to see some of the immoral earnings of football spread about a bit more.

My only challenge to your piece would be the reference to the British Olympic Association. I'd say that they have brought much of their troubles upon themselves by appointing Clive Woodward as their Elite Performance Director. £1.5 million later and still no sponsor doesn't sound like good business. Let's stick to delivering the best prepared team for the Games - which pretty much means letting the Governing Bodies of sports do what is best for their sport rather than an over reliance on the complicated theories that Woodward brings with him.