How Much?!!

Just imagine how the poor and homeless people of Brazil must feel.NfkDumpling

The Lottery money should never be used for propping up the NHS. If the Government cannot find the funds for the NHS they will have to put up income tax by a small amount.

Governments should not be allowed to use lottery money as an excuse for not properly funding public services.

I am happy for any money I may have put in to the National Lottery (probably only about £15 - £20 over the years ) to go to sport, the arts, heritage, worthwhile causes, but not to go into the government coffers.

The use of money from the lottery that goes into promoting sport in this country is a good thing imo.

gillybob I keep saying that I think there should be one Olympic venue (perhaps in Greece?) funded by all participating countries and updated as required, instead of new locations each time.
However, I do hope some of the homeless and those who lost their slum homes that were cleared to build the Olympic village will be rehoused in the apartments built for the athletes.

I see your point Jalima, but we raise money locally for various things for our local doctors surgeries and hospitals, the lottery could chip in for that. And is this enormous figure all lottery funding?

I believe our new local football pitches did get a little, but generally in Norfolk we haven't noticed any investment to speak of. Where is all this money going?

I'm genuinely curious and I'm glad the media seem to be slowly picking up on it and also how it's shared out. I had wondered why we're suddenly doing so well!

I thought that lottery money was supposed to be for good causes. Not sure funding elite athletes comes into that category.

A lot of the money has gone into sports like rowing, sailing and equestrian which are fairly elite sports anyway, relatively easy to win medals in as not many countries do them. Also most of the participants are from private schools . I'm not against funding grassroots sports that everyone can have a go at, but I wonder whether double trap shooting or whatever is the way to go.

I totally agree Jalima there should be one venue ( probably Greece) which is funded fairly. Also I'm not sure whether the likes of Football, Golf, Tennis etc. Should even be part of the Olympics at all . Also the olympics used to be for genuine amateur athletes and now even the very richest professionals take part which is not fair given the money that surrounds them . I was reading about some of the sponsorships annoyed by the various "athletes". Blimey do they actually buy anything?

suzied what does going to a private school have to do with anything?

Well, speaking as one who donates every week to the Lotto funds (living in hope!), I'm more than happy that so much goes towards training and supporting athletes. It's not just a case of winning medals, it's about inspiring young people to be more active and to achieve. I was delighted to see a group of children in our local park yesterday having an impromptu gymnastics competition on the grass, and to hear that they have facilities nearby to take up the sport if they wish.

I would be horrified if Lotto money was being used to get central government out of its obligations, which include funding the NHS properly.

I'm not sure about having a central venue for the Games, as so many countries still seem to want to host them. Having them in London in 2012 was just fantastic, in my opinion.

I don't personally care for any sport being in the Olympics that already has its own more prestigious championships, i.e. football, golf, tennis. It just seems to take the spotlight away from the minor sports.

Do so many countries want to host them though Maggiemaybe that's the perception but I think a lot of countries don't want to spend all that money ? And indeed knocks a good few out of the running even I personally think it's a wonderful idea to have them in Greece where they started it might even help Greeces economy which needs all the help it could get and each participating country could pay a relevant amount towards the build I m with you Jalima would also solve all this awful outdoing each four years ' Opening ceremonies just keep getting bigger and better each time until I think something will burst

Lottery money cannot be used for the NHS or any other service the government funds.It is for 'good causes' - sport, the arts, heritage, charities. I am glad we have invested in our aspiring sportsmen and women - it helps to get our young people and grandchildren interested in being active. Look at the resurgence in cycling for example. To get a gold medal, or any for that matter, means the sportsmen/women train incredibly long hours with total commitment and that needs funding - facilities, coaches etc.
Me - I'm proud that team GB has got us to number 2 in the table.

Not too much at all.
How better to encourage young and old to partake in sport?

My very deprived area (no employment, poor housing etc) has just been given a generous grant by the Lottery. We've had a load of social entertainment events to decide what to do with the money. Since then there has been lots of new build (to-buy/co-ownership) properties, which no-one local can afford, but the local shops (already mostly unoccupied) are coming down, no decent facilities and the first thing to come from the new money is a skateboard park! Never yet seen a kid on a skateboard on the estate. Wonder who's bright idea that was.

It is very difficult - any expenditure on anything other than third world poverty or the NHS might feel hard to justify. On that basis there would be no expenditure on arts or culture. How do you decide?

I do agree that this is a vast amount of money - so large that it barely feels comprehensible. Personally I think it is not justified, but then I am not into sport. I recognise however that sport can be a force for good, especially among young people - keeps them off the streets and gives them something active and positive to fill their time and their minds.

I would like to see a similar amount spent on culture - drama, music etc. are also forces for good, especially again among young people.

I do think it is wasteful to keep changing the venue - but I guess the argument is that it provides work and income for the countries involved. But look at the London Olympic venue - word is that it is hardly used now - that does seem a waste.

Mixed feelings. Defo not lottery money but a single wonderful stadium just for the games is a good idea. I do think it should be pared back too. Golf, tennis, rugby etc. have no place there (& I LOVE my rugby!!
Giving it to Brazil was a travesty & they will be paying for it for many years- look at Athens! We have never been told & never will be how much London 2012 cost us in the end & all this 'legacy' business is total nonsense.
I have enjoyed the events I have watched- I'm not glued to it at all but watch some things. It is only sport in the end & doesn't affect the majority of the population. I think we proved that 2012 did NOT encourage us all to don our shorts & get out there- just as well in my case! It is an entertainment like many other things & should be treated thus.

I think that allowing people to be competitive at sports events and give a wonderful example of how people can mix and not be violent gives hope for how the world could be. This money is a drop in the ocean, anyway, when compared to the billions wasted on foreign aid.

Agree on both fronts, Jalima.

I'm not into sports but it has been uplifting to see our sports men and women doing so well - and they have worked so hard to get there.

with regard to the spend one has to compare it to what else is spent (I don't know over what time scale this 347 mill was spent and how) a quick search tells me that the nhs costs over a billion per month.
the national lottery website states that £1,901 million was raised for National Lottery projects last year with %age spend of Health, education, environment and charitable causes – 40%, Sport – 20%, Arts – 20% and Heritage – 20%.
so looking like the 347 mill is a bargain

I'm not particularly into sport and have not followed the Olympics much, but I am proud of Team GB. Like someone else said, sport is a force for good and if the funding is encouraging some young people to take up a sport that can only be good. It is lottery money not Government funds. Not every sportsman is going to reach Olympic standard, but sport develops discipline, self-esteem, dedication, team spirit and pride. This has to be good for our youngsters and our future. Of course I hope that the host cities benefit financially in some way and put the money to good use to enhance the lives of their deprived people.

I find the Olympics abhorrent. To spoil a few 'athletes' to the point where they can 'win' a few medals, which for them translate into lucrative sponsorship deals, while the rest of us are doing without some basics is ridiculous.

I live near Millfield school, which apparently has produced many medal winners, and so it should the facilities there are outstanding.what could other kids achieve if they had that level of attention?

It is another lot of propaganda designed as 'bread and circuses' are to detract us from the world wide horrors that poverty breeds.

So what someone can run a few seconds faster or jump that bit higher? Rubbing the noses of the poor in the inequality is just wicked.

Something else that promises much and delivers little, most games cost billions and return half the costs.

The lottery has been plundered for funds. Save your money and don't buy a ticket,we need to disabuse ourselves of the need to become multi millionaires or celebrities of any sort and just get on with living. You cannot encourage this sort of thing and hope for any world peace.

As a country we still spent comparatively large amounts of money on the Olympics before there even was a lottery. The Government funded it, through our taxes, so why isn't there enough in the pot to continue doing this. The answer is that they waste our taxes and make use of the lottery funding to shore up their bad decision making.

What I think will never be of any account. However, here is my pennyworth anyway. It seems that GB was pretty useless at the Olympics until these millions were poured into sports coaching, venues and equipment. The investment has paid off in a host of medals and GB powering up the Olympic medal rankings to (currently) second place. Therefore, direct investment pays off in stellar results.

If that same money had been put into direct education for an intellectual elite (as the sports money has benefited a selected physical elite) then GB would have been looking at Nobel prizes, world class inventions, artistic creativity, Oscars, economic regeneration, musical achievement in both the popular and classical spheres, cures for yet incurable diseases and many other top class achievments which would have benefited the country and, indeed, the world.

What a grey world it would be radicalnan

Sport has lifted many from poverty and given them something to aim for, because a child is poor does not mean they cannot run fast and some of our equestrian medal winners came from modest backgrounds.

I do hope there won't be so many moans about the Paralympics. I know someone to whom equestrian competing has given meaning to life after overcoming many difficulties, and no, she is not 'elite', just very dedicated.

I have no issue with it. The Games has created an industry. It's not just about the athletes and their performances -it's about the physios, managers, data crunchers, equipment manufacturers, construction workers, cooks, tourists; the list goes on.

Areas are regenerated, opportunities for advertising are provided, and the Olympics in general are a brilliant way of showcasing both the brilliance and determination of the competitors and the benefits of involvement in sport. A fantastic spectacle, too.

Well worth the money.