How Much?!!

Nicola Addams is on now, in the boxing. Ordinary background, accessible sport, just determination and commitment required. Well done her. A fantastic role model.

I'm with Radicalnan, not all youngsters have the same opportunity, I had none in my local authority school cos I wanted to ride, neither did my children who also wanted to ride but we were too poor. But if you pay for a private education these things are available though at a greater cost.

I would love to see art, drama, music etc. properly funded. I'm not interested in a few athletes winning medals on bits of ribbon.

susied I was privately educated but sailing and rowing were not on the curriculum. Yes, we played a lot of sports but it was tennis, hockey, netball and cricket. Not exactly elitist sports!

I can't believe the amount of negative feedback going on here. For once Great Britain is doing really well with the Olympics and the medal winners when they're interviewed all say how proud they are representing their country. What a small minded attitude -youngsters of all ages and talents are given the opportunity to be the best they can be with sport.

It is interesting that there is a Sports Premium that goes to primary (and ? secondary) schools specifically for the purpose of encouraging sports at school. As a school governor I always feel frustrated that there is no similar grant to encourage participation in music for example, which is know to have many knock-on benefits for children - raised academic standards, improved behaviour etc. Why sport in particular? - who knows?

I didn't think they had to be amateurs anymore, most are full time athletes. I mentioned the high % of private school educated athletes to highlight the fact that not everyone has the same opportunities to participate in sports like rowing or sailing. I'm all for extending opportunities to all, so concentrating the funding on sports which give GB medals like sailing is not necessarily the fairest policy. Maybe more money on school sport instead of cutting it would be a start.

I think the "amateur" athletes individually should show how much they received from the National Lottery ... Elitiste sports like shooting,rowing,sailing equestrian and so on should not received anything ... the cyclism ,Athletism should show how much they "earn" from the Lottery and how the system work and there should a maximum amount for an athlete to receive...
Also the " Amateur Athletes" receiving sponsorship should not receive anything
that's my opinion

radicalnan, if I want to spend my £2 a week on a flutter on the Lottery, I b****y well will! And how does someone having sporting ability rub the noses of the poor in anything? Believe it or not, some poor people have ability too....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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

Agree on both fronts, Jalima.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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