“These games are the final proof of the decline of our sport. We have to accept that children prefer to spend their time in front of the TV, not on the pitch. We have no successors for the legends, whose records may never be broken. In the medal table of the games, we are left to fight with Kazakhstan for a place that no one is interested in. We have to be realistic, in the coming years we will have to be happy with bronze medals at most” – at first glance, this quote could be a summary of the performance of Polish athletes at the Olympic Games in Paris, which ended on Sunday, where we won only 10 medals, taking 42nd place in the medal table. But nothing could be further from the truth.
The above quote is a fragment of the summary of the Atlanta Games in 1996 published by the British daily “The Independent”. Great Britain won only 15 medals in the USA, including only one gold. In the medal table they came only 36th, losing to countries such as Romania, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Ireland and Belgium. Athletes from the British Isles won the same number of medals as those from Belarus, and in the medal table they were ahead of them only by a greater number of second places.
For the British, the Atlanta Games were a disgrace, the athletes themselves called them the “games of shame”. The results of the athletes in the USA infuriated the fans, whose pride was clearly damaged. After returning to their homeland, the athletes were ridiculed, and the issue of the level of Olympic sport took on national importance. Just a few months later, the British Prime Minister slammed his fist on the table, revolutionizing the financing and functioning of local sports associations and the local Olympic committee. Thanks to this, the British team is today a sports superpower, having won over 60 medals in Paris. For the fourth time in a row.
One of the worst results in history
– It was a grim period. Definitely the worst I've experienced in my professional career – this is how British rower Steve Redgrave recalled the Atlanta Games. He had nothing to be ashamed of. In a duet with Matthew Pinsent, he won the only gold for Great Britain in the USA. Redgrave, however, spoke about the whole of British sport at that time.
And this was overwhelming for the Islanders. The 15 medals won in Atlanta were one of the worst results in history. At that time, the British could even look with envy at Poland, which, although it won only two more medals, had seven gold medals, which gave us 11th place in the medal table.
28 years ago, athletes from Great Britain failed on all counts. Experienced, sure-fire favorites for gold either won other medals or were not even considered in the fight for the top places. The worst thing was that there were no successors to the great champions. And this was one of the things mentioned by Redgrave, who was already 34 years old in Atlanta. Pinsent, eight years younger than him, was no revelation either. The vast majority of British medalists from Atlanta were either in their thirties or approaching them.
“It was one of the worst moments in the history of our sport. We had fallen into a downward spiral and there was no sign that we would get out of it any time soon” – this is how “The Guardian” wrote about the Atlanta Games in 2012. By then, however, the British were already a powerhouse, and the competition with the USA could be remembered not only as a sporting defeat, but also – and perhaps above all – a harsh lesson in humility and an impulse for massive changes in the system.
Since the Atlanta Games, the British have only once failed to win at least 30 medals. They won 51 in Beijing, and have never dropped below 60 since the London Games, which they themselves hosted. They finished on the medal podium in 2012 and 2016, and were just behind in Tokyo three years ago. In Paris, the British came 7th, but in terms of medals won, they were beaten only by the mighty US and China. How did Great Britain go from being a huge disappointment to a sporting superpower?
The lottery changed Olympic sport
Changes to British Olympic sport actually began before anyone had even thought about them. In 1994, the national lottery was established and proved crucial to the revolution in British Olympism.
Until the Atlanta Games, however, it had nothing to do with British professional sports. It was only after the embarrassment in the USA that the British Prime Minister – John Major – decided to finance Olympic sports from the proceeds of the National Lottery. Interestingly, it not only brought an incredible improvement in sports results, but also increased interest in the lottery itself. Encouraged by the promise of building a powerful Olympic team, the British people rushed to the lottery shops en masse. And today they certainly do not regret it.
However, it was not just money that made the difference. The British also needed transparent structures to distribute the money. To this end, on 1 January 1997, the sports organisation UK Sport was established, with the aim of taking control of professional sports and improving results at the Olympic Games.
The Economist calculated that before the Olympic Games in Atlanta, the British government spent about five million pounds a year on this purpose. In the four-year cycle of preparations for the event in the USA, about 20 million pounds were spent. From the moment UK Sport began its operations to the Olympic Games in Sydney in 2000, the British supported the Olympians with an amount three times greater! 71 million pounds had already been spent on the preparations of athletes for the Games in Athens in 2004.
The improvement in results was visible to the naked eye. In Australia, the British won 28 (11 gold) medals, and in Greece 30 (9 gold). In both cases, they took 10th place in the medal table. There was no shortage of satisfaction, but no one was delighted and had no intention of resting on their laurels.
An analysis of the first years of funding for sports from lottery revenues and UK Sport activities showed that the money was not distributed in the best way. Then an idea was implemented that even in the British Isles is called “brutal and uncompromising”. In 2004, after the Athens Games, it was decided that the vast majority of the money would go to athletes and disciplines with the best chance of winning a medal. Those who achieved weaker results lost most of the funding.
– The new strategy is much more focused on the best athletes. And that should be natural: the better you are, the greater the reward awaits you. If we burn money where we will not achieve success anyway, the funds will be wasted without a significant return in terms of sports results – explained the then head of UK Sport, Sue Campbell.
“We can't support too many athletes. This is a tough, uncompromising approach that will strengthen the best, support those who are developing, but will also motivate those who are underperforming,” she added. Since then, a huge stream of money has flowed to British cyclists and rowers, who have dominated successive games.
Money unattainable for many
UK Sport's decision to change the way it distributes its money coincided with another important event. In July 2005, London was awarded the right to host the Olympic Games, which – under enormous public pressure – forced the government to support British athletes even more strongly.
The increase in investment was impressive. The British spent £235 million on preparations for the Beijing Olympics, and subsequent successes meant that the amounts of funding only grew. The London Olympics were allocated £264 million, Rio de Janeiro £274 million, and Tokyo £342 million.
The astronomical money brought astronomical results. In Beijing, the British won 51 medals, including 19 gold. In London, there were 65 (29 gold), in Rio a record 67 medals, and in Tokyo and Paris, 64 and 65 respectively. The times when Great Britain ended the games with great disappointment – at least for now – are gone.
“One can have different opinions about Major's government. However, no one can deny that he changed our Olympic sport. It is mostly his merit. Even his political opponents admit that opening the tap of financing sports from the lottery, i.e. from the players' pockets, was a breakthrough moment” – wrote “The Guardian”.
But money alone – although dizzying and unattainable for many – would not bring success. In order to manage it well, the British still needed to break the concrete that created the local sports associations and the national Olympic committee itself. And here is another analogy to Poland, because in the last days of the Paris Games, exposing the swindles and cunning of activists became our next Olympic discipline.
A lesson for Poland
“Daria Pikulik reminded about the lack of money and bikes from PZKol. Dawid Tomala warned that many things need to be changed in PZLA. Weronika Zielińska-Stubińska spoke similarly about the functioning of PZPC. Arkadiusz Kułynycz pointed out that he could not take a sparring partner to Paris, and that the activists of the Polish Wrestling Association took a lot of accompanying people” – Marcin Jaz from Sport.pl listed.
Even before the Atlanta Games, the British were grappling with exactly the same problem. Competitors complained about the embarrassing level of Olympic preparations, terrible accommodation conditions at camps, lack of equipment, or too much administration, which made it difficult to contact the most important people in relationships. And they treated their trip to the US as a sightseeing trip, which was described by British newspapers a few months after the Games ended. “The Telegraph” even called the local Olympic committee a “luxury travel agency”. What's more, some competitors had to borrow money to even go to Atlanta. Those who did not succeed there had to sell their equipment later to pay off their debts.
The creation of UK Sport simplified the rules of functioning and financing of Olympic sport. The British invested not only in conditions, facilities and equipment, but also in the best coaches in the world. – I believe that every country has no shortage of talent. However, not every country is able to use it. For this to happen, four things are needed – said Sebastian Coe, who co-created the British power as a competitor and official, and next year may replace Thomas Bach as the president of the IOC.
“In addition to talented kids with sensible parents, you also need smart governing bodies, world-class coaches and predictable levels of funding. When you have all that, success is just a matter of time. That was the case with our cyclists and rowers,” he added.
Hiring the best specialists in the world gave the British another unexpected result. Investment in the information base and efficient flow between associations meant that little talent was wasted on the Isles. All because when a child does not do well in one discipline, he is directed to another, for which he may have a greater predisposition.
“The distribution of money was introduced at the highest level. And that was key. Coaches, dieticians and scientists were placed among the most talented young people. Individual sports became a priority, replacing team sports, because there you don't need many athletes to win one medal. The system may be brutal because it favors the best, but at the same time it is simply smart. The money doesn't disappear,” summed up “The Economist”.
And this last sentence should be the best lesson for Polish activists.