Do we need a change in direction in Performance sport?

Ed Warner in the Guardian today makes some excellent points as it is now very clear to me that UK Sport does now and never has understood how to grow sports involvement at the highest level. It seems nonsensical to me that a sports that is played in nearly every secondary school has to battle hard to get any funding when they have qualified for European championship under their own steam. Yet UK Sport invest in snow sports which the majority of the country have no interest in or can afford to aspire to take part in regularly.

The new chair of UK Sport is a critical appointment as Warner has said. Rod Carr was never going to challenge or change as he is from an individual Sport. The needs of sailing and investing in a small number of athletes by controlling their lives is fundamentally different from bringing a group of players, some very highly paid, together from round the world to prepare and achieve at tournaments. They are culturally completely different. 

Their appears to be a sense of snobbery in how UK Sport operates. They like funding athletes they can control through paying their wages, yet seem threatened or uneasy with players who have earned money through playing elsewhere. Is this an attempt to maintain the societal gap between "Amateurs" (funded through lottery) and the professional who have gone out and earn a living? Is this confirm our social divide? Look at their attitude to football and basketball? Furthermore the sharp intake of breath when Nicola Adams turned professional was palpable yet she needs to earn a living not like some Rowers who have the personal resources to are take time out to consider what to do next! 

A new approach should be about removing the no compromise mantra and replace it with a focus on three principles: 

1. decide the sports that are important to the UK population that make sure the sports are identified by the segments of British society not based on sports that have athletes who have the time and resources to dedicate to performance (still 38% of medal winners are from privately educated schools compared to only 6% of the population going to private schools). UK Sport have been very obstructive to people asking for the ethic profile of athletes and coaches at RIO. (Quiz identify 10 ethnic minority athletes in ten different sports completing for Team GB in RIO?). UK Sport have a responsibility as they are publicly funded to address inequalities something that the no compromise approach discriminates against.  

2. Maintain the level of achievement in current high performing sports within a revised ethical framework but identify at least 105 to address inequalities as identified in 1. but have greater scrutiny over athlete welfare. (British Gymnastics have proved you do not need to abuse children to win medals as China do) 

3. Invest in the longer term in the most difficult medals to achieve in because all the world plays them. FIBA have 215 federations and FIVB 220 yet cycling and rowing substantially less. This should be a 12 year cycle of growth with a target of getting to the Olympic games as to achieve that is a huge achievement. People forget only 5 countries from Europe qualify in basketball funding for German and Russian basketball didn't reduce when they didn't qualify.

Unfortunately Warner's views do not fit with current UK Sport approach and so a change is unlikely although a challenge to the current norm appears to be popular at the moment! Unfortunately, the chairs appointment is not open to public vote and is likely to maintain the status quo.