The question needs to be asked, though: was it all worth it?
A couple of news articles caught my eye in this respect: First there was this report by Richard Anderson of the BBC, focusing on what each gold medal cost the nation. And we're not talking about the value of the gold that makes up the medal - an estimated GBP450. It concerns the investment (funded about 60/40 by the National Lottery and by the UK Exchequer, i.e. tax contributions) in elite training programmes.
Of course, the funding is not equally spread across all individual sports. It's a "chicken-and-egg story" where funding is awarded on the basis of (past) successes.
Let's have a look at the table (data courtesy of UK Sport, based on a study by prof. David Forrest of the University of Salford):
Bottom line: each medal cost on average GBP5.9 million. As Richard Anderson pointed out: "you won't find too many Britons complaining" since that works out as less than 10p per UK taxpayer.
Now, contrast that with this, and other similar stories on what olympic success will bring to the likes of Jessica Ennis and Mo Farah: sponsorship deals valued at up to GBP5 million per year!
"Fair enough" you say?
Consider the following: Would a government invest taxpayers' money in building a bridge to a scenic island and then let a privately-owned company charge access fees to visitors without having to pay anything back to the government (other than taxes)? Or would a company invest shareholder equity in developing a brand or an invention and then allow one of its employees or business partners commercialise that brand or invention, without having to pay a royalty or commission? No way, indeed. It just doesn't make sense for one to bear the costs (and risks) of such investments if the rewards will go to someone else anyway. On any investment, there has to be a fair return - commensurate with the risks taken.
My contention is: if money is invested in making people successful as athletes (and by extension: as researchers, tv-celebrities, craftsmen, etc.; see also my earlier blog) then they owe a dividend out of their future earnings to those investors.
The investments made by UK taxpayers (as well as sponsors) into Team GB constitute a shareholding into their future commercial success, which obviously includes individual sponsorship deals. In that way, the athletes would also become accountable - to their shareholders - regarding how they perform both on and off the field!
And even when top-earning talents were to move to Monaco at the soonest opportunity to minimise their tax-bills (effectively obliterating any investors' ROI from taxes in their home country), their home nations could and would still benefit - as shareholders.
