Yes, that's the way it works in many Olympic sports (obviously not in football, where repeated failure particularly as a manager seems to be rewarded astonishingly well) - the sports get paid either on medal potential/achievement, or on successfully developing at grassroots level - the individuals get paid by the sports who get funding, on the basis of achievement or potentialMike Truran wrote:I suppose my point was that if teams (or individuals) fail to perform to expectation on a regular and consistent basis on the national stage in other sports there are very often adverse financial consequences for them in terms of reduced or withdrawn funding.
There's a sensible debate to be had, but Council doesn't appear the place (maybe due to time constraints at meetings) about the International budget and where it is spent
As Justin says, if you want to be represented by the best team, then our professional players need paying, which probably means the International Director raising sponsorship
If you want the ECF members to pay, they might well prefer either to fund a team with a chance of success, which would be the over 50 team, or to have players like Jonathan Hawkins in the team - I have found disatisfaction with the ECF has often been expressed in terms of membership fees subsiding professionals, if this is unjustified there needs to be a better PR approach with the membership
