Gavin Evans The task of increasing a country’s medal quotient starts at the top. International precedent suggests you can even pull it off without a thriving grassroots base or deep tradition of participation. Take Britain, for example. Four years ago in Atlanta it experienced a disaster of similar proportions to South Africa’s Sydney effort. But this month it experienced a collective state of bonhomie despite the petrol wars because its medal haul that has already surpassed that of every Olympics since Melbourne in 1956. So what has made the difference? A root and branch sporting revival? No. Sports fields are still being sold off, schools are abandoning team sports – same old story. It’s all about money, really. After the embarrassment of Atlanta a happy glut of cash from the national lottery was combined with direct grants from the government to fund Olympic sports in general, and the elite in particular. And the formula set by the government and administered by the United Kingdom Sports Council is based on success: if your squad does well in Sydney, next time it gets more. If not, it gets less. Simple. To take just one example, the super- heavyweight boxer Audley Harrison became Britain’s first boxing medallist in eight years despite a dramatic decline in the sport, because lottery grants provided him with the income and incentive not to go professional, and yet to retain professional sparring partners and coaching. His success will mean more money for his sport and more success in future. Not convinced? Look at Britain’s inspiration, Australia, a country of 18- million people currently fourth on the medal’s table. Sport-obsessed, sure, but that didn’t always generate success. The national effort began more than 40 years ago after one too many disappointments, but a key moment in the contemporary era occurred in 1989 when the government promulgated the Australian Sports Commission Act. This set the basis for a huge injection of funds into sport, and the establishment the Australian Institute of Sport, whose mission statement is admirably frank about its aims: “[It] is responsible for developing elite sport on a national basis with a particular focus on success at the Olympic Games and world championships.” In addition to specialist training, medical care and research, the Institute administers the Olympic Athlete Programme, funds 35 sports and is responsible for providing scholarships programmes for promising individuals. In other words, nothing is left to chance – from primary school level upwards all efforts are focused on Olympic success. But it is not only rich, First World countries that have this option. The greatest success of a state-organised national effort has been Cuba, which has consistently featured among the top eight Olympic nations – apparently without the stain of large-scale performance- enhancing drug abuse, which was behind the success of the old Eastern Bloc socialist states. Cuba’s triumph has been the result of a national effort focused on playing to your strengths (boxing, athletics, baseball) and involving the combination of mass participation and elite coaching.