John Regis's recent outbursts in the media have criticised the inappropriate use of lottery funding. At best,  funding offers some assistance to athletes but at worst, says Regis, it delivers only complacent athletes and not winners.

Regis's comments are based on his experience of top class athletics as a three-times world athletics medallist plus medals from the Olympics, European and Commonwealth Games. Currently he coaches Derrick Atlkins from the Bahamas, who took silver behind Tyson Gay in Sunday's 100 metres final in the World Championships.

Regis claims that 70% of the current British squad in Osaka ought to have been left at home and, at best, many of the athletes are mediocre and undeserving of national financial support. His reference to 'monkeys' and 'peanuts' is an unfortunate description of his notion of current levels of performance and his prediction of a national 'embarrassment' over the nine days of the championship has been widely touted around the media.

'Strangely, Regis seems to miss the value of sport as a way of raising the self esteem of young men and women, especially the talented disadvantaged'


Coming from one of the greats of British athletics from the late 1980s and early 1990s this is disappointing stuff and represents haphazard thinking. Regis fails to acknowledge the global commercialisation of sport which has raised standards and broadened the international character of participants. Charismatic coaches still find individual athletes and develop them to the highest levels, but national governments also recognise the social impact of sport as a marker of national achievement and generally fund facilities and athletes to perform.

Funding is provided for medical and travel expenses as a means of enabling athletes to train full-time. Other income may be generated from commercial sponsorship or meeting fees and prizes. Lottery funding is a part of this process and without it there is the risk of losing talented athletes from the sport. Regis's sole contribution seems only to let them find their own way as though the process would turn them into champions. He likely forgets that young people rarely enter sport to become rich but rather to achieve their potential and to win championships if they can.

Strangely, Regis also seems to miss the value of sport as a way of raising the self esteem of young men and women, especially the talented disadvantaged. Nor does he recognise the value of sport to generate self-discipline and team spirit for young people who might otherwise gravitate to the streets, where they could do untold damage to themselves and to the broader economy.

The government's spending cuts of the 80s and the 90s, and the selling off of school playing fields, could arguably be the reason that Regis is able to select a dip in national performance in the early part of the millennium as young people from the period fail to demonstrate athletic excellence.

Equally bemusing is the failure of Regis to recognise the existing policy of UK Athletics which has already been to reduce the number of athletes at Osaka and to target, on the one hand, finalists, and on the other a second tier of 'developmental' athletes for whom Osaka will hopefully provide a stepping stone to Beijing in 2008 and London in 2012.

If Regis had chosen to launch his tirade before the games then he could have taken part in a welcome national debate. He could also have waited until the games were over to see if his thoughts were valid. In fact after three track and field competitions many British athletes, especially the women, have demonstrated excellent results - remember that UK Athletics are only predicting three medalists this time, plus 14 top eight performances.

For all his previous excellent service to UK athletics, Regis was disappointingly premature in his criticisms and he will find many of his previous fans wondering why he felt he needed to make such an unthoughtful intervention at this time.