Minister for Sport has pledged to “look into”
funding for 3 on 3 basketball. Responding to a debate raised
in Westminster Hall by MP, she said: “I am happy to look
further into this, particularly since the qualification process
will not be confirmed until early next year, and that of course has
a huge impact on the shape of the competition.”
Opening the debate, Mr Sobel said UK Sport was ‘double dribbling’
with their decision not to fund basketball GB. Sport England
provide £4.7 million but only for the grass roots game and
allocated £1.4 million for talent. He called on the minister to
intervene and ensure UK sport provided funding for 3 on 3
basketball.
Other speakers in the debate include Sir , who stressed the
importance of sponsorship, especially in the form of advertising.
spoke about the success of
basketball in Scotland; impressed the importance of
grass-roots basketball; and said basketball
had ‘street cred’. She called on the minister to ‘fix the
unfair funding’.
spoke of the success of his
local basketball teams, saying lack of funding targeted
under-privileged areas. This was a debate not just about the
sport itself, but how it could help communities.
said the majority of players in
this country were from BAME communities which desperately needed
the role models that could be given if there were more elite
players.
looked at basketball and other
sport in Northern Ireland and said a lot could be done with
broadcasting and general promotion of the game.
, Shadow SNP Spokesperson
for Sport, said basketball was held back by “UK Sports’ fixation
with funding only elite sports with medal potential.” Their
funding criteria ignored the high participation rate of the
sport. He agreed with British Basketball when they said “we
believe basketball has a unique case for funding as it is not
just a sport, but a way of engaging disengaged young people,
particularly in the BAME communities…”
, Shadow Labour Minister
for Sport, said: “If basketball is to continue supporting our
communities, we need to support basketball.” She agreed with
about the need for role models.
The funding formula should not always be driven by medal
potential at the Olympics. She added that the recent u-turn by
Sports England suggested there was capacity for bespoke
partnerships, quoting the example of badminton.
agreed about the ‘disruptive
and diversionary power of sport. "As a nation we should be proud
of the investments we make in sport, both at grassroots and elite
levels." But she did recognise the opportunities basketball
provided. At the grassroots it could have great success in
engaging people from disadvantaged communities and this was
reflected in Sport England’s investment in the sport at this
level.
She was aware there had been many conversations about a
financially stable GB set-up and it was “with great regret” that
a viable solution had not been found. But she believed it was
important that funding for sport was not a matter for direct
ministerial intervention.
She concluded by saying this debate was not the end of the
discussion. There was still time before the end of March.
