By Steven Oldham
Formula E, the forthcoming electronic racing car series, have so far announced 16 members of a Driver's Club who will be given the opportunity to test the new series' car.
The first season of the 10-race competition begins in Beijing in September and 10 teams have signed up for the series.
Over half of the Driver's Club members are ex-Formula 1 drivers including Bruno Senna, Sebastian Buemi and Takuma Sato.
No decisions have yet been made on who, if any, of these drivers will take to the grid in September but I hope the entry list gets some young, unknown talents added too.
With respect to the other ex-F1 drivers, (Christijan Albers, Sebastian Bourdais, Lucas di Grassi, Narain Karthikeyan, Vitantonio Liuzzi, Karun Chandhok and Franck Montagny), it's fair to say these drivers will only be remembered by the sport's more diehard fans.
Between them, in 334 race starts, only one podium finish was achieved (by Sato). This is not necessarily an indication of their true skill - at best, these drivers drove in midfield teams. But as front men for probably the most important new race series in a generation? These names alone will struggle to capture racing fans or the general public's imagination.
I'm not advocating Lewis Hamilton or Sebastian Vettel to join, but more that teams look for stars of the future when picking their drives. The other names on the Driver's Club list include young talent from series including GP2, GP3 and IndyCar.
These drivers may be better investments in the long run for the series if it wants to be considered a serious competition, rather than a retirement home for Formula 1 drivers who never quite reached the top. I might be wrong - maybe Liuzzi and co will use any success here to springboard back to the top table of motorsport.
This new series has the potential to be huge if done right. It ticks the environmentally friendly box as well as providing affordable entries to independent constructors with a spending cap in place before the season begins. Only time will tell who will take to the grid and how successful they can make this exciting new prospect of a championship.
Follow @spoldham on Twitter
Stockport-based NCTJ trained journalist. Seeking relevant employment. Blogging and working in the mean time. Football. F1. Tennis. Olympic sports. Firm believer that minority sports deserve year-round coverage.
Thursday 6 February 2014
Tuesday 4 February 2014
Wheelchair fencing, football and goalball all lose funding despite big increase for other Paralympic sports
By Steven Oldham
Great Britain's Paralympic sailors and canoeists were the big winners today as UK Sport announced the results of their Annual Investment Review, but three sports lost funding all together.
Wheelchair fencing, five-a-side football and goalball will receive no backing in the Rio 2016 Paralympic cycle, in contrast to sailing and canoeing's rises of over £800,000 and £750,000 respectively.
All other Paralympic disciplines have either retained the same level of funding or had small increases. The swimming and athletics teams top the funding table, with £11.7m and £10.8m respectively.
Athletes in the sports where funding has been axed now face the daunting prospect of self-supporting their way to Rio. The sports were deemed unrealistic medal hopes at both Rio and Tokyo 2020 and have had funding removed as a result.
The Annual Investment Review was the most detailed ever undertaken by UK Sport and consisted of 16 different elements including athlete performance, operations and programme strategy.
For my take on the Olympics funding cycle, click here
Follow @spoldham on Twitter
Great Britain's Paralympic sailors and canoeists were the big winners today as UK Sport announced the results of their Annual Investment Review, but three sports lost funding all together.
Wheelchair fencing, five-a-side football and goalball will receive no backing in the Rio 2016 Paralympic cycle, in contrast to sailing and canoeing's rises of over £800,000 and £750,000 respectively.
All other Paralympic disciplines have either retained the same level of funding or had small increases. The swimming and athletics teams top the funding table, with £11.7m and £10.8m respectively.
Athletes in the sports where funding has been axed now face the daunting prospect of self-supporting their way to Rio. The sports were deemed unrealistic medal hopes at both Rio and Tokyo 2020 and have had funding removed as a result.
The Annual Investment Review was the most detailed ever undertaken by UK Sport and consisted of 16 different elements including athlete performance, operations and programme strategy.
For my take on the Olympics funding cycle, click here
Follow @spoldham on Twitter
"Legacy? What legacy?" ask British basketballers, weightlifters and water polo players as UK Sport funding withdrawn
By Steven Oldham
UK Sport's announcement of Rio 2016 funding cycles has today brought bad news for some Olympic sports.
Great Britain's basketball, weightlifting, water polo and synchronised swimming teams will not receive any central funding at all for the next Olympic Games in Brazil.
These sports join handball and wrestling on the scrapheap, shut out by UK Sport's commitment to awarding medal potential in future Games.
These latest cuts are in contrast to other sports who are celebrating receiving a bigger slice of £350m in funding - the winners include hockey, judo and taekwondo.
Unfortunately, the future is not so bright for the sports without funding - GB teams were entered for the first time at London 2012 in basketball and handball, and the water polo teams entered for the first time in over 50 years.
It was obvious without the experience, infrastructure and pedigree of their rivals the British teams would struggle in these events. The athletes are not miracle workers - it's the equivalent of expecting Gibraltar to win Euro 2016 despite never having entered continental competition before.
While funding cuts are nothing new to underachieving sports, the promised legacy of London 2012 will be pretty non existent in these sports now. It's a vicious circle - under performance leads to lower funding, which leads to less money to invest in improving existing talent and attracting newcomers.
Other top-level British Olympic teams have struggled to attract outside commercial sponsorship including rowing, as I blogged last year. If they found it hard to get a deal with all their medals and extra TV coverage, what chance have a group of synchro swimmers got?
It was commendable for the home nations to be represented in every sport at our home Games two years ago. It is equally galling for these smaller sports to be swept under the rug now the Olympic goodwill factor has subsided.
Follow @spoldham on Twitter
UK Sport's announcement of Rio 2016 funding cycles has today brought bad news for some Olympic sports.
Great Britain's basketball, weightlifting, water polo and synchronised swimming teams will not receive any central funding at all for the next Olympic Games in Brazil.
These sports join handball and wrestling on the scrapheap, shut out by UK Sport's commitment to awarding medal potential in future Games.
These latest cuts are in contrast to other sports who are celebrating receiving a bigger slice of £350m in funding - the winners include hockey, judo and taekwondo.
Unfortunately, the future is not so bright for the sports without funding - GB teams were entered for the first time at London 2012 in basketball and handball, and the water polo teams entered for the first time in over 50 years.
It was obvious without the experience, infrastructure and pedigree of their rivals the British teams would struggle in these events. The athletes are not miracle workers - it's the equivalent of expecting Gibraltar to win Euro 2016 despite never having entered continental competition before.
While funding cuts are nothing new to underachieving sports, the promised legacy of London 2012 will be pretty non existent in these sports now. It's a vicious circle - under performance leads to lower funding, which leads to less money to invest in improving existing talent and attracting newcomers.
Other top-level British Olympic teams have struggled to attract outside commercial sponsorship including rowing, as I blogged last year. If they found it hard to get a deal with all their medals and extra TV coverage, what chance have a group of synchro swimmers got?
It was commendable for the home nations to be represented in every sport at our home Games two years ago. It is equally galling for these smaller sports to be swept under the rug now the Olympic goodwill factor has subsided.
Follow @spoldham on Twitter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)