The Olympic Games and the Duke of Westminster's Appeal

8 THE OLY},f.PIC GAMES. that t,he French Govermuent hus granted 10,000£. towards the e,...-penses of competitors at tho approach· ing Olympic Games, and that the German and United States Governments have also mado grants for tho same purpose, he will make 0, simi lar donation from the British Exchequer for British competitors, says :– I have received no application for such a donation, and as at present advised I seo no reason for gmnting any subsidy from public funds. Applications for Government appropriations in aid of our organization for tho Games have beon made since then, but with no better result. rearly all the European Governments now ma ko grant· towards the expense of participation in tho Games. In the United States there is no such grant be– cause it is not needed. If Congress wore asked for money, it would give it immediately; but such a course has not been necessary because the popular enthusiasm for the Games is such that private liberality has -always been ready to furnish all the fund:: ; ;;quired. In England we have no grant ; but unfortunately, in the absence of any popular enthusiasm, the raising of funds by private subscription has been very di fficult . THE EXPENSES OF 1908. The celebration of the Games in London in 1908 of course called for the expenditure of money. By the " happy collaboration " which has been already spoken of between the British Olympic Association and the mana.gement of the Franco– British Exposition at Shepherd's-bush, the Asso– ciation was relieved of all cost in connexion with the building of the Stadium. It is understood that the Stadium at Shepherd's-bush cost about £60,000. But besides building the Stadium, the Exposition agreed, in consideration of the Games being held in immediate proximity to the Exposition, to give the British Olympic Council a share of the Stadium "gate-money," on which it advanced to the Olympic Association the sum of £2,000 for urgent working expenses. Ulti– mil.tely the Exposition handed over to the Olympic Council the sum of £6,007 16s. 6d. The Council's general "administrative expenses" (including £2,000 for stationery and printing, and £1,317 for salaries) amounted to £4,410. The medals, 6adges, - anamplomas cost £2~200, andt he ex– pense of police supervision, &c., was £979. In addition £2,231 was given as grants to various governing bodies of sports to assist them in preparing for and being represented at the Games. These items made a total necessary ex-penditure of £9,820, with postage, rent, and various minor expenaes to be considered and no provision in sight for the entertainment of visiting athletes, or foreigners of distinction. Evidently the £6,000 received from the Exposition would not pay the inevitable expenses. So at the last moment a fund for public subscrip– tions was opened by the Daily Mail which produced £15,851. THE FuND FOR 1912. The Council was enabled to spend £5,271 on entertainment and, after all minor calls had been settled, it was left with a balance of £0,377 15s. Ud. in hand. Tha,t , with some infinitesimal ad– ditions from private subscriptions, has been all the money that was available for the expenses dur ing the next fou r years and all the cost of our rcpreseutn,tion at Stockhohn. The British Olympic Council macle some efforts to obtain further funds by issuing appeals for subscriptions, but the " public apathy " refused t o be moved and the response wns negligible. The sending out of 17 ,OOO circula rs brought in the discouraging harvest of t hree li fe members to the British Olympic Association and 31 subscribing members. In a "Prclimi1mry Report" on the Games of 1912 t he Briti. h Olympic Council insisted t hat " the failure to raise adequate fw1ds was due to the apathy of the public and not to want of effort on the pa rt of the British Olympic Council." IV.-THE 1'-TEED OF REFORM. The general public, not given to a close analysis of detail ·, wns satisfied with the results of the London Games of Hl08. With the assistance of a wide progra,mme, including most of the sports which were in the United Kingdom habitually pra.cti ·ed,:mdhaving the advantage of competing at homo, we had shown a crushing superiority over other countries. True, our performances in the rwming and field events in the Stadium had been humiliating ; but in the whole Games we had earned more point-~ '. ~n all the rest of the world put together. We have seen, however, in articles from The Times reproduced above, that the feeling of satisfaction was not universal. The evidences of our lack of thorough training and of our old happy-go-lucky way of doing things had been evident enough to anyone who had eyes to see them even at the Games in London, and there were those who trembled for what would happen when we came to meet the other peoples on less favourable terms in a foreign country. As time passed and there was no sign of any serious awakening to the danger that awaited us at Stockholm, while more than ono of our sports were disturbed by internal dissensions, the need of some drastic reform became more and mor...,e,-1..,.· m~_- __________ perativo. And- the conviction had been gaining ground that the British Olympic Council was, by its constitution, not the body so to introduce such a reform as to make it effective. V.-THE BEGINNING OF REFORM. The British Olympic Council, it has been explained, is made up of representatives from each of the governing bodies in the various sports. At present it has 46 members (according to the last published official document), representing some 30 different governing bodies, with additions from Oxford. and Cambridge, the War Office, Hur– lingham, the National Physical Recreation Society, and other bodies, and the directors of Naval and Military Gymnasia respectively. At the beginning of 1912 things were not altogether harmonious at the Council meetings, and, in any event, the body