...to think that spending £50m on football is obscene when people are using food banks?

[FurryDogMother]

Telegraph link

I just can't get my head around this government's priorities - no doubt someone out there can help me make sense of this?

People DO read less. And those that are still reading tend to use tablets.

Something like 60 per cent of men never read a book and 50 per cent of children over 11 also don't read.

and, in investment terms, £50million is fuck all

You can't say 50m is fuck all. It's 50m. You have to compare it with something.

Totally agree, it's massively obscene. I find the whole concept of food banks obscene. The fact that people are purposely cut off from any money and unable to buy food or pay for heating and electricity i find sickening.

Using tablets is STILL reading. I'm not sure how tablets negates the act of reading?

People are reading less? Could you provide some evidence for that please?

£50m might be fuck all in footballing quarters but in the real and far more important world of education and medical provision, we cannot afford to sniff at any amount of available funds.

And if it's true that so few people are reading then it's a bloody national disgrace and more and more libraries should be kept open to improve this.

GOD!

I really despair.

But why football? 50million is enough to have a broader appeal across a range of sports.

Or to pay for social care for vulnerable people.
Or to pay for young people to have broader access to the arts.

Why single out football?

I think it's outrageous and immoral that the UK has a social security system and an NHS when they same money would do so much more good if spend in the third world instead.

Or I would if I didn't realise that government spending has little to do with doing good, regardless of which party is in power, and is mainly about splashing cash in the direction of people who might be more likely to vote for you as a consequence.

Theoretician, yes and no. Remember blood and circuses, In Ancient Rome? Give the People bread. Give them corn. Give them entertainment. But. Where did the IIIrd Estate go wrong in Paris in 1789? They forgot the People.

They're smelly, they're uneducated and they don't have proper clothes. But, they can rip the Establishment in half if you don't give them the correct bread ration!!!

why not football? It's the national game - the most popular sport in this country by a mile.

I think that government probably shouldn't be spending money on food banks or football. Though of the two, I suspect football is the more appropriate cause. Any church group can organise a food bank, providing artificial pitches for football is a much more complex undertaking, it'd be a bigger challenge for voluntary action.

Here's a one word answer to the OP's question: Aspiration

It is also the case that there are a great many users of food banks who could aspire to manage their money better and aspire to turn up for their job search interviews!

I was in our towns 3 storey library today. It was empty except for the IT suite... Queues to use the computers in that small corner up on the top floor

Because it's by no means the only game, there are already shitloads of football projects out there ( and let's face it premier league clubs can afford to put more money in) but other sports are less widely represented.

And other areas are massively underfunded - library's, the arts, less obvious activities are just as important and far less accessible.

urbane fully agree with you there..

most of the premier league clubs actually make a loss

The national game for men. There's not much in it for women yet.

Urbanelandlord,

The scary fact is that many of those needing food banks are in fact working full time plus.

Which bit of the budget is it coming from?

How much have recent governments put into sports funding? Is the trend up, down or flat?

Libraries are funded by local, not central, government aren't they?

New football clubs and pitches = construction jobs, maintenance jobs, coaching jobs, manufacturing jobs (clothing and equipment). Children who may otherwise be entertaining themselves on the streets (and may be committing petty crime) have something to do and somewhere to go. It provides role models for young people through access to coaches and senior players. It provides cheap training in transferable skills. Provides people with a physical fitness activity and culture which in turn can decrease costs within the health services long term. Sports teams within the local community can provide a rallying point for the community and a relatively cheap form of entertainment. It really has very little to do with football at all, and instead is addressing community issues.

I don't think its an appropriate use of money at all, considering the public finance figures announced in the Autumn Statement last week. That said I think the Department of Media, Culture and Sport serves no useful purpose and should be abolished.

It's not that much money (less than £1 for every person in this country) and you could say of most government funding that it could be spent on food banks.

But it only serves a small number of people in society because believe it or not many people don't have any interest in football whatsoever but they can get all of the things people have mentioned through other activities.

And whilst coaches etc may be role models I believe that professional football players are the total opposite of what role models should be - in fact the only one who seems to be decent is David Beckham (although I do admit that I only know the ones that are in the media)

Supporting grass roots football is supporting poor people. Maybe other sports "need" the money more but the fact is that more poor kids are interested in football than any other sport. Yes, there are lots of people who aren't interested in football but nothing else, no sport or other interest attracts the same numbers of people every weekend as football does, nothing comes close.

Any working class child who has a commitment to sport has a way better chance of staying out of trouble than those who don't giving them better life chances and greater likelihood that they will never need those food banks.

Libraries are closing through lack of use, not funding and you can "borrow" ebooks from the library service without ever going near a library.

David Beckham has done a smashing job on his image of late but has, in the past been an appalling role model. Agree "footballers" need to get their act together for football to be as good as it should be for our young people, but that's not where this money is going.

£50m is less than £1 per person, it's nowhere near enough to achieve the stated aims