The porno izlemek ne kadar zararl?Rio 2016 Olympics has drawn to a close, and Team GB has a lot to celebrate.

For Britain, these games will probably go down in the record books: the best medal haul since 1908, second in the medal table (beating China), the only Olympics host nation to win more medals at the next games, and the top major country in gold medals per capita.

SEE ALSO: The Rio Olympics coverage is rife with sexism and here's what needs to change

But this wild Olympic success wasn't a fluke: it was the product of a brutally effective system of funding the sports that are proven to produce results.

---

You May Also Like

---

---

Original image has been replaced. Credit: Mashable

With the tally of London 2012 exceeded -- 66 medals -- Liz Nicholl, chief executive of UK Sport, which is responsible for allocating funds from the government to Olympic sports, said Britain was now a "sporting superpower."

But that hasn't always been the case. In Atlanta 1996, British Olympic sport reached rock bottom, with just one gold medal won. It came 36th in the medal table.

After that humiliation, the Conservative government of John Major introduced National Lottery funding, which has now pledged almost £350 million ($462 million) to Olympic and Paralympic sports between 2013 and 2017.

"It's been a dramatic success," said Professor Grant Jarvie, head of sport at Edinburgh University. "The government made the judgment call that sport is important and to fund it you need revenues in the long term that are sustainable."

A ruthless, efficient system

UK elite sport's spending went from £5 million per year in Atlanta to £54 million by Sydney 2000 and £264 million for London 2012, when Britain came third in the medal table.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Individual athletes, described as "podium-level athletes," qualify for individual funding and can receive up to £28,000 a year if they win a medal.

Besides the funding from the National Lottery, UK Sport gets about £45 million annually from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Despite fears of spending cuts, the government, in last autumn's Spending Review, pledged a 29% increase in funding for elite sports.

But funding alone does not justify those stunning results, experts say. It's the brutal effectiveness of the system - sports that win medals get funded, the others are cut - that is key to success:

Gold medalists Laura Trott, Joanna Rowsell-Shand, Katie Archibald, Elinor Barker of Great Britain celebrate on the podium at the medal ceremony for the Women's Team Pursuit. Credit: Getty Images

"The scale and breadth of the sport system's funding, in comparison to other countries, is just impressive," Jarvie said.

"A wide range of medals are targeted on a wide range of sports. Facilities, equipment, training and coaching are put in place to facilitate success. And there's ruthless financial monitoring over a five-year cycle."

Under the funding system, sports who have hit their medal target over the past eight years -- like athletics, boxing and cycling -- have received an increase in investment. The others, like basketball, wrestling and volleyball, had their funding cut.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Winning mentality

Take cycling, for example. In London 2012, the final tally of 12 medals resulted in a boost to British Cycling from £26 million to £30.2 million. Top-class equipment on the track was provided, from £10,000 bikes to the aerodynamic skinsuits worn by riders.

Mashable Trend Report Decode what’s viral, what’s next, and what it all means. Sign up for Mashable’s weekly Trend Report newsletter. By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up!

In Rio, Team GB dominated track cycling, winning six of 10 disciplines and collecting 11 medals in total.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

It's not only money: a certain culture of excellence and winning mentality -- victory is expected, not hoped for -- has certainly played a role in Britain's amazing achievements.

"It's a reinforced mechanism of excellence: you're doing well and transfer it from some best athletes to the next generation," Professor Klaus Nielsen at Birkbek University said. "Just a few of the medallists from London 2012 retired, most of them came back to Rio as well."

Community-based sports are left out

But while UK Sport's systematic focus on elite sport has certainly been key in building a world-class sport system, some argue that has been detrimental to grassroots and community-based sports.

Sports such as basketball and handball, while they have a lot of potential community-wise, risk having their funds reduced because they're not likely to get any medals at the Olympic Games.

"If your purpose is to win medals, this elite sport-funding approach is the most efficient. If you have wider kind of purposes, like to stimulate activism in the UK, maybe it's not the right approach," Nielsen said.

Gold medalists Helen Glover, left, and Heather Stanning of Great Britain celebrate after the medal ceremony for the Women's Pair. Credit: Getty Images

"The purpose of the 2012 Olympics was to inspire a nation, but it's obvious from the way funds are organised it has not been achieved because the priority is elite sports and medals."

"The priority is elite sports and medals"

Funding of post-school activities, which was one of the coalition government's objectives, has just not been on the radar, Nielsen argues. Also, participation in sports is not linked in the way TV commentators want us to believe.

"They want us to think that if you watch canoeing winning the gold medal then a lot of people will do canoeing - but that's not how it works,"he said.

Devolution is key for the community

However, other experts think the dichotomy of grassroots vs. high-performance sports is a false argument.

"Both are important, both are supported though they have different objectives, it shouldn't be either/or," Jarvie said.

Community-based and grassroots sports should be encouraged with more devolution to local bodies, he argues.

Gold medalist Max Whitlock of Great Britain poses for photographs after the medal ceremony for Men's Floor Exercise. Credit: Getty Images

"Boxing can work for one community in one area, football in another area: the challenge is to determine what works where and in which circumstances,"Jarvie said.

"Local facilities need to be accessible 24/7, 7 days a week and with a safe environment that encourages participation. Some parts of the UK are committed to free access to swimming pool."

Sport England, which focuses on grassroots sport, has unveiled a four-year, £250 million plan to tackle inactivity as it was revealed that more than a quarter of the population did less than 30 minutes of activity per week, including walking.

The big Brexit question

Another challenge is Britain's decision to leave the European Union, with experts warning that the current economic instability could have dire consequences for investment in sport.

George Osborne, the former Chancellor, pledged a 29% increase in government funding for elite sport last November -- but that could be overhauled by Philip Hammond in his first autumn statement.

"The potential impact of Brexit on elite sports is very worrying: from freedom of movement and trade to UK spending. What can the British economy afford when money becomes tight?" said Jarvie.

Protections that have been put in place for some areas are just not there to sustain a world-class sport system, Jarvie said.

Others think that given the public enthusiasm around Team GB, it's very unlikely that the government of Theresa May will take any steps to cut funding to elite sports.

"There's more risks to community sports because their outcome is not as clear-cut as elite sports like rowing and cycling," Nielsen said.