One of Scotland’s most experienced sports administrators has called for the British government to investigate the way funding is allocated after it was confirmed yesterday that support for a variety of sports has been axed.

Along with archery, fencing, goalball, table tennis, weightlifting and wheelchair rugby, badminton is among seven sports to lose out, with only powerlifting proving successful in its appeal.

That was in spite of the sport achieving its target at the Rio Olympics, leading to an angry response from Anne Smillie, the long-standing chief executive of BadmintonScotland which will host the World Badminton Championships later this year.

“The decision by UK Sport to refuse badminton’s appeal is a major set-back to the sport and the Government should intervene to overturn it,” she claimed.

“I see no justification for leaving an Olympic medal winning sport with no funding whatsoever, especially when sports that didn’t win medals or reach their targets have retained their funding.”

In continuing to justify their decision which was originally made last year, UK Sport claimed that it was based on seeking to provide inspiration by prioritising sports in which there is a greater probability that medals will be won.

“It is uncompromisingly focused on excellence, relative merit and what it takes to pursue the ambition to win more medals and create more medallists in Tokyo to inspire the nation,” said Liz Nicholl, their chief executive.

While that gives the impression of being founded on public interest Smillie noted that instead the outcome is that more money is ploughed into minority sports played by a select few.

“Questions should be asked about the way in which decisions on sports funding are reached,” she said.

“No money is likely to lead to no medals. However, increasing investment in less accessible sports than badminton does not necessarily mean that they will exceed or improve on their previous targets

“There are a number of sports that are far less accessible to ordinary people than badminton and far more expensive to take part in who have attracted greater investment.

“I would suggest that spreading the investment a little more equitably is more likely to lead to more success.”