ANDY MURRAY'S Wimbledon victory may not make him Scotland's greatest sportsman – he is getting very close to the podium – but it has triggered one of the biggest single commitments of funds enjoyed by any sport governing body in Scotland.

Sportscotland announced yesterday that it is investing £5.8m in tennis over the next four years to help modernise and develop the game's structure, improve facilities, and widen access. More than a third goes to community projects and will help local authorities upgrade public facilities. Encouraging more people into the sport is a welcome step towards ridding tennis of a reputation as a predominantly middle-class preserve.

The quango is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. If the greatest tennis achievement by a Scot did not bring investment to promote greater access and support, sportscotland would rightly stand condemned. Yet when they announced this funding yesterday, they were accused of a knee-jerk reaction. This was denied by Stewart Harris, their chief executive, only hours after they had issued a statement headed: "Four-year plan to capitalise on Murray-mania in Scotland".

Yet, we do have to ask: if this funding is such a great idea, why was the investment not made sooner? And, at least as pertinent, why is such a wealthy sport dependent on being bankrolled by government? The Lawn Tennis Association made more than £37m last year, thanks to Wimbledon. Given Murray's successs, it is likely to make even more this year. Yet Tennis Scotland last year received just £783,211 from the LTA. Roger Draper, their outgoing chief executive, pocketed almost as much in remuneration.

If there is not a more equitable slice of the cake from Wimbledon this year, Scotland's clubs, should ask why. Before Murray was born, this newspaper repeatedly questioned why Scotland received such a miserly slice of Wimbledon profits. Little has changed, save that Scotland now has a Wimbledon men's singles champion and England is still waiting for its first in 77 years. This is not a jibe borne of schadenfreude, but a salutary reminder that cash does not alone breed champions.

Rightly, the achievements of Sir Chris Hoy were recognised by sportscotland investment in the Glasgow velodrome which bears his name. A range of initiatives are being built around the multiple Olympic and world champion. This is, indeed, progress. There was no comparable sportscotland support for grassroots squash or judo when Peter Nicoll or Graeme Randall became the first Scots to win world titles in their disciplines.

There is little point in beating sporting institutions over the head with lessons from history. Scottish society has squandered the potential legacy of numerous outstanding champions, several of whose achievements are up there with those of Murray. A by-no-means-exclusive list would include Nicoll and Randall, Allan Wells, Liz McColgan, Dick McTaggart, Ken Buchanan, Jim Watt, Jim Clark, Sir Jackie Stewart, Stephen Hendry, Shirley Robertson, Sandy Lyle and Paul Lawrie, not to mention a raft of outstanding players and managers from team sports.

It is overdue that sportscotland, or preferably an independent body, establish a specific group with the exclusive remit of harnessing such talents and developing their legacy.

Sportscotland's backing for tennis is welcome, though I am not alone in questioning whether it's the best value for money. Callers to a BBC radio programme yesterday hinted at the economic reality: costly installations which can be used by just four people when, for example, 30 karate players could be using the same space.

Squash tells me they went to sportscotland with an innovative programme which would have cost £140,000 per year for four years and would have reached 400,000 children across the whole of Scotland. Sportscotland were only interested in covering a third of the country.

Cost benefit analysis of some decisions might prove embarrassing. My view is that this funding announcement, and its timing, is politically inspired, a transparent attempt at vote-winning.

I don't advocate taking this money from tennis. However, if the Scottish government really wishes to make an impact on sport and the nation's health, they should stop window-dressing by refocusing on physical education targets.

Six years ago, Holyrood unanimously endorsed a commitment to deliver two hours of physical education per week. This was to be achieved by the summer of 2011. Failure to do so was so spectacular that the deadline was extended by three years.

At the same time, PE student intakes were cut, and, in Edinburgh and Lothians, only one PE teacher secured a full-time appointment a year. So don't hold your breath for the new target being achieved by the end of the 2014 summer term. What's worse is that this was a staging post, not a destination: two-hours per week was merely a stepping stone to daily PE by 2021.