Badminton Axed from the 2026 Commonwealth Games: The Impact of Funding Cuts and Missed Opportunities

The announcement that badminton will not feature in the 2026 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow has stirred considerable disappointment among fans and athletes alike. The stripped-back event will feature just 10 sports, including athletics, swimming, and gymnastics, with badminton, hockey, and several other popular sports failing to make the cut. The decision to exclude badminton, despite its global popularity and strong following in many Commonwealth countries, has raised concerns about funding priorities and the criteria for sports selection.

Badminton’s Significance in the Commonwealth

Badminton’s exclusion is particularly significant because it is one of the most widely played sports in Commonwealth nations. Countries such as Malaysia, India, and Singapore have a strong badminton tradition, with the sport often being a source of national pride and competitive success. Malaysia, in particular, has a rich history in badminton, regularly producing world-class players and securing numerous medals at past Commonwealth Games. In these nations, badminton is not just a sport but a cultural phenomenon that brings communities together and inspires young athletes.

In the UK, too, badminton has a solid grassroots presence, with around 760,000 people playing regularly. The sport’s accessibility and popularity across age groups make it an important contributor to promoting physical activity and a healthy lifestyle. The Commonwealth Games have historically provided an international stage for UK athletes, such as Scotland’s Kirsty Gilmour, who won silver and bronze in previous editions. The exclusion from Glasgow 2026 means younger players will miss out on a valuable opportunity to showcase their talents and gain international experience.

Why Was Badminton Dropped?

The decision to drop badminton appears to be driven by a combination of financial constraints and strategic considerations. After Victoria, Australia, withdrew from hosting the Games due to rising costs, Glasgow stepped in with a scaled-back version, featuring fewer sports and a reduced number of venues. The need to minimise expenses led to the selection of sports that could be hosted within existing infrastructure, such as athletics at Scotstoun Stadium and swimming at the Tollcross International Swimming Centre.

The emphasis on "universality of participation" and "quality of competition" as criteria for inclusion ultimately worked against badminton. Although the sport is highly popular worldwide, the funding model in the UK is heavily influenced by medal prospects at major events like the Olympics and Commonwealth Games. Badminton has struggled to secure consistent medal success for Team GB, which has led to reduced financial support over the years. This decline in funding has hindered the development of elite players, making it difficult for the sport to compete with higher-funded disciplines such as track cycling and athletics.

The Medals-First Funding Approach

The exclusion of badminton reflects broader issues with the UK's "medals-first" funding approach, where financial resources are allocated based on a sport's potential to deliver podium finishes. While this strategy has helped certain sports achieve success on the global stage, it has marginalised others with high participation rates but fewer medal prospects. The prioritisation of medals over grassroots impact has meant that badminton, despite being widely accessible and beneficial for public health, has not received the financial backing needed to grow and develop elite athletes.

This approach is in contrast to the public health benefits that sports like badminton offer. With the UK facing rising levels of physical inactivity and obesity, the focus on funding sports that can engage the general public and encourage more active lifestyles could play a crucial role in addressing these issues. However, sports like badminton, which could contribute significantly to boosting physical activity, continue to be overlooked.

The Impact on Commonwealth Countries

The decision to drop badminton from the 2026 Games will be felt acutely in Commonwealth nations where the sport enjoys significant popularity. For countries like Malaysia, India, and Singapore, the Commonwealth Games are a major platform for badminton players to compete at a high level. The absence of the sport from the event may diminish the competitive opportunities for athletes from these regions, limiting their chances to gain international exposure and experience. This could also affect the sport’s development in countries where badminton has been a key part of the Commonwealth Games' identity.

Other Sports Cut from the Program

Badminton is not the only sport that failed to make the 2026 lineup. Hockey, another sport with a rich Commonwealth Games history, was also excluded despite being present since 1988. Organisers cited the need to reduce costs and limit the number of venues as factors in the decision-making process. Hockey would have required additional infrastructure, such as a dedicated venue and extensive athlete accommodations, which contributed to its exclusion. Other sports that have been cut include squash, rhythmic gymnastics, and rugby sevens, reflecting the challenges of hosting a large-scale, multi-sport event within a constrained budget.

A Missed Opportunity for Inclusion and Growth

The exclusion of badminton and other popular sports raises questions about the future direction of the Commonwealth Games. While cost-saving measures are necessary, the decision to cut sports that resonate with the public could undermine the event's appeal and its mission to promote inclusivity and diversity in sport. Badminton's absence from the Glasgow 2026 Games represents a missed opportunity to inspire a new generation of players and to leverage the sport's popularity to encourage broader public participation in physical activity.

As Glasgow prepares to host a streamlined Commonwealth Games, it is essential to consider the long-term implications of prioritising cost-cutting over supporting sports that have a significant following and developmental potential. A more balanced approach that values both elite success and mass participation could help ensure the sustainability and relevance of the Games for years to come.