Tony Blair and Lord Coe might have picked a sport other than basketball to illustrate their claim that the London Games would inspire a new generation of Olympians.

The former Prime Minister, in a recorded message to the International Olympic Committee before the vote for the 2012 host city, joked that he had “never quite emerged” as a basketball player but was determined “to see millions more young people – in Britain and across the world – participating in sport and improving their lives as a result of that participation”.

Similarly, Lord Coe brought Amber Charles, a promising 14-year-old basketball player from East London, to Singapore to ram home the message of a sporting legacy.

However, the Newham schoolgirl may not have the chance to compete at the London Olympics, nor will her peers be inspired to take up the game if there is no Great Britain team. Basketball is one of up to 11 Olympic sports and 20 Paralympic sports that today will be handed cuts in their 2012 programmes for elite athletes, which will further undermine the claim for a sporting legacy from the London Games.

A “no compromise” approach to funding by UK Sport, the distributor of lottery funds, means that only sports with a realistic chance of medals in London will be backed. These include swimming, sailing, rowing and cycling, which was Britain’s most successful sport in Beijing, with eight gold medals in the velodrome.

Sports that fall “below the line” in the funding formula include basketball, hockey, handball, volleyball, fencing, shooting, table tennis, water polo, weightlifting and wrestling. Expensive team sports, particularly those such as handball, in which Britain has almost no chance of a medal, are particularly vulnerable. Even athletics, which offers the most number of medals available to win at the Games, faces cuts after it fell short of its Beijing medals target. Christine Ohuruogu, the 400-metre runner, was the sole gold medal winner in China.

UK Sport had budgeted for £300 million in preparation for London 2012, but now has £221 million to divide up among the same number of sports. The £79 million hole means that, despite turning in the best performance for a century, the Great Britain team is looking at less money for London than it enjoyed in the run-up to Beijing. The gap came after ministers said that the money would be raised from the private sector; the credit crunch has scared off investors.

UK Sport, which has a board meeting today to agree budgets for 2009-13, says that it must make its grant allocations on the money it has in the bank and not projected income. Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, was locked in talks last night with the Treasury to secure extra money that would narrow the gap to £60 million but, even if he is successful, the shortfall will still punish some sports.

As host nation in 2012, Britain automatically qualifies for every Olympic sport. Sports leaders are keen to shed Britain’s image of have-a-go underachievers personified by the ski jumper Eddie “the Eagle” Edwards; teams or individuals will not be entered in the London Games if they cannot demonstrate they will be competitive.

Hugh Robertson, the Shadow Sports Minister, called on the Government to honour its original £100 million a year for Olympic sports. “This is a higher priority than expensive building projects around the Olympic Park,” he said. “Fielding the best possible team is just about the most important priority for the whole Olympics. The public will judge the success of the Games on the number of British medals and not on how beautiful the roof on the swimming baths looks.”

Lord Moynihan, chairman of the British Olympic Association, said that with the present funding Britain could hope only to come eighth in the medals table instead of its target of fourth.

Tarnished legacy

Barcelona 1992 At the time they were the most expensive Games ever and 40 per cent of their $11 billion cost was public money. But Barcelona is widely considered to be a model of Olympic planning because it revitalised the city’s image abroad and regenerated Spain’s eastern seaboard. Tourist activity went up but the stadiums have been underused and there is no evidence of increased sports participation

Atlanta 1996 Written off as the Coke Games because of the overcommercialisation of the event for the benefit of the US soft drinks maker in its own backyard. Atlanta has been virtually airbrushed from history by Games chiefs and resulted in the creation of few sports facilities. There was little impact on participation but no public money went towards the $1.8 billion bill

Sydney 2000 Hailed by the International Olympics Committee as the “best-ever” Games because of their carnival atmosphere. Once they were over, tourism and sports participation fell away. Obesity has increased among Australians, who had grown used to watching sport from the sofa. Taxpayers picked up the bill for underutilised stadiums in the middle of nowhere and the entire A$6.6 billion party resulted in a monumental hangover. A study afterwards put the net cost to the public at up to A$2.4 billion

Athens 2004 The Greeks left everything to the last minute, pulling off a successful Games against all expectations. The €11.9 billion cost has been hard to justify, however, since the venues have become choked with weeds. The spruced-up city reaped tourist dividends but no more Greeks run marathons than did before the Games