British athletes, who enjoyed their most successful Olympics for a century in Beijing this summer, face cuts in funding for the build-up to the 2012 Games in London.

Top officials fear many sports will have to reduce the training programmes that propelled the UK to fourth place in the medal table this year, behind only China, the United States and Russia.

A £600m package for training, announced in 2006 by Gordon Brown, is facing a shortfall of £79m after private donors failed to materialise.

Britain’s leading medal-winning sports, such as cycling, in which Chris Hoy won three golds in Beijing, and swimming, in which Rebecca Adlington won two golds, have been reassured that their funding will not be reduced. But others believe their grants will be cut when UK Sport, the agency responsible for elite competition, decides the allocations on December 2. Among those under threat are hockey, shooting and volleyball.

Philip Kimberley, of England Hockey, has written to Andy Burnham, the culture secretary, describing what he terms as a “bleak but realistic picture” if the body’s £2.75m a year grant is cut. He says it would lead to half the national coaches being made redundant and a dramatic reduction in training camps.

The British men’s hockey team finished fifth and the women sixth in Beijing. Kimberley believes they stand a good chance of medals in 2012 — if funding is maintained.

In his letter, Kimberley said: “It would be truly ironic that £9.3 billion of public money is being spent on the Games to have only half the sports competing there to their best ability because £79m can’t be found now for the other half.”

Richard Callicott, the president of Volleyball England, is also sending a letter. Callicott said: “Since we have received £1.6m annually since 2006, our leap in progress has been astonishing in international events. Now we risk having a dream shattered. We need to have a team to compete with credibility at the London Games.”

Although a British volleyball team will qualify automatically for 2012 as Britain is the host nation, a team may not be entered if standards fall because of financial cuts.

The funding shortfall has arisen because Brown wanted private firms to support contributions from the Treasury and the lottery, which are supplying £200m and £321m respectively of the total £600m package. Although Fast Track, a sports marketing agency, has sought money from private companies, it has yet to be obtained and there are now fewer than three weeks before the distribution of funds is set.

Olympic insiders believe the government may provide some more public money but will not make up the entire shortfall.

Hugh Robertson, the shadow Olympics minister, accused the government of failing to live up to its pledges. “Gordon Brown promised Olympic sports £600m for 2012,” he said. “Because at least £79m of that has never been delivered, athlete training programmes face a cut after our most successful Olympics ever and we will field fewer teams for a home Games. This will have a direct effect on our position in the medal table, spectator numbers and commercial revenues during London 2012.”

If cuts are imposed, table tennis may be one of the sports to suffer. Richard Yule, the chief executive of the English Table Tennis Association, said: “We hope that something can be worked out.”

Shooting is also under pressure. John Leighton-Dyson, the performance director of British Shooting, which has received £5.5m over the past four years but failed to win any medals in Beijing, said: “We are fearing an enormous reduction — and I can’t see that help the desire of the British Olympic Association and the British public for us to move up the medal table.”

Additional reporting: Dipesh Gadher

Brits prefer a loser

Britain loves a loser but can warm to a winner, according to a poll for The Sunday Times.

Following recent suggestions that the public has been slow to support Lewis Hamilton, the Formula One world champion, the pollsters YouGov asked people whether they preferred a plucky loser or a ruthless winner.

By 70% to 15% they preferred plucky losers, but Hamilton did come top when people were asked whom they most admired out of four names. He was chosen by 25% of respondents.