The unassuming Tory who deserves a medal for Great Britain’s Olympic success in Paris

During his time in charge of the country, John Major cut a faintly ridiculous figure and was at the mercy of his deeply divided party. Now, nearly 30 years later, his contribution to British sport is worth its weight in gold, says Simon Walters

Sir John Major, who launched the National Lottery in 1994, which has raised millions in funding for Team GB athletes (PA)

John Major did not get much credit when he was Conservative prime minister.

He never escaped the shadow of his famous predecessor, Margaret Thatcher. He was cruelly mocked for allegedly tucking his shirt inside his underpants – and he led his party to a landslide election defeat in 1997.

But nearly 30 years later, one of his less well-known decisions is being credited for the stunning success of British athletes in Paris.

Many of the medalists have sung the praises of the National Lottery, saying they would never have achieved Olympic glory but for the financial backing they have received from it.

They have unsung John Major to thank for that.

The before and after effects of Major’s lottery and its backing for athletics is remarkable. In 1996, the year before he left office, Britain’s Olympic reputation had sunk to an all time low.

It won just one gold medal at the Atlanta Games – Steve Redgrave in the rowing – finishing a lowly 36th in the medals table, behind Kazakhstan.

At that time, British athletes received a total of £5m a year support. Since then, they have received more than £1 billion from the lottery. The effect has been astonishing.

Since Atlanta, Britain has won more than 100 golds in seven Games. It came fourth in the medals table in Beijing in 2008, third in London in 2012, second in Rio in 2016 and fourth in Tokyo in 2020.

At the time of writing, Great Britain has amassed nine gold medals, eight silver and eight bronze, meaning it is now fourth in the Paris 2024 medals table – behind only China, United States and the hosts, France.

Few politicians get the legacy they crave. They strive to win a place in history by tackling the big political issues: improving economic growth, transforming the NHS or winning a war. They rarely succeed in doing any of these things.

It is often the prime ministers considered least successful in political terms whose administrations are remembered for landmark breakthroughs seen as peripheral at the time.

David Cameron, for example, will always be the man who bet the farm on the Brexit referendum… and lost it all. But by defying his own party to introduce equal marriage for gays and lesbians – more than half of his parliamentary party refused to vote with him – means he will be seen in a sympathetic light by many for all time.

Harold Wilson’s Labour governments of the 1960s and 70s are synonymous with Britain’s economic decline. But the abolition of the death penalty and legalisation of abortion in this period changed Britain for ever – and for the better, in the eyes of most.

Tony Blair’s reputation is tarnished by the Iraq War. But in Kosovo, in the Balkans, young adults named “Tonibler” are a testimony to his hero status for stopping the bombing of Kosovo by Serbia in 1999.

It seems hard to imagine that either the passage of time, or any as-yet little noticed aspect of the administrations of Boris Johnson or Liz Truss could mitigate their shameful combined record in power.

John Major’s name will never appear on the podium of great prime ministers.

But by creating the National Lottery to build a platform for the never-ending British Olympic gold rush – once every four years – this modest man is entitled to take a modest bow.