Why the hell are we giving honours to athletes?

Seriously?

I understand there isn't an official criteria that allows you become knighted, with many scientists, academics, artists, businessmen, actors, musicians, philanthropists and so on have all won the right to be called "Sir" or "Dame", but a knighthood for peddling a bike a bit quicker then anyone else? What's the point?

Some might say their social good is a cultural one. I don't think it is. The fact England won the 1966 World Cup is little more then a bit of trivia and nostalgia. And nothing else. The only thing I can think of that it adds to British culture is this horribly clichéd sentimentalist narrative the newspapers run every time there is a World Cup coming - "Will this be England's time again?", complete with the obligatory (but pointless) comparisons between the England squad of today with then.

Also athletes scare me, the best in their fields today don't appear to have much of a childhood, with 90% of it spent doing repetitive training. For every Tiger Woods and Roger Federer, there must be millions of those who trained just as hard or had as much spent on their training, but didn't get anywhere. And even the ones that do make it will obsolete by the time they hit 30. Why are parents holding up these individuals to be decent role-models?

I guess for their determination, dedication and in some cases, genuine humbleness in the face of victory. Take Rebecca Adlington for example, a genuine sweet girl who has given her all and reached the top of her game and deserves all the accolades she has attained. I wish her and the rest of the English team at the Commonwealth Games every continued success in future.

But do such people deserve titles? Not as a matter of course.