I have to confess that I've never really understood this sort of thing, possibly because of my utter loathing of sport at school, but the writer seems to think that "institutional support" should be given because... why exactly?
I don't really understand why sport, any sport, qualifies for special "institutional support" not given to things like say crochet, cat shows, tabletop gaming, or pottery. Understand I'm not criticising participants in sports, and I certainly admire the feats of sports cyclist here, but I don't really understand why sports should get preferential treatment above other, let's fact it, leisure pursuits.
To pick on my own in that list; tabletop gaming doesn't get a lot of "institutional support" and I'm not saying it should, but then why should other people's choices of activity? I understand that organising events for cycling will be expensive, and that facilities will be expensive and specialised so not suitable for other activities, but I don't see that as an argument; a lot of leisure pursuits require expensive facilities but that doesn't mean they all get them.
Surely it would make sense to look at the benefits of an activity to a local community, economically or culturally, when making the decisions for funding, rather than assuming "I think this is a good thing and should be supported" often by people who have no interest in it.