Australian winter Olympics competitors get paid, then get bonuses on top, often housing covered, plus better sponsorship.
UK competitors get the standard UK Olympic team £27k a year and minimal sponsorship as winter sports aren't generally popular viewing in the UK and it's not worth sponsors throwing money at competitors as they're not on TV for long in the competitions. It's more or less impossible for someone from the UK to compete on an equal level with the traditional nations without having rich parents or benefactors, a parent from an alpine country or having lived there/here from a young age.
In norway, skiers (cross country and alpine) are identified by local ski club scouts and streamed from around 9-11 years old and then, unless they already live there, move to Idrettsskolen (secondary schools that focus heavily on sport) in mountain regions from 12.
One of my daughters played håndball from 6 years old, then went to an Idrettsskolen (secondary school?) that focused on håndball, football and athletics from 12 years old, so she ended up playing semi-professionally whilst studying at university. It means that on top of the normal school studies, there's a whole network and professional-level training facilities dedicated to that particular sport, so kids don't need wealthy parents to compete. Not sure that similar focus exists in the UK outside of professional football clubs? Or it didn't when I left in the 1990s.
That's plenty...