First Dog socks now in stock at the Crikey Emporium!
A cautionary tale…
Sport funding torn between going for gold and going for guts
|
The long-awaited Crawford Review of Australian sport has in effect called the bluff of successive Australian governments and proposed a re-weighting of sports funding away from elite Olympic sports toward grassroots participation. Since 1976, when a mortified Fraser Government dramatically increased sports funding in the wake of the Montreal Olympics, Federal Governments have invested heavily in elite sports with the aim of maximising the number of Olympic medals. In 2007-08, most of the $90m handed out by the Australian Sports Commission went to Olympic sports as part of this national inferiority complex. Increasingly, however, governments have dressed up sports funding with social policy goals, claiming it helped address obesity, or encourage participation by marginalised groups like indigenous communities. The Crawford Review has brought that contradiction out into the open, suggesting “the funding imbalance between Olympic and non-Olympic sports should be questioned. More emphasis should be given to sports that are popular with many Australians… The bias toward funding Olympic sports leads to outcomes that make little strategic sense for Australia.” Many Olympic sports, like archery, have minimal community participation compared to popular sports like netball and cricket, or “whole of lifetime” sports like golf and tennis. The Review avoids an explicit recommendation that funding be re-weighted but proposes a “national sports policy framework” with actual measurable objectives and evaluation processes. There is currently, report chair David Crawford said this morning, no national sports “vision” of what we are trying to achieve with funding. We also need to reconsider what Olympic success means, the Report suggests, particularly where medals come from individual rather than team success. Sports funding is not a small business. The Federal Government is only the smallest funder. In 2001 — amazingly, the most recent year for which figures are available — $2b was spent by all governments on sport, with half coming from local government alone, primarily in maintaining sporting facilities. Funding arrangements are also extraordinarily complicated. There are several state-based Institutes and Academies of sport in addition to the Commonwealth Institute. The report recommends ending this absurd duplication and establishing a national group of Institutes of Sport. It also recommends — as expected — that the Sports Commission divorce itself from all program administration — like running the Institute of Sport — and become a pure policy adviser and sector representative and coordinator, and recommends that sport and physical education become key learning areas in school curricula. The tenor of the report is unlikely to go down well with the Federal Government. Sports Minister Kate Ellis was insisting this morning that the Government thought elite sports funding was “incredibly important” and that it was concerned we were “letting the rest of the world get closer and closer” in sporting achievement. “We want to remain a leader in international elite sport,” Ellis insisted. And one of the most influential sports figures now is Australian Olympics Committee boss John Coates, who is very close to Labor and particularly powerbroker John Faulkner. Coates got in a warning shot several weeks ago that “Australia could be an Olympic also-ran” if funding weren’t maintained. A line-up of former Olympians like Grant Hackett dutifully stepped up to claim that success in sport helped create role-models in the fight against obesity. The Crawford Report went out of its way to demolish that, saying “importantly, the Panel can find no evidence that high-profile sporting events like the Olympics … have a material influence on sports participation.” Even so, there seems little chance of this Government cutting funding for elite athletes in low-participation sports — not just because of its closeness to Coates but because the national inferiority complex remains as firmly entrenched as ever. Instead, it will probably try to find some more money for mass-participation sports and schools programs. That way no one will complain, which is how this Government likes it. |
|
|
14 Comments
That way no one will complain, which is how this Government likes it.
Exactly, they could have gone some way to shaping the future of this country by placing more empasis on the arts or sciences but its easier to do nothing.
When the ABC cannot laud publicly funded athletes who win world titles at things like pole vault or long jump, it’s no surprise to me that children generally lose interest in sports participation. I took this up with my local ABC recently, and their response was pathetic. They spent all day whining about all these sports Australia didn’t win … and completely missed our latest World Title Holder, who lived in our city too, who had been paid for by the taxpayer in entirety.
Sport is clearly not for ALL the kids. It’s for the kids who are good at sport. The kids who aren’t as good are only useful for spectator fodder. Let’s WATCH someone else do it. Same person. Over and over again. Surprisingly, that is wearying for children, after a while.
I sometimes wonder and scratch my little head. Why is it that my local ABC radio faithfully exposes me to … commercial sporting contests? Why am I being implored to like the NRL, the ACC, or indeed the AFL? So I can give them money to pay their gladiators with? Er … is that in line with the ABC charter or is that a Dangerous Question?
Personally, I’d be happy to see the ABC radio have a solo channel for sports broadcasts so that I don’t have to turn the radio off every summer. It’s not that I want to deny others their free broadcasts, but I do have a problem when it’s imposed on me. And when my reasonable complaints are treated that poorly, I take offence, ABC.
Yep, definitely need to fund those poor sports like cricket, golf and tennis rather than those rich, elitist archers….
Grassroots sports participation needs to be increased, and there should be a shift in the funding towards community and club level sports. However, ignoring the elite athletes (virtually all of whom make huge financial, personal and professional sacrifices to get from “pretty good” to “olympic gold medal/world champion” level) won’t help either.
There is a role for grassroots and elite level funding of all sports but the government should be primarily interested in high participation sports with low levels of commercial fundng (e.g. AFL, rugby, Cricket, soccer etc can pay their own way - sports like hockey, athletics etc need more assistance). And who gives a toss if we win a few less medals? What we need is encouragement to do sport. ANY sport, whether it’s archery or netball or cricket or golf or anything!
Hear hear MD.
My son sent a herogram to an archer at the Olympics. He never replied. I am sure that was because he never bothered checking his herogram box at Telstra. He didn’t think anyone would care. He hurt the feelings of a little boy, but at least the lad still wants to be an archer. My son was chuffed when this Aussie bloke came 14th.
He was out there having a go, and that’s what my son was supporting. He didn’t think he was a loser because he didn’t win a medal. He thought the man was a Hero, with his bow and arrows.
We carry on too much about winning and losing. And I have to constantly remind my children that for every winner, there are roughly 10 losers. So we aren’t doing this to win, are we. They find this message very difficult to internalise. Why? No medals for answering this question.
Great article..
We need to increase our sports funding even further otherwise we risk losing our mantle to the UK! check out these olympic funding stats for the UK from moneyweek:
“Funding for athletes with realistic medal chances has jumped from £59m ahead of Sydney in 2000 to £70m in 2004 to £235m for Beijing. The extra cash started to pay off in Sydney, where Great Britain collected 28 medals (including 11 golds) and four years ago in Athens where the medal haul totalled 30 (with nine golds).”
We are absolutely right to fund grassroots sport. Forget about Rugby for now, its management is a basketcase and has been well surpassed by the richer AFL. Cricket? always a market and should be better funded to risk losing kids to the richer AFL. Netball? absolutely. Basketball? absolutely. Surf Life Saving? needs alot more funding. I’m sure there are other team sports too that I have missed. Little Athletics has always been a healthy sport for kids.
We should start putting more funding into grassroots soccer. It makes sense given 50% of our population was born overseas, boys and girls can both play, and the world cup is probably the biggest sporting event in the world.
In reality, I can’t think of too many kids that want to grow up being a long distance runner, discus thrower, archer et al…
The Duke: “It makes sense given 50% of our population was born overseas”
The great thing about the statistics people use on websites is that 98% of them are just made up on the spot. (Note: I made that figure up).
In reality approx a quarter of Australia’s population was born overseas.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3412.02007-08?OpenDocument
@ page 26. “At 30 June 2008, of the estimated resident population (ERP) of Australia (21.4 million people) one quarter were born overseas (5.5 million people).”
As to the topic and the arguments in favour of heavy funding for olympic sports. Seriously what a joke. How pathetic is the Aussie psyche when we feel we absolutely must compete with bigger nations to be in the top 5 or 10 or whatever on some arbitrary medal table and if we don’t achieve (and by we I mean a couple of athletes) Olympic medals than the country is a failure.
There is a report out today about the fact that nearly 1 in 8 US citizens goes hungry each week. Large numbers of the USA’s citizens survive on foodstamps and they have almost non-existent health care for a significant proportion of their population but hey they always do well in the Olympics (not to mention they are also the world leader in obsestity - a country where 1 in 8 go hungry each week and the other 7 in 8 have too much food).
Which country would you rather be? The one that looks after its poorest and most disadvantaged or the one that gets lots of shiny Olympic medals whilst abandoning large parts of it’s population?
What is ‘elite Olympic sport”? - It is kids who don’t get money from AFL, Rugby League etc that gate receipts from stadiums built by the public purse because they are ‘popular’. Fair enough, to the majority deserves the spoils.
But back to these kids, whose parents, volunteer and pay for their kids to get coached and compete and travel because their sports don’t have the money from TV, governments or anywhere else.
These are kids who might not have ‘measured up’ in the ‘popular’ sports and have found an alternative rather than giving up all togther and not playing sport. Maybe these are kids who were not made feel worthless because they were not good at ‘popular sports’ .
These are kids with the arse out of their pants, existing on government hand outs (often less than the dole) and/or working part-time jobs.
They compete in World Sports that are respected by other countries because those countries can relate to them rather than ‘Commonwealth Sports’ that, although valid, those countries don’t understand. When Australia wins the Asian Men’s Volleyball Championships in China against China, do the 800 million Chinese watching on television care that Australia is only ranked 14th in the world in Volleyball?
These kids are not paid a living wage like their peers in a state symphony orchestra; a state symphony orchestra that is one of eight that collectively receive Federal Government funding the equivalent of the Australian Institute of Sport except. PS not a ‘national symphony orchestra’ like a national team but a state symphony orchestra like a ‘state team’.
For their government hand outs, these ‘elite sports’ have to demonstrate their practical utility in terms of encouraging more people to be fit or less obese, be more responsible in their use of alcohol, not take drugs of any kind include social drugs even though they don’t enhance performance and be generally great role models or be severely criticised. PS - I’ll back sport’s alcohol and drug use record against the arts/music/rock and roll!
Why is sport, like the arts, not simply a wonderful thing in itself? Why does it have to have a practical benefit to society apart from the fact that like music etc. it make life vibrant, diverse and interesting?
Some of these critics should get over themselves and notice that as a percentage of the Federal Sickness, er sorry Health Budget sport and recreation funding is just a rounding error and about a quarter of that of the arts (which could do with more). And if significant funding went into more basketball centres, swimming pools, badminton courts, judo halls, archery ranges, and other ‘boutique sports’ facilities instead of stadiums for spectators, maybe a lot more people would be involved in those sports and sports in general.
The Crawford Report generally makes some excellent recommendations about promoting physical activity in schools, more funding for increasing participation (not by taking money from international competition), but gets it wrong about the value (or potential value)of ‘eseoteric Olympic sports’.
PS - Please look at the make up of the ‘Panel’ - three AFL identities, one Rugby League identity, one Olympic Sport ex President - recommendations that relate to the relevance of Olympic Sports - any theme there?
Ron,
Correct, you only have to look on the effect that Bradman had on the public in the midst of a great depression to work out how important sport is to society.
Do you think that if we built more badminton courts, judo halls, archery ranges etc that more grass roots competition will come? I think it is a product of the time that, unless these sports can gets subtantial media coverage and can appear glamorous, kids will not partake in these sports.
I see alot of positives to increase funding for things such as little athletics and surf life saving, particularly surf life saving which is close to my heart. It would have to be one of the most healthiest sports in the world which also contributes to the community.
Duke, I don’t think that is completely true. Soccer has been the highest participation sport in Australia for some time, even before the rise of the A-League and the World Cup successes. Even now, while it has more coverage than in the past, you still hear a lot more about other sports that fewer people actually play.
i knew that it was a highly participated sport Bogdanovist but I guess perhaps, that alone highlights that we have not got something right at grass roots level in terms of technical development? hmmmmmm not sure but then again we are now essentially a top 20 soccer nation! I agree, without foxtel, it is hard to keep up with what is happening in the a-league.
Sport cripples Australia. It monopolises the media. Half the damned news (inc. the ABC) is sport. Jocks now speak Latin (anterior cruciate ligament) while they struggle with English. As if there’s not enough sport mid-year, the whole sucking country closes down in early November til March, when sport and its melanomic corollary, the beach, takes over.
Oz needs to be at the bottom of the Olympic medal count.
If Oz is a cultural desert, stop irrigating sport.
Why isn’t the notion of “user-pays” applied to these “elite athletes” ?
We spend untold millions of dollars a year supporting them at the AIS and other elite training programs, and no cost to them.
For all other “occupations” that require higher learning, from nurses to accountants to teachers we require that they pay back some of the cost of their tuition when they benefit from it (get a job and repay their HECS debts).
Elite athletes wishing to avail themselves of the generosity of the Australian Taxpayer should be required to pay some (say 20%) of their winnings, sponsorship deals or endorsements that they receive as a result of their participation in these programs.
thats an interesting concept Austen..
don’t forget that the government also pays bonuses ($20k) to the respective individual for winning a gold medal.
at the end of the day, sport/competition has always played a very important part in australian life.
I personally don’t have a problem with the amount of money we spend on the athletes and also think that it is a worthwile cause to try and remain in the top 5 medal winners.