Crawford Report says tip money into popular sports
Crowds at the Olympics in Beijing - photo by Elizabeth Chapman
The greatest good for the greatest number. Some Olympic sports might not like it, but it’s difficult to argue with the central democratic theme of the Crawford report into sports funding.
In essence it argues for people power.
It suggests tipping the funding scales back in favour of sports that are actually popular, that people really play.
Is Australia best served by winning a swag of Olympic medals, some in esoteric pursuits the nation follows at best once every four years?
Or by fostering a nation of participants who play sport in youth and adulthood, spurning all temptations to become couch-potato Norms?
Having both would be wonderful, but it’s not always possible to have your cake and eat it, too.
When it comes down to cold, hard cash, would you rather Australia have another taekwondo bronze?
Or new sports equipment at your kid’s school, and maybe an extra coach to go with it?
The report does not suggest that sports funding be cut, or that elite success is unimportant.
But it does suggest public money can be better spent for the greater good.
As such, it strikes a chord in anyone who has questioned why so much money can be poured into preparing a synchronised swimmer, say, or a weightlifter, clay target shooter or Greco-Roman wrestler, for a short, elite career, rather than legions of amateur surfers, netballers, footballers, golfers and cricketers for their sporting lifetimes.
Two examples say it all.
Archery gets more government funding than cricket, which boasts more than 100 times the number of participants.
And water polo receives as much elite funding as golf, tennis and lawn bowls combined.
The equivalent argument in the arts might suggest that opera could die out without subsidies.
But this is the age of accountability.
Governments ask the same questions as sports: can we utilise our resources better, can we spend smarter?
Australia has a proud Olympic history.
It is one of only three nations to have competed at every Summer Games and the one which most famously punches above its weight.
But at what cost?
© AAP 2012What they said about the Crawford report on Australia’s sporting future:
“There are things in this report that might ruffle a few feathers.” – Federal Sports Minister Kate Ellis.“The bias towards funding Olympic sports leads to outcomes that make little strategic sense for Australia.” – Crawford report.
“Some priority should be given to those sports played throughout the country and even more so to those that engage their participants through their lifetimes.” – Crawford report.
“More government funds are provided for archery than cricket, which has more than 100 times the number of participants.” – Crawford report.
“Water polo receives as much high performance and Australian Institute of Sport funding as golf, tennis and lawn bowls combined.” – Crawford report.
“Obviously this is one of the last occasions I will be seeing you – the Olympics will not be important enough for editors to bother sending you along in future, if Mr Crawford is correct.” – Australian Olympic Committee president John Coates, opening a press conference after the release of report.
“It seems un-Australian to me to settle for something second best.” – Coates on the report’s suggestion that Olympic gold medals might not be the best measure of sporting success.
“This is an insult to some of our great Olympic champions. Is Mr Crawford suggesting the gold medals won in Beijing by Matthew Mitcham, Steve Hooker and Ken Wallace meant nothing to the Australian people?” – Coates again.
“We’re complacent about our success and all of a sudden we’re talking about making the same silly mistakes that we made once before.” – Dual 1500m freestyle gold medallist Kieren Perkins.
“Sports such as netball, cricket and all of the major football codes each play a vital role in introducing large numbers of young Australians to healthy habits of life-long physical activity.” – AFL chief Andrew Demetriou on the suggestion that mass participation sports deserve priority.
“Our submission appears to have been largely ignored, so too the needs of Australia’s current and future Paralympic athletes, coaches and officials.” – Australian Paralympic Committee chief executive Miles Murphy.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Australian sports, Olympic Games, Olympic sports
November 18th 2009 @ 8:34am
Simmo said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
“Maybe its just me but I’d rather see funding for the AIS than some of the wasted money that goes to housing asylum seekers on Christmas Island.”
woah.
I know you’re entitled to your opinion blah blah blah, but geez.
November 18th 2009 @ 9:25am
Redb said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Not very PC I know. Nothing a good gun ship wouldn’t fix. Just kidding folks.
My point is if we apportion money to various causes why not some of it go to kids and sport.
Redb
November 18th 2009 @ 8:38am
keeper11 said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
I understand the Crawford committee had a representatives with ties to the NRL and AFL…
So anyone surprised one of the main conclusions of the report is to increase funding for participation for these two local domestic sports in lieu of more niche international sports??
what an utter joke…!!
Let the mountian of channel 7 dosh fund the AFL kiddies and me thinks League sugar daddy Uncle Rupert can find some spare cash to find the new ‘billy slater’….
November 18th 2009 @ 9:30am
Redb said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
yes let’s penalise the AFL for developing its own sport and then deprive them when the govt funds come in favour of others, how very socialist of you
Look I’d be be happy if every cent went to just athletics and swimming for kids. Get them running, throwing, jumping, thrashing about in the water.
Any surplus funds should not go to the football codes or cricket, basketball, netball, but activity fun based programs.
Redb
November 18th 2009 @ 8:43am
Simmo said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
and Uncle Frank for football?
November 18th 2009 @ 8:43am
BigAl said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
I would have to agree with this report – in essence fund the mass grass roots participants not individual elites.
For too long Australia has been exhibiting a streak of the old ‘cultural cringe’ by shouting …
‘look what we won nyah nyah nyah… how good are we !’l
East Germany went down that path – and look at the good it did them !
Success in the Olympics is great, especially for the individual, but overall it is not that important.
November 18th 2009 @ 8:48am
AndyRoo said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
This report seems to be common sense to me.
I think there is a little scope for complaining about what’s a minor sport and what’s not but it obviously means an emphasis on participation.
Then questions arise like how do you measure if people care. Power Walking is a popular activity but I don’t think Australian’s really care if we win a medal in that.
Taekwondo vs Waterpolo is interesting because I played Water Polo at school and everyone who plays Water polo does so competitively as opposed to Taekwondo which has a large % of recreational participants.
It could be skewed to say AFL (as well as Touch Football and Soccer) would benefit more than Rugby League but it would only be at the grass roots level not the elite, and is based on assisting participation rather than winning a stupid code war. Those sports have one huge advantage over Rugby League and that is they have huge potential for growth in Female participation.
November 18th 2009 @ 9:17am
vinay verma said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
This is a Government big on commissioning reports and wasting taxpayers’ money. The Sports’ ministers’ Department should be putting out these reports.How much was Crawford paid?
Now we have a Captain’s Forum in Canberra. When Rudd was elected we had the so called “bright” minds assemble in Canberra. The Government is short on ideas if it has to pick our brains.
Frankly there are more important things than Sports Funding. I know at least two Churches around the Cross where anything upto six people sleep on the steps. Walk down George Street and there are homeless on the steps of profitable Banks. Bob Hawke boasted there would not be anyone living in poverty in the 21st Century. So much for a Politician’s word
.
Australia’s International reputation is a disgrace. The Ocean Viking has been used as a ping pong . New Zealand got it right. They told Australia to nick off. India has taken over a 100,000 Sri Lankan refugees. Without making a fuss. We were happy to give Asylum to weightlifters and middle distance runners for the sake of Olympic Gold. I find more than a little hypocrisy in the overall policies of this Government.
November 18th 2009 @ 9:38am
Michael C said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
the main thing though for Crawford is he DOES have ‘runs on the board’ with respect to his Aust Footy (AFL) 1993 report.
Re his report into soccer – - seemingly it has runs on the board….however, soccer is still heavily dependant upon govt and private ownership and I guess still has to stand the test of time.
On this basis – a Crawford report gains a level of respect – - and at very least is sparking debate on this topic.
And that is a good thing – when it comes to hundreds and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
btw – sports funding IS a very important community tool. Sports is used as a tool by govt in a huge array of ways. In many cases it’s ONLY via sport that Govt has been able to achieve positive results in underprivileged communities. The public debate on many topics is driven by sports, and govt’s know that.
The great thing about sport is it’s NOT religion, it’s NOT politics, – - – it allows issues to be addressed in ways that a church can’t. That’s not to say that churches don’t have their place. It simply – that sports IS important……..especially at grass roots.
And, sad to say – major funding of certain sports is far removed from what should be govt policy. For me – - I still look at the winter olympics and wonder why Australia feels it needs to send a team at all?? Building indoor climate controlled ice skating facilities is cute – - but…….so unreal. That isn’t Australia. Swimming and the great outdoors is – although with a hat, UV resistant shirt, 30+ sunscreen, UV sunnies etc etc…..
November 18th 2009 @ 10:19am
AndyRoo said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
Good post…. have a chocolate
November 18th 2009 @ 10:27am
Redb said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
He has some credibility with broken organisations. I beleive Crawford is an insolvency practioner thus it goes with the territory. They take different view of the world.
Is Govt funding of the AIS and the success of Australian atheltes at the olympics that busted – I dont know if it is?
Redb
November 18th 2009 @ 1:01pm
BigAl said | November 18th 2009 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Not busted, expensive !
Very very expensive…
November 18th 2009 @ 9:35am
Parisien said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Coates calling the Crawford report an insult to previous Olympic champions is one of the most stupid things I’ve heard, no matter how you look at it his comment.
November 18th 2009 @ 9:49am
AndyRoo said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
I wouldn’t support 1 cent going to the AFL directly but if the AFL for egample created a centre where kids could come in anytime from 3pm to 7pm every school day and there was adult supervision that had them playing Australia rules or some other physical activity then fair enough, that is a worthy cause.
Moore swimming pools and less overseas Gymnastics Coaches… seems ok with me.
November 18th 2009 @ 10:04am
Redb said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Agree.
The term ‘AFL’ is confusing to many. The sport is Australian football, the AFL is the name of the competition and administrative body. The AFL does not control the SANFL or WAFL and many other arms of the game.
No-one is suggesting funds go to the FFA but to soccer grass roots development, etc.
Redb
November 18th 2009 @ 9:59am
Michael C said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
I heard an AOC rep, Mike Tancred comment about the poor example of archery vs cricket (i.e. archery having 100 times the funding of cricket).
He went on about how cricket was lucky enough to be able to play at the MCG and get big crowds etc etc…….
and, I’m thinking – 160 years ago, we had cricket and archery and other sports, and cricket thrived, and along with the benefits of ground sharing with Australian Football, and the capacity to HOST the ruddy Olympics at such a venue – that Cricket today is able to play at the MCG…….
…..but, that comes along with the MCC having funded about $500 million of the current configuration of the ground. (with only $77 mill from state govt and nothing from the feds). This is the irony – a huge amount of money generated by AFL and cricket has produced a facilitiy that the athletes got to borrow for their Commonwealth games…….and only because of that, was govt funding offered!?!?!?!? THat seems a distortion.
So, where exactly in that equation should cricket be penalised? should other sports be provided an unnatural stimulus? Where is Archery Australia and even a $50 million dollar debt because of investment in itself???
and, where exactly is that archery money going anyway???? And is the equation basically 100 * stuff all is still not much??
November 18th 2009 @ 10:30am
Sports Funding Breakdown said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Intersting to look at this link:
http://www.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/314556/2009-10_ASC_Funding_to_NSOs_as_at_4_August_2009.pdf
It shows for our 5 major team sports a clear disparity in Federal Government funding.
1. Soccer – $6, 981, 209
2. Cricket – $762,014
3. Australian Football – $489,998
4. Rugby League – $459,998
5. Rugby Union – $459,998
Looks to me like some of the football codes are being disadvantaged by some of this funding. Why is this so?
Interesting to note that $4m is allocated to Soccer as part of a “Special Purpose Appropriation” – is that for the World Cup bid? If it isn’t, what is it for? If it is, you can expect that number to grow in the next couple of years at least.
November 18th 2009 @ 10:57am
AndyRoo said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
The Federal government subsidise the W League (the national Womens Football league) and some of the Junior national teams for girls and boys.
Not sure if that includes any funding for the Olympic Football team or wether they receive any.
November 18th 2009 @ 10:59am
Michael C said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
$4 million is interesting,
because, Howard Govt had committed to $16 mill over 4 years, and then Rudd committed to $32 million over 4 years,
all totally separate to the $45.6 million for the WC bid.
astounding really – isn’t it – that it so dwarfs even the combined total of the other sports (just under $2.2 million).
but, then – this would imply that archery gets $76 million?!?!?
now, I’m rather more confused than at the outset.
November 18th 2009 @ 11:40am
Lazza said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Funding for Soccer has to be at the grassroots level – to get our kids to be at the same skill level as those in other countries. We need proper academies, to import technical specialists from overseas and fund 9 national teams.
Soccer, according to the report, is doubly deserving of funding. We have to compete at the world’s biggest sporting event, bigger even than the Olympics. Soccer is also one of the biggest, if not the biggest, participation sports in this country.
The third criteria should be the competition factor. Sports that have to compete at a global level need more funding and commitment if we want to succeed.
Do we really want the two biggest sporting events in the World to just pass us by and not bother to compete. Is that what great sporting nations do?
November 18th 2009 @ 12:10pm
Redb said | November 18th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
If soccer is already the biggest participation wise then other sports need assistance to maintain sporting diversity.
November 18th 2009 @ 12:28pm
True Tah said | November 18th 2009 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
Lazza
how much government funding does futbol get in England?
If we want to succeed at futbol, then we probably need a massive recession that puts every young man in this country out of work, force him onto the streets, build up his hunge, develop his skills and make futbol his sole chance at redemption. Seems to work in South America and Italy.
How much do we really want to succeed at say the winter olympics? Frankly Im sick of so much funding going towards sports which are elite and have only a few beneficiaries, such as many of the olympic sports. The reality is, many of the Olympic sports are fringe sports at best in Australia.
As a country, our preferred sports are cricket, rugby league, australian football, futbol, rugby union, netball, swimming, surfing, hockey, tennis, golf. Tennis and golf have largely been the preserve of the wealthy, so they are ok.
November 18th 2009 @ 1:07pm
Lazza said | November 18th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Traditionally, it hasn’t received much funding in England and that’s why they’ve struggled for years. Little Holland, on the other hand, funds junior development and specialist training and they consistently out perform their bigger neighbour.
According to the Crawford report, our preferred sports are AFL, Cricket and Soccer in that order. The Rugby codes are lower on the list because all their support comes from just two states.
Spiro is right – there are a lot of benefits from competing and succeeding in the big international sporting events. We used to call ourselves “World Beaters” but that doesn’t seem to matter to some people.