By johnhunt92 -
November 19th 2009 @ 2:53am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
A joke of Gold, Sliver and Bronze proportions
Jessica Schipper (left) reacts with Libby Lenton after Schipper won the Womens 100m Butterfly final at the Australian Swimming Championships at Chandler in Brisbane. AAP Image/Dave Hunt
The Crawford Review on our Olympic campaign is an absolute insult to our nation. For starters, the credibility of the panel went missing in its appointment. Not one person on the panel was from the Olympic fraternity.
There were three AFL people and an NRL board member. The closest Olympic member of the panel was the President of hockey, though hardly an AOC expert.
There was little independence in the whole process as it stank of AFL, NRL politics.
The much hyped-report into Australian sport will only make the rich sports richer and leave our aspiring Olympians who so desperately require funding due the lack of sponsorship high and dry.
Crawford’s report calls for more money to be put towards sports that have high participation rates, like AFL Rugby League and Football.
These sports do not need government funding due to the massive income they receive.
The AOC does not receive the ticket revenue or large broadcasting rights that the big 5 (AFL, NRL, ARU, FFA and Cricket Australia) make every year.
Already the NRL received $46 million for new headquarters, FFA gaining $45 million for a World Cup, bid that is likely to fail and the AFL gaining millions for ground improvements.
Why not put that money into grassroots especially the farcical NRL money?
Instead of this joke spending, the Government should be giving more funding to sports that need it, like the Olympic movement.
Crawford calls for grassroots funding has obviously overlooked that certain sports in the Olympics are Australia’s best participated junior sports.
Little Athletics, Swimming and Hockey are some of Australia’s most popular sports. If this is not proof of Grassroots sports and their popularity then I know nothing.
Also, again at grassroots level, what are the principal sports at school sports days?
Athletics is the answer – an Olympic sport which needs funding. Only 10 per cent of Olympians get the massive sponsorship deals compared to professional sports stars in AFL, NRL and overseas in the Premier League.
Olympians need the funding to reaming solvent.
If Crawford gets his way, these sports stars will be forced out only ruining his “vision”.
If Ms Ellis, the Sports and Youth minister, does not want to ruin Australia, she will ignore the Olympic cuts as it would ruin.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(39)
ps can anyone tell me why rugby in NZ is so dominant and played across all strata of society and in Oz it is mainly a preppy...
Ian Whitchurch said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:09am | Report comment
Oddly enough, this article shows exactly why the Crawford report is right.
“Little Athletics, Swimming and Hockey are some of Australia’s most popular sports. If this is not proof of Grassroots sports and their popularity then I know nothing.
Also, again at grassroots level, what are the principal sports at school sports days?”
Right. Kids do athletics at school because it’s cheap. No or next to no kit, not a big training need, and anyone can do it and – even if they are crap – improve their personal bests. And then what happens ? They either get talent spotted and put into one of our Sports Institutes … or they stop.
And does John Hunt talk about participation ? Nope. He whines it will “leave our aspiring Olympians who so desperately require funding due the lack of sponsorship high and dry”. Tough. Run a chook raffle, get sponsored by a law firm, or have a day job.
Look, here’s the problem. This is from ‘06
http://www.athletics.com.au/news/news/2006/may/sports_funding_boost
“Mr Bartels said that in the financial year 2006/2007 the Australian Government had committed an unprecedented amount—$204.549 million—to the Australian Sports Commission.
Of this figure a total of $125.457 million was committed to high performance sport in 2006/07.”
Me, I take that $125 mill, and I spend it on the grass roots. All of it. Including selling off the AIS for housing and office developments.
Because I’m not interested in high performance. I’m interested in the low performers – the people that arent the high performers, and who never will be, but who can and should be running out on a paddock. If they are running to a stopwatch, or along a beach and then jumping in the water and onto a bike, great. I dont care.
Because I think the reason we should be doing this isnt to win gold medals. It’s because sport improves health, builds communities, and builds civil society.
Thats what we track, and it’s harder to do that taking the easy path and crowing about gold medals.
Clarko said | November 19th 2009 @ 5:43am | Report comment
Quite rightly Crawford says the answer is to invest in local fields and get sports programs going in schools.
The best sports organisation to assist the government with their spending and investment across the nation is the AFL.
All the nation’s playing fields should be oval to allow for all sports. No fields should be restricted to rectangle as this keeps AFL and cricket from using them.
Auskick is a ready made program for schools that offers exercise without the risk of injury.
It’s just a coincidence that the panel are all aligned to the AFL.
mahony said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
AFL be dammed – these people allready have a monopoly on sports grounds in southern Australia. I like the ’social inclusion’ aspect of thsi policy becasue of the codes this can only mean one thing – football, the world game.
Michael C said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
how do you claim a monopoly on sports grounds in Southern Australia??
A rectangle field is prohibitive to footy and cricket,
have not you noticed soccer and rugby being played at Docklands, and the MCG, and Subiaco etc etc.
do you even know what ‘monopoly’ means???
Redb said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Spot on.
Firestarter Bob said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
An oval field is prohibitive to rugby footy and soccer footy.
The perimiter fence is useless and the canteen and sheds are miles away from the sidelines.
Lazza said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Ovals are good for Cricket and AFL but nothing else. That’s why Aussie Rules will never prosper overseas. They aren’t many grounds where you can actually play the game.
In Europe they are getting rid of the athletic tracks as well. Football fans want to be closer to the action and Athletics can build their own stadiums.
Redb said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
There are enough countries that play cricket to keep MC and myself amused for years in Aussie Rules development discussion. Come 2059 we may struggle.
Michael C said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Nice attitude…….
….so, when’s soccer going to start building it’s own stadiums in Australia??
btw – because of football and cricket – athletics tracks have always been merely temporary in Australian stadiums.
NUFCMVFC said | November 19th 2009 @ 5:22pm | Report comment
Talking about Monopolies, like the one where the AFL buys up all the Oval Shaped National Stadiums, and interferes with Rectangular Stadium construction?
Redb said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
Evdience? The AFL has every right to push for better facilties in places like Perth and Adelade, stand in line.
Michael C said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
As with Redb -
what stadiums have the AFL bought???
Andy said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:41am | Report comment
“Why not put that money into grassroots especially the farcical NRL money?”
Why not put the money distributed to AFL, soccer and union into supporting sports like hockey, athletics, swimming and sports people care about (NRL, cricket). See problem solved. lol.
Luke W said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:59am | Report comment
I’d rather my taxpayer dollars go towards sports that I have the enjoyment of watching year in year out, rather than a sport on for two weeks every four years that I don’t really like anyway.
Luc said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Sorry John. But I think the latest Crawford report is one of the most sensible things I’ve heard in a long time.
Lazza said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
We spent $200m on the “Where the bloody hell are you” advertising campaign to raise awareness and publicise our country. It was considered to be a failure since it didn’t result in any increase in tourism or other benefits but we can’t spend $200m on making sure we have a competitive Olympic team? Sport is pretty much the only vehicle that raises awareness about small nations like ours.
After going through 20 years of bitterness and self loathing about their shambolic Olympic team, the Poms decided to do something about it and weren’t they happy with the result at Beijing? We can expect the same disappointment when we finish 28th on the medal table and everyone wonders why we’ve become so useless. This report has no bearing on reality. From a boat race in the 1980’s, welcoming home our Olympic heroes and the mass hysteria of the 2006 World Cup etc – Australians love international sporting success.
The only people who don’t seem to like it are some people and fans within the AFL/NRL. International sporting success seems to fill them with fear since their sports don’t have any real international profile. We could have the best of both worlds but to say international sports and these huge Global sports events don’t matter is just nuts. Do we want to be a great sporting nation or just a sporting backwater?
Kurt said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:13pm | Report comment
Remember it’s an ‘extra’ $200m they’re asking for. No one is talking about cutting Olympic funding, just not increasing it to the same level as requested by Coates and redirecting it away from tiny niche sports. People need to get this fundamental point into their heads rather than buying the AOC spin that this all some sort of AFL plot.
Kurt said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:40am | Report comment
Oh, and you can tell it’s an AFL/NRL plot by the fact it recommends increased funding for sports they in no way compete with such as soccer, rugby, basketball, swimming & hockey, whilst recommending cuts for such arch-rivals for the hearts and minds of the public as gymnastics and archery.
Brian said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Whats the point of putting any money into AFL. Firstly even if it had no funding we would still be the best in the world. Secondly last time I checked getting kids to play a sport where you can be seriously concussed from a knock to the head was not health for them. The Crawford report seems to have seriously missed the point that Swimming & Athletics are much better for you than AFL or Rugby.
If these idiots did a report on transport would they conclude that less money should be spent on footpaths and redirected to roads as cars are more popular
Lazza said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
I’m glad some sections of the media have got it right.
The will to win is part of the collective Australian psyche, which is why we wonder whether the Crawford report could possibly have been written here. Aspiring to be in the top five on the Olympics medal tally is not a “sensible target” or “an appropriate measure of Australian performance”. We profoundly disagree. Some of the issues the report raises — sport in education, ensuring sport is open to all and greater access for the public to under-used facilities — certainly need addressing, but Sports Minster Kate Ellis should think long and hard before accepting the recommendation that the extra $100 million a year the Australian Olympic Committee says it needs for elite sport should be spent elsewhere.
Other nations have increased investment in elite sport, poached our coaches and copied our techniques. We need to keep up or risk sliding down the ladder. Whatever Mr Crawford might say, medals count in a nation passionate about sport.
Republican said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
I would like to see a pool in every govy school. I know, a pipe dream perhaps however I have noticed alot of kids who are not so good on their pins do really well in the H20 with a bit of encouragemnet and guidance.
This potential should be fostered because many of these young people with an aversion to footy, aths etc would do very well indeed in a competitive or non competitive swimming environment. This would also derive the country significant health benefits.
i believe many Qld schools have pools and this is a major factor in them excelling at the sport as well as having a climate condusive to H20 sports no doubt
Is Swimming also under scrutiny from the Crawford Report – I thought not?
Cheers
sportie said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
Luke W says “I’d rather my taxpayer dollars go towards sports that I have the enjoyment of watching year in year out, rather than a sport on for two weeks every four years that I don’t really like anyway.” RIGHT. So, you sit on your backside, watching male-dominated well-funded sports which are popular because the media doesn’t give us any other choice (especially when there is ownership of some of the teams/codes involved). I think you’ve missed the point. If we want to increase participation rates in sport for all sections of the community for the long-term interests of our society, then we need to support and offer a wide range of popular AND niche sports which will cater for the variety of talents and interests in our society. AND allow for the good ones to excel – not just in ‘Australian’ sports but in international sports – whether that’s archery, athletics, cycling, rowing, fencing, waterpolo or lawn bowls, to name a few. (All of those played in more countries around the world than AFL or NRL, by the way). And don’t even get me started on the plight of para and special olympians who also have the right to be fit and participate……
Freud of Football said | November 20th 2009 @ 1:13am | Report comment
For starters, what is the point of complaining about male dominated sports? Sports are always going to be dominated by males, sports are built around a mixture of technical components and physical attributes, both areas where the male body excels over that of the gemale
Further, I’m sorry but until there are female cricketers who are as good as men, I won’t watch the women’s game. I watch sport for entertainment, not for equal opportunity and as far as I know the only sport where women can compete with men on an even keel is deep-sea diving – not exactly a spectator sport.
You are correct, there is more archery, athletics, cycling, rowing, fencing, water polo & lawn bowls played overseas than AFL and NRL, but the Crawford report was about spending inside Australia, not spending on sports so we might compete internationally.
Invariably sportspeople are multi-talented, that is, a cricketer is a handy footballer, a basketballer perhaps a good rower. The opportunities DO exist for all of these “niche” sports but why should tax payers pick up the tab for such specialist sports?
Cycling? It costs a fortune. It’s not the sort of thing the Average Joe can do, either you need a velodrome (which costs a fortune) or you need road racing areas. Then bikes (which are owned by individuals, not clubs etc.) cost another small fortune so who can afford it? Why throw thousands at a sport like that when for 1/50th of the price you can fit out an entire AFL/NRL juniour league with kits and equipment?
Fencing is the same. It’s a rich-prick sport. Why should tax-payers fund it? Should they also fund fox shooting? Or does fencing get considered because it is an olympic sport but fox-hunting isn’t?
Athletics is the dumbest example of all. It is something kids do, adults don’t generally compete in athletics events on a “casual” basis which is what a lot of football, rugby and cricket is – social teams, groups of players who are part of a collective every bit as much for the entertainment as the sport.
If a kid is good at athletics, don’t worry, they will be found and will go all the way but what is the point of throwing hundreds of millions at these sports that small minorities enjoy?
sportie said | November 20th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Lots of ignorant stereotypes and prejudices, Freud. I’ve done my homework, so let’s address some of your issues….
1. You’d rather watch men playing sport, and say that men are always going to be better at it. One of the main points of the Crawford report – which I agree with – is that we need to increase participation rates in sport. If over half the population is women, then regardless of your viewing preferences, consideration needs to be given to addressing the need to get more women into sport, and keeping them there. Rugby league, for example, isn’t a realistic option. With registered players numbering approx 190,000 in Australia, less than 1% are women – and this isn’t likely to change given the masculine culture. Soccer and cricket have more women players, but there are still large drop-out rates for the same reason. So let’s look at ways that we can encourage women into sport – and one of these ways is focusing on some of the other niche sports where there is a more embracing attitude towards women. Waterpolo, netball and triathlon are examples.
2. You talk about the costs of sports – and rightly so – but then show your ignorance with a comment like “fencing is a rich-prick sport”. Like many sports – such as rugby union – fencing was once a sport for the rich. But I’ve done a bit of homework, and will use fencing as an example. Most fencing clubs (self-funded) provide all equipment necessary for the grassroots club members – and anyone is welcome – they didn’t ask me for an income statement when I made inquiries!!!!. All it costs to play club each week is membership fees (just like rugby or cricket) and usually a club night entry fee. If you want your own equipment to play on a club basis – that is “groups of players who are part of a collective every bit as much for the entertainment as the sport”, then a Chinese-made sword and a gardening glove will give you change out of $100. Add in a Chinese-made helmet and you’re still paying less than a good pair of soccer boots. Last I checked, the basic equipment for cricket – bat, ball, box – wasn’t much cheaper!
Yes, if you want to get serious, you can spend serious money -but that’s true for any sport – think $800 for a Speedo laser suit, $200plus for good sports shoes etc.
3.”Cycling costs a fortune”. Yes, if you want to spend serious money you are totally right. But note that ABS statistics indicate that cycling for fitness and participation rates among our TOP 3 sports in Australia. And I’m sure many of those people are happy with a huffy from K-Mart. BUT – surveys again and again show that MORE people would cycle if there was appropriate money spent to make it a safer and more inclusive activity. Perhaps a few more criterium tracks in the suburbs just might be money well spent – for the grassroots as well as the elites.
4.I agree with you that few adults participate in athletics. You state that they prefer social team sports such as footall, rugby and cricket. I would also agree that adults are more likely to participate for entertainment. Rugby, however, isn’t a choice example. Participation rates drop VERY sharply after the age of 25, and the percentage of adults playing after the age of 40 is exceedingly small.
On the contrary, there are many of your apparently-despised niche sports which show significant uptakes by adults, and that the lifespan of these sports can be quite significant (‘lifestyle’ sports which the Crawford report says it wants to encourage). Cycling and triathlon are two obvious examples, but a quick look at the membership stats on other sports indicates that adult percentages are significant in sports like archery, waterpolo, fencing, lawn bowls, orienteering, golf…and the list goes on.
5. Finally, why throw hundreds of millions to get a few elite athletes in niche sports across the line? Well, I’d prefer the money be more equitable and especially spent at grassroots level. But the answer lies especially in media coverage. If we want kids (and adults) in sport and for longer, then it helps if they are aware of their choices and that those choices are culturally validated. A lot of niche sports pick up where mainstream sports don’t – eg soccer caters to people with good foot skills etc, cricket suits those with good hand-eye etc – but then think, waterpolo suits those who are competent swimmers with good hand-eye, archery suits the ‘dead-eye dicks’, fencing is for those with quick reflexes and good core body strength, cycling builds great leg muscles etc etc….. BUT WHEN do we ever get to see these other sports in the media???? Except for the 4-yearly Olympics, we often don’t. So until our culture/media changes, it is the elites in these niche sports who provide the only publicity for that sport. And don’t tell me we don’t see these sports because cricket/rugby/soccer is better to watch – last time I checked, I couldn’t find cricket or rugby on US television, or Asian sports news, or….. it’s purely cultural, if we learn the rules and get to know the players, then plenty of sports can be exciting to watch.
Republican said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Sportie
Good points mate however you CAN be ‘fit and participate’ without having your sport of preferance in lights – so to speak. I think that is the thrust of some of the reports rationale. It is quite reasonable to have an expectation that a healthy and fit country will be achieved without elite sporting siccess, which can often be percieved as tokenistic if anything.
There needs to be some balance in this debate and since the report seems quite rationalist on one level and perhaps bias on another I expect that the Government will prevail in giving us that balanced outcome. You are not going to appease everyone in this process unfortunately.
I selfishly hope Swimming continues to derive its funding profile as this is a sport that I am very passionate about and have been all my life. It certainly fulfills the criteria of the report as far as participation and results, so we will just have to wait and see what unfolds.
Cheers
Kurt said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:10pm | Report comment
Swimming was specifically mentioned in the report as a sport that should continue to receive funding – so don’t believe the AOC spin about all olympic sports being ‘targeted’.
Lazza said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
The funny thing is that we want a “healthy’ population but want our kids to play brutal, collision sports? We don’t realy, most AFL, Rugby and League fans put their kids into Soccer.
Watching sporting violence is fun as long as someone else’s kids do it.
Michael C said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:56am | Report comment
and the irony is that soccer is just as bad if not worse from the hips down,
and,
it’s the only sport that uses the head to propell a ball (which often puts heads and fast moving booted feet in very close proximity along with a fast moving ball)
The ’soccer is safer’ bubble will get popped soon enough.
Republican said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
Lazza
I enjoy the national code and played both it and Union at School.
Union is brutal in the true sense of the word as is League because players line each other up in a very combative fashion, whereas in Oz Footy you can actually avoid contact by running in the opposite direction! Sure all these codes are rough however the intent of the Rugby codes is quite different to that of our home grown game.
The Soccer Mum influence, albeit not as strong, is nevertheless having an effect on Australian Footy’s appeal amongst mums and dads presently and this is why it may be quite successful in the Kiwi market, since it will be seen as a good compromise in them moving away from their brutal sporting preference and heritage – in time.
Oo roo
NUFCMVFC said | November 19th 2009 @ 5:55pm | Report comment
Generally I agree with the sentiment of the author, a fair bit of focus needs to put towards the makeup of the panel and scrutiny of any possible agenda’s
For my part I have a foot in both camps, I write on this website mainly in the capacity of football but also participate in a niche sport that is an Olympic sport.
Firstly we shouldn’t jump to too many conclusions, in one sense, I think the grassroots for many of the niche sports could do with a little bit more funding, rather than just put into training the top people in those sports only to an Olympic medal standard, because in that case only a very small % of people are getting that niche sports funding. If a little more money goes into grassroots of those sports, perhaps more peoples talent can be built on and a larger pool of prospective talents can come through and be worked with. In terms of Taekwondo and other niche sports, at the lower levels it is pretty much almost completely self funded, I can use some club gear but have pretty much bought all of my own gear and is a lot harder for regional people who have to pay much higher travel costs. At a grassroots level a lot of the clubs often operate out of school and community facilities, so from that perspective there could be some improvement. Perhaps costs on the upper tiers can be saved if there is some streamlining. These sports needs Federal Government funding because there is not really any TV broadcast money or private sector funding to speak of, outside of advertising revenue from equipment retailers or suppliers and in terms of Corporate funding, it largely comes from large sporting equipment corporations (Adidas, Nike etc) who obviously provide.
A distinction also needs to be made in terms of the nche sports as sports, but also recreational and social activity, not everyone is suited to AFL, NRL, Rugby and Football etc, and it is better for their niche interests to be a going concern and they get out and participate rather than they stop altogether because they do not want to participate in a large participation sport they ahve no interest in. Kind of defeats the supposed purpose of the Federal Govt encouraging exercise and social health
Part of what the Crawford report discusses as “participation sports important to the national psyche” obviously seems to suggest they aren’t speaking of the grassroots of niche sports though. Mass participation sports tend to receive plenty of funding already from the Corporate sector and TV rights, money should not be funding from the refining of talent in niche sports to these sports which for the most part already have plenty of money
Lastly, we have to remember the purpose of the Federal Govt. The Grassroots is often a concern of State Governments and Councils. The Federal Govt responsibility is usually the “bigger picture”, eg national foreign affairs and defence etc, and in sporting terms this extends to the national sporting prestige, so the Olympics performance is precisely where the Federal Govt should be focussed and it is Olympic sports where much of its funding should be channelled. With the exception perhaps of major infrastructure for mass participation sports such as Stadiums for example.
What needs to be remembered also, is that sports with “niche” participation in Australia, are often sports with very large worldwide participation, eg in terms of Taekwondo but also others like Karate amongst others, worldwide participation is quite substantial with significant world bodies. From this perspective these sports provide important avenues of relatedness between the Australian and foreign communities as it acts as a point of common interest. So under their foreign affairs obligations and duties, the Federal Government has responsibility in a sporting sense to Olympic sports which should be reflected via funding, rather than directing that to mass participation sports of no international significance. From this perspective, you can argue that higher funding per head ratio for “low participation” sports is somewhat justified. Common sense needs to be applied, there are some sports it is perhaps better to forego altogether rather than spend hgih amounts of money on sports that have a miniscule local profile
Kurt said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:09pm | Report comment
Talk about missing the entire point of the Crawford report. It doesn’t say stop funding Olympic sports, it recommends directing funds away from elite level academies, high performance directors etc. and putting it into grassroots facilities and participation. The Olympic sports under the gun are those tiny niche sports that we only target in order to get easy medals such as archery. Mainstream Olympic sports such as swimming would continue to receive funding – Coates and his cronies are spinning this as ‘cuts’ because they have asked for an extra $200m on top of what is currently provided. I Strongly suggest people read at least the summary report before talking any further nonsense on this topic.
simonjzw said | November 20th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
I’ve just finished the summary report and I couldn’t agree more with you Kurt.
Read it all… you know it makes sense…
Redb said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Some posters with agendas read a few lines and run with it. Like peeing on a fence when your drunk their all over the place and rarely hit the snail.
Rob said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:11am | Report comment
Well Im pleased because Im well and truly over the olympics.
I loved them all back in the days when they were mainly pimply teenagers with smiles and ambition. Once they became ungrateful millionaires i was lost.
rugbyfuture said | November 20th 2009 @ 1:29am | Report comment
one of australias greatest assets is the desire to excel at all sports played within this great country
Parisien said | November 20th 2009 @ 6:51am | Report comment
What an appallingly bad article!
No matter what one’s opinion is on the Crawford Report, Government funding, or even sport in general, how can the writer make the following hysterical claims? – :
- “an absolute insult to the Nation” (the mind boggles at the thought of other possibly worse insults, relative at best)
- “not one person on the panel was from the Olympic fraternity” (It was supposed to be independent. Olympic fraternity? The IOC is recognised big business, I think the fraternity went out the window years ago…)
- “joke spending” (as opposed to serious spending)
- “ruin Australia”(I can think of many worse things, the drought and water mismanagement for starters, and as for the definition of Australia do we want to get started on this?…)
I for one am a big sports fan and proud of what Australia has achieved at the Olympics, but don’t need further gold medals to affirm my sense of identity or Australian-ness or boost my pride of Australia further, and I’m currently living in France with an outside view!
Its the people and the place that I’m proud of, the friendliness, openness, and the idea of the fair go. Funding should be equitable, shared, and benefit all Australians. It is public money after all. While we’re on the subject, lets look at how pitiful arts funding is even though Australian artists boost Australia’s cultural heritage and richness, enhance its identity and image at home and abroad. This is just one example of many. Its time for funded sport people to get out of their comfort zone and at least look at the issues calmly.
Perhaps johnhunt92 is Mr. Coates himself, or a member of the “Olympic fraternity”. The questions raised and the ensuing debate are interesting, timely, and important, but let’s keep the comments sensible and respectful.
josh said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
It seems all the commentators are slamming this report for being out of touch, I’ll tell you who’s out of touch, the so-called experts sports and social commentators who take for granted the fact Australia as a whole gives a toss about the olympics.
No doubt there are alot who love the olympics and don’t necessarily follow the main stream sports, however there are just as many who could give a rats about the Olympics, neither I nor anbody I know gives a damn about some obscure sports being played for two weeks every four years, in fact alot of people loathe the olympics and it’s domination of the media every four years.
The report is pretty close to the mark. And the fact that many of the olympians get by on the smell of an oily rag is testament to the limited popularity of the olympics, no one gives a hoot unless Australia wins gold then they jump on the band wagon just as quickly as they fall off it.
Mushi said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
I disagree that not having the Olympic fraternity involved detracts from the credibility of an independent review. Having Olympic athletes or administrators involved would be akin to letting your kids conduct an independent review of their pocket money. Except hisotry has proven that the children are more likely to be hoenst than anyone involed with olympic administration.
Is the best use of public funds to simply outspend per head many other nations in the bid for a fleeting moment of national pride? A big contributor as to why we punch above our weight is because we only look at the population not the money spent per elite athlete.
At the end of the day the reason these sports need more government funding to be competitive is because they are not popular enough in the general market place to get funding from the population directly through attendance, sponsorship or TV rights. In other words we chose not to support them because they are less important to us.
So what is the solution to that? Simply forcibly take money from the consumer and give it sports that they have chosen not to financially support!
I’m a sports fan but as a tax payer when I see close to 50% of my earnings disappear to the government I’m hoping it is being used to build better social and economic infrastructure not ensure we have a globally competitive Olympic team.
I would think that wanting to emulate the feats of your heroes at the local sporting club week in week out are more likely to drive participation than a 5 minutes glimpse every four years so I don’t buy the social infrastructure argument for the 5 second it takes one of these athletes to put forward a nonsense rationale.
If you truly want to increase participation in these less popular sports then targeted youth campaigns, not elite funding, would be more beneficial but then that would serve the self interest of the “Olympic fraternity”.
simonjzw said | November 20th 2009 @ 11:51am | Report comment
To repeat sentiments I’ve expressed elswhere on The Roar – I’m in favour of doing what we can to encourage excellence, be that in the arts, music, drama, science or sport.
I’m also all for providing a better sporting infrastructure and programs that encourage us all to be active.
Getting the balance right is the trick and I think Crawford is on the right track.
The encouragement of exellence in sport is through “High Performance” funding and having worked in that industry I can tell you it is way too skewed towards Olympic Medals. Any sport not in the Olympics is considered unworthy of funding in the Australian High Performance system. In fact I’ve heard those in the industry suggest we should direct our funding away from “deep international talent” events to “soft” Olympic events to keep our medal tally up.
Is a high medal tally really that important?
As an Australian I find that while I’m proud of our Olympic achievements and medallists I’m equally proud of many other achievements by athletes and teams in non Olympic settings. Stephanie Gilmour, Mick Fanning, Geoff Ogilvy, the Australian Cricket Team, the Socceroos, the Australian Netball team…. just to name a few. It’s about time we provided these the non Olympic sports with comparable high performance support to that received by Olympic sports.
And what sense does it make to plough money into a program to find a girl to ride a sled frontways down a space age ice shute and not support the development of the next Layne Beachley?
If John Coates and his cronies could get their snouts out of the Olympic trough for long enough I’m sure even they wouldn’t disagree that school sport needs reinvigoration and better integration with community sport. Or that local facilities aren’t in dire need of development.
Also when David Crawford’s report argues directing money to sports we have an affinity with don’t think that because swimming and athletics aren’t named specifically that they’ll miss out. Both sports have the participation base, tradition of success and level of popular care that he argues are important aspects to consider when making funding decisions.
Well done David Crawford I say.