By Jim Morton
November 24th 2009 @ 3:29am
Fearless Crawford hits back at Coates in funding row
Businessman David Crawford has hit back at criticism from Olympics boss John Coates over his report into sports funding, describing Games chiefs as powerful people who are used to getting their own way.
Crawford rejected claims from Coates that his report was “disrespectful” to Australia’s Olympic achievements and “insulting” to gold medal heroes in lower-profile sports such as diver Matthew Mitcham, kayaker Ken Wallace and pole vaulter Steve Hooker.
He also dismissed assertions he was “well-meaning but not qualified” to make recommendations on elite sport at international level.
Crawford’s report, commissioned by the federal government, delivered a stinging rebuff to the Australian Olympic Committee’s calls for an extra $100 million a year for 10 years for Olympic sports, saying that money would be better spent elsewhere.
Crawford described the AOC as a very powerful organisation.
“Clearly they don’t ever like anyone to talk against their particular interests, and clearly the people who run it are used to getting their own way,” he told AAP in an interview.
“They’re not used to people not agreeing with them.”
Responding to the claim his report was disrespectful, he said: “When people make such inaccurate statements and clearly haven’t read the report I discount them.
“If you read the report, you’ll see we in fact said the Olympic Games are a great event but they are only one event or avenue of sport.
“We have to look at the totality of sport.
“We didn’t in any way say anything that was disrespectful either of the Olympic movement or of Olympians.
“We merely drew a comparison between the amount of funding that went to the elite Olympic sports and other sports.
“I’m not quite sure where there was anything that was insulting about anyone in our report.”
Crawford said Coates was welcome to his view about him, but he was prepared to stand on his record after previously conducting major overhauls of both AFL and soccer.
“I’m happy to rest upon my performance in the past in reviewing sporting organisations,” he said.
“You have to say the AFL has been a success.
“You have to say the reconstitution of soccer has been a success.
“In both of those we brought structure and governance into play.
“In my view if you get that right you have a chance of success. If you don’t get it right you won’t be successful.”
The Crawford Report points to a funding bias in favour of Olympic sports.
It suggests more funding should go to mass participation “lifetime” sports which lead to a healthier society, such as netball, cricket, tennis, golf, the various football codes and surfing.
Asked if a slide down the Olympic medals table was such a terrible thing, Crawford replied: “I don’t think so.
“We’re not saying mediocrity is a good thing.
“We should be striving to be the best, but life is full of having to make decisions on priorities.”
Crawford, a director of several blue-chip companies including BHP, said he and his fellow panellists were asked to perform a role.
“My background is chartered accounting,” he said, “and our motto is ‘Without fear or favour’.”
Meanwhile the Australian State Sports Federations Alliance (ASSFA), which represents 600 state level sporting organisations across the country, welcomed the report on Monday.
The government is due to respond to the Crawford Report early next year.
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...
(10)
Kurt said | November 24th 2009 @ 4:34am | Report comment
Good comeback by Crawford, some of the nonsense that has been written about this report is quite astounding. Listening to muppets like Roy Masters you’d believe that funding for Olympic sports will be savagely cut and all the savings given to the AFL. Whereas in fact the report simply states that if we’re going to be spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on sport, wouldn’t it be better if we used that not just to pursue Olympic medals for their own sakes, but to develop the overall health and fitness of the population. And while we’re at it, maybe we should spend the money on sports that actually mean something to the Australian people as indicated by participation levels and not just those we’re targeting because we think we can win a few cheap medals.
Case in point, a colleague of mine is relatively senior committee member within Hockey Australia. He told me last year they had effectively been put on notice by the AOC that their funding would be cut as the most gold medals they can contribute is two, whereas a single shooter can knock that over in a good morning’s work. Anyone who thinks that’s a good approach to funding sports in this country and that any suggestion to the contrary is part of an AFL plot to hobble rival sports is genuinely deluded.
JiMMM said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:28am | Report comment
Interesting peice of info about the Hockey funding Kurt, I’m surprised that that didn’t amke it into the public domian (or that the media ignored it). My Issue is that example is that I still see Hockey’s funding under threat of being severly cut (it is one of teh highest now), let’s face it the sport only got mentioned as part of the Australian psyche because one of the committee members was involved with Hockey Australia (if you don’t believe me look at the article again and tell me which sports that is part of the Australian psyche wasn’t mentioned).
And on a final note yes I am bracket happy ().
albatross said | November 24th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
And spell checker challenged.
cruyff turn said | November 24th 2009 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
Excellent comment Kurt. Kudos also to Crawford for standing his ground.
AndyRoo said | November 24th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Coates also sounded like a dill when he had a go at the Sports Minister Kate Ellis.
gary blaschke said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
Everyone has their own opinion and always for the ulterior motive. The Olympic sports want more to compete against the rest of the world’s elite, fringe sports see it as an opportunity to get their fingers in the trough, yet where does it leave Disabled Sport ?
Crawford gave a massive single page towards the disabled sports that receives close to nothing. Infact you need to read the fine print behind the report and the National Plan for Disability Sport, as it says exactly what the government wanted. Promote “Community Sport’, yet what exactly is it, they won’t tell me ?
Is it participation, having a go or is it as the Australian Sports Commission states, it has to be competitive to be classified as a Sport. Regional, State and National titles, can anyone tell me of any sport I can place my Qudripligic friends needing breathing assistance, other than Disabled Surfing ? They are competing against life itself and the ASC and Federal government want to compete ?
What a joke !
Jameswm said | November 27th 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
I still want to hear where sports like swimming and athletics fit into this.
Both are original and well known Olympic sports, but both also enjoy enormous participation levels at a kids level. They are also lifetime sports.
I think you need funding at all levels for each – kids, up to elite training for the most talented, then grants for Olympic level performers.
Pippinu said | November 27th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
I would have thought that both swimming and athletics fit the bill as sports that need to be supported at grass roots level.
Crawford did not mention either of them as examples of sports getting far too much funding in relation to their participation rates and cultural significance.
AndyRoo said | November 27th 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
I vaguely recall positive mentions for Swimming as one of those sports important to Australians. i.e. a Bronze medal in swimming is important but a bronze medal in greco Roman wrestling not so much.
Jameswm said | November 27th 2009 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
What about athletics? Where does that sit?
Does the grass roots (ie Little Athletics and interclub) get funding but not the elit level?
I’m curious as to where Crawford draws the line.