John Coates is going for Olympic gold
Columnist
Aussie supporters at the Olympics. Photo by Elizabeth Chapman
John Coates, the wily president of the Australian Olympic Committee has sent a letter asking the Sports Minister, Kate Ellis, a number of leading questions, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, designed to test the independence of the Independent Sport Panel looking into the funding of Australian sport.
The panel made recommendations that funds should be diverted from Olympic Sports to professional sports like Australian Rules football. This funding change has been furiously attacked by Coates.
His questions, on the face of it, make a strong case for the notion that Ellis was indulging in gold medal spin in naming the panel an Independent Sport Panel.
1. Coates wants to know if the author of the report, businessman David Crawford, informed Ellis or declared any association he may have had with the AFL.
2. He wants to know whether Crawford requested, recommended or suggested the appointment of the AFL commissioner Sam Mostyn or AFL foundation board member Colin Carter.
3. Did Mostyn and Carter declare or inform Ellis of their AFL connections?
4. Did the hockey administrator Pam Tye tell Ellis that in 2001 she was an unsuccessful candidate for all seven vacent positions on the AOC executive?
The details of this letter by Coates to Ellis were revealed by Jacqueline Magnay in the SMH. Magnay is an excellent sports journalist with an expertise in investigations (she was part of the team that broke open the Firepower affair). She covers all the sports and has been a brilliant reporter at the Olympic Games.
Interestingly, the columnist on the SMH who has been most supportive of the Crawford recommendations is Richard Hinds, a talented columnist who covers the AFL for his paper.
Ellis’ initial response to Magnay’s story was hardly convincing: ‘We are committed to increasing government support for Olympic and Paralympic sport and also community sport.’
This is not good enough. On the face of it, Ellis set up a supposedly ‘independent’ panel which had obvious conflicts of interest regarding the their funding recommendations. In the case of Tye, there is a history with the AOC.
Why wasn’t a more representative panel co-opted?
If Ellis did know about the sports interests of the panel why didn’t she balance it out with people from other sports?
If she did not know the sports interests of the panel, why didn’t she?
It is hardly a secret that the South Australian Ellis is an AFL tragic. Her knowledge of other major sports in Australia was not up to speed, even after she became the Sports Minister. She rather famously remarked once that Australia needed world class women’s sports teams, not long after the Australian Women’s Rugby Sevens side had won the inaugural World Cup.
Ellis’ over-loading of an ‘independent’ panel with AFL devotees coincides with an era of triumphalism on the part of the Australian Rules community.
In New Zealand, for instance, Hawthorn are putting in a program in some primary schools and demanding a government subsidy.
There has been the swaggering attempt to force the NSW State Government to subsidise the development of another ground in the western suburbs of Sydney for a new team intended to turn the area from a heartland of rugby league to an AFL growth area. The embattled Premier, Nathan Rees, has finally squashed the idea.
There is a great deal of hubris involved in all of this. The cost to the AFL of the push into the western suburbs of Sydney is estimated at about $200 million. If the AFL want to spend their own money on such engrandisements, then so be it. It is their money and however they spend it is their concern.
But Coates’ point is, and many Australians will feel that it is a valid point, that this empire-building should not be subsidised at the cost of a number of Olympic sports.
If there is to be increased subsidies, why not to a genuine grassroots sports like touch football – which just happens not to have an AFL component to it?
If Ellis want the Australian sports community to accept the Crawford recommendations, she needs to deal fully and convincingly with the questions that Coates has raised. So far, Coates looks like winning Olympic gold in this argument and Ellis is looking like an also-ran.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Other Sports articles
- Victoria Azarenka vs Maria Sharapova: Australian Open women’s final live scores, blog (89)
- Sport and religion need divine intervention (86)
- Why I won’t be watching the Sharapova-Azarenka final (51)
- The sporting fallacy of the Olympic ‘Games’ (45)
- Federer suffering from Nadal-itis (37)
- Djokovic vs Nadal was great, but do we need six-hour finals? (36)
- Sonny Bill looking sharp for his first real test (21)
- Sonny Bill Williams vs Clarence Tillman III: Live updates, blog (56)
- Chauncey Billups injury: Is his career over? (2)
- Super Bowl blunder: How the Giants almost lost by scoring (6)
- Tomic keen to focus on tennis
- Rafter impressed by Hewitt’s form
- Oly drug cheats will be caught, says Green
- The musings of a gutted Pats fan (2)
- Sonny Bill Williams vs Clarence Tillman III: Live updates, blog (56)
- Chauncey Billups injury: Is his career over? (2)
- Super Bowl blunder: How the Giants almost lost by scoring (6)
- The musings of a gutted Pats fan (2)
- Sonny Bill looking sharp for his first real test (29)
- Aussies Abroad in WTA and ATP Feb 6-13 (3)
- Super Bowl XLVI Giants vs Patriots: NFL live scores, blog (159)
Freud of Football said | November 28th 2009 @ 2:20am | Report comment
“It is hardly a secret that the South Australian Ellis is an AFL tragic. Her knowledge of other major sports in Australia was not up to speed, even after she became the Sports Minister. She rather famously remarked once that Australia needed world class women’s sports teams, not long after the Australian Women’s Rugby Sevens side had won the inaugural World Cup.”
The inaugural event would indicate that it hasn’t been very important for very long (which would dilute it’s appeal as to being a “world class” event) and I can’t imagine that Women’s Rugby Sevens is exactly high on the participation list, if that is the only team that Australian females had to idolise (which it isn’t but was the only one you pointed out) then Ellis is correct.
Kurt said | November 28th 2009 @ 2:36am | Report comment
Oh FFS Spiro this is a load of nonsense even by your standards. Let me ask one simple question: If Crawford is really is an AFL stooge and this report is merely his attempt to divert funds from Olympic sports to Aussie rules then how in hell did he manage to author a similar report into Australian soccer that led it from the sporting wilderness? Would someone ‘afraid’ of international sports and determined to protect the AFL really put forward the idea that grass roots funding to sports such as soccer, union, league and basketball be increased at the expense of sports such as archery? That really makes sense to you? Have you even read the summary report and given a moment’s thought to its recommendations?
Muppet.
Rabbitz said | November 28th 2009 @ 5:42am | Report comment
The more Coates opens his mouth, the more he looks like a spoilt so and so who is only worried about propping up his ride on the gravy train.
I believe his reaction is typical of those in the olympic movement in this country – elitist and only interested in the elite.
To put it in perspective, the olympics are a two week sports carnival every four years which panders to a very narrow number of sports, and the media completely ignores the majority of this restricted list of sports.
So how is this two week sports carnival important to grass-roots when the AOC isn’t interested in funding non-elite sport?
Oh and one more thing, which seems to be missed in all this is why should the taxpayers subsidise these elite sports and the lifestyles of the elite sports participants AND administrators? If the AOC and it’s elites are worthy of the adulation why aren’t they self funding? Given the money involved, where is the business case? Where is the viability?
Jameswm said | November 28th 2009 @ 6:02am | Report comment
What are these “elite” Olympic sports? Swimming, cycling and athletics? How many people cycle, swim or run to keep fit, how many kids do swimming squad and how many tens of thousands do Little Athletics?
I am not a fan of diverting money to low-participation sports (wrestling,archery and shooting, for example) for the sole purpose of winning medals. But you do need some elite funding programs.
As much as Coates might be trying to support his gravy train, how stacked was the :independent” panel? This panel stacked with AFL fans determines more money should go to AFL – what a surprise.
Why wasn’t there a top athletics or swimming administrator on the panel? These are sports which are high participation at jnr level and Olympic sports as well.
Kurt said | November 28th 2009 @ 7:11am | Report comment
“This panel stacked with AFL fans determines more money should go to AFL – what a surprise” Except that it doesn’t. The closest the AFL gets to a mention is in the following statement: “Swimming, tennis, cricket, cycling, the football codes, netball, golf, hockey, basketball, surfing and surf lifesaving are among the most popular sports in Australia…” If that counts as a recommendation to hand over bucketloads of cash to the AFL then I guess you could interpret the report pretty much anyway you like.
Suggest you take a look for yourself:
http://www.sportpanel.org.au/internet/sportpanel/publishing.nsf/Content/crawford-report
Chris said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
When I run, swin or cycle it is to keep fit. It is not because I have been inspired by an Olympian.
Rabbitz said | November 28th 2009 @ 6:47am | Report comment
James,
So how many people would swim, run, ride etc if we put the 100′s of dollars ear-marked for the AOC into needed government services? I would say just about all of them.
When you indicate that the AFL, NRL, ARU etc should not get more money, well I agree – they have viable(ish) business cases.
The problem with diverting to 100′s of millions of dollars to the elite end of any sport and not to the grass roots is that the top-end and their entourage get the spoils but those at the bottom struggle to get enough to run the sport for the majority. I live near a little athletics field and can see (as I write) the work, unpaid work, done by the true sports people just to keep it running.
As for low participation sports, I can’t speak for other sports but the shooting association I belong to has over 120,000 members and we have legislated participation minimums, so I am not sure about being a low-participation sport – although I do get your point. Again we come back to viability at elite levels. Why should my taxes be used to prop up the elite end when the majority get SFA?
Finally, why should our governments be pressed to fund the AOC and its likes, when those very governments are failing to fund essential services such as hospital?, our local hospital has had surgical theatres and wards close due to poor maintenance. They can’t supply water reliably, our most populated city has had regions where water pressure has had to be reduced as the infrastructure has been so poorly maintained that it will fail if the pressure wasn’t reduced. So why should we fund the AOC? If it isn’t financially viable on its own then let it fade away, or at least if we have to fund it, make it change its model to one where it returns profits to the government to repay the grants.
Firestarter Bob said | November 28th 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
FInally Spiro someone saying what it is really going on. The upshot of the Crawford report is that they say more money should be put twoards building community sports facilities for our youth and get exercise programs going in schools.
Who best wins from that outcome?
They will argue that the sports fields should be oval to cater for all sports. Thus NSW and Qld get more oval fields all of sudden. Even though the rectangle grounds suit NSW and Queensland’s three most popular football codes, they will have foisted upon them AFL friendly fields.
In the schools, the government will look for an off the shelf, low injury risk, female school teacher friendly sports program, preferably one that brings its own staff so that the teachers can slack off for a few hours. Suddenly the AFL puts his hand up as a socially responsible body ready and able to fill the call.
It’s no secret that the AFL is modelling itself on the NFL’s “Play60″ schools program. Why should the AFL given a free ride into schools?
Schools should not be used for propoganda spreading and recruitment drives. The positives that they bring to kids fitness doesn’t diminish the ultimate aim of the AFL is to use the visits to build their code.
The AFL and every other major professional sport should be kept out of schools. The schools rejected last week the Commonwealth Bank from offering financial advice programs in schools, and this week plenty are complaining about Catholic chaplains being allowed into to schools to offer counselling. AFL is no different.
Kurt said | November 28th 2009 @ 7:24am | Report comment
That’s it, I give up.
Working Class Rugger said | November 28th 2009 @ 11:23am | Report comment
Firestarter
Maybe you’re right. Maybe the AFL could use this opportunity to expand its programs. But I doubt they’ll be the only one. I’m sure the NRL,ARU and FFA would have similar ambitions.
Pippinu said | November 28th 2009 @ 11:55am | Report comment
To add to that, it’s about getting more regular sport into the school curriculum – all primary schools should have an exposure to cricket, soccer, touch footy, Auskick, netball, athletics and perhaps a selection of other games such as softball, basketball and hockey, etc.
It’s about encouraging kids to play more sport, more often.
People get all emotional about the mix – fine – leave it to individual schools to determine their five or six preferred sports – give them all equal time – it honestly doesn’t matter – just play!!
BigAl said | November 28th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Spiro . . . you are the Doctor Watson to Jon Coates’ Sherlock Holmes…
and you both need to get a clue !
JiMMM said | November 28th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Do I think the review was independent of the committee’s bias’, No. Do I think that funding should go from smaller sports to larger, No. Do I think this is just some giant AFL conspiracy, NO.
Lets face it, these are all people who have been involved sport in some manner or other, they are obviously going to bring their own preferences to the review, and that is going to influence the review whether it be consciously or subconsciously. If you want evidence of this don’t look at the references to the football codes, look at the references to Hockey in the report.
Now before I go too much further let it be known that I play, umpire, administrate and support Hockey it is the sport that I love, and I would rather watch the local A Grade comp than any of the “national competitions”. And in case you haven’t noticed I the person who seems to plaster The Roar with reference to Hockey.
However to call Hockey a sport that is part of the nations sporting psyche is beyond the pale, Athletics has more awareness in Australia than Hockey does (much as it galls me to say it). If you need more evidence look at the media coverage, how often do you see Athletics mentioned compared to Hockey. Surely if Hockey was part of the nations psyche it would be at saturation coverage this week with it’s showpiece event on in Melbourne from Today, and yet there is only one independent article on The Roar (mine aren’t independent). Yet Athletics isn’t mentioned as part of the Australian psyche, why is this? The only reason that I can see is that one of the panel members is involved with Hockey.
This in itself doesn’t mean that the panel was biased, merely that they were willing to overlook obvious fallacies in their statements to suit panel members.
To finish off I am going to insert a statement that I read from “Tim of Brisbane” on Barry Dick’s blog on the Courier Mail website that perfectly captures my thoughts on the whole Crawford review subject.
“Hi Barry,
Agree that a review is necessary and happy to see that funding for ALL sports is not a ‘given’ and needs to be measured against results from major championships.
I can see the inherent value in contributing additional funds to sports that are capturing the interest and participation of larger numbers at this time. Who doesn;t want to see cricket receive more funding to generate the next crop of world beaters?
However, I need to point out that the funding received by ‘Olympic’ sports does a lot more that service a trip once every four years to the Olympics. I work in the high performance system for what has traditionally been one of Australia’s most popular Olympic sports, and the job of working with our state institutes and academies of sport to support our athletes involves a daily pursuit of goals.
Athletes in high performance systems in this country are expected to attain qualifying standards and performance benchmarks in order to be supported. Funding to athletes, as with their sports, is reviewed regularly, and the perennial challenge is striking the right balance between supporting those sports/athletes that are high performers, and providing sufficient suppor to the ‘next generation’ to ensure our ongoing success as a nation.
What the coverage of the Crawford Report has failed to do thus far is point out that the money allocated to Olympic preparation is spent over four years on daily basis, assisting athletes with training and recovery for major international competitions held sometimes every 4-6 months.
The cost of producing Olympic achievements is high, and I agree that ongoing review is necessary. And I would like to see all sports held accountable in the same fashion – if the cricketers lose the Ashes, or the Socceroos fail to qualify for the Asian Cup, their funding needs to be reviewed in exactly the same way as the Olympic swimming and athletics program.
The issue here is parity. The real question is: Can you argue that one athlete’s dreams of international representation and success are less valuable than another’s? Funding sports should be about funding athletes – current champions, and tomorrow’s champions, at all levels – from grass roots to elite performance.”
Sammy22 said | November 28th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
This is just the summary, following on from Kurt’s link
http://www.sportpanel.org.au/internet/sportpanel/publishing.nsf/Content/540DAC9B7F50B132CA25766B0014E8A6/$File/summ_findings.pdf
The report to me has a very good handle on whats been happening to many sports over the last 20 years. Its simple what was community paid for and driven sports (Running to Rugby) have all a commercial profitable focus today. Each of the governing bodies have had to become business centres and kept focus on the elite end of their sport. This has happened over the same period of time that political correctness has restricted sport in schools and other community arenas, any sport not just football codes.
With everyones focus on the elites winning, governments and sporting bodies have forgotten the area of straight forward participation again any sports not just football codes
All the report intends to do is correct the imbalance by increasing funding and participation options at ground level for the masses to take part. Rather than spending extra in the elite zones. The crazy thing is this will probably create new athletes (all sports) that will require further funding in 5-10 years time.
For the the record i dont watch or even like AFL myself, respect it as a sport, cant see what the paranoia is in relation to the report
Now I’m of to play tennis this morning……… and have to go and pay Resort fees as no public courts exist, and I will never make wimbledon!!!!
Jaredsbro said | November 28th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Tennis is one such example of a sport that is undefunded. AFL is overfunded, but the same logic works the other way in Victoria anyway as they’re about to have a truly world-class Rectangular stadium for the first time since the Melbourne Olympics which is good for me and others like me. The State Govt is truly engaged with the elite level and from what I can surmise also at lower levels and it is the govt which pays for our theatre(s) of dreams
But tennis will never have participation rates anywhere near as high as it is for AFL (even within one solitary footy club) for example. So quantity is not enough, you need to have checks/balances to make sure grassroots attains quality (not necessarily in terms of performance but in terms of fulfilling its charitable mission)
Pippinu said | November 28th 2009 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Jaredsbro
the report itself documents a stack of obscure sports that get far, far, far more money than anything the AFL receives from Government.
That’s a pretty straightforward thing to demonstrate – the AFL receives nothing from Government.
Pippinu said | November 28th 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
To quote the Crawford report: …sports such as water polo and archery are better funded than cricket, AFL or netball…