- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Reports emerging this week that Medicare is cracking down on professional sportspeople incorrectly claiming hundreds of thousands of dollars have sent shockwaves through all major sports codes in Australia.
A report in The Age by John Stensholt and Samantha Lane quoted a “senior figure from an AFL club” as saying that the move posed an astronomical threat to club finances via increased medical bills.
Following this, The Australian ran a front-page story by Nicola Berkovic confirming that the practice of players across all major codes claiming Medicare benefits for treatment of injuries, including radiology and surgery, is to cease.
For the layman or amateur sportsperson, availing of Medicare is standard procedure, however a recent review by the Department of Human Services has reaffirmed that, under the Health Insurance Act, professional sportspeople should in fact receive treatment which is paid for by their employer.
This is shocking news on a couple of fronts. Firstly, is the average fan, watching their side week in week out, aware that when an injured player is whisked away for an MRI for example, they are paying for some of that out of their own pocket, via their Medicare levy?
Are they aware that every time Shane Watson pulls up short with a tight calf, they are chipping in for his diagnosis and treatment?
My guess is no. Although if this practice were to continue, I wonder if it would be possible to indicate on my tax return that none of my levy is to be used on Watto? Or on Todd Carney? Or on any Collingwood player?
The news is also shocking for clubs, with the onus for treatment and the payment for that treatment now shifted squarely back to them. The Age report suggests increased costs in the vicinity of between $100,000-$150,000 per year, per AFL club. These costs would likely be proportionately similar in other codes, taking into account list sizes and the nature of each sport.
For a club like Collingwood, this isn’t likely to be a material cost, but the Queensland Firebirds, Perth Glory, Melbourne Rebels and Cronulla Sharks, to name just a few of many, might see things very differently.
Predictably, the reaction of some has been to cloud the matter via argument which is peripheral but not actually relevant. For example, is the federal government, struggling to legislate its proposed budget savings, so desperate to find money it is now ripping it out of our sports stars?
Well, not quite. The government isn’t changing any rules, just reinforcing what is already set in place. The fact that Peter Dutton is at once both the Sports Minister and the Health Minister is deliciously ironic, but nothing more than that.
The Age report even suggested that this move was as a result of fallout from the Essendon drugs scandal. Yet after stating this up front, they provided only the flimsiest connection – that Medicare sent letters to clubs advising them of this situation in June, which just happened to be “about the time” Stephen Dank was reported to be under investigation by Victorian police.
Really? That’s not a credible link but simply lazy, sensationalist writing for the sake of writing.
Also clouding the issue was AFL spokesman Patrick Keane, who suggested that a solution needed to be found which didn’t “unfairly and inadvertently disadvantage injured sportspeople”.
Luckily for Patrick, the AFL and other major codes, a solution can be quite readily found. One which doesn’t unfairly and inadvertently disadvantage the general public, who frankly, should not be subsidising this.
Becoming a professional sportsperson is a choice. Just as people choose to become deep sea fishermen, forklift operators and police officers and accept the associated risks in doing so, a sportsperson pursues their career knowing that there is inherent risk built in around the threat of injury, non-selection, longevity and so on.
Risks are minimised by various means, such as government regulations and employer responsibilities aimed at ensuring a safe workplace. Insurance can also be a useful tool.
But no matter how many precautions are taken, accidents will occur and a price will be paid by the victim and their employer. In a monetary sense it may be argued that if clubs are forced down the workers compensation path, those costs will eventually feed back to the paying public anyway via increased membership fees or ticket prices.
But this is a weak argument on a couple of fronts. Firstly, clubs are already likely to be paying the workers compensation levy anyway, based on their number of employees – even if they aren’t using the system for their players.
And secondly, are we really expected to believe that the Sydney Swans for example could not have found a way to trim a couple of per cent off their offer to Buddy Franklin, to cover the costs of player treatment, without Buddy pulling the pin on the deal?
I remember when a serious knee injury instantly meant a long stretch in plaster and an end to a player’s career. It is great that advances in sports science mean that such injuries are no longer career ending, and that he quality of treatment and rehabilitation today ensures a far better outcome for players.
But any player or club who believes that these improvements don’t come at a cost to them, and should be funded by the taxpayer, is surely kidding themselves.
There can be no question that second and third tier professional sports without strong revenue streams will find this harder to manage than the AFL and NRL
But the principle remains the same. This isn’t a crisis threatening the fabric of sport as we know it in Australia. Clubs should adjust their salaries and general cost bases to account for this.