Should successful athletes pay back their AIS costs?

I hear the argument and believe it has some merit. I wold have thought that the promotion of Australia on the international stage is quite significant payback. How much is that worth to Australia? Every Ozzie star out there contibutes sigficantly to the marketing of the country, which in dollar terms alone, will far exceed the costs of their AIS training. I Think the Government should take a more positive approach by also looking to find ways of leveraging off this. For example, consider using the Rices, Hewits, Clarkes who are hot comodites to do free advertising for Australia marketing campains. This in essence is like having the mineral rights over property - If there is gold there, you have the right (within reason) to to expoit it. One could also consider how the big companies ride off the fame of the athletes with lucrative endoresments and in return get a fantastic brand builders. Should these comapnies not pay a royalty fee to the government who has provided them with this lucrative comodity? By going this route you get the real stars who can afford to make a contribution, giving back in kind far more in value to the State and those who are not as successful or as marketable benefiting by not having to pay back. So to the government I say - move away from a tax grab, beauractic approach. Be more creative and try create wealth instead.

Hello Spiro I tend to look at this as Infrastructure spending. For the good of the country and community at large. The Government funded sports academies are Higher learning Institutions and the inductees are recepients of scholarships,hopefully earned,on merit. I believe sports people are usually generous and many support charities. The current proposition from the Sports Minister reeks of revenue raisingand I believe misses the point of the excercise. Sport equates to good health and isn't health more important than money? Sounds simplistic but sports people make for a better community. There can never be enough spending on sports or sports people. Administering such a scheme only makes more jobs for bureacracy and we have any number of them now. Australia is renowned for its sportspersons and that is adequate payback in my book. In fact I would go further. Anyone that has represented Australia in any sport should be given an increased pension. Ditto for armed services and the countless firefighters all over the country. Memo to the Sports Minister: LEAVE OUR SPORTS PEOPLE ALONE. GO TAX THE BANKS.

Can't disagree with the concept of pay back but have concerns Uni education is no longer something that is earn't by appropriate marks there are many pathways to qualify as the Uni's need the numbers to pay for courses and enough people to pass etc. So without getting into the rights and wrongs of the education system it is clear that todays education market which is driven by student demand is different than 30 years ago. Much of this is the user pays model creating a commercial education basis. So what then would happen to sport if this model comes in. We would create private 'AIS's, an attitude of I'm paying for my training at a higher rate therefore I should be selected and would take the power away from the management of many sports (some might say a good thing). Athletes would to degree have a sense of more control of whats going to happen to them as they are paying. The other reaction also of 'do i follow my dream/passion and end out with debt and no success or shall I go for the safe option' raise its head, with all the negative press currently a whole batch of potential athletes would not bother I understand it all has to be paid for and not against the idea but would want to see a much deeper thought than the first answer HECS model put in place Some of the models being talked about here % of sponsorship, from memory the football guys pay some back when transferred i think..these methods would probably be more effective

In regards to the argument that sportspeople are representing our nation, are not doctors, researchers, artists and musicians doing the same thing? One would think that in the overall scheme of things, Australia would be a prouder country for having cured cancer than won a silver in shot put! And I don't believe in this "window of opportunity", I think it's overblown. For one, the window is a very bright and shiny one which allows the person to set themselves for life. As long as they don't spunk the money away (I'm looking at you Phillipoussis), then they should be able to save themselves a nest egg to allow for investment returns and earnings post their playing career far more than any of us normal folk could dream of. Add to that, endorsements, media commitments and appearance fees. There is also a culture at some employers to employ a "name". If you were interviewing for a sales job and you had Joe Nobody or Kieran Perkins and you couldn't split on the usual terms, surely you would choose Kieran Perkins and advertise the fact you have a gold medal winner in your team. Sports people's income producing potential lingers far longer than their playing career. Once upon a time that may have been the case, but not anymore.

Mac, Don't agree with your first point - we pay back HECS based on income, not whether this was earned via the degree you read at university. Your second point is interesting, as is Ben C's re the short window. What about cricketers commentating on the game after their professional careers are over?

One issue is that, with HECS, you undertake a degree that should (in theory) set you up for a lifetime career of around 40 years. Obviously there are plenty of individual exceptions but that is, broadly speaking, the intention. Athletes may earn more, but have a far shorter window. Many top athletes only have a five to ten year window of earnings and then face substantial uncertainty as to their next career. This has to be weighed in the balance as well.

Warren As to your second case, as I said above, only if the income is generated by sport. A further example to consider, what if the person takes those skills and returns to the AIS (or some other body) as a lecturer etc. This too is income derived

The question to my mind is: do we all contribute towards the AIS programs to have the prestige of our athletes excelling on the international stage, ie, is it a nation-building exercise? Or is the AIS just another tertiary institution? If the first, then the athletes are being trained essentially to represent us and Australia, and the AIS should be considered a scholarship. If athletes make a quid out of it, then good luck to them. If the second, then they should be made to pay back on exactly the same rate as evryone else in the HECS scheme has to. The argument is one of principle, not rate.

Mattay, didn't that situation with athletes jumping ship come to a head and there was a lot of screaming with Dokic, when she played for Serbia?.

I've always believed a HECS like system needs to be in place for AIS and other government sponsored sporting development programs. I also agree that the repayment threshholds should be based on sports or sports related incomes only. If the threshhold is $100,000 and Jessica Schipper is able to make $80,000 per year, she shouldn't pay back. But if Stephanie Rice can make $80,000 pus endorsements, plus writing a column in the paper, plus royalties, then they should all be included. I would even go so far as to say it should be on a $2 for $1 payback scheme. So if the AIS spent $100k on Lucas Neill, he would need to pay back $200k, with the extra $100k going back to the AIS to fund future stars' development. I'm sure those in the legal and accounting arena will find ways to circumvent this. (I wonder if an athlete decided to become a resident of Monaco, what would happen to the amounts he/she may owes?) But it's a good place to start the debate. Especially considering professional sports people get a nice tax break over us everyday workers to begin with anyway!

Brett yes, I agree there is scope there for a tangled mess of thresholds to emerge that would make the current tax act look like decent bed time reading (but we would need to make certain allowances for the sake of natural justice).

Pip, it's all going to come down to the threshold, and the amount to be paid back. The point I've realised I omitted from my examples above is where in both cases, the "underdogs" (for the sake of a label) in a good year of news sponsors, or increased match payments, might just break through the threshold and suddenly find themselves with an "AIS debt". What I was trying to say was should they have to pay back at the same rate as a Rice or Clarke who've been living comfortably for several years, or should there be some kind of indexing applied?? I agree with you, it could be done, but it's going to take more than just a minister-funded think tank.

Brett but under HECS-like rules, neither of these examples you mention will end up being caught out. I don't think it would be difficult to determine those who clearly have an earning capacity from their sport well above the norm (and that's really what we're talkinga about), and those that don't (and never will). Furthermore, it would be very easy to devise rules whereby repayments cease altogether if an athletes star has faded before it ever really got going.

It's always going to be a fine line, this one. For every Stephanie Rice, whose earning potential is unlimited, there is a Jessica Schipper, who is undoubtedly a world class athlete, but let's face it, won't be inundated with offers for a photo shoot. I say that not at all to disparage Schipper, but to point out the harsh reality of sponsorship and marketing. So while Schipper might be able to make a living from swimming, should she pay costs back at the same rate as Rice?? The same could be said for a ten-year state cricketer who after a string of good scores, earns an unexpected Test debut, but then gets injured in the match, and never wears the baggy green again. Does he pay back costs at the same rate Michael Clarke does? If the athletes have to forgo regular employment in their developing prefessional years, why don't they have the same claim to government assistance as does a person on welfare benefits, or say an apprentice plumber or electrician?? On the whole, I think there is some merit in these plans, but a lot more thought and work needs to go into it, including consultation with the various sporting bodies. I don't think it's as simple as "you're earning big bucks, time to cough up". If they're earning the big bucks, they've also copping a big tax bill too..

Hoy Your degree was obviously not in economics or history! Apart from that this is not a political forum

Personally, I have always thought that it's an absolute disgrace that we train athletes to basically go out and achieve personal wealth and glory at taxpayer cost, and they don't repay the cost of their tuition back to the taxpayer when they are able to afford it, yet we demand others doing more useful things in society, like providing health care (doctors), planning and building infrastructure (engineers and architects) to repay their cost of tuition back to the taxpayer when they are earning a sufficiently high income. It's a no brainer.

The government is cash strapped for a reason. Labour is shit with money and these times don't help either. That is for another forum. I agree with this, and wonder why the threshold has to be so high at all? If I have to pay back HECS at $30,000, what is the difference between me and them? One thing, is the AIS a scholarship though? Does that then seem a bit odd to pay back a sholarship.

The distinction needs to be made as to the source of the income. Dpouble dipping will have to be avoided. Think of the case where an AIS athlete incurrs a debt, has moderate success but reaps no real financial reward. Post sport that person attends university and incurrs a HECS debt but establishes a successful career. They should only have to repay the HECS debt because the sport generated no income

"athletes who have converted their training into successful sporting careers should start paying back some of the costs of their training when they begin to generate" I believe this is bang on. It seems ridiculous that just because you forge a career as an athlete or sportsman that you should somehow be exempt from the same rules as those studying medecine, law, engineering etc. Just like those students are made to repay some of their success which was tax payer funded then so should the 'jocks".

No win no fee. It works in the legal fraternity. It's the old thing - we used to pick on the East Germans and Russians because every athlete listed the military as their employment and you just knew they were effectively 'professional' athletes in what was supposed to be an amateur Olympic ideal. So we joined in and called it the AIS. And now the Poms have woken up and suddenly we realised we might need to pump even MORE money into buying Olympic glory. The question is - where does it all end??