Politics and sport: how election cash promises will affect your sport (pt 2)

Elections are a good time to be in the sporting business. Historically elite, amateur and recreational sports have done very well financially during campaigns over the years.

The simple reason for this is that sports stars can provide a bit of pizazz to another ordinary day on the campaign.

At all levels sports clubs have huge contact lists and with one email to their membership base hit thousands of people with the very simple message – “if you vote Labor/Liberal, you’ll get a new grandstand/ground/building for your club.”

But how is this money decided and what is the process?

Option 1: Infrastructure Programs
During a campaign, announcements of this nature can only be done by the incumbent government as they are linked to an existing funding program.

Since 2010, the Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF) has held five rounds and organisations (from all sectors, not just sport) can apply to a competitive funding process. During the election there have been several announcements by the government of successful RDAF programs which affect sports.

Recent examples include $3.5 million for the Busselton Tennis and Croquet Club and $10 million to the Central Coast Mariners Training Park. The only downside for this option is that while in caretaker you can’t sign the contract, so while the money is allocated int the budget, the new government has to agree to the funding once elected.

Option 2: Campaign Commitments
In Opposition you have no control over government funding or programs, so everything you promise is based on the assumption that it will happen if you win government. This means that there is no certainty for an organisation that funding promised will materialise.

Depending on the location (e.g. a marginal seat) an opposition or government announces a commitment and either side may then agree to match it.

Alternatively, the commitment is not matched and the organisation must rely on the party which has made the commitment winning or retaining government.

This process is highly political and while there are a small number of commitments in safely held seats, the vast majority are in key swinging electorates.

Option 3: Discretionary Spending
Discretionary spending is used to fund the big infrastructure commitments made by government outside of elections and infrastructure; recent examples include $50 million for the SCG and $28 million for Adelaide Oval. Both these projects had financial commitments from State Governments and needed additional funding for specific stages of the redevelopments.

These types of projects are extremely rare and usually only done between state and federal governments. Also, they often appear when Australia is bidding for international sporting events, such as the World Cup where stadium upgrades were required.

Facility funding can be a pretty murky process and has bought down a few politicians in the past (Google Ros Kelly, Canberra and whiteboard). However, the majority of projects federal and state politicians look to fund aim to make Australian sport more competitive and accessible. This is something which based on current results, we obviously need!

So, with the campaign close to finishing, you can expect to see a flurry of announcements for your sports, and if you live in a marginal seat, probably at your sporting club as the major parties continue to use ours sports for political milage.

In addition, I’ve included (as accurate as possible) a tally of the current spends of both parties to give you an idea of where the money is going.

Election spending – comparative graph – Labor vs Liberal

Read part one of this series – how the election will affect your sport