We should never measure returns for sports funding in terms of gold, silver or bronze

With athletics, bar anomalies like Melbourne; the standard case is that there is one outstanding individual who is either a favourite to win gold or thereabouts; then maybe a handful who are conceivable medal chances then the rest ... if they make finals then that's great. When that outstanding individual (think Flintoff/Freeman/Pearson/Hooker) get up, then there's your gold medal from T/F. Of the conceivables, usually only 1-2 will strike metal. Track cycling has traditionally been an area where AUS can rack up a reasonable medal haul but went flat here. Partly due to GBR being at a completely different level of professionalism but also issues of generational change/passing/failure to replace greats plus lack of mental toughness What has happened here is that the team sports have essentially gone "belly-up" and these are where overall team numbers start to inflate. - Archery = an absolute bonus. - Women's basketball = was actually always on the cards with the fading of the scene of the Sydney/post Sydney generation with the following generation not nearly of the same quality. Taylor is well into the realm of diminishing returns but still formidable but she cannot carry a team on her own. Cambage has an enormous talent but not the discipline - men's water polo = have always been makeweights and have never/are unlikely to ever contend for medals or even threaten the leading teams. Maybe this is somewhere that a tough call need to be made re future support - women's water polo = the spread of competitive nations has widened considerably in recent years and a medal should never have been seen as a forgone conclusion. This team fell short at last year's Worlds so this was no surprise. Also a number of veterans in the realm of diminishing returns ... what is the talent base ? - women's sevens = were always going to be thereabouts. They had their cut of luck but when it counted they delivered. - men's sevens = were never realistic chances and so it played out. Prioritise the women if there is no turnaround in next couple of years - women's football = qualification for the Olympic tournament is actually far more cut-throat than for WWC & the Olympic title is arguably of higher rank in the women's game. They started poorly but regrouped superbly, proving that they can scare the @#&% out of every team in the world and beat the very best. Only lack of maturity/composure cost them a place in the medal rounds. They get a pass mark from me - men's hockey = serial under-performers and some major questions need to be asked. Too many veterans well past their best; serial inefficiency both in general play & set pieces. In the past, they've been able to overpower opponents up until the medal rounds but not any longer. Questions need to be asked re coaching, selection & playing styles. Can we afford to keep appointing coaches who are products of the AUS "system"? - women's hockey = post Sydney; the Olympic record of this team has been that of unalloyed failure. Even more so than their male counterparts; the issues of inefficiency in defence/general play/attack & set-pieces are stark. This should no longer be tolerated. These issues need to be addressed and if this means coaches from outside and changes to the culture/playing styles then so be it ! Indeed, future funding for AUS Hockey should be tied to this. -men's basketball = still to fully play out. Aus men's teams have made the semis 3 times previously (88, 96, 00) albeit more through a lucky/winnable QF than necessarily being the 4th best team. This is certainly the strongest team in my memory (40odd years of observation) AND this is one of the more vulnerable US teams since they switched to picking pros i/o college kids. As to whether there are long term ramifications, its hard to say as a number of prime movers are up in age. Still, this is a significant step up from their world ranking/seeding and performance at Worlds

I am not sure you will find any articles in Australia on this with the control that is put on the Australian media these days. You would find they will pay to fly the whole foreign team delegation which includes athletes,coaches and officials in the bid documents. The way I found out about it one of the bid team revealed it live on television in an interview just before it was decided, that they had just extended the free airfares offers to the families of athletes.So you would have to find all the tapes from news reports on the day before the bid was decided.

where i the article about 'paying for all the foreign athletes and their families to come out here'? i'm just interested in reading it

Commonwombat, You're probably right. If we half the 1992 & 1996 results, that's probably our reality. So, a composite of Barcelona (7/9/11-27) & Atlanta (9/9/23-41), gives us 8 gold, 9 silver & 17 bronze for a 34 total. That's probably our reality, which was closely reflected in London & we will get near to but not reach in Rio. In the pool, (1/3/5-9) plus (2/4/6-12), gives us two gold, three silver & five bronze, plus perhaps another floater, for a 10-11 total. That might be our reality in the pool as well, which more or less reflects what happened in London & Rio.

Spot on ! It's an incredibly turnaround and the Brits have surpassed Australia big time , they are now a super power on the global stage . Australia historically have always funded their athletes extremely well , especially in comparison to others western nations . However , GB finally realized that Australia's success was born out of funding , not superior genetics , and unleashed lottery funding into the fold. We are seeing phenomenal performances by the Brits , mainly English , which makes me wonder how that blue blood is finally rising to the top. Could they simply have the most revolutionary doping program since the East Germans ? Contrary to Aussie snarls and jealousies , money and funding doesn't necessarily buy you success - just look at the English Premier League and England's performances . Team GB has cultivated a programme of excellence based on vastly superior coaches and sport science practices , which are now years and years ahead of Australia . Every Tom, Dick and Harry now goes to Uni in Australia which I believe has manifested a mediocrity of learning based on numbers ( students) . Once upon a time you had to be clever to get accepted into Uni - not anymore , as a result we are unearthing sub standard professionals in many fields - Sports Psychology , Sports Science , Biomechanics , Sports Management , Pysical education and Coaching . All Uni's want are bums on seats because that = $$$. Throw in affirmative action policies into the workplace and you have a synergy of averageness , not elite professionals - hence our current demise. As many roarers note , Aussie athletes are a product of the times - and these times are mitigated by PC inclusive champagne socialist ideologies which undermine and destroy fierce competition . African Americans are incredible athletes because they have evolved from so much pain and suffering , they have a fire in their belly which is testament to overcoming human adversity . Sadly our athletes , look and act like a bunch of preppy private schoolers with cheesy grins . And to further add to our Australian sporting woes , we have those clowns in the bleachers yelling Aussie , Aussie , Aussie , Oi , Oi ,Oi - which exhibits our lack of creativity and success on the sporting arena .

Sheek; it went down the S bend with regards to Olympic sport many decades before; maybe as far back as post WW2. The Eastern Bloc countries saw propaganda benefits in state support of elite sport and conveniently side-stepped the whole amateur falafel by enrolling them in the armed services or nominal postings in police or state agencies. Meanwhile in the west, the fact is that it was well nigh impossible to sustain amateur status beyond university years unless you were wealthy, had exceedingly generous employers. Corporatism has been a fact of top level international sports, both Olympic and outside the Olympic arena, since the 60's-70s; its merely become more overt over the past 30 years. I think the AOC, Australian media, and the decreasing number of Australians who now tune into the Olympics to any great degree have been feeding off a number of illusions. First with regards to swimming; that AUS has always been the no2/main rival to the USA. This has only periodically been the case; namely 2 periods of a decade/slightly longer at a time with both being hinged on a time when AUS hosted the Olympics. The first from the mid 50s through the 60s finishing in Munich 1972. The second from the late 90s through to Beijing 2008. Outside of that, its been more a case of producing a few outstanding individuals at a time and maybe a couple of others who were highly competitive culminating in AUS being more a strong 2nd division team rather than leader of the chase pack. Medal tallies of 10-12 total with 1-2 gold WERE AUS's standard haul outside the "years of plenty" The 2nd fallacy is that our Syd/Athens/Beijing medal tallies have been AUS's "norm". The fact is this has not be the case and these were more the products of the investment into the Sydney generation which had a resultant flow on to the 1st post Sydney. Atlanta saw a record total of 41 medals but the golds were still below double figures. Barcelona was a 27 total and that was AUS's 2nd highest after Melbourne. In many ways, what we are seeing is a return to normal transmission after the years of plenty but the AOC need to wake up to this. A team of 421 is completely unsustainable for the results sheet. Not every sport can produce medals but there does need to be performance thresholds. -Sports that have been sending "fly the flag" emissaries who tail off the field/perennially go out in the first round/cannot qualify via world ranking but rather as continental quotas DO need to be reviewed. Qualification policy does differ from sport to sport so some that qualify via contintal route ARE there on merit but all too many sports aren't. If your sport is still a perennial also ran after decades of exposure at this level; culling has to be on the cards - This is only part AOC's business but there do probably need to be some major reforms linked to future funding in certain sports that have turned 'rancid". Hockey has to be the first; the Kookaburras have gone in as favourites or at worst 2nd money at every Olympics post Moscow but have walked away with the money just one; all too often falling short when it counts. Post Sydney, the Hockeyroos Olympic record is that of failure to make the medals at all four Games. The same issues of leaking defences, inefficiency in attack & set pieces haunt both teams. Australian coaches have kept being appointed but "same old, same old". Left to their own devices, Hockey AUS will continue on their path of appointing someone from inside the system; a system that is breeding a culture of failure on the highest stage.

Sheek, comment of the day.

Can you explain tome why Australiia will be dumping a couple of billion into the Commonwealth games. Australia have already commited to paying for all the foreignathletes and their families to come out here, why is completely beyond me, their only competitior bid was Sri Lanka who. WHy are dumping all that money on foreigh athletes for. They are already talking about bidding for another one to waste another couple of billion on top of that.

Thanks, just read it. Pretty dubious and doesn't correlate exactly with Olympic spending . Could just as easily be spent on non Olympic sport

Do you have this supposed report where 1=1.91? Sounds very creative

Absolutely agree that we need to support sport funding for the benefit it provides in combating societal issues. There is also the added benefit of the dollars brought in by sports tourism. Despite the results of some of our athletes on the broader world stage at the moment, in two years we will benefit greatly from said visitors. That said, we should look at the medal count, but never use it in isolation as a reason for talking about curbing sport funding.

On another level, the original concept of "competing is the main thing", disappeared in to the ether when the US basketball dream team marched into the Barcelona Olympics in 1992. Today, multi-million dollar sportsmen compete across a range of sports. The corporatisation of sport is now complete. In addition to the enormous money some athletes now command, taxpayers fund Olympic attendances. We're entitled to expect a return on our investment. I abhor the corporatisation of sport. But since it is here, then I'm going to demand my piece of return on investment. Our Olympians have sucked at the past two Olympics, & only the swimmers (20 of 46 medals) saved them from a similar fate in Beijing. In London we were down to 35 medals (swimming 10) & in Rio we will be lucky to reach 30 medals (again, swimming 10). Not good enough. Nor am I happy a guy like Swimming Australia president John Bertrand is on $500,000 pa, no matter what he achieved in the past, & about half a dozen other swimming officials are on between $350-400,000. Yep, I'm not happy. Stuff the corporatisation of sport!

While we've all been sleeping, an extraordinary swap has occurred - Australia & Great Britain have swapped sporting identities. Great Britain is now the successful, hard-nosed sporting nation, winning ugly if it has to, in order to get the job done. Australia is now the "happy loser", telling everyone how it is more important to try than to win.

the AOC aren't making a good argument for more funding with a prediction of 15 gold, and still not half way, obviously there is something wrong, either with expectation, athlete mentality, maybe the AOC being out of touch. i dunno. as for "below best performance = cut funding" what are you meant to do? reward failure. this isn't junior development this is investing in the present, and its isn't a bad idea if the present are reaping the profits,but they didn't, so why should they continue to be subsidized, to pursue a sport they only participate in and don't excel. its like saying,lets keep giving to a competitor who come in 16th (which then becomes dead money) rather then investing in finding the right person to come in 1st in 4 years

What ordinary performance? Do you mean Hills, or La Caze, or Wellings, or Rubie, or Starc, or Frayne, or Boyd, or Nelson, or Gregson? You like the HECS idea because you haven't thought it all through.

Who aren't making a good argument? The athletes? If so, which ones? This IS investing it into junior development, to an extent. Pretty ruthless Kurt - below best performance = cut funding. You'd make a good boss with that attitude. Great notion - take the pittance the top athletes get away - and somehow you expect us to improve? Great idea that. They'll have to go and get a job, train half as much etc. They'd HAVE to improve, right?

Didn't say making our nation great, just better at sport. Sport isn't everything, but it means a lot to a lot.

....if it is that simple Dingo, then more power to us, to continue on the path to 'becoming nicer, well adjusted people, just not great athletes'. Sport certainly offers us a poignant metaphor for any culture and while I like Americans I do not want Australia to devolve that way. Perhaps we already have and there is no turning back. 'Austerica, Austerica - land of the free home of the brave'...... well Donald Trump is all about making America great again but this depends very much on your definition of greatness, while sport is not a criteria I would use in defining the greatness of any nation.