To most fans watching Australia’s Olympic athletes on the telly, it’s all about the sport. Elite athletes doing what they’re very good at.
Unfortunately for Australia, our athletes have underperformed at Rio. And the recriminations have already begun.
On Saturday morning and after a great early run, the Boomers lost their semi-final to Serbia with a woeful shooting percentage. Our swimmers and cyclists have generally underperformed.
There’s been talk of stage fright and athletes peaking too early.
The big wigs of Australia’s sports bodies want answers. But not from the athletes. No, the big question is – how have our sports bureaucracies performed?
It begs an important question. Who is most responsible for winning gold medals – the athletes, or officials who direct sports funding and determine strategies behind the scenes?
ASC Chairman John Wylie said before the Rio Games “You can’t keep standing still, we need to look at doing things differently to stay ahead of the competition.”
“I think there’s a really great unity of purpose and clarity in what we’re trying to achieve, and that’s to get Australian sport back on top.
“I think there’s a much greater level of accountability of spending what is essentially public money. The notion that you just get funding is not how the methodology works.
Wylie clearly feels a heavy responsibility to ensure the ASC is actively managing our national effort to collect Olympic medals. In the aftermath of the Rio games and according to The Age’s Sam Lane, Australian Sports Commission boss John Wylie is set to chair a nine-member ‘AIS Future Directions’ advisory panel.
The panel will consider the findings of a comprehensive review of the AIS by the Boston Consulting Group.
There is open warfare between the Australian Institute of Sport and the Australian Sports Commission over control our elite sports programs. After disappointing Olympics campaigns in Beijing and London, the ASC responded by implementing the Winning Edge program.
In a major upheaval, this saw funds previously allocated to the AIS controversially diverted to individual sports bodies such as Swimming and Cycling Australia. AOC president John Coates bristles at the ASC’s meddling, labelling it a “bloated bureaucracy”.
And then there is Chloe Esposito, Australia’s newest gold medal winner in the modern pentathlon.
Interviewed by Channel Seven, Chloe said that her aim in the event was “just to have fun”. Let’s not understate the huge commitment and talent Chloe drew on to win.
She was already a medal hopeful and received government support. But flying under the radar of the hype, managers and consultants who are feuding over such critical issues such as whether to refer to “our swim team” or just part of “the (national Olympic) team”, Chloe just got on with it and won.
It’s time Australian athletes were able to just get on with the business of competing and winning. They need proper support and funding. But it’s time for the rock star bureaucrats and the notion that they can manage their team’s way up the medal able to take a back seat.
Select good leaders who can guide our athletes. Athletes like Anna Meares and before her, Andrew Gaze. And keep it about the sport.
delbeato
Roar Guru
We can't replicate the US sports college system here. They have a population of 300 million and a big enough market that college sports is a big deal on its own. A lot of US cities don't have major (professional) league teams of their own, leaving fans out in the cold. The marketability of US college sports is what brings the money in that sustains their elite level. We can hardly sustain elite professional sports leagues in Australia, let alone 2nd tier university-based ones. It wouldn't work.
delbeato
Roar Guru
How do you dope in sailing?
Sam
Roar Rookie
I'm not sure I follow your last paragraph. You start by suggesting the Brits are doping in all the water sports, but you cite world championship performances in cycling and rowing as justification. Were GB performances too bad or too good at World Champs to be clean? Just curious cos I've heard both!
HarryT
Guest
Yes , Nobel Prize winning lecturer gets $1 mil and the footy coach gets $7 mil. I think that the kids who are drafted before graduation are a very small minority and that the system, while it is riddled with problems, is sound and offers free education and excellent coaching to kids who would not have received it otherwise. Be warned, the Ivy Leagues love our female rugby players and some of our gold winners will find it hard to knock back a free degree from Harvard etc.
HarryT
Guest
Celtic I think the answer lies with our university system. Most unis have elite athlete programs but with the exception of Usyd, they are fairly basic and have poor coaches. Sadly, there is not much enthusiasm to change things.
BrainsTrust
Guest
What Britiain did after 1996 was make a lottery and put all the funds from that into Olympic sports.. So the more they spend on the lottery the more it goes up. its already much higher than Australian funding. Then they spent on top of that for London. Australian government allows AFL,NRL and horse racing to get a percentage from every bet on them. AFL and NRL clubs also have clubs which run pokies to earn more gambling revenue.
commonwombat
Guest
The downside is the oversupply of universities in the USA with all too many being far better known for their athletics. The very top academic schools, with the exceptions of Stanford, Cal - Berkeley (maybe NC or Duke) place far lower emphasis on athletics as compared to academics but the bulk of NCAA Div I schools are mediocre. How many of their football (gridiron) or basketball scholarship holders actually stay to graduation, only staying long enough to be drafted by NFL or NBA franchises. Granted that in some parts of the USA, where there is no major professional franchise, the college sports are THE main spectator sport (thus moneyspinner) but it is frankly sickening to find out that in the majority of US states; the highest paid individual on that state's payroll is a college basketball or football coach.
DaSpoon@gmail.com
Guest
It's dissapointing to see some Australians throwing unfounded accusations at the British. When the Aussies beat the Brits in Sydney we didnt hear any doping accusations coming from Britain at the time . Why are you so insecure as a nation Mr Huber?
Rellum
Roar Guru
Chloe Esposito avoided all those levels of management and it did her no harm so I would think many would be in furious agreement with you.
Celtic334
Guest
The ncaa system is what Americans success in built around. Also due to the high price of going to university there sports is seen as an entry point. So talented athletes try their hand at numerous sports to gain a scholarship.
Celtic334
Guest
Some good points there, it's most likely a combination of everything and I guess because it's hard to point the finger at someone these days, I really don't think much will be done. Time will tell.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Steve waughs, Craig moores or George gregans They are all Gen X guys. I tend to think it is generational, but not because younger generations are inferior but I do think it comes back to the old lifestyle changes that the digital revolution has brought on. Kids don't spend as much time out playing those sports as kids so they have less skills to fall back on as they just do practice as much as previous generations did and have less fell for the different sports. How many kids keep on playing sport as well, what is the drop out rate? If the competition isn't so great it becomes too easy for the elite to win local comps. Add to that how many kids get sucked up by the AFL and NRL and I personally don't think, of course based on nothing but my own observations, that there are enough kids sticking with sports. No doubt someone will bring out stats to prove me wrong but that is my gut feeling. I do also think, based on the fact that private school kids do make up a lot of the swin team for example, that the private school culture is not tough enough for kids to learn to compete. But again that is probably my own bias with class clouding my thinking.
Celtic334
Guest
As a rugby union fan I can associate with these problems. For years league has been grabbing talent that potentially could be representing Union. But at the end of the day all you can do is shrug your shoulders and accept that's just the way it is, they are a more developed and professionally have a better set up in Australia. The same with afl, no other sport in Australia pillages Australian athletes like they do. But they are the dominant force, it's just professionalism, they have the money and they have the product that everyone wants. So fair game to them. I read a blog/article somewhere the other day talking about vfl/afl dominance over Australian sport in particular Victoria. Some stats that were put forward were that since the Sydney Olympics Australia has won something like 60 gold medals with only around 9/10 of them coming from Victorian athletes with a poor representation in team sports. Another was that with regards to cricket there is 0 Victorians in Australia's 10 all time test run scorers, 1 in the wickets, 1 in odi runs and 1 in wickets. I'm not sure how reliable these stats are but it'd be a pretty poor representation of so.
Brendon
Guest
Theres two ways of looking at your argument, HarryT. Los Angeles Dodgers' payroll alone is greater than the payrolls of the NRL and AFL conbined. American kids can earn a lot more playing American football, baseball, basketball and even ice hockey than they could being Olympic athletes yet the USA tops the medal tally again. Despite there being 4 huge leagues in North America (NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL) the USA still finds plenty of new Olympic athletes. You think British athletes couldn't earn more playing football in Europe? An average League Championship player earns more than an average NRL or AFL player. Yet we see GB have its best two Olympics since WWII even though footballers earn more money than Olympic athletes. Theres options to talented kids in Britain and the USA yet their Olympic athletes succeed. Second way of looking at it. Football is the most played sport in the world and American football is hugely popular in a massive country and it is extrememly competitive. To make a career in the NFL is extremely hard. To get selected by a Premier League team is also extremely hard. So either way British/American athletes have to be extremely good and competitive to succeed. It doesnt matter if they choose an Olympic sport or football/American football - they're going to have to be extremely good. The AFL and NRL are the two most bloated and mediocre sporting leagues in the world. AFL has 18 teams the NRL 15 Australian teams. 33 teams for 24 million people. Theres 32 NFL teams for 320 million people. 20 premier league spots for around 55 million people (England + Wales only)plus millions of footballers around the world dreaming of being chosen a premier league team. Aussie Rules is an Australian only sport and rugby league only has a very small international following. Considering how much easier it would be to play for an AFL/NRL team than it would be to play for an NFL team or top Euroean football team, then a lot of kids will take the safe option and play in the AFL/NRL rather than try and become elite Olympic athletes. I lean towards the 2nd argument. Why bust your arse in something as tough as international athletics when you can earn $300,000 for being an average AFL player?
Celtic334
Guest
I'm not sure if I agree with the back to normal downturn. Australian sport as a whole and not just the Olympic sports is at a fairly mediocre level atm. Our cricket team is potentially the worst we have had in 30 years and not developing talent that there has been of the past, our rugby team is a shambles, is currently on its worst streak of home losses in history, also not developing players like it had. Our rugby league team recently went on a 4 game streak against New Zealand. Football isn't developing any potential talent that has been there in the past 30years. Our road cycling stocks aren't what they were, there is plenty of examples of a decline. All of these declines have come despite the fact that all sports have an improved domestic and professional set up. So I'm not sure what the issue is but I suspect it's a combination of 2 aspects. Gen Y and to and extent Gen x not being prepared to move from their comfort zones, eg move overseas to improve. Football, cricket etc are all examples of this. Is it Mental fragility? There doesn't appear to be the Steve waughs, Craig moores or George gregans involved with their win at all costs mentalities. Or is it the fact that we have 2 highly developed domestic competition one that doesn't have an international foot print and another with a minor int scene grabbing and harnessing all available talent, like never before?
delbeato
Roar Guru
I believe Britain actually copied the Australian AIS model, from when Australia was doing very well and they were stinking. I think they've since 'perfected' it and spent even more money than we did. I don't believe the Brits have an organised doping program. Those are very difficult to keep a secret - someone always talks. Russia were doing it, but even there people talked (and live in fear for their lives). Russia and maybe a couple of other totalitarian nations aside, doping these days is mostly done under the counter by individual athletes. It's the only way to have a decent chance of keeping it secret.
delbeato
Roar Guru
I agree Sam and I didn't mean to suggest there should be no oversight of our publicly-funded sports programs. In fact, that remains a critical factor in our sporting success. What I meant was more that there seems to have been some over-reach beyond setting the right conditions, funding and other resources needed by sports to succeed. If you keep reforming these arrangements and turning over the people, you are interfering with their ability to get on with the job. There's more interesting info available on how the AIS has changed, that I didn't have room to discuss in detail here. I'm not the expert either. I agree that there needs to be proper governance, but if you keep twisting the knobs in an effort to get it right, you end up undermining the people you've charged with delivering the results.
peeeko
Roar Guru
i am happy for them to choose the other sports so i can watch them in sports i enjoy most weeks of every year. I prefer this to sports that i never watch and only take an interest in for 2 weeks every 4 years just so we can finish higher up on some medal table
delbeato
Roar Guru
That's really interesting HarryT, thanks for sharing.
commonwombat
Guest
A lot of generalisations; some of which I agree with or can go along with; some frankly more than a little economical with the truth. Training environments ideal ? Varies from sport to sport. Climate especially in northern states is generally favourable year round; less so further south. Facilities - I think you overstate your case but in a majority comparable to the worlds best. Coaching - now here's where it falls down in many cases. Too many sports where AUS sports have fallen off the pace. Availability of top flight competition. In certain sports there may be a few events where there is actual depth of quality pushing/keeping the standard high but often the exception. AUS seasons being opposite to the bulk of major sporting nations a drawback as is the geographic isolation. Certainly links w JAP/CHN could be better leveraged but we generally do not have top line competition in most Olympic sports at our doorstep. Funding - certainly generous when seen as a top dollar figure; what actually percolates down to the athlete generally somewhat less generous. Not in the same ball park as GBR's lottery funding or that of CHN when it comes to public $$$$. Corporate $$$ in sport is almost always transient unless (1) the business is intrinsically linked to the specific sport/a major stakeholder or (2) they choose to form a long term partnership with the sport in that country (ie Rabobank w Dutch cycling/SKY with GBR cycling) TBH, AUS sporting media & certain officials have been living in cloud cuckoo land for some year's and sought to brush off London as an aberration rather than a return to normal programming after the years of plenty. Certain sports have got complacent & flabby (swimming/hockey); others are experiencing the inevitable down cycle after a couple of great generations have passed/are passing from the scene (women's basketball/track cycling). Whilst an AUS Olympic team is never likely to be a small one; 400+ is just not sustainable on the results of London & Rio. It's time to "call time" on certain sports AND probably some teams. I absolutely agree that a number of sports need to be cleaned out & can/should do considerably better but there also needs to be a reality check. The only times AUS should ever be a top 4 in the Olympic medal tally is when we're hosting the show .... or if we're lucky the Games after that. Otherwise, we're a top 10, in good years (or when a couple of power sports have major payouts) we may nudge the top 5 but otherwise probably towards the lower rungs. We're not talking about small fry when we're talking about the countries we're mixing with. We're talking GER/FRA/JAP/ITA/KOR ...... all far more populous, all with larger economies. Whilst most are strong across a cross-section of sports like AUS, some also have major strengths in particular sports where they can rack up significant medals & golds just as AUS may sometimes do in swimming/cycling