The old expression, ‘what came first, the chicken or the egg?’ has now entered the world of Australian Olympic sports, as I find myself pondering this more and more in terms of sponsorship and recognition.
I remember sitting down to watch the 2012 London Olympic Games with my family. Like most Australians at the time, the big attraction was our swimmers. We were meant to be world beaters, nothing could stop us.
So it was disappointing to watch them go from favourites to non-contenders.
The 4x100m relay was the main event, with our men meant to bring home gold, but we didn’t even place. It was hard to comprehend and what made it worse was our marquee swimmer, James Magnussen, speechless in the post-event interview.
Following the poor performance at the Games, the Australian Sports Commission introduced ‘Australia’s Winning Edge’ a funding strategy which was set to take us from eighth to a top-five nation in the 2016 and 2020 Olympic games.
At Rio 2016, this plan failed.
[latest_videos_strip]
While swimming, rowing and cycling received the bulk of money brought in by the strategy, results did not follow. Australia went from the eighth in 2012 to tenth in 2016.
Winning Edge distributed its money based on the sports that were deemed to have the most success. However, this didn’t work, and in the process meant that the cost per medal for sports such as swimming and cycling was significantly higher than the cost per medal for sports such as shooting and athletics.
So perhaps it’s time Australia focussed less on funding the more popular sports, which are underperforming significantly, and look to fund and create exposure for sports where athletes are winning medals unexpectedly.
By distributing funding to a small handful of sports, Australia are dropping their chances of being able to achieve success in any other areas. What is the point of sending athletes to the Olympic Games if they haven’t been given the proper facilities, funding and exposure needed to perform?
While funding can be a positive, too much funding into any one sport can place mountains of pressure on the athletes. This is while athletes with the ability to perform well in less recognised sports are scratching and clawing for every dollar to fund their own training.
In the end, nobody is winning.
Nic Craig
Roar Rookie
Funding sports such as swimming that has in the past given us the lion share of Olympic medals and success, but when that doesn't work out such as in London 2012 and more recently in Rio, then we need something to fall back on. Sports that consistently give results such as field hockey and cycling should get a bigger slice of the funding pie.
nevyn
Guest
The problem with judging success on finishing position or performance on the big stage of the Olympics is that anything can occur on the day. Teams unexpectedly lose, referees make bad calls, athletes get sick or have injuries or unexpected athletes pull out a once in a lifetime performance. Judging success on gold medals and finishing position is ultimately a flawed exercise because funding doesn't guarantee success. Kenyan runners for example learn their trade from running everywhere in their day to day lives, not the funding of grand facilities and they have been phenomenally successful, Brazilian footballers have to learn their skills playing street football in the hope of making it out of the ghettos and they've exported far more footballers than the countries with hundreds of well funded football academies. But if we are going to fund sports then it's incorrect to suggest that every sport deserves the funding. Winning Edge for better or worse is trying to distribute a limited pool of funding into sports where we have chances of winning and sustaining success (however you define it). It doesn't matter where the funding goes, we are going to be competing with other countries with equal ambitions and funding programs so our best bet is to back the sports we have large participation bases and historical success.
James Stephens
Roar Rookie
You don't often see a swimmer competing in 4 or 5 different events however. There is more pressure now than ever for them to pick an event a train relentlessly for that event. Unless you are Michael Phelps, the chances of succeeding in all of them isn't high. Despite the expectations of the Australian Olympic Committee and the media, swimmers have shown that they can't deal with the pressure. So maybe providing field hockey players with a little more of everything really isn't a bad idea?
Wayne
Roar Guru
The cost per medal method is the most frustrating thing for me as a Field Hockey fan (and player). Field Hockey have a squad of 16 Players, plus reserves. There are a total of 2 Gold Medals on offer; and requires specialist everything (fields, venues, equipment, ball kids, officials etc.). Hockey is a great risk of losing its Olympic status because of its cost alone to put on, let alone the "cost per medal". Swimming, you can easily have a group of athletes competing in 4 or 5 events each. The Cost per medal is great comparatively (assuming they can actually win).
James Stephens
Roar Rookie
Because every sport deserves the opportunity to be recognised and participated in. If someone in a less recognised sport wins a medal at the games, there would be more young people than you think wanting to give that sport a go, but a lack of facilities would kill this dream. Swimming and cycling is never going die whether a small amount of funding is cut or not. Not giving enough money to certain sports is exactly what i'm saying. Why would we be putting millions of dollars into our swimming team if we didn't want them to perform? Less recognised sports with athletes that have the talent to medal should be given the same luxury's.
James Stephens
Roar Rookie
As important as it is, i'm not really discussing health. I'm more concerned with the fact that we introduced a strategy to win gold medals at the Olympic Games and this strategy failed. If an Australian wins a medal in a less recognised sport where more self funding is needed, do we not owe it to them to provide them with the opportunity to head back four years later and repeat their heroics? While we are on the topic, I think exercising in any sport is more important than not. Medals in less appreciated sports would do wonders for Australia, and will change the way young students feel about certain events.
peeko
Guest
its a furphy to say that we dont give enough money allowing them to perform. why would we ever give money to people in obscure sports that no one has any interest in watching so every 4 years a few people can feel good that we beat some other countries in a sport like sailing?
Brian
Guest
Except is not the argument of funding that it filters down to Australians exercising in those sports. Swimming is exceptionally healthy and accessible in Australia. So it is more worthy of funding then Boxing, weightlifting, equestrian, winter sports, canoeing, sailing etc. Medals in those latter sports do next to nothing for our collective health