You might have noticed that sport has been in the news a bit lately.
That's not exactly a lightning bolt, is it? Sport is always in the news; indeed, sport is the only news many people care about. And that's why this week's release of the Rudd Government's Independent Sport Panel Report is so interesting. Rather than sport intruding on politics, it's an example of something far less common: politics intruding on sport.
The Crawford Report, as it is also being called (after the Panel's Chairman, businessman and company director David Crawford), is the fruit of one of the Rudd Government's countless inquiries into Australian public policy, commissioned by Sports Minister Kate Ellis last year. Ellis asked the Panel "to make recommendations on the specific structures, programs and reform required to ensure the continuing robustness of the Australian sport system."
And what have David Crawford and his panel found?
In policy terms, the Australian sport system is a dog's breakfast. As the Report states, "there is no nationally agreed demarcation of the roles and responsibilities of the various Australian Government and state and territory government agencies" for sport. There's the all too common chaos of duplication and lack of coordination between levels of government. Canberra funds the Australian Sports Commission and the Australian Institute of Sport, the states and territories fund their own state institutes of sport and elite programs, while the bulk of grassroots sport gets left to under-resourced local governments.
Not only is there no proper policy coordination, there's little good data available either. The Report says that the statistics around participation in sport and physical activity are patchy and unreliable. The various sporting codes tend to over-estimate the number of participants by counting everyone on their register, while the ABS tracks different types of data. And merely being in a sporting team doesn't guarantee regular physical activity, as many a weekend warrior will grudgingly admit.
Nor has anyone really stopped to ask why we spend money on sport in the first place. As with arts policy, sport is funded mainly because it's popular, and because it seemed like a good idea at the time. "There are no agreed performance criteria for 'success' for high-performance sport or for social and health outcomes in 'grassroots' sport," the report concludes.
The current policy settings date back to Australia's poor showing at the 1976 Montreal Olympics, where a conspicuous lack of medals dangling against green and gold tracksuits led to a national outcry and the eventual creation of the Australian Institute of Sport. As a result, the report argues that Australian sports policy "is focused almost entirely on winning medals at Olympic and Commonwealth Games but takes little account of participation numbers or social criteria". Under the current system, water polo receives as much funding as golf, tennis and lawn bowls combined.
But the really controversial part of the Report is what it says about the Olympics.
The argument generally made about funding elite sport is that it spurs participation at the grassroots. That is, kids take up sports to emulate their heroes. The report says there is no evidence for this. It observes that "while Australia has been very successful at the last four Olympics, there has also been a 'blowout' of adult and child obesity and little change in participation numbers in sport". In fact, the most recent survey data from the Australian Sports Commission shows that only 50 per cent of Australians participate "regularly" (at least three times a week) in sport and physical activity. No wonder we're collectively getting fatter.
A number of social and cultural trends are having an impact on sporting participation. Not only are Australians getting fatter, we're getting older too. The emphasis on sports and recreation in our schools and education systems is declining, our jobs are increasingly sedentary, fewer of us walk to work or school and our leisure pursuits are trending away from the beach and towards the Xbox. All of which should put Australia's quest for Olympic glory into perspective.
Worse, the report warns we're not even going to be able to keep up our current medal tallies. Fierce competition is emerging in the Olympic movement as other countries begin to spend more money on their elite athletes and talent identification programs. Australia will probably never beat the US, China or Russia in the medal tallies and countries like Germany, Britain and France are fast catching up. Ironically, if Olympic success really did translate into more participation, we'd have a better talent pool from which to draw potential medal winners. But it doesn't, so we don't.
In any case, what's so wonderful about winning gold medals? Yes, it's great for the television ratings and for the dedicated, talented athletes who reach the pinnacle of their sport. And it's certainly true that Olympic success provides an unquantifiable but none-the-less important "warm inner glow" to many Australians. The problem is, just because we like watching televised sport doesn't mean we'll get off the couch and lace up our joggers.
If participation really is the goal of sports policy, the report observes, then we need to change the funding mix in favour of the sports most of us actually play: cricket, tennis, netball, surf lifesaving and the football codes, rather than archery, track and field or team handball. Of course, you could argue that these more popular sports already attract plenty of sponsorship and ticket sales and earn money which can then be ploughed back into the grassroots. But the reality is that those dollars earnt from sold out stadia and big ticket sponsorship deals eventually end up in the pockets of superstar players, not struggling community sporting associations.
All in all, the Crawford Report is a sensible and well-researched inquiry into an important area of public policy. No wonder it's copping so much criticism.
Australian Olympic supremo John Coates is "pissed off". He's assembling a cavalcade of sporting legends to back up his case for $109 million extra funding to ensure Australia comes fifth in the medal tally in London. And what politician seriously wants to stand up for less Aussie Olympic gold? Certainly not Sports Minister Kate Ellis, who cautiously advises that the Government will respond to the report next year. Trade Minister Simon Crean doesn't like the report either, calling it a "narrow" view of sport.
If recent decisions by the Rudd Government are any precedent, buying off a noisy minority should prove far easier than tackling a difficult and potentially unpopular policy reform. In John Coates, the Government has just picked a fight with one of the best-connected and toughest backroom operators in the business. Expect Coates to get his money and the Crawford Report to be quietly buried next year.
To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.
David Skidmore
Posted Friday, November 20, 2009 - 15:16
Clearly the shamateurism has to go and the Olympics should be open to privately funding. The tennis circuit got rid of shamateurism in the 1960s and now corporations fund the grand slam tournaments and the minor lead-up tournaments. True, the prize money is obscene. But I have more respect for naked greed than the hypocrisy of the Olympics.
federali
Posted Friday, November 20, 2009 - 16:06
lets stop wasting money on narcissistic ego maniacs
David Skidmore
Posted Friday, November 20, 2009 - 16:47
I'm also pissed off, as Coates would put it, with Olympic participants being called "heroes". The idea of getting from one end of a pool faster than everyone else as being heroic is farcical. Heroism is achieving something at great risk - possibly your life. The only risk endured by Thorpe or Rice are bruised egos.
As for the medal tally, it's pure nationalist propaganda. But hey, nationalism is a sacred cow that even the Crawford Report won't go near.
Rocky
Posted Friday, November 20, 2009 - 17:10
Seems a very sensible report,the production of elite athletes at taxpayers expense is a national scandal. Those deluded people, who for some reason, think that our national standing is improved because Australians win a gold medal at some ludicrous sport should pay for the training of elite athletes themselves,it shouldn't be funded by those taxpayers who don't give a rat's for Olympic "glory".It's a competition we can't possibly win against nations with larger economies anyway.
I noticed that the Coalition/s,steadfast opponents of wasteful government spending, didn't agree with the report,obviously the old tried and true formula of "bread and circuses" still works. So unless we're like East Germany and can't compete on any other basis,it's thumbs down to the whole idea of taxpayer funded elite athletes.
Markob
Posted Saturday, November 21, 2009 - 17:05
It is one of the absurdities of Australian life that a teacher, who spends his/her life in the education of our future, and rarely makes it to a higher income bracket, must repay the cost of education once qualified, yet an athlete can go to the AIS, or any of the other govt funded sporting institutions, receive really high end training at world class and expensive facilities, then go on to fortune and fame, and there is never any discussion or thought of them paying for their education like a teacher.
Cricketers make $500k/y, which is OK as far as it goes, but surely some of their high end income should go to the publicly funded sports institutions that trained them.
Ditto footballers, swimmers, tennis players, golfers.
I am not in favour of dropping public funding for sport, but there needs to be some quid pro quo. If sport is a business, then treat elite cricketers like we would treat surgeons, or dentists, or nurses, all these people who do something useful, and deduct at least part of their training costs from their pay. And it should be a % of all sport related income, incl endorsements. ie if someone wants the society to pay the costs of their training then society should own a piece of them while they earn from their respective sports, which they can buy back at any time.
pogonaV
Posted Saturday, November 21, 2009 - 23:10
"It is one of the absurdities of Australian life that a teacher... rarely makes it to a higher income bracket, must repay the cost of education once qualified, yet an athlete can go to the AIS, or any of the other govt funded sporting institutions... go on to fortune and fame, and there is never any discussion or thought of them paying for their education like a teacher."
I thought these arguments were dead and buried years ago.
Think about the revenue generated by a chap like Ricky Ponting. Think about how many companies and organizations make money from him doing well. What he makes as a pro sportsman reflects his overall economic impact. From the groundspeople to the tv execs, there is a chain of thousands who make money because of him playing well. Few other professions - teachers and nurses seem to be favorite examples with the economically challenged - have such a *direct* impact on the economies of others.
Follow the money trail.
thomasee73
Posted Sunday, November 22, 2009 - 02:25
The point, PogonaV, being made by Markob is not that elite athletes do not deserve the revenues that they generate, but that if we recognise that they receive highly subsidied public funding for their education and training, then they should not be exempt from retrospectively contributing to the cost of that education and training, in addition to their income taxes. In fact, they should receive equal treatment in this regard to any other Australian citizen who takes advantage of publicly funded education, and who is subsequently required to contribute to that cost via the Higher Education Contribution Scheme.
Markob was simply pointing out double standards, exacerbated by the fact that the social contribution made by elite athletes appears to be entirely compensated for by their high incomes, yet the social contribution made by teachers appears to be much greater than represented by their salaries. Prices are not the same as value. Maybe the consumer surplus generated by teachers is significantly greater in relative terms that that generated by athletes. Its impossible to know either way - there's no more evidence that it isn't than that it is and to assume that it is, is simply a matter of faith.
David Skidmore
Posted Sunday, November 22, 2009 - 09:02
Personally I'd rather a paramedic assisting me if I have an accident rather than someone like Ricky Ponting. At the end of the day, paramedics, doctors, nurses, surgeons and others trained to save lives are more socially useful than cricketers or swimmers - no matter how much money the latter two generate.
Markob's point wasn't answered. My answer is that I feel there is no problem with AIS trained athletes making megabucks as long as like university trained professionals - doctors, social workers etc they pay a small percentage back as per the HECS scheme.
Even better would be the privatisation of the AIS and the Olympics which would free up government revenue in those areas and get rid of the ridiculous pretence that the Olympics is an amateur event.
Polstormb
Posted Tuesday, November 24, 2009 - 13:27
What ever happened to good sportsmanship and the promotion of active participation in sport? It seems that according to John Coates if your not winning your not wanted. If what Mr Coates says is true we shouldn't even be sending a team to the Winter olympics. This kind of tripe that Australians only want winners is completely false. The reason that sport is so appealing to Australians is because it alignes with one of Australians greatest modern traditions, giving everyone a fair go. Sport of all varieties provides an opportunity for anyone to have a go and feel good about themselves. Sure lets support the elites through the AIS etc, but lets not forget the golden rule of sport, its not about whether you win or loose its about how you play the game.