I've never understood the 'sports nobody else plays' bullshit argument. I'd like to see the list of sports that everyone plays. I'd think once you get past football it's pretty bloody short.

Cycling has been criminally underrated on this list. We might not have the depth of pro cyclists that other countries have, but we do have a pro tour team and usually have a rider pushing for either GC and/or sprinting honours at grand tours these days. Plus we have some of the best track cyclists around.

Can't see how this is unfair. A nurse pays HECS why can't some elite athlete pay back their AIS "debt" should they pass a certain threshold?

As for "happiness" Bhutan is the "happiest" country in the world. How'd they go in the Olympics last hit out?

Australians love sport because we've decided it defines who we are. We crap on about being the underdog (despite outspending many other advanced nations) because it makes us feel better about ourselves when we stick it up the Poms or the Americans. It's the same small man syndrome QLD employs every year in state of origin. "Bloody NSW think they're better than us blah blah".

France has had 67 Nobel laureates.

Germany 102.

UK 115.

USA 353.

Australia. 13.

It'd be good to be proud of something else besides sport. (And to go full circle. Sports that no one else plays.)

Left field extension of those ideas: speedway racing

there's a difference between the media and the man on the street

Australia loses its collective mind and jizzes all over the place when we win gold medals. The reaction is literally priceless.

Dumbest argument ever.
There's a lot more opportunities to make a living as a professional footballer than any other sport.

Jealousy and tall poppy syndromes help nobody.

This is just absurd. The vast majority of Australian Olympic athletes have no endorsements and really struggle to make ends meet. They often have to live with their parents well into 20s and work in crappy jobs, in addition to the regular training they do for their sport. They have no life. You're totally misrepresenting the situation.

I said before that I wasn't accusing you of having tall poppy syndrome, which afflicts so many of my compatriots, with respect to Olympic athletes. But now it's not far off the mark.

Fair question.

There are a whole host of reasons.

For one thing, you want to encourage Little Johnny. Good on you. But do you want to tell him he has no hope of ever playing football in the English Premier League or making the Olympics (let's suppose he does track and field, as well as football). I don't think that's fair on Little Johnny. One day, Little Johnny may have a chance of becoming an elite athlete. He should be nurtured and encouraged. He shouldn't be told, oh well you got to enjoy playing sport as a kid, but you're not to be given a proper chance of continuing as professional. How exactly is that fair on Little Johnny?

I believe in a holistic approach to most things in life. I don't think it's right to neglect elite sport while pumping up grassroots. It's unbalanced. Similarly, it's just as wrong to focus entirely on elite sport and to ignore grass roots sport. There needs to be a balance.

For another thing, we've been talking about difficulties with immigration, integration and multiculturalism on another thread. I personally find patriotism distasteful unless it's in the context of sport. When Australia do well at football or basketball or some sport in the Olympics, it's a banner that everyone in Australia, no matter what their background, can get around. I think this should be encouraged. International sport is one of the best ways we can do this.

For another thing, we genuinely feel better when our country does well in sport. Don't get me wrong, we all have real problems in the real world that sporting results cannot change. When Australia made the Last 16 at the 2006 World Cup, that doesn't stop cancer, or poverty or inequality of opportunity. True. But it sure as hell made a lot us feel pretty good. We're a sports-mad people. The fact that there are so many people regularly writing on a football forum attests to that. We feel better when we do well at the Olympics or in the football. There's no shame in admitting that.

For another thing, sport reflects national success. Yes there are other things which matter more. But most of the successful, happier countries in the world are good at sport. There's a reason that Malcolm Fraser was so disgusted by the showing at the Montréal Olympics that he immediately went about having the AIS set-up. I don't think we should neglect it. It's great to do well in international sport and it's embarrassing to do poorly.

Finally, cost-benefit analysis (in broad terms). We're the wealthiest country in the world. It's not going to cost us too much to fund elite sport adequately. If we produce an appropriate scheme which parts the gambling companies with much of their ill-gotten gains and diverts them to both elite and grassroots sport, how exactly is that hurting us?

plus swimmers are a bunch of drug cheats

Yes, yes, yes, with an appropriate funding model everything would be sunshine and lollipops and gold paved roads but we don't live in Happy Happy land.

Given the choice of funding a couple of dozen swimmers to the tune of $39 million dollars for 4 years or paying $200 a year rego for 19 500 children for 10 years straight I know what I'd pick.

And while I'm at it a HECS style system for those that suckled from the taxpayer teat and managed to make a half decent living out of it.

Thorpie was worth millions. Let's have some of that back.

Why is it so important to you to have successful athletes? How exactly, besides sticking it up the poms and the seppos, does winning gold medals change your life for the better?

Again I ask you. What's more important? Little Johnny being able to afford to play soccer on the weekend and away from his X-box or some swimmer put up in the AIS on a scholarship costing you and me our hard earned?

Personally I'm cheering little Johnny on.

Can you explain why an elite swimmer is a less worthy recipient?

You're creating a false dichotomy. With an appropriate funding model both can be provided for. Other countries do this, no reason why we can't either.

Look, in all seriousness. They can't go down from that figure because Australia is really struggling to compete with that amount of funding as everybody here agrees. Given that there are lots of areas where successive governments have not funded infrastructure and services sufficiently (i.e. the shortchanging of universities), I acknowledge that it's pretty tough suddenly to up the amount of funding for elite sport unless a new way to finance it can be found.

The UK has been wise enough to look at the AIS for inspiration in producing the world's best athletes. It's time we looked to the UK for inspiration in financing the production of the world's best athletes.

Tax the shit out of sports betting agencies, Pokies, etc. and use the profits to fund sport at both elite and grassroots level. Heck, some of the profits can be used to fund the arts and culture, as well. That's what the UK's National Lottery is used for; sport, the arts and culture. But tax the shit out of the gamblers.

As you pointed out, Australians are the wealthiest people in the world. We can't neglect other causes but we can be smart enough to divert profits from things like gambling agencies to elite and grassroots sport.

Edited by quickflick: 24/6/2015 10:37:46 PM

In the overall scheme of things, given what we spend on other rubbish ($70 000 bookcase?), it may not be much but someone should sit down and say are we getting the best bang for our buck here.

Benelsmore would love this. Maybe they need to do a cost / benefit analysis?

insurance costs are killing sports at grassroots in this country

well that and the FFA

I understood what you meant.

I don't reckon its that much money.

We can afford it.

We probably have enough courts, but I see your point in funding sports at the grass roots, and its importance.

Can you explain to me why an elite swimmer is a more worthy recipient than some poor kid who can't afford to play soccer because the rego fees are too high.

Thanks

From the $588 million they spent on the 2012 Olympics.

I missed a word which makes what I was trying to say more clear.




Urgh. Spelling errors. I hate them.

Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 24/6/2015 10:26:18 PM

I see what you are saying and agree it is a counterproductive approach. Based on my system, Athletics should receive lots of funding due to its international significance.

Tone it down from where it is now?

We already give precious little to elite sport compared to the UK, among others. If that sacrilegious Crawford Report gets implemented properly, the AFL will get more money, football will suffer and every Olympics will look like the Montréal Olympics. Utterly embarrassing.

There's this perception in this country (and I'm not accusing of you having it) that all Olympic athletes are spoilt brats who waste tax-payers money, do nothing and probably party too much. This is tripe. Those athletes who don't have endorsements (i.e. the vast majority) usually have to live with their parents and, on top of strenuous training requirements, have to work additional hours in (often) minimum wage jobs. It's also bloody hard for them to study at the same time. This is their only hope of training sufficiently to have a chance of getting a place in an Olympic squad and medalling.

It's very harsh. If we tone it down anymore, it's going to be intolerably harsh. But, sadly, tall poppy syndrome prevails in Australia.

We already give elite sport precious little funding. It deserves more, not less.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/08/14/3567481.htm

Over the last four years funding from Australian Federal Government has been to the tune of "[size=7]about $588 million dollars for Olympic sport[/size]," Dr Connor says.

That's a lot of cash U.

Could knock up quite a few tennis and basketball courts for that.

Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 24/6/2015 10:20:38 PM

I hear you but to perhaps distil what I am saying above I am not talking of funding curling for example.

What I am saying is that if Australia does really well at the Olympics then funding is increased. If Australia is shithouse at the Olympics in Athletics/track and field then there funding is cut.

Can you see the problem?

Taxing the shit out of gambling would be a good approach.

My personal belief, is that sports should receive funding based on their popularity and international importance. For example, I don't think there should be any funding for AFL, as this serves no international interest. We also shouldn't be funding sports that are not popular as it is a waste of money. For example we shouldn't all be clambering to start funding European handball for example just because we are not good at it.

Without elite sport programs, you won't win anything though.

Football however, should receive the most funding. It should be measured in the billions of dollars. When I'm in charge of this country, this will occur.

Yeah it's bugger all. As you know a reasonable amount about why Team GB is doing well, no doubt you know a little about UK Sport and the National Lottery. The National Lottery is why Team GB did so well in London 2012.

Unfortunately owing to existence of Tatts Group here and popularity of those godawful Pokie machines, I can't see a government backed lottery system working in Australia. However I'd like to see sports betting agencies like TAB, bet365 and Tom Waterhouse taxed substantially more. Better still, the Pokies could also be taxed substantially more. The ill-gotten gains of betting agencies and the Pokies could be redirected to Olympic sports and football at both grassroots and elite levels.

I'd prefer they spent the money on facilities for the poor and disadvantaged and got them playing sport.

EG: So I don't have to buy the African kid in my kid's team a pair of boots because he couldn't afford them after he paid his rego.

Everything that is wrong with the elite athlete programs in Australia can be summed up by the following sentence.

The more successful we are at a particular sport the more funding they get.

Now think about that for a minute...

Is that the right approach? Shouldn't the sports we are crap at get more funding so, you know, we can get better at them.

I'm not saying don't have an elite program. Let's just tone it down a bit.

Excellent causal analysis. Mind you, I still wanna do well at Olympic sports. Football too. Fund both heavily, say I :d