We are one of the world leaders in triathlons

Lets put it simply.

On a per capita wealth basis we are numero uno.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

We do pretty piss poor.

Ripper. We can afford to put more money into elite sport :d

Marginal sport at best.

Any sport where you can drink beer from a beer cart is either the greatest sport in the world or no sport at all.

Original post has been significantly altered. (Which is fine. I understand you are trying to clarify what you meant.)

My comment as to Australia being poor at sport on the world stage still stand though with regards to sports that a lot of countries play.

I note that the premise has changed to include Commonwealth countries so my comments prior to this will read skew-if.

Its just funding.

We've cut our funding dramatically and a lot of coaches on different sports moved to the UK to prepare GB for the London Olympics hence our decline and their ascent.

If you wanna win gold medals then you just have to fund them.

Me? I would prefer they would put that funding into football. We've done the whole olympics thing. I'm over it.

$17 million dollars is not a lot of money. Its less then a dollar per person, per gold medal over a 4 year period.

:lol: =d>
In all seriousness though, Im happy to call golf a sport, I just would have to be paid to watch it.

For what it's worth, it hasn't really changed. We've just been sidetracked by your questioning as to whether or not Australia punches above its weight. I think you were labouring under the misapprehension that I was suggesting Australia punches above its weight in sport. That has no bearing on the ranking of sports (not ranking of Australia, mind) according to how Australia ranks in them compared to the rest of the world. That being the purpose of the thread.

Having said that, the title thread was somewhat poorly worded so I do apologise. And the discussion of whether or not Australia punches above its weight is an interesting one :d

Edited by quickflick: 24/6/2015 10:01:37 PM

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

I understood what you meant.

insurance costs are killing sports at grassroots in this country

well that and the FFA

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.