This premise is absolutely correct. It's not just applicable to the Pararoos; it's been the general endgame of all Western leaders for some time now, as they ruthlessly and painstakingly dismantle the hard-fought social contract.

This returns us to the nineteenth century model of aristocratic benevolence (sickeningly sentimentalised by TV shows like Downton Abbey) religious protectionism (and the obvious abuse and exploitation this brings) and the family as social safety net (forcing mostly women back into the financial dependency of the carer role).

Of course the Pararoos will be saved by crowd funding and go on to play many more matches. But, as the author argues, this is the blueprint for Australia's future social contract - the have-nots having to literally beg, borrow and steal from the haves just for their very right to exist.

Welcome to the birth of the New Feudalism.
Neoconservatism is nothing more than the right of the rich to rule and the reintroduction of serfdom for the rest of us.
They are indeed winding things back to the 19th century, but what makes you think they'll be satisfied to stop there?

Oh god.

What this does to all of us is to return the right to chose to fund a bunch of footballers, or not to fund a bunch of footballers, as we see fit.

It is about time we removed able or disable athletes, or any other bunch who have crawled onto the government teat, to the bosom of the community. We can then chose to fund them if we think they are worth funding, as our interests take us. Personally I would disband a & defund all athletics of any kind. I'd also abolish all these taxpayer funded overstaffed institutes of sport, with their overpaid staff.

It did occur to me, that this winding back of funding for all these unnecessary activities could lead to a lot less cushy well paid social work jobs. Now that would be a real win for the taxpayer.

So Lynelle, I guess it is a good idea to tie your claim for social worker funding to a disabled sports team, even if a little cynical.

Hasbeen

I both agree and disagree.

I certainly agree that the extent of 'able-bodied' sports funding is ridiculous - to the point of daylight robbery of the taxpayer. It's designed purely for nationalistic ego-stroking and eugenics-style glorification of the fittest and strongest, who do very well in life anyway, thank you very much.

Professional sport, especially men's, with it's hyper-salaried, gladiatorial popularity is much better suited to private commercial sponsorship. Even less popular sporting arenas - women's and amateur sports - don't need the levels of funding they now receive.

However, disabled sportspeople belong to a different category. They have special needs that I believe form part of the social contract that all taxpayers should contribute to.

(I don't mean that to sound like disability is a 'tragedy' as the author puts it - it just needs more public compassion and financial support.)

So the real issue here is who should the Government decide to support in the name of Australia.

So I propose a solution: Let the government decide how much of the budget to allocate overall to such spending-- but let the populace directly decide to whom and how much. This can be implemented relatively easily by modern technology.
One such plan could be: Give each voter every year tokens worth: total government allocation/num voters. Have the government keep a register of applicants for funding (they would obviously have to fulfill criteria such as appropriate accounting standards and legality of purpose). Then let the people spend their tokens as they wish (via internet, similar to internet shopping). All such funding is recognized as being in the "Name of Australia" and not private. Eg: the people will decide by way of spending their tokens if they want to send a sports team overseas instead of a youth orchestra.
So overall, political parties go to polls with the total amount of spending as an point of difference election issue, instead of the issue being where it is spent. voila-- problem solved.

"So the tax then is levied on those of us who subscribe to philosophies of human rights, dignity, equality and inclusion."

No, the tax is levied on those of us who think it is remotely important or interesting for a bunch of disabled strangers from Australia to play sport against a bunch of disabled strangers from elsewhere at somebody else's expense.

But this is just the beginning. We can look forward to a long series of articles along these lines, explaining why it's perfectly reasonable to cut funding to everyone else, but not to MY pet project.