Maybe I like to support Australian Teams.

I don't think I can get behind Ian "[Brand Name]" Thorpe and the mighty invicible "Fat Burger" Kangaroo's team.

Naming a sporting stadium after a brand name was too much for me.

As someone who finds a problem with our unhealthy pre-occupation with sports, I am probably not the most objective of commentators on this issue but what the hell, it's my taxes too. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching sports but there's a limit.
Thinking back to the 2000 Olympics, I remember a report relating to the bean counters running to the government with the breathless zeal of an Olympian runner proclaiming that X number of dollars was needed to ensure X number of Gold Medals in competition.
It didn't seem a particularly sportpersonlike approach to the Olympic ideal but then again, neither was Samaranch. I remember in earlier Winter Olympics, the Jamaican Bobsledders and who could forget Eddie the Eagle. To me, they were the Olympic Spirit personified and even more so in the spirit of the Paralympians who even had to go through the indignity of negotiating the use of the Olympic symbols. Bloody Samaranch.
Investment should promote endeavour, not gold. With gold being the same benchmark that underpins the monetary value of much of the world's economy, the Olympics had a chance to elevate the ideal of humanity itself but chose, instead, to assign it a monetary worth. Last place, regardless of the effort, makes it into the loose change bag, far from the musical lilt of the till drawers opening.
I apologise for digressing from the core of the article but much of this comes to mind every time another television presenter beams for the camera and tells us that we are going to get "bags of gold medals".
I couldn't care less.

Sport takes a prominent place in Australian culture. More Aussies could name all the players in the cricket team, than the members of cabinet.

The Australian institute of sport has been successful in delivering elite sportsmen and women. It is interesting to see that the England cricket team has become successful after copying the similarly centralised Australian cricket academy. The eastern block has also been successful in getting medals with their institutes. By decentralising sport to be financed by private sponsors we will see all morals loose sport and we risk the strong possibility that drugs will proliferate sport like it does in the US.

Yes the Olympics and similar events have a very ugly nationalistic face. If we really want to "celebrate sport and humanity" we should drop all the flag waving and anthems. They have nothing to do with sport and only serve to divide humanity in nationalist pigeonholes. Nationalism is the same political force that has caused millions to march to their deaths in the world wars. Nationality is something artificial bestowed by accident of birth and it is time we realise that nationalism = racism. It has no place in the sporting arena.

The argument that we need to save the money to fund the safety net is ludicrous. The safety net is attacked at every possible occasion. Elections are bought with tax cuts at the safety nets expense. Scaremongering has reached the level where an underfunded retirement is the new hell for our post modern secular age. It is only a matter of time before the liberal party commisions Baz Luhrman to make a modern film version of Dante's Inferno set in a Salvo's refuge overflowing with desitute senior citizens.

PS I like Baz Luhrman's films and hold the work of the Salvation Army in high regard.

Most of the athletes at the AIS don't become a "brand" such as Ian Thorpe ( who has never trained at the AIS) and will recover little, if anything, finanically from years and years of training.

I'd prefer tax payers money being directed to these athletes who are showing complete commitment and dedication to an endeavour rather than to many other less worthy (in my opinion) beneficiaries of tax hand outs. At least these athletes are embodying characteristics which we want encouraged in the community.

As a minimum why not a HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme) type arrangement where the athletes would be required to pay back the assistance they have received.

Why discriminate athletics from other forms of education especially where these actually add value to the community (in the traditional sense). Payback on success, just like our tertiary students.

Now what about a name? ACS? (Athletics Contribution Scheme)? Hmm sounds like a good acronym to me. Do you agree?

HECS is based on the idea that you pay back the cost of studying out of an income which you receive as a result of that study. This wouldn't apply to AIS athletes as very few derive an income as a result of the training they receive from the institute. The only income you may be able to try to hit is sponsorship money, but like I said, very few receive this kind of income.

In reality $110 million is not a lot when you consider that:

1. $130 million is handed out annually in family benefits to families earning more than $100,000 per year.

2. The government spends $100 million a year on advertising.

If we want to curtail waste of tax payers money I'd prefer to see the above axed.

I dont have the statistics of income that athletes make but some do rather well, the Olympic Games not excluded apart from some of the highfliers that use their success with huge advertising incomes. Why, if my money is used to support them should they not pay it back at least in part. Besides it is elitism to support some sporting activitgies and not others.

As to amount Gabby says is small, I think there are many deserving causes that would love to have even half the money involved, however small it might seem. What about promoting excellence in engineering or biotechnology for example? Surely they are more worthwhile to our very vulnerable resource economy? And I havent talked about the aboriginal problem either.

Remco,

As Gabby points out a hecs style system on sports in not very practical. Sports, like music and the arts is one of those vocations where many are called but few are chosen. In recent years we have even had a number of teams releasing 'nude' calendars to raise funds for their sporting activities.

There are many worthy causes of government sponsorship. But why should we cut one for another?

Let's have a look who really benefits from sport. The general public finds it very entertaining but do not derive an income from it. However it proves to be so entertaining that corporate sponsors are very keen to be associated with sports teams. TV networks are falling over each other to buy the rights to sports broadcasts. It is so lucrative that TV Tycoons like Messrs Packer, Murdoch and Stokes are amongst the richest men in the country.

Sport is the killer application of television. People don't buy a cable subscription for CNN, Discovery and more repeats the same sitcoms that are on free to air. Many subsciptions are based solely on sports. This is the reason that Murdoch controls the English premier league which is only available through Murdoch cable channels, the super14 also only avaiable on cable etc.

Placing a tax on sports advertising revenue would go a long way towards funding the AIS.

( As an aside, if the government was serious about the digital TV roll out it would allow sports that are on the anti siphoning list to be shown on the multichanneling services. It would see a STB in many households. Phasing in multichanneling is not expensive, the networks already mulytichannel their main content. However Howard has c cowtowed to the big media as multichanneling would fragment the market and cause a revenue decline for the networks. So we are destined to remain dinosaurs in the analog age as our communications minister expressed so elegantly.)

We have a 17 billion dollar surplus funding the AIS cost less than one percent of the surplus and an even smaller percentage of our GDP.

Gabby: "HECS is based on the idea that you pay back the cost of studying out of an income which you receive as a result of that study."
HECS is paid pack out of income derived over a certain amount regardless of whether it pertains to your particular area of study or not. Just thought I would clarify the point.

The HECS idea for sport has merit, I believe. A university student goes in with the understanding that the facility is provided to assist in the long term prospects of the student. Whether the student is willing or capable of taking full advantage of the university has nothing to do with the responsibility of the student to repay their part of the educational contribution. Why should the Academy of Sport be any different?

I really don't see a difference. An academy of learning is just that, regardless of its focus.

Ever notice, it is not the atheletes nor the government whom make alot of money out of sport? It is indeed the television stations and news papers whom make millions of Australian sport.

Perhaps the government should stop funding sport, then we can wait 10 minutes and see private industry pick up the batton.

Sport is a profit industry, it's just inefficient at the moment, that's all.

Is the AIS a cushy form of Work for the Dole?

The support for some athletes reminds me of support for some arts, notably opera which thankfully has now ceased. It's support for elitism. The money could be better applied to creating awareness on obesity however politically difficult that will be with the leader of one party setting a pretty paltry role model.

But back to athletes funding, unless there is an externality (that flow-on that economists like to talk about) that the private sector cant address, then out, not my money. As DLC rightfully pointed out, the gap will be quickly picked up by the private sector, sponsors etc, and if not, I reckon the money is better addressed to create awareness about fitness to the likes of the leader of the opposition.

It shouldnt be a matter of commenting about how much as one respondent suggested, but where we will get best value. I say, public fitness before elistism (and if you must, those aboriginals in Hall's Creek).

You people are a bunch of socialists.

The role for government is upholding individual rights through preventing the initiation of force. That means police, justice, defence and nothing else. It should not be "redistributing [private] wealth" to the loudest and most influential interest groups.

Everything the state gives to someone it must take from someone else. Why should your Daryl "Battler" Kerrigans from Struggle St have to sacrifice the pursuit of their goals to pay for sportsmen or artists to pursue theirs?

While I thank the author for reminding his countrymen that in Rocky IV, your lot might as well have been on Dolf Ludgren's Soviet side, I can't support this suggestion:

"Why not, for example, pay for elite sports training through a tax on gaming". Why not do nothing? Embrace the libertarian solution and let people spend their money as they see fit. If you want the sports and arts supported, contribute your own money, not mine.

If you feel like a bit of Kiwi bashing may I commend to your attention these two article, the first by 1983 Wimbledon finalist Chris Lewis:
http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/44/44lewis.php
http://pc.blogspot.com/2006/03/peoples-republic-of-aotearoa-athletes.html
And if you're still not sated, just remember who won the rugby, league and netball.

A poster has noted that sports makes cheap programming for TV stations. The power of TV stations is ubiquitious, look at the change in audiences for football matches.

20 years ago the diehards would line up at noon at their teams football stadium to buy tickets to stand in the outer so they could shout encouragement and abuse to their heroes. Gradually the outer has been replaced by seating. The outer used to cost $8 but the seats must be booked and paid for and cost $50. The diehard fan is barred from practising his religion as football stadiums have put in seating and reduced crowd size. Seated fans look better on TV. It looks better to have a full stadium rather than a half empty stadium so stadium capacity is reduced to an optimal 30,000. Also 10 years ago teams like Geelong only played home matches on Saturday afternoon because the diehard fan used to spend Sunday with his family eating the Sunday roast.

Watching the lifestyle of the elite athletes next door I can say they live more comfortably concentrating on their training than the emergency teacher scratching a living across the road.

I think TV stations should pay the full cost of their programming choices, and this means supporting the AIS.