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).