New report on money for sport has advocated more money for popular participation sports V Olympic gold.

Predictably those who depend on Olympic sport claim we NEED the role models (sic).
Role models for what?

An elite role model until perhaps 30 in the physical sports.
For the rest compete and if successful who cares great but 12 months later... who? e.g. name 3 of our athletes in the winter games?

Has Bradbury's bizarre win encouraged people to take up speed skating?

For a few in the high profile sports who's champions are both genetically endowed with physical superiority and are also photogenic; unrealistic wealth in sponsorships, endorsements, fame etc.

On the other side one can ask isn't it better for the nation to encourage mass participation in physical activities with a possible pay-off by helping to reduce obesity in the community, particularly in children. Keep the elderly active.

If successful this strategy would be to reduce the nation's rapidly escalating medical costs.

The question is do we pamper a few and aid business (often most of their jobs/profits are overseas)to sell products or help a lot of Australians?
Given that the role modeling is generally done to sell a product. Why can't business fund the whole thing like they do with footy/cricket?

Are or were you motivated by elite Olympic athletes, given you know that they have a genetic gift you don't ?

Is it better to have an army of reasonably paid trainers and infrastructure to help everyone who wishes too participate or an expensive bureaucracy to support a relative few in a quest for dubious PR.

Note I make no apology for my avid dislike for competitive sport, the pointlessness of the Olympics or my loaded prose here.

I have a different view in that I don't dislike competetive sports, however, I don't like olympic games.

They simply take much needed funds from more worthy projects and invite terrorisum at every event.

Sure, be competetive if you wish, but hold your sausage sizzles, sell your raffle tickets so you can raise the money to fund your own dream.

Just remember, many of our former and currect champions are multi millionares and, how much of their win fall have they given back to the public purse. The very purse that got them there in the first place.

It's a bit like pro surfers. Many of them obtained their skills while others spent their spare time working.

are Olymic Gold worth the cost ?
NO ! under any circumstances. It's nothing more than an insane ego trip for some & a lot of money for organisers & even more for tax payers. There are no real winners in the Olympics or in any other money orientated activity under the false banner of sport !
Sport has become a real estate type of business i.e. imbalanced value vs social cost.

YEEEEAH, let's ALL be bitter and miserable.

Dear Examinator,

Is Olympic Gold worth the cost?

I for one think it is worth the cost.
However, just consider:

In the 1950s and 1960s Australians were becoming more
and more aware of the fact that Australia was considered
a cultural 'backwater.' For the best of the arts one had
to go overseas. However, during the following years many
plans were made to put an end to this state of affairs.

The Australian Opera House (the first in Australia) was
built in Sydney. The architectural design made world
headlines, and despite the cost and complications in
building, it has become one of the foremost cultural
attractions (and tourist attractions) of Australia.

In Melbourne, the Victorian Arts Centre was planned as
the 'art gallery wonder' of Australia. The centre was
to become a spectacular architectural attraction. The
art purchases of the gallery have become matters of
public debate, and with the increased interest, more
and more people have been getting experience of art than
perhaps ever before.

The overseas fame of Australian
individual performers like, Joan Sutherland,
Rolf Harris, Barry Humphries, Geoffrey Rush, Cate
Blanchett, and many, many, more ... writers, musicians,
and performers in all the arts, earned Australia a place
amongst the world's best.

Australia has long excelled in sport. The fame of
its many sport 'greats'
gave Australia a reputation for sportsmanship that made
a nation of such a relatively small population proud.

Australians in the past
would await the Olympics eagerly, to show the
world their ability and keenness. In 1956, the Melbourne
Olympics brought Australia many tourists, much pride and
success (as did the Olympics that followed decades later).
We all watched on our TV screens - mesmerized by the
spectacle. And Sydney benefited from the tourists and
the buildings erected.

No longer could the world think of Australia as the place
where, 'kangaroos hopped around the streets' and where
the 'down under'label was a label of backwardness!

Do we really want to go back to those days?

I think the Olympic event is great, & it gives some reason for turning the TV on. I do admit that I also believe the Olympic movement is in serious competition with the United Nations for the gold medal for the most corrupt orgination on earth.

I evjoy watching the best Ozies compete, although I find virtually no difference in the enjoyment between a first round race, or a final. In fact I may enjoy the final less, where the commentators are too interested in a world record for the winner, to tell you who came 7Th.

I love the equestrian, the only place where men & women can compete on a truely equal basis. I don't think there is a sport that recieves less government support, either.

I do find that it is usually those who are so poorly coordinated they couldn't walk a 12 inch plank, lying on the ground, that profess a hatred of sport. Jealousy perhaps?

Still, I can see no reason why those who don't like competitive sport, should be forced to pay for those who compete, or watch.

I also believe that just like hex fees, those who prosper from the tax payers support of their training, should pay a reasonable percentage of their earnings. Perhaps a bit less than hex, as their earning life will be short.

So yes, I believe that the olympic movement is getting quite enough money to do the job. If they can't, lets change the management, & try some new ideas. Like the public service, it's a case of too many chiefs, & not enough indians. Perhaps, if all the top jobs were done on a voluntary basis, I may change my mind.