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.

I think the world needs some sort of regular event like the Olympics that raises people's sights a bit and gets them interested in improving themselves. I very much agree with the idea of athletes paying back their government-funded sponsorships (just the like HECS scheme) when they reach a certain income threshold. If it's good enough for students, it's good enough for athletes.

But, for mine, the funding of Olympians and elite athletes in general gets back to fairness. Is it fair that an elite sportsman like Tiger Woods, say, gets paid $3 million for essentially coming here and living out his hobby for a week? An ordinary worker that has never been interested in elite sports not only would have to spend a lifetime working to amass $3 million, but his taxes are being used to subsidise the elite sportsmen for simply making an appearance in an activity that he (the worker) has never been interested in! It's an obvious and much-asked question, but where's the justice in that??

It's pretty sad that we even have to ask the question.

The Olympic movement was for many years open only to amateurs. That is, they didn't get paid to compete. This set them apart from professional sportspeople, who were in fact a branch of the entertainment industry, and paid as such.

Governments began to get involved when it became clear back in the Cold War years that the USSR. East Germany etc. provided their athletes with facilities, state-sponsored coaches etc., effectively turning them into professionals, that gave them an advantage.

Typically, instead of insisting that this was contrary to the Olympic spirit, all the other countries clambered onto the same bandwagon, and the entire operation became driven by money.

Once that had been assimilated into the fabric, it simply became a competition between sports, how much they were able to milk from the taxpayer to achieve their own personal goals.

And at that point they, too, became just another TV show.

And the gravy train, once in motion, took on a life of its own.

I noticed on the news that even archery, of all sports, has the same cargo-cult mentality, complaining that they would be unable to bring home Olympic bacon without a massive injection of our money.

For heaven's sake. All you need is a field, a target, and a bleedin' bow and arrow.

A couple of meat trays down the pub should cover it.

So ave atque vale, Olympic Games. I hope our government sticks to its guns, and puts every cent into the grass roots of the sports in question, and gives not a cent to an aspiring television star - errr, Olympic competitor.

The questions we need to ask ourselves -
is what's important to us as a nation?
Naational Pride? Being part of the global
scene? Having an international reputation
as a sporting nation?

I was under the impression that for all
athletes the highest achievment was winning
gold at the Olympics. This was considered
the pinnacle - the reason they went into
the sport in the first place - to compete
and be the best that they could be.

If countries like Korea, Spain, and others, that
aren't noted for their wealth, can
take pride in being able to host the Olympics.
We have to decide if we want to compete on the
international level and give our athletes something
to aim for - or not. And, if we seriously think
that it's all a waste of money - then perhaps
entire corporate sponsorships may be an avenue - we
could look into.

It is the reporting by the Oz (so, so Oz) media that is wrong with the Olympics. If I never, ever, hear the 'Ozzie, Ozzie, Oi, Oi, Oi' again it will be too soon.

Thank goodness that Norman May, the inventor of the phrase 'winning gold' in lieu of 'winning gold medals' is long gone.

There needs to be public pressure for the wretched Oz media to lift their game and the first thing they might do is sack all of those ex-racing commentators who drag the cameras to the boxing and swimming.

I used to think they were one-eyed reporting only Australian wins, but now I reckon a lot of it is laziness and saving bucks - which is also why the 'crikit' goes on and on and on for hour after gloomy hour - cheap reporting.

I agree that there's benefit in maintaining the tradition of a global sporting competition like the Olympics, even though I never watch it myself. It unites all nations, if briefly, and it's an opportunity to showcase the hosting country to the rest of the world.

I'm all for some government support of Olympian standard athletes, but I agree with the report just out that the amount of money needs to be scaled back. I think I heard at the time of the last Olympics that one gold medal cost Australian taxpayers $17 000 000, but I might have that wrong. The figure whatever it was would be higher now.

I also like the idea of athletes paying back the money, as with HECS, once their earnings reach a certain level.

Taxpayer support of sport should be spread widely, and aimed at maximising participation amongst the general population, with an eye to the health and social benefits to be derived for all, rather than funnelling it into the ever improved performance of a small elite.

Australia should be able to participate in the Olympics without having to beat our medal count every year. We are a small nation after all and we do have a lot of other needs for that funding.

For the record I have played sport (if rugby's a sport) competitively. even played in district 'A' grade final albeit one game and as a last minute sub. Also a pretty fair cross country runner.
Sorry Hasbeen, more leaping prejudices.

IMO competitive sport is ritualised violence and not worth worth the effort.
Two of our four children carry life time injuries due to being encouraged at school to stretch beyond their abilities to win some momentary victory. A little research has shown that they're fate isn't that uncommon.

NB. Callisthenics, fun are one thing but go to a school sport final and watch the 'Animalised' parents lose the plot. Not the one or two but in large numbers.

Listen to some of the parents perform after their child loses. "You'll have to train harder ... put your heart into it ....when I was your age I...I.." Bollocks.

Or the half-time pep talk "get out there and CRUSH the opposition....kill them ..its for the honour of the school" and Bollocks again.

Do you really want your children to emulate footy boys? I encouraged them to look to the real achievers scientists etc.

What you don't hear about are the life time injuries most suffer, for what I ask.

What's so great about watching your child having the crap out of them or they doing it to someone else's child. A few days of fame for a probable lifetime of pain or perhaps brain damage ?

Explain to me how sports persons change overseas opinions of us. Put us on their map....nah. It's only when we put an Olympics on that that happens. And most host's recently have finished up with a financial hangover.

Sorry foxy, I remain unconvinced that the $120million+ of TAX PAYERS money couldn't be better spent on them.

Clearly if you want to watch it then pay for it. Fair enough but don't use my tax contribution I'd rather it is used to he solve a national problem the Murray Darling etc. or the homeless.
Business is business, Elite sport is business and govt. should NOT be involved.

The real question is why the popular sports aren't in the Olympics. I know other countries have different tastes, but cannot imagine a culture where archery, horse prancing and diving matter. It is the Olympic movement that needs to think about its priorities.

Examinator

Sport does show up the ugliness in some parents and schools but it is trivial compared with music and the performing arts.

School bands and choirs...I can't add any more, the PTSD is flooding back and no, I didn't volunteer (well, not willingly).

Sport is for most students a welcome release from the classroom, but you are right, they are not playing for sheep stations (thanks to junior AFL for that one).

Sure, let the taxpayer fund it but make it more like a HECS scheme.

If they are serious about their "contribution" let them contribute to the cost.

If it's good enough for those who want to make a tangible contribution to our society by studying then it's good enough for those who seek personal glory and adulation via sport.

Dear Examinator,

It's $220 million that the Federal Government gives
each year to the Australian Sports Commission. And,
according to athletics officials that's an
embarrassingly small amount. They could be right,
as Australia's relatively weak performance in Beijing -
where Australia came a dismal sixth place on the
gold medal tally would indicate.

The country has to decide what it wants to do.
Whether to support sport seriously - with the Olympics
as the ultimate goal for athletes - or not. Schemes
similar to the student HECS scheme is worth
looking at as a means of funding,(the athletes should
pay back a reasonable share of government funding, once
they start earning a reasonable income).
There are also other alternatives to take the
pressure off the Federal Government.
Like Corporate sponsorships. With possibly better
planning and management, Australia could come up with
better ways to fund our athletes.

The Olympic Games provides Australia with the opportunity
to compete against the world's best athletes
and we've been doing it since 1896 in the spirit of
friendship and sportmanship.

I wonder if we were to ask athletes like - Ian Thorpe,
Stephanie Rice, Jodie Henry, Petria Thomas, Shane Gould,
not forgetting Dawn Fraser, Murray Rose, Betty Cuthbert,
and others - "Is Olympic Gold worth the cost?"
what would their answers be?

Sorry Examinator, I should have added failed would be's, in the sports haters, just for you.

Benk a bit of suburban prejudice there. Tell me a sport where some kids family can buy a bit of equiptment, [a slow race horse] for less than half the cost of a set of cheep golf clubs, & watch their kid win a gold medal with that equiptment, & i'll be impressed. You couldn't even get a swim suite for the cost of many horses. There are thousands at pony clubs every weekend.

Wobbles, why the nasty put down. Thousands of sports people compete for pleasure. Some want to find out, how good they are, with no thought of earning money, adulation, or glory from their sport. Many compete in national championships, as you never know if you don't compete against the best. It is usually the very best who try to help their competitors.

My experience is typical. I never recieved, or asked for, any government support. When I won a hundred quid, along with a state championship, the tax man was there just 2 days later, with his hand out.

After I showed him that my costs were 4,000 pounds that year, he decided that my sport was really only a hobby, & disapperaed very quickly.

Yes there are those who make lots, & yes they should contribute, just like uni graduates, [which many are], but the nasty attitude, shown here, is not really necessary.

Hasbeen,
I never really wanted to be, it was the pressure put on me by a conservative boarding school in Brisbane.

As I also said if people want it as individuals then they can pay.
But given that business is the primary winner in Olympics they should pay,not the taxpayer via the Govt, that was the point.

Foxy
Most of the old time greats were 'amateurs' a concept not acknowledged today.
That wanka from the Olympic Fed (the one that dumped the Greek girl to run the first torch link so his daughter could) told us that if we don't pay we won't win medals. Clearly the country who pays the most wins the most. How long since a small nation had multiple winners (perhaps Ethiopia).

How do you know that the Ivory Coast, Mozambique ,etc aren't represented simply because they can't afford the training facilities etc.

Thorpe and co would be for spending the money because they were clear beneficiaries.

In truth the Olympics has lost the the plot(ideal) its now simply big business and national posturing. No different to footy

Foxy,
In the final analysis
It's all up to the individual and clearly you and I disagree but as I say I retain the right to be wrong :-)

Hasbeen

You must be joking. Equestrian events are amongst the most expensive around. The truly wealthy can buy horses that they cannot lose on, except to someone with even more money to spend.

Oops...on further reflection...Hasbeen really was joking.

Don't know much about horses, or riding, do you Benk?

One of the members of our last Olympic gold medal winning team was riding a failed, [slow] race horse, bought for her when she was a school girl, for a few hundred dollars, to ride at pony club. She trained that horse from a baby to a gold medal. Slow race horses are worth their value as dog meat, & no more.

She has been trying to buy another winner, without success.

My daughter was knocking on Olympic squad selection on a horse, given to us as a 9 month old colt by the people who breed him, when they sold their property due to illness. He grew up through pony club, too.

WE used to compete against some riders who tried to buy success, but none of them ever succeeded. Unlike cars, horses don't have a steering wheel, or an accelerator pedal.

I had moderate success on an old race horse, I saved from the dogs meat factory. Cost me $300. No one else could get him to go worth a damn, until a mate from up country borrowed him for his school boy son to ride in a major competition. They clicked, & the kid cleaned up. As I was a bit past it by then, I gave him to the kid, just so I could see the old bloke go so well.

All the top riders I know are poor, & make a living teaching riders, or horses, & often have to sell their best horses, overseas, to keep competiting

At least I can spell Olympic.