Reports that the Australian Olympic Committee is pushing for Federal Government funding of $200m per year leading up to the 2032 Brisbane Olympic Games, if we want to be competitive there. The threat being that we won't win medals if we don't 'invest'.
I have my views but according to some it is better for me not to state them here, but rather to respond to comments in the post.
So, the question: Is there value to Australia in 'investing' $2b. in sport over the next 10 years?
So, better than the submarine deal, but is it worth spending that much taxpayer money so a relatively small number of athletes have a suggested improved chance of winning a medal?
On submarine deal.
How much would it cost to buy enough cruise missiles to cover every square meter of what is valuable on our adversary's land mass pretty much launched all at once? That is what I would wonder <$368bn?
I suggest you add that comment to this forum: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/762624
Let's not get distracted in this forum (although I understand how the two financial commitments could get compared by some)
Yes, there's massive benefits in funding elite sports over grassroot sports.
Politicians' families get free seats with free food/drinks. Mates get special lucrative contracts to provide to the venue. Huge benefits!
No politician wants to pay to see some kids play and have fun. Adults having subsidised sports and well-maintained venues leading to reduced health costs to economy? Boooorrriiing. That also cuts into gyms' profits, how very anti-capitalist!
Did I miss any?
Money buys medals, no question.
And data suggests that more medals mean people are more likely to vote for the incumbent government. The feel-good factor.
I'm not aware of that data.
If true, it is a brave government to make that commitment now (to win votes) with the hope that they will still be in power in 10 years time.
More medals means more tv ratings which in turn is good for advertisers like Harvey Norman.
So the TLDR is the government likes subsidising HN.
We all know the LNP / HN relationship, but does anyone know what that is for Labor?
Will the Olympics be live on FTA tv?
It is 10 years away, and there is an increasing tendency to make viewing sport more restricted (via pay tv streams).
Perhaps that is the solution; sell the tv rights to Murdoch, put that funding into sport, and a reasonable amount of the population will probably not care anyway.
Probably on anti syphoning so has to be on FTA, whatever that looks like in 10 years.
Boring waste of money
Everyone knows the host country must pay. Australia should not welch on something it knows it had to pay, like the exit fee from the French sub deal which we also welched on.
This is more related to funding athletes in their preparations, than building infrastructure (which I think might already be funded).
As an aside, I wasn't aware that we 'welched' on the French sub deal exit fee; I thought we were paying that?
We welched on the original deal, but will pay the pre-agreed exit fee. It's still a welch imo because it embarrassed France.
So we are paying the exit fee (i.e. welching on the full contract but paying the exit fee as contractually required)
BTW I am not supporting that decision by the previous government
OK sweet. When you say 'we' I think I missed the referendum where I was given say in either of those two things. :(
Imagine the efficiency in government if every single decision had to go to a referendum.
What voters could be doing is making their views known to their elected representative, prior to the legislation being tabled. That way, your elected rep has to at least acknowledge that their vote may not be what you wants.
Waste of money. Pushing a lot of kids into sport with lack of success and hardly making a living.
I have no idea how this country works when we worship sports people, holes in the ground and housing construction.
Best thing about being the lucky country is that luck doesn't involve any skill.
" The threat being that we won't win medals if we don't 'invest'."
Who cares?
'We' don't win anything.
Just another expensive exercise in 'bread and circuses' and global tribalism.
I guess we don;t need better roads, healthcare and education?
I also guess that the government has heaps of money and doesn't need to steal any more of mine?
I'm with you in that the majority of the population get very little out of a sporting victory, be it an individual representing their country or a national team.
I don't think the government is signed up for this yet; it is lobbying.
I'm pretty sure the QLD gov't is already in top gear? Maybe that was something else?
Anyway, by 2032 China will be running the place so they can pay for it too. :)
(edit, yup looks like a done deal. https://www.qld.gov.au/about/Brisbane2032
Since being awarded Brisbane 2032, there has been considerable foundational work behind the scenes to ensure the Games are set for success. Plans are now underway to ensure Brisbane 2032 is a Games for all Queenslanders.
Queensland will host the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games over four weeks (29 days) with the Olympic Games hosted from 23 July to 8 August 2032 and the Paralympic Games to be hosted from 24 August to 5 September 2032. )
That is infrastructure; I think the Olympic rep was talking about competitor development.
Imo, it's a zero sum game. Let China, Russia, etc, have their gold medals to prove their political regimes right, whilst they waste their money.
I'd be ok with money spent on better sports fields, facilities, lower fees, and better parks. Hopefully some of the money is spent on things we can all use.
Yep, interesting that the Olympic rep made a reference to sports changing rooms etc.
Let's be honest here.
If you, or I, or anyone else went wandering through the list of things governments of various persuasions and levels spent on "stuff" we would all find things that we genuinely value, those we begrudgingly value, and those that we think are just ridiculous wastes of money.
On some we would agree, on others we would disagree.
Spending money on sports, submarines, or any other topic you choose will fit somewhere in the above spectrum … but where it fits for any individual could be quite varied.
Of course, and the point of this forum post to hear those different views.
There is nothing to stop a voter telling their elected rep what those views are either.
70% of the roads in the city I live in I may never drive on. Why should I pay for them?
Why fund a dozen hospitals when I only use one of them?
It's not fair! :(
Bread and games.
what have we been spending?
big difference in going from 20 to 200, or 175 to 200
.
I could be wrong, but I think the lobbying is for $200m/year additional.
I have no issue with investing in the training of "elite" athletes but, once they reach that status and start raking in the big bucks they should repay at least some of the taxpayers money that got them there.
To be fair, they usually do a better job of representing Australia internationally than our politicians do, so the small amount they get by comparison is worth it.
Interesting view.
I'm not aware of any specific Australian sportspersons or teams that represent our country (whatever that means) apart from the sporting endeavours.
What's $2bil in the face of $360bil submarines. Just chump change.
So, we are spending $360b so another $2b doesn't matter? So why not $5b on housing, or health, or education, or climate change, etc.
Why prioritise the Olympics over those?
I think the better option would be to spend a few million on new techniques to hide performance improving drugs from detection…
…then supplement all elite sportspeople with these to win.
I had a similar thought back when Lance Armstrong was outed. Why not just allow anyone to take any drugs they want and go for it. From a spectator viewpoint, it might be more interesting.
Just like bodybuilding. Agreed. I would watch it for sure. I want to see the extraordinary.
I used to think this too.
The standard argument against the is that if your normalise it for elite sports, then yout make it totally acceptable and aspirational for all levels of sport below the elite.
So then you get a big chunk of the population, especially kids and teenagers, who are encouraged by the behaviour of their hero to take PEDs. Without any of the associated substance quality controls and medical advice and monitoring that the elite would receive.
Plenty of stories in the US have been floating around for decades about widespread PED use in high school and college football. Not the sort of thing anyone sane would want over here.
It could have an alternate effect.
If we give athletes free-reign to take whatever PEDs they want, we will likely see more detrimental outcomes (e.g. deaths).
Same with other things like concussions; the more info that is out there and attributable to specific sport-related causes, and the long term impacts, the less likely that kids and teenagers will partake (or that their parents might wind back the participation).
We could also develop an elite sporting code where there are no PEDs allowed, supported by high frequency testing and monitoring. Participants in this level of sports would be considered the 'purists'.
@GG57: It could have an alternate effect.
If we give athletes free-reign to take whatever PEDs they want, we will likely see more detrimental *outcomes (e.g. deaths).
That seems more than a little improbably optimistic.
The elite athletes are the ones with top tier medical monitoring to ensure that things don't get out of hand. Lance Armstrong had a doctor on hand 24x7, and look at the coordinated efforts that supported the Russian national athletes. Something similar is almost certainly happening in China, which has dominated weightlifting for the past decade. These guys already have free reign.
The elite guys are safe, for now. And the long term downsides will only come into play five, ten, twenty years from now when the athletes are forgotten. As an example, Ronnie Coleman was one of the best known bodybuilders of the 80s. He can't walk without crutches now, but nobody pays attention to this, nobody remembers who he was.
Can they invest 6 figures to get most cost-effective gold medals in skate boarding?
Is skate boarding an Olympic event for the Brisbane games?
What a waste of money. They should invest in people. What about making exercise classes free for Australians to deliver better health for all? Or investing in education or housing.
I agree, although the Olympic Committee will probably argue that this is an investment in people (i.e. athletes).
Sport is a massive part of the Australian culture. In saying that I don't know how much is invested right now but I'm for an injection into it.
My understanding is that the proposed funding would be directed to elite-level (or potentially so) sportspeople. Does your response remain the same in that scenario?
Hmmm I think i'd need to see exactly where it's going to. I'd like to see the 13 - 18ish age maybe get most of that.
TBH, for the Brisbane Olympics in 2032, some of those within that age group may be seen as too old to be considered, depending on their sport / activity.
There are plenty of researches out there already concluded hosting the Olympics tend to result in severe economic deficiencies .
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/092416…
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/24/business/olympics-economi…
No doubt, but this post is about the lobbying for additional funding for athletes, not for hosting the Brisbane Olympics.
Yes, there is great value in keeping the majority of the population distracted.
Distracted from what?
Distracted by whom?
Distracted how?
Distracted from what?
Important things.
Distracted by whom?
Who else?
Distracted how?
Uh, sport?
That doesn't make sense.
- If money was allocated to be spent on developing elite athletes, how would that distract '…the majority of the population…' from important things?
- Who is 'who else'?
- Most of the athletes that would be covered by this proposal are not in sports that '…the majority of the population…' follow (apart from the Olympics).
@GG57: Why do you think such time is devoted to sport on the nightly news? It isn't just about spending money to develop elite athletes. It is also about the spell of sport, it captures the imagination of a substantial part of the population. The endless stories, tv segments, interviews, social media, gossip. Then there are all the industries associated with it, developmental, infrastructure, medical/allied health, support & a hundred others who feed off of it.
It is a fantasy that feels good & uplifts people, but it also disempowers people by simply directing their attention to things that are basically frivolous.
Important discussion that the majority of the population should be knowledgeable about but aren't are, to give just ONE example, the use of technology to alter the very fabric of the food we eat & the seeds that are used, & now also the genomic editing of mammals & humans. This has been left to "experts" in the field, who are nothing of the sort, but rather mostly corporate flacks beholden to giant multinationals & governments for their very livelihood.
There should be open & unbiased discussions about this & many other issues & there should be involvement of the majority of the populations, but this isn't happening. Distractions, diversions, we've been deliberately seduced away from taking responsibility for a lot of things. Leave it to others more knowledgeable, supposedly.
NGL i had my day in elite sports and the support from the state was laughable, so much so that people would actively avoid associating with the state group and be coached by their own club.
Admittedly a lot has changed since then but the funding definitely wasn't going towards quality athletes, a lot was being chewed up by admin/support staff.
And I think it's been debunked that throwing money at sport doesn't necessarily equal medals.
$200 miilion a year would be eaten up pretty fast by peripheral stuff.
Still i'll take it over the sub deal, that was trash.