Advertisement

The price we pay for gold

Australians love watching the Olympics – especially when we’re winning medals. But training elite athletes doesn’t come cheap and a HECS-type scheme might free up more funding for grassroots sport, suggests Andrea Michels.

Aug 12, 2016, updated Aug 12, 2016
Millions of dollars are spent on high-performance sports training at the AIS. Photo: AAP

Millions of dollars are spent on high-performance sports training at the AIS. Photo: AAP

The news that Roy Slaven and HG Nelson were reuniting to cover this year’s Rio Olympics no doubt sparked joy among thousands of fans. After all, the comedy duo rose to fame on their uncanny ability to parody the one thing that’s sacrosanct in our culture and Australia’s national obsession: sport.

But when I read last week that the Australian Institute of Sport had spent a whopping $376.7 million of taxpayers’ money on high-performance sports training since the London Olympics four years ago, I realised it’s actually no laughing matter.

So I decided to have a closer look at this spending.

According to the Australian Sports Commission website, the Federal Government allocated $134 million to be spent on national sports organisations and athletes in 2015/16. Yet only $22 million of this money was actually spent on trying to encourage more active participation in the general community, which in anyone’s book has some very important advantages.

Rather, it seems most of the money (correction, our money) was allocated to elite training ($100 million) and grants to high-performance athletes ($12 million).

Now, I’m not trying to knock the value of sport to our cultural identity, or the fact that it’s great to have role models for our kids to look up to as they race around the field at Little Athletics, or when they aim for a goal in their school soccer match.

However, if you’re going to argue in this climate of belt-tightening about funding for health, schools or welfare, I think it’s fair to ask why taxpayers should have to subsidise something non-essential like elite sport to the extent they do.

A few years ago, Ben Quilty, a well-known Australian artist and winner of the 2011 Archibald Prize, sparked fierce debate by suggesting elite athletes should have to pay back money spent on their development at institutions like the Australian Institute of Sport in the much the same way as other students do once their income reaches a certain level.

There was a significant backlash. One person exclaimed the mere suggestion was darn right un-Australian.

The AIS retorted that introducing fees wouldn’t be right because professional athletes aren’t training to develop employment skills. (Tell that to Nick Kyrgios; he trained at the AIS and then reportedly earned more than $1 million in his first year on the global circuit. I’m pretty sure the coaching program would have helped his skills development and career success.)

Why should a sports star be treated any differently from a doctor or a teacher when the Government hands out taxpayers’ money to train them?

It’s true many professional athletes struggle to make a living. But the top sports stars can generate substantial revenue from sponsors and advertising deals once they’ve established their careers, in much the same way as our well-known local movie stars.

The problem is that the likes of Cate Blanchett and Hugh Jackman have to pay back taxpayer-funded fees from their elite training institutions, such as the National Institute of Dramatic Arts or the Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts. And why should a sports star be treated any differently from a doctor or a teacher when the Government hands out taxpayers’ money to train them?

Just think: if you had an educational loan scheme for athletes similar to HECS, you might be able to put more funds into the really important stuff, like grassroots sports – the kind played by thousands of kids around the country.

Activities that rank lower on the “elite sports” hierarchy but are enjoyed by many – like netball, soccer, hockey and volleyball – could all benefit.

Remote and regional areas might be able to put more into bringing communities together and solving other social problems in the process. Local sporting clubs and health organisations in every state might find a way to run new programs that encourage kids to get out, exercise and stay active.

This is likely to have long-term health benefits, which will also save us money down the track.

It’s sobering to remember that, according to Australian Institute for Health and Welfare figures, around 63 per cent of adults and around 25 per cent of children are now officially overweight or obese. Part of the problem is we’ve become a nation of watchers not doers.

Really, it’s a simple cost-benefit analysis. Sure, the Olympics bring us together to marvel at the amazing skills and this stirs our patriotism, but at the end of the day we have to examine if some of that $376 million could be put to better use.

Perhaps we should be looking at a more even split between elite sport and community participation? Is a HECS-type scheme really such a bad idea?

Australians love the Olympics, watching football, going to the cricket, and staying up for the World Cup, Wimbledon and the Tour de France. There’s nothing wrong with that. But we need to think about getting something back from those who financially succeed. That way we can use those funds to encourage more people to get out and try a sport themselves.

I’m sure even Roy and HG would approve of that.

Andrea Michaels is a tax law specialist and the managing director of Adelaide firm NDA Law.

Topics: Rio Olympics
Local News Matters
Advertisement
Copyright © 2024 InDaily.
All rights reserved.