• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

For a country with only twenty million people we don't do too badly....

pasag

RTDAS
You see that old chestnut thrown around from time to time (read: whenever the Olympics is on in Aus) but you've got to ask yourselves whether that holds true relative to the amount of money we pour into sports in the country.

It's no secret that the amount spent on athletes has a pretty direct correlation to how well they do in the games, see England and the lottery. China start pouring money into sports and they overtake America. If India did the same thing, they'd shoot up the medal tally in no time.

Part of the reason Australia have been able to invest so much is because we are a relatively well off country, so I guess the question remains do we really do that well when taking into account the state of our country and investment in sport compared to others?

Furthermore, should we be be investing so heavily into sports? Some would say that us doing well in the Olympics has a tremendous boost on the nations self esteem which would translate well into productivity not to mention health and obesity advantages from making us a 'sporting nation' (though figures may suggest otherwise), others would say the money could be better spent on roads, hospitals, education etc.

A final question which was raised by howardj, should athletes have to pay back a certain amount of what is spent on them if they succeed? When I start working, I'll have to pay the government back for my training, should athletes be any different?

Thoughts?
 

Simon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Don't think it's such a case of just pouring money into sports. It's just the Australian way that everyone is given an oppourtunity to follow their dreams and the economy allows us to have good enough access to facilities etc... The infostructure in most sports allow us to have a good chance at success. Coaches are developed well and as a result there is a better chance of doing well.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
I don't think I'm betraying any state secrets to say that we've basically nicked the Australian Insitute of Sport idea (not to mention quite a few Ocker coaches) and the improvements speak for themselves. 12 years ago the coxless 4 was our only gold, this time we've won 18 & counting. Even allowing for natural variation across sporting generations I think the extra investment must be largely responsible.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Don't think it's such a case of just pouring money into sports. It's just the Australian way that everyone is given an oppourtunity to follow their dreams and the economy allows us to have good enough access to facilities etc... The infostructure in most sports allow us to have a good chance at success. Coaches are developed well and as a result there is a better chance of doing well.
It has probably changed recently with 2012 and greater British investment, but the number 10 or so years ago was the Aussies has 1/3 of UKs population and spent twice as much on sports. Obviously giving 6 times the level of investment per person.

I think sports success is a combination of things. Finance (along with culture, climate etc) being an important factor.

Still, it has to be spent correctly and in the right places and is a tool for success rather than a guarantee.
 
Last edited:

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
We're a country who loves to follow their teams/players etc, and we love it when they win. For me, personally, I'm happy for my taxes to go towards these athletes achieving their goals. They work much, much harder at their occupations than I do, so good luck to them. It's important for Australia's to be competing with the big guns.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's no secret that funding of Olympic sports in Australia has decreased since the 2000 Olympics whilst some other countries have ramped theirs up

For example:

The 4 British swimmers competing in the open water races receive more funding than the entire Australian swim team

Each British boxer receives a "salary" of 75,000 quid per annum plus housing

The Cuban boxers all attend university on scholarship

However, that doesnt tell the whole story and isnt the sole reason why Australia has underperformed in a number of sports

It also comes down to participation rates, sheer talent and performances on the day
 

irfan

State Captain
Jamaica has 2.7m people and they cleaned up this Olympics. More impressed tbh.
Jamaica's success is limited to athletics tho. Whereas Australia has generally got golds from a wide variety of sports and in events they weren't expected to (e.g. diving, pole vault etc.)

Did you know Usain Bolt used to want to be a fast bowler. Reckon he would be gun - rhythmical run up and probably generate a lot of bounce out of his 6 ft 5 in frame. I bet no one would try sneaking extra runs when he is in the outfield.
 

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
It's no secret that funding of Olympic sports in Australia has decreased since the 2000 Olympics whilst some other countries have ramped theirs up

For example:

The 4 British swimmers competing in the open water races receive more funding than the entire Australian swim team

Each British boxer receives a "salary" of 75,000 quid per annum plus housing

The Cuban boxers all attend university on scholarship

However, that doesnt tell the whole story and isnt the sole reason why Australia has underperformed in a number of sports

It also comes down to participation rates, sheer talent and performances on the day
Think that quote about the open water swimmers is probably smoke and mirrors from Alan Thompson as part of an attempt to get more funding for swimming in Australia. It's not funded the same way out here as it is in GB, in GB its all centrally distributed to the athletes through UK Sport so the whole 4 years that swimming receives is the figure quoted. Over here a lot of the funding goes through the different swim associations in each state. The figure he's probably comparing to is something like the budget to actually take the swimmers to the games.

Take for example Rebecca Adlington, she won 2 golds and received 12,000pounds a year funding, thats about $25000 dollars, thats to pay to enter competitions, buy here own kit etc. She admitted herself she got a lot of money from her parents. Sure it will change now, but the level of funding she was on leads me to think the line about the open water swimmers is not true.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
We're a country who loves to follow their teams/players etc, and we love it when they win. For me, personally, I'm happy for my taxes to go towards these athletes achieving their goals. They work much, much harder at their occupations than I do, so good luck to them. It's important for Australia's to be competing with the big guns.
I agree.
 

ohtani's jacket

State Vice-Captain
Australia at the Olympics:

2000 -- 16-25-17 (58)
2004 -- 17-16-16 (49)
2008 -- 14-15-17 (46)

Oooh, feel the under performance.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Each British boxer receives a "salary" of 75,000 quid per annum plus housing
Not true. DeGale currently gets £1500 per month from the ABA. From The Guardian.

If the Amateur Boxing Association come up 'with some sensible cheddar', by which he means a four-year contract and more than the current £1,500 a month he gets, the attraction of defending the gold in his home town should be enough to persuade him to stay in the crazy world of amateur boxing.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
We're a country who loves to follow their teams/players etc, and we love it when they win. For me, personally, I'm happy for my taxes to go towards these athletes achieving our goals. They work much, much harder at their occupations than I do, so good luck to them. It's important for Australia's to be competing with the big guns.
Fixed. :)
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Not true. DeGale currently gets £1500 per month from the ABA. From The Guardian.

If the Amateur Boxing Association come up 'with some sensible cheddar', by which he means a four-year contract and more than the current £1,500 a month he gets, the attraction of defending the gold in his home town should be enough to persuade him to stay in the crazy world of amateur boxing.
Truth is somewhere in between.

ESPN was referring to amount of "benefits" UK boxers get (trainers, expenses, etc) and referred to it as salary

DeGale is talking about cash in hand

BTW, this guy sign with Frank Warren, turn pro and cash in on current fame - he's a pretty average fighter (as were most of the Olympians) and he's bound to get starched before too long and his market value will plummet
 

roseboy64

Cricket Web Content Updater
Well, they have no national anti-doping agency, so doesn't the athletics federation runs the anti-doping programme?

Also, would be surprised if any of the tests can detect HGH anyway. Regardless of country of origin.
The IAAF and WADA do most of the testing. Unlike the US and UK so it'd be far more difficult to hide a positive test.
 

Top