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

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?

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.

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.

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.

We spend a **** load.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/go...0823-40xd.html

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.

Jamaica has 2.7m people and they cleaned up this Olympics. More impressed tbh.

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

And no drug testing

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.

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.

haaaaaa....same as ian thorpe i think

I agree.

Ignorance I think.:sleep:

Australia at the Olympics:

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

Oooh, feel the under performance.