What inspired this post?
In 1981 the Commonwealth Government established the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS). The Australian Sports Commission (ASC) which administers the AIS has 2 objectives: (1) excellence in sports performances; and (2) increased participation in sports and sports activities. State-based institutes of sport have also been established with the same or very similar objectives. Federal policy directs the bulk of the ASC budget to elite athlete programs. A smaller proportion goes towards community participation. The official reason is based on the notion of the ‘trickle-down’ or ‘demonstration’ effect. That is, a flow-on of benefits to the broader community in the form of increased participation as a direct result of elite sports success. The aims of this study were to determine the (1) spending pattern to elite sports programs for the 5 Olympics 1976/77 to 1995/96, (2) evidence for the two ASC objectives having been met, and (3) expected medal tally at the 2000 Olympic Games. Results show funding (in 1998 dollars), has accelerated from about $1.2 million (1976/77) to $106 million in (1997/98), particularly since the Games were awarded to Sydney. The total amount spent on elite athletes was $0.918 billion. In the period 1980-96 Australia won 25 gold and 115 total Olympic medals. This equates to approximately $37 million per gold and $8 million per medal in general. There was a significant linear relationship between money spent and total medals won. This was also found when all medal types were analysed independently. The predicted medal tally in 2000 (based on the cost per medal and the expenditure towards Sydney) indicates the medal count will be about 14+/-1 gold, 15+/-2 silver and 33+/-4 bronze. Based on our nation’s record of international sporting achievement, there is little doubt we have fulfilled the ASC’s first objective. Current data on physical activity patterns of Australians suggest the second objective has not been met. Focusing attention on and achieving the first objective does not appear to have any bearing on the second objective. It is time to revisit the notion that elite sporting success leads to greater mass participation as a result of the so-called ‘trickle-down’ effect.
What is the ASC/AIS?
Our mission
‘To enrich the lives of all Australians through sport’
Our vision
To continue to be recognised as the world leader in developing high performance and community sport.
Our objectives
The ASC’s Strategic Plan 2006–2009 sets the direction, strategies and broad framework that allow the ASC to meet its statutory objectives and achieve the outcomes the Australian Government requires. The ASC’s key objectives are to secure an effective national sports system that supports improved participation in quality sport activities by Australians, and to secure excellence in sports performance by Australians.
Is the ASC meeting its non-elite objective?
No.
Is the ASC responsible for lifestyles of Australians? I would say this is implied within its lofty mission and goals. If these are not the case then why have an ASC at all?
How much money does the ASC/AIS spend?
My one question
Instead of a ‘trickle down’ effect from elite sports funding, why not rely on a ‘trickle up’ effect from community development?
Disclaimers and Assumptions
- Gold medals, although important and shiny, are not as important as the fitness of the population
- More athletes as a proportion of the general population will also increase the talent pool of potential medalists
- That increasing spending on community sports will increase participation in community sports
- I could not find data to verify the split between elite and community spending within the $250,000,000 to $300,000,000 spent each year.
- I suspect that the variance between the high of $308m and the low of $257m is accounted for by an ‘Active After-School Communities program’ (see below)
- I always roll my eyes whenever I hear ‘trickle down effect’. This is because:
- If you want to affect something, target it directly
- I always see the trickle as being a yellow liquid
Side notes
The ASC/AIC is administered under the department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and not Health or Human Services.
A program to watch, from the budget papers:
The Government will provide $43.9 million over 2011‑12 and 2012‑13 to continue the Active After‑School Communities program for one calendar year until December 2012. The Active After‑School Communities program provides funding to around 2,000 primary schools and 1,300 out‑of‑school‑hours care services to deliver quality sport and other structured physical activity programs.
And after London there will be yet again another campaign to increase the percentage given to elite sport in order to secure yet again more gold medals http://www.foxsports.com.au/elite-sport-funding-vital-coates/story-e6freys0-1111117286972