Olympics waste of money

Photo: Waikato Times

Pigs party: Olympic sports need to get their snouts out of the public funding trough.

Relevant offers

Opinion

Bok block to free-flowing rugby? When does sport stop being sport? Time to whistle up a better spectacle Crusaders always worth a punt, Chiefs at ridiculous odds John Terry hits a skanky low New format needed for under-19 tournament This numbers game is all very confusing The alternative Halberg Awards' winners' list Stop clock to speed up rugby Cheating drama on and off the course

OPINION: There are a couple of reasons why Australian businessman David Crawford might want to consider ducking over to New Zealand this week.

For starters, after releasing a report that suggests the value of an Ocker Olympic medal is ridiculously over-inflated, there's the small issue of his survival to think about. But at least, while he's waiting here for things to cool down, he could also spend his time productively, asking similar questions about the funding of Kiwi Olympic sport.

Since the airing of a review that not only rejected an Australian Olympic Committee request for an extra $A100m a year but also ridiculed its obsession with trying to win gold medals, Crawford has been accused of all manner of offences across the ditch, from being "un-Australian" to spitting in the faces of former champions. Disrespectful, insulting, well-meaning but ignorant; you could be forgiven for thinking he'd been caught urinating on Gallipoli grave sites.

To be fair, much of the flak has spewed from the mouth of AOC chief John Coates, probably better known here for his crack at the British swimming team in Beijing: you know, that they'd done pretty well for a nation short on pools or soap. Quite why Australia always insists on having a latter day Arthur Tunstall in charge of their Games' administration is still unclear, although it must be said, it makes for some entertaining public exposures.

For all that, Coates' histrionics haven't been able to obscure the sound rationale behind the Crawford Report. In fact, the on-going bleating, the bombastic rhetoric and personal attacks have only served to demonstrate the weakness of his argument. The gist of it seems to be that, trying to win more Olympic medals than just about any other country is a national duty; therefore taxpayers should pay for it, and any dissenters should be smeared as unpatriotic, if not traitorous.

Crawford's inquiry relied on more substantive findings. He found no evidence that success on the medal table improved participation levels in any sport; he demonstrated there was a bias towards the public funding of Olympic sports compared with more popular codes, and a neglect of initiatives that encouraged more Australians to play more sport for longer. Furthermore, he blasted the AOC's goal to regain its "top five" status at the 2012 Games, calling it unrealistic and unimportant.

Finally, someone with the courage to yell it out loud; that the Olympics are over-rated, over-indulged and poor value for money. Confirmation at last that the Games have become for Australia (and New Zealand for that matter) a self-serving industry of entitlement, a publicly-funded Masonic lodge in which members continually expect preferential treatment at any cost. Successful Olympic sports offer nothing to the community in real terms, despite the spurious claims. There are no public benefits; just a public cost.

New Zealand needs to think seriously about the main talking points across the Tasman. Why should we continue to pump increasing amounts of money into Olympic sports that aren't even popular? Why are we more interested in winning gold medals than increasing grassroots participation? And if Olympic success has no community health value or positive public spin-offs, as stated in the Crawford Report, why are we prepared to pay an arm and a leg to fund it?

Doubtless, there will be those convinced Crawford has simply goofed up. They would be deluded. This is, after all, the man who has twice previously sparked massive reforms on the Australian sporting landscape. The first Crawford Report, in 1993, caused sweeping changes to the old Victorian Football League and ushered in the AFL. A decade later the second Crawford Report overhauled soccer and led to the introduction of the A-League, not to mention World Cup qualification for Australia.

Crawford's findings should resonate loudly here, where funding for modestly-supported codes such as triathlon, rowing, cycling, swimming and athletics hog more of the public purse than our highest participation sports: rugby, cricket and netball. In terms of a return on the investment it simply makes no sense. What value does a gold medal in triathlon hold for the community? Does it encourage more kids to become involved? Not according to the Crawford Report.

With that in mind, the argument that public funders should concentrate more on mainstream sport than Olympic sport has clear merit. Even if the counter-argument is that mainstream sports are doing very well on their own, it still doesn't validate the Olympic funding issue. If the community is expected to dig deep for a cause, it's also entitled to expect a return on the investment.

Better, surely, to fund the swimming lessons of every Kiwi pre-schooler, than to throw stupid money after bad in the pursuit of worthless Olympic baubles. Better to double or triple the funding for Special Olympics New Zealand or our Paralympians, than to fund extravagant campaigns for meaningless world titles. Better to invest again in Sparc's excellent PushPlay programme (the one axed by the Key government), and to spend more fighting child obesity and diabetes. For too long the Olympic movement has sucked at the public teat, proving increasingly demanding despite the Games' rabid commercialisation and profit-making tendencies. Its sense of self-importance is scarcely believable at times, especially when trying to justify the unjustifiable. Fact is, the Olympics don't grow sport, they just grow the Olympics. The trickle-down effect is, as usual, a convenient fabrication.

Coates' emotive blathering, suggesting the extra funding was "vitally important to the nation" only demonstrates how out of touch his movement has become. Participation is important. Spiritual well-being is important. Health is important. But winning at the Olympics? I've seen more important holes in my socks.