Funding in sports

[Brooksy]

I sure hope the Canadian public doesn't bitch when their athletes don't strike gold on their home soil again in 2010.

www.tsn.ca/other_sports/news_story.asp?id=77588

[laura]

It's ironic that most of the people who responded to that article on TSN.ca (look at the bottom of the article) were trashing amateur funding. Here are members of the TSN website, people who obviously enjoy professional sports but think amateurs should get no funding. Where do they think pros come from anyways? Do they think people just naturally become professional atheletes without the grassroots programs and the amateur leagues?
This is why athletics will never get the funding it deserves in Canada. Even people who claim to 'love sport' refuse to help fund it. I know that healthcare is underfunded and so is education, but sports was what made school fun, it's activities like that that kept us in school and out of trouble and it's what keeps us healthy and not in the hospitals charging OHIP thousands of dollars. People are so quick to cut down sports as a luxury before they even look at the benefits of it.
For sports to get funding it really would require more support with the general population. And to get that you have to demonstrate to the tax-payers why it's beneficial to them. When we focus just on the elite atheletes its hard for tax-payers to see what's in it for them (and you know alot of people think that way), but were we to emphasize grassroots aspect and the possible benefits it could have on the community as a whole (and the influnce elite performances have on enthusiasm at grassroots) the connection may be a little clearer. Just my two cents.

[davidson]

I didn't even look at the bottom of the article, but am not surprised. I posted this on trackie, and I did say a lot of what you said Laura, but I'm too lazy to go through the whole thing and cut it out. I think you said a lot of the things I said, but better..... I did have a few different things to say though, so I will still post it if anyone wants another perspective (or just the same one reworded).

I think that this shouldn't be such a big deal. First of all, as I believe it, this is funding for elite athletes. If we are going to fund atheletes or sports in general, I think investing in our youth would be a better idea. I recently saw some stats on obeisity in Canada, and it's pretty sad. That would help stop a huge drain on the health care system.

Secondly, there is the question of whether or not we should be funding elite athletes or we should be addressing the LARGE AMOUNT OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS. Sorry for the capitals, I just feel strongly about this. Lately I have been getting phone calls for donations to things like sexual abuse prevention programs and such, and I feel bad I have to turn them down due to lack of funds. They shouldn't even have to be calling me, the government should be focused on funding things like this. Most of us are students, and many of us students are in University. I think the Dal guys especially (highest tuition in the country I beleive) will agree with me when I say tuition fees are way too high. That is something that should be dealt with before we give people money to do well at the Olympics or other sporting events that not many people watch/care about/know about other then a handful of hardcore athletes like ourselves. There are a few contradictions in my above argument though. Every four (or I guess two now) years when Canada does not do well at the Olympics apparently the people get upset and wonder why we don't medal as much as other countries (such as the United States). Maybe if I have time I can look at the stats on how many medals we have won in the past, but I'm too lazy right now. The other contradiction isn't really in my argument; it's in the actions of the government. Ottawa was very supportive of both the failed Toronto 2008 bid and the successful Vancouver-Whister 2010 bid. Why get the Olympics and set your athletes up to do poorly? Well the answer is simple. It shouldn't matter how much funding we have. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't make us a better nation if we win a few medals at the Olympics, but it does if we host them and they are good. Anyway, I tend to ramble a lot (gee, I bet you didn't notice), so I'll try to wrap this up quickly. Though I support all Canadian athletes who put on that Jersey and represent Canada. In fact, I support any athelete who dreams of doing that. But there are more important things for that money and if someone wants to do well at the Olympics, they will find a way. I know it sounds cliched, but it's true.

Sorry for the long post, I just had a lot of things go to my head when I read that.

[Brooksy]

I am just trying to make the point that when there is an international championship, especially in Canada (worlds in edmonton), the public and the media bitch and moan about disgraceful it is that our athletes can't bring home a gold medal on home turf and then when there is a chance to do something about it....nothing happens. I think the public just has to realize that it's not like getting upset over the leafs and raptors going on a loosing streak.

The public are customers of the products that the companies produce and as paying customers want the bang for their buck.

[Brooksy]

shit, I hit post without finishing....

anyway, like i said when it's a pro sports club the public has a right to complain about poor performance because it is their money from tickets sales, concessions, merchandise etc. that the team is surviving on.
When it's and amateur athlete who is just above the poverty line trying to fulfill their olympic dream, the public has no right to say anything about how they perform because they are unwilling to help them do any better.

[Steve Weiler]

It's important to understand where this money actually goes. The largest chunk will go to the national organizations like Athletics Canada, which is actually one of the better funded orgs at $1million+ (at least in recent years). Then there's money for hosting events. For example, in 2001 over $20 million of the budget (similar to this years in total) went to the organization of the IAAF world track in Edmonton. I can see how many citizens might be upset that such a large chunk of money went from their pockets to that event - which they may not care about - not to mention that some of that money went to frivolities such as building fancier seating in the stadium so that big wigs can sip rum and coke during football games (yes, that money came from the same pot as worlds).
In 2001, the 3rd largest chunk went to athletes and I imagine it's about the same this year. 60-70% of those carded athletes were reported to be living beneath the poverty line, which makes sense because <$20 million spread over every sport doesn't amount to much per athlete.
Australia puts about twice as much money into funding sports as Canada, with only 2/3 the taxpayers to draw from. It's safe to say that they are decently interested in athletics and some other 'non-pro' sports; I wonder if a reduced nba/nfl/nhl/etc influence over there has allowed other sports to do better.

[Steller]

Now here is a thread that makes my blood boil!

First to Brooksy, the reason that the 'general public' moans about our results at World TnF Champs, is becaue they have no freakn' clue what goes on behind the scenes in terms of funding for the team. They just turn on their CBC when Edmonton hosted and saw the old Red and White get kicked around the track- minus a few bright spots.

It boils down to this: ask 100 random taxpayers if they would rather have increased tax dollars going towards education, health care, social programs or amateur sport? AND maybe 1 person would say amateur sport. A whole social shift is neccessary to change this thinking. I write every month for Running Room magazine, and did a lead in for an article on the aging population like this:

Although life expectancy in Canada has risen steadily this past century, from 59 years in the 1920s to nearly 80 years of age currently, the percentage of Canadians who are dying from chronic poor lifestyle associated diseases has also risen steadly1. Some of these chronic types of problems include heart and stroke disease, respiratory conditions and digestive problems.

For the first time ever, the Canadian government now spends more on drug costs than it spends on physicians1. Also, seniors at 65 yrs.+ make up about 12% of the total population, yet took up ~50% of the total days of patients in hospitals1.

Therefore, one must ask this question: if Canadians are living longer, are they living longer with increased health care expenses, while being bed-ridden and in poor health? Or, are Canadians living longer with a decreased quality of life?
----------------------------------------------

There is no doubt in my mind, that if there was increased spending on grass roots sports, getting more kids involved in all amateur sports through programs (which take funding) and travel (which takes funding) and then incresed funding so there were more elites- to act as role models for the younger generation, that in about 20-30 years time you would potential see this:

decreased obestiy: children and adults
decreased Type II diabetes in adults
decreased strain on the health care system with 'chronic' diseases due to a poor lifestyle (nutrition and exercise)

There are BILLIONS of taxpayers dollars spent in health care every year on people who have never walked more then 2 miles in there life, who eat fast food every day, and smoke and drink all the time....

Anyways, I've rambled enough....

Cheers, TRENT


Trent Stellingwerff

University of Guelph Assistant Distance Coach (Level II NCCP)
PhD Candidate, Univ. of Guelph
Dept. of Human Biology & Nutritional Sciences
Hon BSc- Nutrition and Exercise Science,
Cornell University 2000

Office: 519-824-4120 ext. 53907
Home: 519-821-8873
email: [e-mail]

[Steve Weiler]

Actually I was mistaken earlier, the Australian government does not put twice as much money into sport as the canadian goverment...they put 3 times as much.

[lacquement]

here's another article. mentions how the feds aknowledged the contribution of athletics in the throne speech but ignored it in the budget.

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040323.wfelicien23/BNStory/Sports/



Looking at track specifically, I really don't think more funding is the real key. Atleast not more funding to those athletes living just above/below the poverty line. If more money is to be spent, it really needs to be spent on the juniors. How are we suppose to have world beaters at the senior level when the juniors aren't doing it? Also, if we have juniors who are performing well at the international level, by the time they are out of university (or even before) they might very well be capable of supporting themselves with their running. It seems that that's what's happened with the athletes that are actually contenders at the international level, rather than trying to get a breakthrough and just qualify. Hell, I bet if we simply had some more competent high school coaches who would recruit kids comming into high school who showed promise in grades 7/8 and then they were actually capable of coaching them competently I bet it would make a HUGE difference. It might do some good if Athcan simply put on some free coaching courses for willing high school coaches and stressed the importance of recruiting and having kids train year round.

[davidson]

I'm gonna go ahead and agree with Trent on this one. I think I read recently that deaths related to obeisity are the number two preventable cause of death right now in Canada and it is very quickly closing in on Tobacco. When put in this context, the Canadian public might be more receptive to funding amatuer sports.

As for athletes living under the poverty line, they have the choice to be athletes or not. It is not like most of them are forced into it like so many others living in poverty.

I don't know much about Austrailia, but how is the rest of the country? Sure their athletic accomplishments are decent, but is that taking away from anything else? I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking.

As for what Ryan said, by extension you could say we should fund kindergarteners. Which I think is what is the best option. If you instill an attitude of exercise into younger children, more children will likely be in the sport at older ages (including the junior age). More people means more competition and more competition will likely lead to better results by all.

To me the answer is simple, promote exercise and sport in children. Everyone will be better off in that case.

[Steve Weiler]

davidson said:

More people means more competition and more competition will likely lead to better results by all.

Bang on. I think someone called this a 'pyramid scheme' on the old tnf. You do still need to get post-collegiate funding, though, as that's where many talented runners call it quits.

I choose Australia as an example because they are very similar in other areas.

[Steller]

To play devils advocate a little...

Getting away from ALL amateur sports, which I was talking about in my original post, and just looking at XC/Track as an amateur sport- some would say we did remarkably well as a team at the recent world XC champs and why would you want any more funding from a world performance standpoint?

When you consider that the country of Canada has the population approx. equal to the state of California (give or take a little) and that only the short course men's and women's teams were funded and both the men's and women's short course teams were the first non-African teams in the scoring...some fed's would say that were doing a pretty good job with the funding we're getting and that we don't need anymore.

Of course, this gets away from all of my original points, involving lifestyle changes to potentially shift health care costs of the long-term- but just another point worth making.

Trent

[Steve Weiler]

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of where the senior world x-c members are currently living/training. How many are at a high performance center, and how many are working full time while training on their own, etc. Anyone care to offer insight?