CODA

[Dietch]

Having finished all my assignments for the year, I actually had time to do some leisure reading.

I found an interesting article in an Old MacLean's magazine (July 14, 2003) Which explains the Financial Legacy of the Calgary Olympics. Hope you enjoy this excerpt

"..the ('88) games turned a surplus of more than $260 million, of which nearly $100 million was earmarked as a permanenet endownment to be administered by the Calgary Olympic Development Association (CODA). The endowment fund, which now stands at $148 million, generates about $9 million in interest annually. A third of that sum is handed out in annual grants to 12 national WINTER SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS (my emphasis), and the remainder is used to maintain and improve the original Olympic venues, and build and operate new ones."

Basically, this is a great legacy that Calgary left for its amatuer athletes who engage in winter sports. Unfortunately, I get the feeling from the article that most of the new venues that are built are being built out west. You guys who go to the University of Calgary are a lucky bunch it seems.

My question/thought is this:
When Vancouver host the Games in 2010 should an endowment fund be part of the economic equation? What I mean by that is that the games cannot "break even" until they have extablished a fund like Coda, to the size of $70-100 million.

Also from what I've heard/read the federal government is backing these games and will absorb any financial shortcomings. Because we as Canadians all pay taxes to the feds, should the association that is setup to allocate this Vancouver endowment fund (All hypothetical of course) be required to allocate money evenly amonst the provinces, as well as amongst both Winter and Summer sports?

What are peoples feelings on this? If the Federal government doesn want to consistently fund Amatuer athletes, could we at least get them to absorb the cost of some sort of new endowment fund like CODA under the guise of hosting an Olympic games?

Hope this is a little food for thought

[Tzdimslaw]

This is a good question. My impression of many of the winter sports is that there are very few Canadians who compete at an elite level, especially in sports that require special infrastructure (bobsleigh, long track speed skating). I suspect that participation would rise if there were the facilties available to expose young people to bobsledding.

I think that it is the responsibility of the government to get people involved in sports so that the population is healthier. I think that sports requiring great fitness like running, speed skating, are more important than technical sports such as skiing or bobsledding for this end. The latter group need more specialized facilities than do the former. I realize that there is just one long track speed skating facility in Canada, but if Waterloo can have some top-quality indoor track athletes without an indoor track, then surely with good coaching there can also be good long track speed skaters from eastern Canada. At some point, I suspect that skaters can only get better by working out on a properly-maintained ice surface, but until they reach that level, they could train on their own.

I think that in many sports, training with people who compete at a high level is important. Because there are still very few exceptional long track speed skaters, I think that one track is all that is necessary.

Should summer sports get some of the money? I say yes. If a similar-sized endowment fund is raised through Vancouver's Olympics, then money should go towards the most important sports - and by important, I do not mean our likelihood of winning a medal, I mean it's benefits to the overall health of a person. Swimming, cycling and track, all fitness-oriented sports, should get a larger chunk than technical sports, in my mind. Simon Whitfield's success in the triathlon inspired thousands to take up the sport, which is good for the country. If we won more medals in archery and suddenly everyone wants to be an archer, I do not see the same benefits to reduced health care costs.

I have not fully developed all my ideas, but I hope the direction I am headed is clear: More money to some, not more money to others.

Regards,
Tzdimslaw

[Delisle]

Tzdimslaw said:

Should summer sports get some of the money? I say yes. If a similar-sized endowment fund is raised through Vancouver's Olympics, then money should go towards the most important sports - and by important, I do not mean our likelihood of winning a medal, I mean it's benefits to the overall health of a person.

unfortunately, that is not the formula they use to decide on who gets more money.

whether or not it's right, the government will never give more money to say track, cycling or swimming if we are not competitive in those sports on the international stage. fortunately though, we are pretty competitive there so those sports should get their share of funding.

however, we are also VERY competitive internationally in bobsled and skiing so who's to say the athletes who devote their life to those sports dont deserve their fair share as well? they are working just as hard as the track athletes, cyclists and swimmers

it doesnt matter to the average general canadian person whether or not we win a gold medal in track or skiing, that person just cares about the gold medal. a similar attitude is displayed by the government itself on this issue so therefore a sport like hockey will get better funding because we are always guaranteed to contend for gold.
it may not be the best way, but its whats happening now, and that's hard to change.

[Tzdimslaw]

Delisle:
I agree that my ideas are not likely to be seen through, but Dietch referred to what "should" be done, and in that context I stand by what I said. I am not talking about taking money away from technical events - a second endowment fund would have new money which could be used to finance sports. I do feel that the priority should be the fitness sports, particularly in encouraging participation.

The athletes who are most affected by these financial decisions may disagree with me, but I feel that athletes will never get enough money directly from the government. I think that the government should identify a few sports (with both fitness benefits and potential for medal return) and give them money to hire a fundraiser. Make it that guy's job to go around private enterprises (or organize public fundraisers) searching for money so that the best athletes can afford to not work while they train at a high level. This is a mixed free-market/centralist approach to solving the financial problem. The sports with the wealthiest fans or the most fans will raise more money than the less popular sports. Judging by the number of television appearances that Pierre Leuders, Kerrin Lee-Gartner and Elvis Stojko have/had, their sports should not be in jeopardy from a financial perspective.

However, I do think that the government should foster participation with more money for amateur coaching in the fitness sports.

Regards,
Tzdimslaw

[Delisle]

I do agree with most of what you said, but please note that people like Lueders, KLG and Stojko earned every bit of publicity they received by working as hard as possible under the same condition all amateur athletes must suffer through. It's a shame not all athletes who enjoy similar success as them don't get the same attention. However people could be saying that the technical events weren't being supported enough back when Donovan Bailey dominated, or even when Victor Davis (RIP) and Curt Harnett were in their prime. We cannot dominate all amateur sports at once, therefore not everyone can be pleased. It almost seems like an unfortunate cycle that is impossible to break. I wonder how other countries deal with this. Hopefully with Perdita consistently contending for gold, track in Canada can go back on the upswing erasing those horrible competitions such as Sydney 00 (I think) and Edmonton 01 where we got shut out of medals.
Sure, athletes like Lueders, KLG and Stojko may have more talent than others in their respective sports but they are/were still individual forces in those particular sports on an international level.
Why should up and comers in those sports (bobsled,skiing, and figure skating) suffer from not getting their normal share of funds because they are following in the footsteps of superstars?

Either way, you do present a very solid argument and I know you're not talking about taking money away from the technical events, I just believe there should be no second endowment funds giving more benefits to sports purely because they are beneficial to fitness.

[Dietch]

I guess the way I see things is that I'm a little upset with the fact that the Calgary Endowment fund is set up for WINTER sports only.

To me, I think the legacy of an Olympic games should do discriminate based on WHAT SEASON you compete in. I understand the fact that '88 was a WINTER Olympics, and yes, it was held in Calgary, therefore Alberta is going to see much of the infrastructure. HOwever, by that logic, after 2010 (playing the hypothetical card once again) Canada will have 2 endowment funds, both with the perogative of supporting WINTER SPORTS ONLY.

A BIG reason Vancouver was awarded those games is the fact that TORONTO lost the 2008 bid to host a SUMMER GAMES. I think that any funds generated by a Legacy fund should support ALL amateur athletes, regardless of sport.

my 2 cents

[Delisle]

Dietch said:

A BIG reason Vancouver was awarded those games is the fact that TORONTO lost the 2008 bid to host a SUMMER GAMES.

Not necessarily. The IOC is not the most honest commitee in the world. Either way you look at it, Vancouver is much more fit to host a Winter Games than Toronto is fit to host the Summer Games. I believe the IOC made their mind up on Vancouver as they dismissed Toronto. Of course, who knows because that Winter Olympic vote was brutally close between Vancouver and South Korea.
Of course, this is all beside the point anyway and there was really no need for this post.

I agree that those funds should support both athletes because as a country, we are still better suited to host Winter Games. Why should the Summer athletes get the shaft for something that's outta their control?

[distancerunner]

Well hosting the Olympics twice is clearly a big money maker some of you seem to have forgotten that we hosted the IAAF World Track and Field Championships in 2001. Although we didn't suceed in winning a medal the games were very succesful and generated a huge profit for the city. I know that most of this was devoted to a similar "legacy fund" and was supposed to be used to build some world class training facilities and hire a full-time coach or two in Edmonton. Last I heard the track and training facility at the U of A was beautiful with a full training room and Mondo track, along with another Mondo track at Strathcona High School which was a practise facility for the games. Does anyone know how much of that legacy fund is left and what the plans are for it? Since The Winter sports seemed to get the bulk of it after Calgary then it would seem perfectly logical to me that Track should get the bulk of this money and that would be a great boost for a severly under-funded sport in Canada.