World Footy News

Australia consistently ranks in the top four medal winning nations in the Olympics, something proudly celebrated by most Aussies. But has the time come for Australia to willingly accept a slide down the Olympic ladder? I think the answer should be yes. And it's intimately related to the health of Australians and the untapped potential of Australian Football.

Australia has a proud sporting tradition, generally being very successful at whatever sport it turns its attention to. Cricket, Rugby Union, Rugby League, netball, hockey and swimming are a few of the sports that the country has played in numbers and had great international success. In more recent years soccer and cycling have become more popular and Australia has duly risen up those ranks as well.

In Olympic competition the Green and Gold has also "punched above its weight". For a nation of just 21 million people, to consistently finish in the top ten gold medal wining nations is remarkable. At the last two Summer Olympics only countries with populations 10 to 100 times greater are ahead (the USA, China and Russia).

But why is this the case? Are Aussies genetically superior? As a nation that generally steers clear of racism, we wouldn't claim that advantage. Though perhaps as a country of immigrants, we bring together a diverse array of ethnic backgrounds so if any one gene pool is better at a particular sport, Australia will probably have it covered, perhaps with the exception of African immigration that is only now starting to accelerate. The main area Australia has not excelled is athletics, and that can largely be attributed to its relatively low profile in this country, with few children exposed to it, and with the best athletes generally going to the football codes. And again, with athletes of African descent so often dominant, that too is a factor.

So why Australia's success? Is it that we are more dedicated to sport? Well that's probably a factor. We are a nation of sports-lovers and most children have traditionally been given a lot of opportunities to play and would certainly absorb the message from our culture that sport, and winning, is important. And in particular we score very well in swimming, a sport not nearly as popular elsewhere.

Having said all that, here's a startling statistic. At the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal, Australia did not win a single gold medal, with just one silver and five bronze to the squad's credit. Compare that with 2004 in Athens when 17 gold and 49 medals overall were brought home.

So what changed? 1976 was regarded as a national disgrace and the then Fraser government pledged to rectify the situation. As soon as 1978 funding started to flow to many national sporting initiatives, perhaps the most obvious long term addition being the commencement in 1981 of the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS). Its initial target sports were swimming, athletics, basketball, soccer, netball, gymnastics, tennis and weightlifting. There was some debate as to whether elite funding would help with grass-roots participation, but this was mostly pushed aside as the public embraced international sporting success.

From 0 gold and 5 total in 1976 the numbers steadily grew; 2 gold 9 total in 1980, 4 and 24 in 1984, 3 and 14 in 1988, 7 and 27 in 1992, 9 and 23 in 1996, 16 and 58 in 2000 (at home in Sydney) and 17 and 49 in Athens in 2004. Over that period Australia's population did not increase dramatically - especially not in comparison with the rest of the world. In fact the rest of the world did not go backwards in population or wealth. Australia's attitude to sport did not change in a major way. The turn around in Olympic fortunes must almost entirely be attributed to funding for elite programs. The cold hard truth is that Australian athletes so often climb the medal dais because of superior opportunities. Yes, they have worked incredibly hard and often for little monetary reward. But so have the other athletes.

Given the standard of living in many nations is now improving and the focus on elite sport is likewise growing as a source of national pride, what does the future hold for Australia's lofty Olympic status? Countries like China are now spending extraordinary amounts on their athletes. Their Asian neighbours are increasingly raising their investment. Even traditionally affluent countries like Britain are upping the ante.

The reality is that Australia almost certainly faces a decline in its Olympic fortunes over the next 20 years. As such, in May the Australian Olympic boss John Coates issued a warning of just this situation. And he implored the Federal government to respond with significant increases in funding. "You've got to provide the best coaching - we're losing coaches" and "You've got to provide the best direct athlete assistance, you've got to provide significant funding for a national competition, the administration in our sports need money". Coates also confirmed that science is a key advantage, "And the other thing is you've got to have that scientific edge" and re-iterated "They're going to have to find some more money if they want us to be there (in the top five)". See Coates warns of Olympics slide for more.

So patriotic Australians might agree whole heartedly - more money for Olympic sports! I'm afraid I disagree. Sport has to justify taxpayers' money being spent on it. It's true that most athletes receive little funding, but dedicating themselves to their sport is their choice. Governments have to decide what benefits flow to the community as a whole. Yes, Australian self-esteem is boosted, and the country gains publicity - both worthwhile outcomes. Therefore I won't argue for a cut in Olympic funding.

However if there is to be an athletics "arms race", with the cost of developing gold medal athletes going through the roof just to compete with countries with much greater populations, can it be justified? Australians, like most people in western countries, increasingly suffer from obesity and diseases related to it. This curse has rapidly risen at the same time as Olympic funding and success has risen. One does not cause the other, but likewise one does not seem to help prevent the other. The true cause of rising obesity is more likey a mix of an increasingly sedentary lifestyle and poor diet. Children appear to walk or ride to school less (often for good reason), play less sport instead playing computer games, and eat more high energy foods in bigger servings.

Spending on elite sports programs does not appear to target the biggest health issue facing Australians, and targets only a small section of the community. Surely team sports and programs such as Auskick deserve more support. Government support in these areas is not impressive. The goal should be to get as many children as active as possible, rather than ensuring our athletes get their blood tested every day to perfect their training program, or that swimmers have the latest spaceage swimsuits (admitedly the latter more likely funded through sponsorship).

Auskick is excellent, but the argument for it over other similar programs is not what I'm putting forth here. Any such large scale participation sport is worthwhile. However, here is another benefit for supporting Australian Football, our indigenous game, in particular. To the best of my knowledge the sport has received only minor assistance outside of major stadia upgrades. Bear in mind that the industry around Aussie Rules has been calculated as worth over AUD$1 billion per annum. And Federal government support for the game's international growth has been mostly limited to a few AusAID programs - very worthwhile but probably totalling only $200,000 across all programs over a decade. Access to the AIS is another notable exception.

The product of Australian Football can be of significant further benefit to this country. The simple fact that the game is named after this land is a major first step. Any marketing of the sport is marketing the country. Any player or fan will become much more aware of Australia and its culture - major advantages when companies want to push products into new areas.

It goes further, with football tourism something that will only grow. With ten nations in 2005 there were around 400 players, officials and supporters that visited Melbourne and Wangaratta for the second International Cup. Most would have spent two weeks or more in Australia, with some no doubt staying on to tour more of the country. In 2008 for the third Cup there will be 16 nations and probably 600+ people associated with them - perhaps 1000 "tourists" in total. Where might that grow to in the years ahead? And that's not including the tourism associated with people being more familiar with Australia through watching the AFL.

Again, full respect to the tireless efforts of our Olympic aspiring athletes, but before any government embarks on funding increases they should think about Australians getting the best return on their money. The potential benefit to this country of government support for Australian Football is large and mostly untapped. If the budget has room for both, well and good, but I for one hope to see greatly increased support for our game. If meanwhile Australia suffers an Olympic slide in the face of an international spending frenzy, I'm sure our national sense of self worth will survive. Its first test may come as soon as next month, when the world should expect an avalanche of medals for the host nation and most populous country in the world. Many see the 21st century as a slow transition from a world-dominating US economy to one led by the Chinese. In sporting terms, China's challenge has begun.

Information for this piece was sourced from various locations including Wikipedia and the text "Australian Sport - Better by Design?: The Evolution of Australian Sport".