Rio Reaction: Sport, Money and Policy in a Globalised World

In light of the Olympics, Brian Stoddart explores the arguments for state funding of athletes.

As International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach makes his inevitable but questionable pronouncements about the “success” of the Rio Olympics, a perennial set of questions and doubts are emerging around the globe.

First, though, one point needs to be established: there have been some brilliant athletic performances. Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps have established themselves as legends. Kaori Icho has now won wrestling golds at four successive Olympics. Ashton Eaton has become the greatest decathlon champion in history, although Daly Thompson’s image still looms. Importantly, there have been moments of great sportspersonship in the tradition that the elitist Baron Pierre de Coubertin first envisaged. Nicky Hamblin and Abbey d’Agostino’s actions after their 5,000 metres tangle will have done much to restore general faith in the sports world. So this is not about the athletes.

It is about the system that puts them there, however. Well before the end of the Games, for example, a well worn theme was emerging in Australia: how much do these medals cost, and is it worth it in a public policy sense? The first problem is uncertainty about the real cost. At the very least, in Australia there is a complication in separating federal and state government contributions, and that is before looking at sponsorship, media rights, public donations and other forms of income. So some see different costs at play.

But the essential point remains clear. As Australia heads towards its worst Olympic result in twenty eight years there is legitimate interest in why and to what effect this money is spent. The Australian Sports Commission and the Australian Institute of Sport appeared as federal government initiatives in 1981 following a disastrous Montreal showing in 1976. That is, the government invested public funds in sports performance, but without establishing any real rationale for doing so. Since then the AIS has become a world leader in producing successful athletes and the model has been used elsewhere, notably Great Britain.

The Brits are this year’s surprise package, winning medals well in advance of expectations. Most observers put it down to a sports policy that invests in already successful sports but puts pressure on the laggards. It is a sort of Darwinian approach to sports development. This approach has been mooted around the world previously and will now gain more support where previously it has been criticised as unfair. Several years ago an Australian government commissioned a report into sports funding and concluded that several “unsuccessful” activities should be hammered. A smarts sports lobby reversed that proposal, mainly because of the absence of that Government rationale, but these Rio results will likely see the idea reappear.

At the heart of all this is the challenge of justifying the cost. Put more elegantly, how does all this expenditure fit with overall national policy settings?

The short answer is that in most cases it does not, though valiant attempts are made to do so. The British case is interesting here, as one commentator has already suggested that the approach to sport could be used successfully in kick starting a failing economy now challenged further by the BREXIT result. That is largely wishful thinking, because in most cases the urge to invest in sport at national levels rests on flimsy policy grounds.

There are exceptions, as always. Ruth Jebet won the 3,000 metre steeplechase for Bahrain, collecting a reported $US500, 000 for the effort on top of the promised academic scholarship – then promptly flew back to her homeland of Kenya for the first celebrations. For several years many Middle East countries have offered these attractions to international athletes, most from emerging countries, in order to buy international sports success to accompany efforts at staging international sports events. Other countries are offering their own athletes bonuses for success on the grounds of national achievement.

India demonstrates much of the confusion that surrounds all this. Here is a country of 1.25 billion people that aspires to being a world leader in all fields. So its haul of one silver and one bronze at Rio has prompted yet another round of soul searching, especially as its once triumphal hockey team bowed out yet again. Max Fisher in The Atlantic referred to this during the last Olympics, and the theme has reappeared in the Indian national press.

What many would ask, of course, is why India should even think about Olympic success when faced by the range of social and economic challenges it has across the board? China provides the immediate answer that dives into social, political and financial differences, all of which provide the bedrock for sports development.

Herein lies one of the great conundrums. Sports success is about ego massage, primarily. Small nation New Zealand exults every time its national rugby team thrashes Australia, that perceived big-ego country on the other side of the Tasman Sea. England’s continuing international football failure is a source of popular shame. Despite the flaws and dramas, integrated South African national teams are seen as proof of what is otherwise a faltering national development project. Kenyan athletic success reminds the rest of the world that the country exists. Canadians love to beat Americans, most hate losing to some other specific nation. There is an inherent tribalism in sport that makes for biased commentary. Todd Woodbridge, an Australian tennis star, berated a sports journalist who dared question some Australian commentary at Rio – this was the Olympics, argued Woodbridge, we are supposed to be parochial.

Clearly, the national benefits of all this sport investment are almost impossible to measure. That means when the questions come, sports bosses resort to generalities. In the international sphere, for example, answers are couched in the language of “soft diplomacy”, the idea that sport helps build bridges and smooths the way for other wealth and position building exercises. Those claims are made despite the necessity for the Court for Arbitration in Sport, the World Anti-Doping Authority and frequent disputes on a host of issues. In Rio, a defeated Irish boxer went on a rant about corrupt officiating, and the following day a raft of boxing officials were stood down from their duties. A Korean wrestler failed to accept a decision and shake hands with an opponent. The point is that, forever, sport has created as many international incidents as it has solved.

Nationally, those bosses will point to health and well being benefits of the investment, with athletes as role models. That of course places far too much pressure on athletes who are for the most part ordinary people with no aspirations to being role models. As to the health benefits, that is also debatable. In Australia, at least seventy percent of federal funding for sport goes to high performance and elite activities. The theory is then that those performers inspire others to go out and emulate their achievements. Given lowering sports participation rates and rising obesity levels, that also seems doubtful.

Because governments cannot measure, then, sports continue to push for more cash in order to drive more success and to the chagrin of the critics.

That is why it is so contentious in the public policy areas, especially at times like now when “accountability” and “performance” are the catch cries. In wake of the Olympics, then, expect to see another round of largely unproductive public discourse before we all set sail for Tokyo.