Funding turf war hurts athletes, Olympic movement

The next week is going to be a big one for sports funding, when Canberra is expected to announce cuts in the budget.

The next week is going to be a big one for sports funding, when the federal government is expected to announce cuts in Tuesday’s ­budget.

With plans to tighten spending in a range of areas from universities to pharmaceuticals, it is not surprising that sports funding is also coming in focus.

But before that, on Saturday, the Australian Olympic Committee presidency is up for contention between long-serving president John Coates and newcomer, 1996 Olympic hockey gold medallist Danni Roche. With federal government funding under pressure, Roche pitched her candidacy as being better able to work with Canberra on the issue and being better prepared to give more AOC money out to individual sports and athletes.

The AOC fiercely guards its own independence in selecting and overseeing Australian Olympic teams. Memories of the Fraser government putting Olympics athletes under heavy pressure to boycott the 1980 Games in Moscow are still vivid for Coates, whose experience as an Olympic sports official dates back to the 1976 Montreal Games, and for athletes, such as sprinter Raelene Boyle, who had their Olympic ­careers damaged.

Coates, who has been a long-term campaigner for more money for Olympic athletes since taking over the AOC presidency in 1990, has found himself in a bitter fight with Australian Sports Commission chairman John Wylie over sports funding.

Whoever wins on Saturday is going to have to work through the politics to have a more co-operative approach to Olympic sports funding with both the AOC and the ASC having different but sometimes overlapping funding roles. But there also needs to be clear guidelines around how this is done, which would see the AOC working co-operatively with government-funded sports bodies while clearly protecting its independence.

With federal funding under pressure, Canberra would like the AOC to dip more into its own coffers to help Olympic sport. But Wylie has also suggested that the ASC become involved in the selection of Olympic teams and chef de missions for the Games.

This has proved to be a step too far for Coates and many others with any knowledge of Olympic and sports history.

The AOC is an independent body that gets no funding at all from government. Its primary role is sending Australian teams to the winter and summer Games, the youth Olympics and, now, some other international sporting events.

Founded in 1985, the federally funded ASC sees its role as increasing Australian participation in sport and, through its Winning Edge program, is “focused on getting more Australian athletes on more podiums more often”, according to its latest annual report.

It also oversees the role of the Canberra-based Australian Institute of Sport, a key facility for athlete training.

While the ASC gives money to a broad range of sports, including AFL, rugby league, netball and cricket, there is a strong overlap of interests between the AOC and ASC when it comes to Australia’s participation in summer and winter Olympics.

The ASC’s work includes providing direct financial help for individual sporting bodies.

The federal government is entitled to argue that its funding for Olympic sport is spent as efficiently as possible and that there should be a close working relationship between the ASC and the AOC to deliver the best outcome for would-be Olympians.

The ASC spent $340 million on the 28 summer Olympic sports in the four years leading up to the 2016 Rio Olympics, including $27m in direct grants for high-­performance potential Olympic athletes.

The AOC spent $89m from 2013 to 2016, which included sending teams to four Olympics (winter and summer and winter youth Games) and giving its own medal incentive payments to high-­performance athletes.

But tensions, personality clashes, politics and differing roles have led to a bitter breakdown in relations that will have to be resolved whomever wins the AOC presidency on Saturday.

The ASC helps fund the long-term development of sport and athletes while the AOC oversees the attendance of Australian athletes at Olympics and youth Olympics. But when it comes to the Olympics, both have been judging the effectiveness of their spending in terms of how well the Australian team performs.

Canberra looks at the AOC, with its nice headquarters by Sydney Harbour and its Australian Olympic Foundation with assets of $146m and asks why can’t the AOC do more for itself?

But Coates wants the AOC to be independent of government ­interference.

He manoeuvred to get some $90m, or so, from the Sydney Olympics, which has since been astutely invested and grown to become one of its biggest single sources of funding.

The $146m in capital comes after it drew down about $105m over time for its operating expenses. It also raises its own income from sponsorships, merchandising, fund raising and grants.

There may well be room for the AOC to do more directly for athletes and individual sports although Coates’s plans for the coming four years include participation in new competitions such as the Asian Games and the World Beach Games, which will all cost money.

When making their choice on Saturday for president, the hard-won independence of the AOC from government interference — including choosing which athletes go to an Olympics — should be at the back of every voter’s mind.

That said, the AOC and ASC do need to find a way to better co-operate and spend their dollars wisely and more efficiently. If they don’t, it will be the would-be Olympic athletes and the taxpaying ordinary Australians they inspire who will suffer.