Grass roots Vs. Elite Sports Report (Assessment)

Introduction

Sporting is a very important activity for Australia as a nation. Previously, sporting activities have been funded through a ‘top down’ approach that is now inadequate for the maintenance of the nation’s sporting glory (Houhlias, 2011). The ‘top down’ practice has led to widespread claims of imbalance between funding of the elite and grassroots sports (Antaris, 2010).

This paper seeks to outline and critique the key arguments in relation to the direction of Australian sport. The paper will specifically address the arguments for and against funding priorities to support sports either at the grassroots or the elite level. The approaches will be analyzed in relation to the extant Australian sport policy and funding approaches. The paper will then give recommendations in regard to the present implications and future expectations.

Main Arguments

There has been a lot of debate concerning the delegation of money for sporting activities in Australia. The media has been particularly consistent with reports on funding inequalities between the grass roots and the elite level.

To underscore this inequality, David Crawford, the head of independent sports panel, released a report in 2009 that questioned the rationale for allocating more funds towards elite sporting activities (Earle, 2010). In the report, it was recommended that more funds should be set aside to support sports at the grassroots level in the country.

Those who think that more resources should be set aside for grass roots sports activities argue that grass roots sports are critical for the overall health of Australians other than developing talent for elite sports. Thus by supporting grass roots sports today, the country is in effect developing elite athletes for tomorrow and at the same time keeping its citizens in good health. Proponents of more funds for grass roots sports fail to see why majority of the sports funds are allocated to elite sports that have low participation compared to the grass roots sports that have high participation(Houlihan & Green, 2008). It’s important to note that grass roots sports activities are dominated by citizens belonging to lower economic status. These citizens have lesser opportunities available to them for participation in sporting activities. For instance, the Hockey South Australia requires up to 3 million dollars for the development of more pitches to cater for the ever increasing player demands (Houhlias, 2011). Many people think that the government should set aside more funds for the development of grass roots sports rather than prioritizing elite sports. A case in point is the millions of dollars currently being spent to ensure success in the 2012 Olympics. There is also an increasing concern over the sedentary lives led by majority of young Australians. Australia owes its excellent sporting reputation to the active lifestyle that has been part of its culture. The increasing sedentary lifestyle is not only posing a challenge to the future sports in Australia but also to the health of its people. Statistics indicate that Australia has the fifth highest prevalence of adult obesity in the developed world (Bosscher, Knop, Bottenburg, Shibli, & Bingham, 2009). Thus, there is an urgent need to promote sports at the grass roots level not only in the pursuit of international glory but also to maintain the health and productivity of Australians.

In 2010, the Australian government published a report, “Australian Sport- Pathway to Success”, that outlined the biggest funds allocation for sports in the country (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011, p. 12). The 195,000,000 dollars was supposed to boost elite and grass roots sporting activities (The Commonwealth of Australia, 2010, pp. 8). The report outlined the need for increased community participation in sports through implementation of “whole-of-sport” approach to enhance sporting pathways (The Commonwealth of Australia, 2010, p. 4).

The proponents more funding for elite over grass roots sports, mainly politicians, believe that elite sports are crucial for maintenance of the country’s international sporting reputation. Indeed the focus of the governments support for sports has been to ensure increased chances of success in Olympic, Paralympics, and commonwealth games (Morton, 2002). More funds are often set aside to ensure proper preparation for international events.

For instance, a large amount of funds have been set aside to ensure that athletes prepare adequately for the 2012 Olympic Games. This is a strategic approach that seeks to strengthen the chances of succeeding in the 2012 Olympics that will be held in London.

Indeed the assistance has been well received by potential Olympians, for instance, Murray Stewart, a prospective Kayaker in 2012 Olympics (Jeffrey, 2010). Plans are also underway to ensure that future Olympians do not sacrifice their finances in training activities to represent to the country.

In spite of the huge financial boost, an upsurge in complains regarding sports infrastructure has been witnessed in the recent past. Sporting representatives across the country have voiced concerns over the continued marginalization of grass roots sport. This can be demonstrated by the assertion by the South Australian (SA) basketball boss Mr Hubbarb that sporting facilities in SA are of poor quality (Keane, 2009).

The area local government association president believes that the government is developing elite sporting facilities at the expense of grass roots’ infrastructure. For example, the government has been slow in responding to a request by the Football federation of SA to construct a $14,700,000 community sports facility (Antaris, 2010).

The requested amount is a modest figure when compared to the development of elite facilities such as the Adelaide Oval that requires up to 535 million dollars (Antaris, 2010). Several grassroots sports in South Australia are also feeling sidelined, for instance, softball SA requires only five hundred thousand dollars to improve its facilities (Earle, 2010). The government’s insistence on the development of bigger sporting facilities indicates that priority is still being given to elite sports.

Critical analysis

It seems that there are still no clear objectives for promoting sporting activities either at the elite or grass roots level. History indicates that successive governments have sought to offer support to sports in order to achieve success in international sporting activities such as the Olympics and the commonwealth games.

This shows that funding has mainly been concentrated at the elite level with minimal grass roots benefit. Thus the basic need for sporting activities has been fundamentally neglected; no effort has been made to ensure that children and adults are encouraged to participate in recreational sports at the community level (Earle, 2010). Matters have been complicated but the lack of policy framework on sporting infrastructure development.

The development and promotion of sports involves a number of government departments as well as a number of agencies in the private sector. These institutions are supposed to oversee and promote sports and recreation, health, education, infrastructure and indigenous affairs (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011).

However, there is no proper cooperation between the different stakeholders and this is contributing to poor delivery, especially in regard to sports participation at the community level. In 2010, the government of Australia did allocate huge amounts of money for sports development in the country.

Part of the money was supposed to promote participation at the community level. The lack of clear guidelines on priority areas that should be developed to achieve maximum benefits has contributed to continued marginalization of grass roots sports (Keane, 2009). The country lacks proper data on the vital aspects of sports sustenance and therefore the policies and strategies employed are largely untested and ineffective. The above analysis clearly shows that there is no proper management of sports among the different jurisdictions.

Local sports associations in all the regions have been dealing directly with the federal government. This has largely contributed to the failure to meet some specific demands and requests for facilities and other forms of support. With the advent of the new policy framework there is need for a coordinated approach to sports management at all levels of government.

The Australian Sports Commission (ASC) has developed a tendency of allocating huge amounts of funds to elite sports that have minimal participation due to the fact that these sports have the potential to win medals in international events. Examples of such sports include taekwondo and canoeing (Houhlias, 2011). This confirms the fact that funding for sports in Australia is based on the likelihood of winning medals in international events and ensuring that the country receives favorable ranking.

Recommendations

Australia urgently needs a clear workable plan that will ensure that both elite and grass roots sporting activities are properly sustained and promoted in the country. The first step towards achieving this is the establishment of a proper working plan among the main stakeholders (The Commonwealth of Australia, 2010).

The plan should be able to: set the targets to be achieved in both elite and grass roots categories; define the strategies and other mechanisms that will ensure the achievement of the set targets; create a clear framework on the roles to be played by the different stakeholders (Houlihan & Green, 2008).

The working plan should be backed by adequate funding from the tires of the government. Thus the council of Australian governments (COAG) should be on the forefront in addressing sporting issues at all the three levels of government. Local governments should be charged with the responsibility of managing sports at the grass roots level (Earle, 2010).

The local governments should be able to provide periodic information to the COAG on the implementation of the established sports policy framework. Additionally, issues of governance and structural arrangements should be addressed to create awareness in the communities of the opportunities offered by the new policy framework (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011).

The sports policy which came into effect in 2011 seeks to achieve increased participation in sports, ensure continued success in international events and to promote a culture of strong sports competition within the country (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011). The policy also seeks to facilitate the achievement of broader objectives such as improved health and education outcomes.

There is need for an “effectiveness” guided approach to funding of sports activities across the country (Keane, 2009). The Australian Sports commission (ASC) has been blamed for prioritizing funding to sports that have minimal participation based on their ability to bring medals in international events (Houlihan & Green, 2008).

It’s a perfect idea to promote the image of the country through elite sporting. However, this should not be done at the expense of other priority sporting areas. Any assessment would show that professional sports such as such as football, cricket and rugby are more relevant and therefore deserve a bigger share of resources.

It’s recommended that the government of Australia should maintain funding at a constant level and should only supplement funding in high performance and participation as outline in the national policy framework (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011). In regard to the cost of participation, the ASC in conjunction with other stakeholders such as the department of health and aging should explore the available options, such as tax rebates to reduce the cost of participation (Jeffrey, 2010).

Conclusion

This paper sought to outline and critique the key arguments in relation to the direction of Australian sport. The paper has specifically addressed the arguments for and against funding priorities to support sports either at the grassroots or the elite level. The approaches have been analyzed in relation to the extant Australian sport policy and funding approaches.

The paper has given recommendations in regard to the present implications and future expectations. Indeed it has been established that sports funding in Australia is mainly directed towards elite sports that have higher chances of achieving medals in international events such as Olympics, Paralympics and Commonwealth games.

The allocation of large amount of funds to such activities has led to the marginalization of grass roots sports. A number of recommendations have been made it’s hoped that things will change for the better in the future if all the stakeholders adhere to the recently established sports policy framework.

References

Antaris, J. (2010). Grass roots sport infrastructure wins in $20 million investment. Web.

Bosscher, V., Knop, P., Bottenburg, M., Shibli, S., & Bingham, J. (2009). Explaining international sporting sucess: An international comparison of elite sports systems ad policies in six countries. Sport Management Review , 12: 113-136.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2011). National sport and Active Recreation Policy Framework. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Earle, R. (2010). Just how much would an extra $85 million add you your fovourite sport? The advertiser , 2: 117-118.

Houhlias, T. (2011). Sports Business Opportunities. Sydney Olympic park. Web.

Houlihan, B., & Green, A. (2008). Comparative elite sport development. Systems, Structures and policy. London: Elsevier.

Jeffrey, N. (2010). Funds top up eases elite athletes burden: Federal budget 2010. The Australian , N.A.

Keane, C. (2009). Sport funding torn between going for gold and going for guts. Crikery.com. Web.

Morton, H. (2002). Who won the Sydney 2000 Olympics? An allometric approach. The Stastistician , 51: 147-155.

The Commonwealth of Australia. (2010). Australian Sport: the pathway to success. Canberra: The Commonwealth of Australia.