Sports That Should Not Receive Money
Each sports developed in Australia deserves further advancement to introduce the highest professional level at the world level. However, inequality of funding allocations leads to uneven distribution of resources and inadequate development of sports in Australia as a whole.
Funding selected sports, therefore, does not provide fair and transparent development for sports infrastructure. In this respect, I believe that such sports as soccer should not receive as much many as possible because part of this money could be spent on developing the Australian basketball.
Unequal allocation of funding resources for sports hampers the overall growth of Australian professional sports.
In this respect, Hayes (2012) agrees with the former South Wales premier Kristina Keneally who insists, “this sort of major expenditure cannot continually be made on behalf of a select few sports at the expense of other high-participation codes” (n. p.).
Raising questions about funding specific kinds of sports was important because there was an unequal distribution of finance, specifically when it comes to great expenditures on football.
While estimating the statistics received from the ASC, the situation with basketball funding has significantly been changed. Hence, the total investment in sports equals to over $ 5 million per year whereas football funding amounts to about $ 3.5 million (Australian Sports Commission 1).
Such popular sports as hockey and football should have received so much money merely because they are highly popular among people. The money, first of all, should be spent on developing the Australian sport as itself, but not promoting individual athletes.
Sports That Should Receive Money
Paralympics games should be financed with greater resources because this sport provides incentives for personal and professional growth. People with disabilities taking part in professional sport are much more ambitious and straightforward than people with no physical impairments.
Therefore, the Australian Sports Commission should be more concerned with delivering wider opportunities for people with limited possibilities. Judging from the statistics, blind sports receive $ 65 thousand, deaf sports receive $ 85 thousand, and disabled winter sport has only $ 60 thousand (Australian Sports Commission 1).
All these investment are significantly lower than the funding of football in Australia. Shortage of resources and unequal allocation creates significant problems with sport development in the country.
Judging from the above-presented consideration, sport should be regarded as more than just a game and, therefore, it is worth of governmental funding. In this respect, people who do not make sense of life without sport should be financial supported by the government to sustain their successful professional sport career and fulfill themselves as talented athletes.
Aside from money spent on sports involving disabled people, such sports as basketball and swimming should also be taken in deepest consideration so as to promote promising basketball players and swimmers (Balym, n. p.).
Specifically, corrupted ways of allocating resources on individuals rather on the overall development of sports will not contribute to successful promotion of professional sport development in Australia.
In this regard, more funding should be spent on the equipment, facilities, and coaching rather on individual needs of famous swimmers. Because swimming is a well-developed kind of sports, money should be more spent on engaging new swimmers and promoting new talents to the professional sport.
Works Cited
Australian Sports Commission. NSO/NSOD 2011/12 Grants and Allocations. Web.
Balym, Todd. Australian Swimmers Angry at Money Spent on Combacks of Ian Thorpe, Michael Klim. Foxsports. 2012. Web.
Hayes, Mark. Kristina Keneally says it’s time for basketball to receive more federal funding. Herald Sun. 2012. Web.