Declined – Insufficient Funds

How many sports in Australia are self supporting?

That is a question every sports fan or participant should be asking, and whether their sport is self supporting. The terrifying answer is that very few are , in other words they could not survive without Federal or State government funding.

This is very difficult to comprehend when over the past 30 years we have seen a proliferation of qualifications available in Sport. The universities all saw that sport was a growing market and created a plethora of degrees related to sport. Included in those degrees are studies in Sports Management, Sports Marketing and Sport development.

A random google search will confirm just how many Degrees in sport are available in Australia. So you would think that the sporting landscape would be full of well qualified experts, who could ensure that their sport was self sufficient and in a strong position moving forward.

Then again maybe not, when you read the following overview of one of these courses: “Taught by experienced industry professionals, who are leaders in the field, this course will enable you to develop essential skills required for gaining employment, securing career progression, or progressing to further qualifications and training required to achieve their goals in the industry.” What this tends to imply is that the Industry Professionals are not working in sport, but are lecturing at Universities. Or are these failed administrators who couldn’t cut it and are now educating the next generation? So perpetrating the same circle of failure? That would not be a good thing for sport.

The most telling words in this overview are that the degree “will enable you to develop essential skills required for gaining employment.” So is it just about gaining the student a job in the Sporting World rather than making them an essential acquisition?

This is a major problem in many industries in today’s world. The Universities are more focussed on revenue than learning. They are simply a conveyor belt handing out qualifications to a vast number of people. The supply in many industries exceeds the demand.

Then there is the piece of paper that is issued after three years and a large investment; this has to now be handed out to justify the investment. This is the same situation as with many coaching courses in sports across the world, which have become crucial revenue streams for the individual sports. If people pay to attend a course, they expect to receive a qualification at the end. They would take affront if they were failed. The course itself teaches the theory, but many fail to cover the most crucial part of being a teacher, the ability to convey that message to your students.

It would appear that many who have ended up working in Sport have the theoretical experience but lack the practical knowledge. One former CEO of one sport, shared the fact that they had never worked as a volunteer with any sporting organisation, they had never been on the committee of any sporting club, yet felt they knew what was best for those who on a weekly basis keep those clubs alive. They did however have an Honours degree in Sports Management. Maybe that is why they are no longer a CEO?

In the past week there have been a number of people up in arms because the Government has announced that there will be funding cuts to a number of sports after the Tokyo Olympic Games. This should come as no shock, as this was inevitable. In fact it has been on the cards for the past six to ten years. So why have the leaders in these sports failed to act and move towards a model that is less reliant on Government funding? What have their Boards been doing, as they could be accused of falling asleep at the wheel. In some cases they have managed to jump clear of the vehicle before the crash.

What must upset the athletes themselves and their coaches was the spending revealed in The Australian in the past week. The newspaper reported that “top AIS executive, Peter Conde, is paid $425,000 and he and three other deputies, all on big salaries, fly in and out of Canberra from expensive offices leased in Collins Street, Melbourne, and in Brisbane.” It is believed that half a dozen executives have salaries above $220,000.

The article went on to reveal that “the Australian Sports Commission spent about $5m on executive recruitment firms in 2018 and 2019 — an insider attributing the high figure not just to finding the right candidates for roles, but paying short term staff to fill gaps.” The recruitment firms must be licking their lips every time a vacancy crops up, and what is the betting that Sport Australia – the new name for the Australian Sports Commission – also employs people in a Human Resources role!

One would think that everyone who ends up with a sports qualification would want to work with a National program, the calibre of people available would be high. That many sports could almost pick and choose who they wanted, as there are a limited number of jobs available. So why was it that “the commission also spent $7.72m on leadership training over three years.” In fact that should come as no surprise as the degree overview mentioned did state that further training would be needed; “progressing to further qualifications and training required to achieve their goals in the industry.”

It was incredible to hear Socceroos coach Graham Arnold bleating that his sport needed more money to take the Olyroos to Tokyo. The Football Federation of Australia has probably received more money from the Government than any other sport in the past 15 years. There was the failed World Cup bid, the successful Asian Cup bid and they have been given more funds to assist them with their 2023 Women’s World Cup bid, that alone amounts to $9.6milion. In fact the FFA has more staff that FIFA who run the game on a global level, so maybe that is where they could save some money?

Once again we have seen top heavy management eating into revenues and funding that needed to be spent at grassroots level. Senior management at the FFA are on extravagant salaries, have received six-figure bonuses. Some of their expenses it was reported were allegedly included in the $14.9m spent on “marketing and media” expenses in the FFA’s last annual report. In addition $16m was spent on travel, which included travel to the World Cup and the team’s participation in the extended play-off qualifiers. Throw in the fact that the players themselves are some of the highest paid International players; based on the fee received for playing an International. Journalist Ray Gatt revealed in The Australian that the FFA spent an average of around $300,000 per player sending the Socceroos to the World Cup in Russia. Which would indicate the $10million received for qualifying was pretty much used up before they all flew home. Is this good fiscal management?

Apart from the dreadful timing of the Government announcement that funding was to be cut irrespective of performances at the Tokyo Olympic Games, what was interesting was how one sport was the focus of how unfair this funding cut was. The sport in question was Hockey.

Other sports also in for a funding cut are Baseball, Gymnastics, Volleyball, Basketball, Water Polo, Taekwondo, Table Tennis, Modern Pentathlon, Skateboarding, Judo, Golf, Football, Equestrian, Diving, Boxing, Basketball, Badminton, Archery, and Athletics. Swimming was also in the firing line. This is a strange one as this is the one area Australia does pick up medals at Olympic Games.

It is also the most popular sport in Australia based on figures produced at the start of 2020. Approximately 3.147 million people take part in the sport each year. For children (6-13), football rivals swimming as the most popular sport in Australia with a 48.7% participation rate, interestingly it is in the adult participation that swimming edges football with 10.1% for adults (14 years+) for swimming and 3.1% of the population for adults (14+) in football. (Interestingly the sport we don’t mention is not even in the top ten! Yet the media will have you believe otherwise!)

Probably the biggest thing in swimming’s favour is that of the $650K given to increase participation in the sport by the Government, they have always passed this funding on to each state, so that the money can be spent as it is intended. That now looks like it will not end up with the states in the future. With many other sports none of that participation money has been passed on. Ask your state body if they received it. Could it be a case of copying the AIS model and using this money to pay top executive salaries? Why does no one in the Government check on where this money is spent?

The reason is because if funding is below $1M the sporting body does not have to account for the spending of that funding. If your sport receives in excess of $1m then they are expected to account for every cent spent and are audited. When asked why no one checks on this spending for the lower funding contributions, Not The Footy Show was advised that it would cost to much!

Of those sports listed one has to ask why are some of them still dependent on Government funding. Why have they not created a model where they are self funding? This was an issue that was around in 2010 and we put forward a suggestion in Money Needed To Make the Sporting World Go Round. Since then many of the AIS Programs have ceased.

The AIS has apparently told the sports how much money they will receive in the first six months after the Tokyo Olympics. However the AIS has a ‘slush fund’ for want of a better expression to enable it to reward successful sports at the Tokyo Games, sports that bring home medals. Equally it is apparently poised to cut funding to unsuccessful sports, those that fail to medal.

What was interesting was the reporting and how the Hockeyroos were the team that were being hard done by.

If we look by comparison at Women’s Basketball who also face funding cuts the Australian team is currently ranked 2nd in the world. They won Silver at the 2018 World Cup, and have medalled at 5 of the last six World Cups. (1 Gold, 1 Silver and 3 Bronze). At the Rio Olympics they finished 5th. At the Olympic Games that was the first time that the Opals had been outside of the medals in the previous five Olympiads.

If we look at the Women’s Water Polo team they were 6th at the Rio Olympic Games, but had won bronze in 2012 and 2008, they were 4th in 2004, and won Gold in 2000 in Sydney. At the 2019 World Championships they won Bronze, a massive improvement on 8th in 2017. While at the World Cup in 2018 they also won bronze, having won silver in 2014 and 2010 and won Gold in 2006.

The Hockeyroos like the Opals at the start of this month were ranked number two in the World, which is no easy feat. They won three Gold medals in the Olympics, the last being in 2000. Since then they have finished fifth three times and sixth once. It should be noted that the change of format at the Olympic Games in Rio and Tokyo means that no longer is it a tournament where the top sides are rewarded. With Quarter Finals having been introduced it becomes more of a lottery, hence the surprise medalists in Rio.

At the World Cup in 2018 they finished fourth, they won silver in 2014, were fifth in 2010 and won silver in 2006.

It was strange that the media picked the Hockeyroos to be the focus of the hard-luck story when as you can see almost every sport had a right to be in the spotlight. What is strange is that the media in Australia only ever give Hockey media coverage in the lead up to an Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games, as their chances of winning a medal make them newsworthy.

Nearly all sports are cyclical depending on which event is regarded as the pinnacle event in that sport. In football very few fans care about the tournament at the Olympics and few could tell you the past winners, apart from Brazil in 2016, as it was their first Olympic Gold in the sport. The women’s tournament however carries far more prestige.

In a country where the team is out of the spotlight until the Olympics, an Olympic medal becomes the focus. Yet in many sports their individual World Cup is held in far greater esteem.

Hockey’s failure to medal at the last five Olympiads is why it has been proposed that funding will be cut by 60%. This should not have come as any surprise to the current CEO of Hockey Australia, Matt Favier as he was the architect of The Winning Edge Program when he was Director of the AIS, of which Sport Australia is the parent body.

The Winning Edge program was introduced in 2012 after what was regarded as a poor showing at the London Olympic Games. We were told that Winning Edge was developed to create “consistent and sustainable success”, “greater levels of accountability” and “improved governance structures” with a view towards the Rio Games.

After winning 46 medals in Beijing in 2008, Australia won 35 in London. Despite The Winning Edge Programthat that went down to 29 in Rio. Their lowest return since Barcelona in 1992 when they won 27. The truth is Olympic medals are very hard to win. They are becoming even harder to win as more nations and athletes are competing, other countries are spending their money on athletes and development rather than administration. Cutting funding is going to make things even harder. So the sports administrators need to be more creative.

In the lead up to the Rio Olympic Games Favier was quoted on the AIS’s website as saying “”It’s understandable some people are apprehensive, it is the biggest strategic shift since the creation of the AIS, but we are confident it’s the right approach and results over the past three years give us an indication it’s already making a positive difference.” He went on to say “All pre-Olympic analysis – ours at the AIS, the Australian Olympic Committee’s, and independent international predictions – points to an improvement on the gold medal tally in Rio.” That never happened. Clearly the analysts who are eating up money that could go to youth development and the athletes, didn’t have a clue.

After the Rio Olympics both Favier and the Australian Sport Commission Chief Executive Simon Hollingsworth left their positions. Many claiming that they were the fall guys for the much hyped Winning Edge program that failed to deliver. In June 2017 Favier was appointed CEO of Hockey Australia following AIS Performance Manager Toni Cumpston, who had moved to Hockey Australia as High Performance Director in November 2016.

Hockey Australia CEO Matt Favier was quoted as saying in the Australian last week that the funding cut would be a “kick in the guts.” He was also quoted as saying, “we are really concerned about not only the risk of reduced funding that may play out for hockey, but for the entire sporting community. At a time when youth sport participation is being challenged, youth obesity is on the rise, reducing levels of investment in a sport such as hockey would be a real kick in the guts.”

Was Hockey given the coverage due to the past associations with the AIS and the Winning Edge program? In light of those associations Hockey must have seen this coming, so what was the sport doing to be become self sustainable? What was being put in place to ensure when these cuts came that each state in the country would receive financial support?

It has been common knowledge that the funding of sport in Australia by Government departments was going to be reduced, so why have so few sports acted to prepare themselves for this day? How many are truly sustainable without Government funding? Credit to WA Squash who took a stand as discussed in Podcast #74

Clearly jobs will need to be cut, which means that many of the top heavy head offices will need to be re-structured. No doubt, as this is clearly not covered by any of the Sports Management qualifications, they will have to hire a consultant to work out how to restructure the organisation. So grassroots sport will miss out again.

With Hockey being put front and centre in this debate no doubt Matt Favier will be regretting some of his comments as he defended the Winning Edge Program. Comments such as “We didn’t set easy targets, instead we have bold aspirations, supported by peak bodies like the AOC.” The same AOC who in february 2017 sent him a letter stating that he would not be invited by the AOC to play a part in planning for the 2020 Olympic Games. Presumably due to his close ties to John Wylie, head of the Australian Sports Commission, that runs the AIS, who was involved in a very public stoush with John Coates the President of the AOC. A month later despite denials that John Wylie was behind her stand, Dani Roche challenged John Coates for the Presidency of the AOC.

Almost four years ago Favier also said about his Winning Edge program that “regardless of results we’ll keep challenging ourselves to aim high. We’ll do so guided by contemporary thinking.” Now he is going to have to make those words a reality with hockey. He will not be alone as all of those sports listed are going to have to find a new and more streamlined approach to operating.