Blog
Why Australia’s Olympic funding changes could widen the gap between prosperous and destitute athletes
Aug
The Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) has proposed new strategy to strengthen the financial health of Olympic sports, from less popular disciplines like table tennis to dominant ones like basketball and swimming.
The basis of this initiative is a plan to enable individual sports federations to independently market the iconic Olympic rings in Australia.
This is a significant departure from the customary approach of collective sponsorship of Olympic teams.
The move, spearheaded by AOC CEO Matt Carroll, aims to funnel sponsorship revenue directly into the sports themselves. This is especially crucial for sports that are facing significant financial challenges. As Carroll put it, “For a miniature sport, $50,000 is a lot of money.”
Carroll highlighted the precarious financial situation of these organizations, pointing out that even a modest influx of commercial funds could significantly improve their situation sustainable development and growth.
The first obstacle to overcome
Despite the ambitious nature of this strategy, AOC will face challenges in implementing it, with two key obstacles standing in the way.
The first is the competence gap within smaller sports organizations.
To effectively leverage the Olympic brand, a sophisticated approach to marketing is necessary – many smaller federations are already stretched gaunt, lacking the resources, expertise and people to run effective marketing campaigns.
This skills gap raises questions about their ability to fully capitalize on the opportunity presented by AOC’s modern policy.
Kin Cheung/AP/AAP
Fears of “obstacles and forgetting”
The second major obstacle comes from the governance structure of Australian sport.
The federal system, while having its advantages, poses grave challenges to the coherent and strategic application of the AOC initiative.
In the federated sport system, independent organisations oversee the different levels (regional and state) of sport under the supervision of a central (national) governing body, while retaining autonomy within their jurisdictions.
This system promotes isolated actions rather than unified, collaborative efforts.
Kieren Perkins, chief executive of the Australian Sports Commission, criticised the model for leading to “obstacle and oblivion”.
Read more: Is hosting the Olympic Games, World Championships or other major sporting events really worth it?
Money matters
The AOC plan is not just a theoretical exercise – it is dictated by financial necessity.
The Commission estimated an additional $2 billion is needed) by 2032 to meet the needs of competitive sport in Australia, with $1.5 billion of this amount earmarked specifically to improve athlete performance.
This significant amount underlines the urgent need for pioneering financial solutions, of which the AOC strategy is a key element.
The AOC initiative is compelling, but is only one of several potential avenues to address the funding gap for Olympic sports in Australia.
Other models and strategies have emerged around the world that offer valuable lessons and alternatives.
For example, the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) has introduced access to their USA team home in Paris as part of a hospitality package. The move highlights the potential for Olympic assets to be used for direct funding, independent of government support.
Similarly, the concept of a national sports lottery was introduced in Australia. Such schemes have had a significant influence in other countries, notably the United Kingdom.
British Sports Lotterywhich played a key role in the country’s Olympic success, especially following the London 2012 Olympic Games, is an example of how targeted funding mechanisms can transform a country’s Olympic fortunes.
Another pioneering approach to sports funding is to redirect some government taxes collected from sports betting.
Given the popularity of sports betting in Australia, this represents a potentially untapped source of revenue that could provide a steady stream of funding for sporting organisations.
The recent decision by World Athletics to award cash prizes for medal achievements introduces a modern dimension to the discussion on financing athletes and sport.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh-YqOP3qU
In Australia, gold, silver and bronze medalists receive bonuses of $20,000, $15,000 and $10,000 respectively. These are likely to boost as Australia prepares to host the 2032 Games.
While such measures may benefit larger, more recognisable sports, they also risk widening the financial gap between them and smaller, less commercially attractive sports such as table tennis.
In other words, sports with larger budgets can pay their players’ salaries while smaller sports cannot, so the gap could become even greater.
Looking ahead to the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games
As we look to 2032, it is crucial for Australia to find powerful and sustainable ways to support sport.
This challenge is not just about helping outstanding athletes: it is about improving the entire sports environment to make it more accessible and enjoyable for everyone.
Read more: Recovering from a false start? What is the status of planning for the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games?
Initiatives such as Play wellnext to Queensland investment in new parasport center The University of Queensland has taken steps to make sport more accessible to people of all abilities.
These activities highlight the need for cooperation between different sectors and the importance of pioneering financing methods.
