Medals & Money

[Fencergrl]

Every summer Olympics is the same in my country. The armchair quarterbacks come out and complain about how are athletes "suck" and how they get a "free vacation at the taxpayer's expense." Supporters fight back that "there's not enough funding, so what do you expect?"

In Canada, the majority of our athletes live below the poverty line. They compete because they love the sport they are involved with. Hockey and few other sports get the lion's share of the funding (which in my Province, this comes from lotteries). This leaves most sporting organizations with very little support. Add large distances for athletes to travel within their own country to practise "as a team" or compete, and I'm left to wonder how we manage to get any medals.

So my questions are:

1) What is the status of sport in your country (or others you are familiar with)?
2) Do some sports get more (or less) money than others? If so, does the number of medals received reflect the money spent?

3) Do you feel it's worth putting money toward athletic programs? If so, for fitness? National pride? Or what?

[Phrogger]

It's always interesting to compare systems between capitalist and socialist models. We're having the same discussion WRT health care in the U.S. right now.

I'm pretty sure there's no state-supported funding for sports in the U.S. at all. (That is, unless you count local recreation programs or cities that drain their taxpayers for money to build sports stadiums) If you're an athlete, you pretty much fall into three categories (I'll use fencing for an example, but I'm sure it applies to other sports.) :

1. You fence for the enjoyment, but whether talented or not you don't have enough money to pay for the expensive club fees, lessons, and travel required to fence on a national-international level. Your fencing is limited to the local/regional level.

2. You have enough money to pay for club fees and lessons, and maybe go to a few NACs and Nationals, but not enough for all the travel required to gain an international ranking. Your fencing is limited to the national level.

3. You have money coming out your ears and can pay for the best club, coach, and equipment, and also to attend World Cup events. You make the national team and can now have some of your travel paid for by the USFA/USOC, which are both funded solely by dues and donations.

So you can be the most talented potential fencer in the world, but it's the money that makes the biggest difference here. Sometimes I'm a bit jealous, but I figure that's how it rolls, so I'm not bitter. I think it would be cool to have sports schools where young kids could be screened for potential and have all of their expenses paid for with scholarships (kind of like the math-science and art specialty high schools), but I don't think it should be supported by taxpayers. Some kind of private school system would work, but what would be the payoff for the school's shareholders? I'm not sure how this would work under capitalism. Money for sports usually comes through ticket sales and merchandising, which leaves obscure sports like fencing and even women's sports out of luck.

Edit: I forgot one last category, the military's elite athlete program. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but high-level athletes can apply to the military and basically have everything paid for. Epeeist Seth Kelsey for example. I don't think this is a very high-profile program, there are probably only a few athletes on the government's dime.

[Fencergrl]

I was under the impression that it's not just socialist countries support their athletes. I believe Italy puts their fencers in the military, so their wages are paid while they train. I'm not sure if they do this with all sports.

Edit: I added by comment before I saw your edit.

[Peach]

You don't have to have "money coming out of your ears." You just have to be willing to spend all your money and all your time on sport instead of on vacation homes, cars, renovations, and pension plans.

[Phrogger]

Point taken. But for most of us there just isn't that kind of money, even if you sold your house, car and kids. No offense intended.

[Phrogger]

Let me add that I have a lot of respect for those who make great sacrifices to succeed. We all make different choices.

[Phrogger]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

I was under the impression that it's not just socialist countries support their athletes. I believe Italy puts their fencers in the military, so their wages are paid while they train. I'm not sure if they do this with all sports.

Edit: I added by comment before I saw your edit.

I could be wrong, but isn't Italy considered socialist? (I hope this term isn't offensive to anyone, I don't know what else to call it.)

[Fencergrl]

Nope... first two sources I googled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...list_countries
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...al.html?cat=37

[Phrogger]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

Nope... first two sources I googled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...list_countries
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...al.html?cat=37

I guess I was thinking of socialism not as a political system but as a society that taxes heavily but provides many social services to its members. We have less social services here in the U.S. but are not taxed as heavily, in theory so we can spend our own money where we like rather than having our expenditures mandated by the government. (a balance of the two systems is probably best.)

It's funny you mention the gripes of your countrymen over expenditures on sports. I think certain forces have tried to dismantle the U.S. National Endowment For the Arts time and again. But I think that unfortunately the arts are undervalued in our society and that would be a huge step towards making the situation even worse. Having never lived in a country with state-supported sports, I'm not sure how I would feel about it. In other words, are sports (like the arts) a self-indulgent pursuit or do they benefit the society at large, even those who don't participate? Sounds like the same argument to me.

[Fencergrl]

Originally Posted by Phrogger

Having never lived in a country with state-supported sports, I'm not sure how I would feel about it. In other words, are sports (like the arts) a self-indulgent pursuit or do they benefit the society at large, even those who don't participate? Sounds like the same argument to me.

That is what I'm getting at with this thread. I too, am uncertain. On one hand I would like to see the arts and sports properly supported, but on the other hand I'm not sure if that's where our money should go. Should billions worldwide be spent every 2 years (for Winter & Summer Olympics)? For what?

I really do want to know how folks from other countries feel about supporting athletes. Is it a good or bad thing?

[Empty Wallet]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

Should billions worldwide be spent every 2 years (for Winter & Summer Olympics)? For what?

I really do want to know how folks from other countries feel about supporting athletes. Is it a good or bad thing?

Anecdotal evidence in club track and field for kids (not the US model of school-based) is that there is a large increase following Olympic Games. This is especially if the country's athletes perform well.

Good performance means more publicity -- and then the kids want to participate, or the parents think they can have potential champions.

So, the indirect impact is positive if it is getting a greater level of participation, and if the participation levels remain increased.

I assume that there is a similar impact for other sports that get the publicity from the Games, or in the lead-up to the Games where there is often more written about locals who will be participating.

[Phrogger]

Fencergrl, how do things work in Canada? How much support do athletes receive and at what level?

Here's an interesting article on China's Soviet-Style sports training system, dubbed "Project 119." Note: MSNBC video link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...02528#26202528

[ysbadadden]

It is rumored that in the United States, there are perhaps one or two state-supported universities at which tax dollars support athletic programs. Since this would be SOCIALISM, that's impossible, of course, but still the rumors fly...

[Empty Wallet]

Originally Posted by ysbadadden

It is rumored that in the United States, there are perhaps one or two state-supported universities at which tax dollars support athletic programs. Since this would be SOCIALISM, that's impossible, of course, but still the rumors fly...

No, No. this is foreign aid.

I just received my college newsletter in the email and one article showed the university's Olympic representative. Current and former students.

Of the 7, only 2 were from the USA. To help out, 2 were from Canada.

[Phrogger]

Originally Posted by ysbadadden

It is rumored that in the United States, there are perhaps one or two state-supported universities at which tax dollars support athletic programs. Since this would be SOCIALISM, that's impossible, of course, but still the rumors fly...

Yeah, that sky-high tuition and football revenue doesn't do anything.

...

I think you will find at most Universities the big sports like football single-handedly support the entire athletic department. It's been discussed before on F.net.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Phrogger

I think you will find at most Universities the big sports like football single-handedly support the entire athletic department.

I bet you're wrong.

-B

[Fencergrl]

Originally Posted by Phrogger

Fencergrl, how do things work in Canada? How much support do athletes receive and at what level?

"Carded athletes" (ones illegible for support) I have been told (by Lemberg in another thread):

I believe a CFF "B" card is around $800 a month, "A" is 1000 or something like that, and "High Performance" (which is the one Sherraine has) is a bit more.

It's not enough to live on, for that reason, many athletes hold a job and train. They also are encouraged to find their own corporate sponsorship. Most rely heavily on family support. Small bonuses are given for winning at events.

[Peach]

The statistics I heard in a seminar a couple of years back showed that football often doesn't even support itself--ticket sales don't come close to covering all the expenses--but it's seen as an essential, non-negotiable way to appeal to alumni and therefore increase contributions; development these days is often the primary function of universities, and if you examine budgets some of the biggest expenditures are in development-related areas.

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by Phrogger

Here's an interesting article on China's Soviet-Style sports training system, dubbed "Project 119."

Canadian sports training system: "Project 000"