As the excitement of the Rio Olympics fades into the background, High Performance Sport New Zealand (HPSNZ) will once again have the unenviable task of trying to work out which sports to fund going forward.
Although Rio was our most successful Olympics to date, where the ‘additional’ medals came from was somewhat unexpected; which for HPSNZ, poses something of a problem.
This is because it is always easier for an agency like HPSNZ to secure (and distribute) future funds if it can prove the value of past investments. If HPSNZ can demonstrate a link between funds invested and results achieved, it validates their (funding) model and by default, gives the tax payer the confidence to continue backing them. If, however, the funds don’t deliver results, or the results are disproportional to the investment, it puts everything into question hence it isn’t a stretch to say that in terms of Rio, HPSNZ dodged a bullet; albeit a relatively small one. Not because they themselves did anything wrong but because some of the sports they’ve invested in fell short of expectation.
In other words, if it wasn’t for the likes of our trap shooter Natalie Rooney, white water canoeist Luuka Jones, shot putter Tom Walsh and our lady of the moment, 19-year-old pole vaulter, Eliza McCartney, we would have missed the target.
Had this occurred, it would have posed a problem for HPSNZ for the one they face is simple. What sports do they fund on our behalf and why should we believe their rationale for doing so is right?
Historically, sport was for those with big hearts and even bigger aspirations whereas today we are advised it is also about economics. The question we need to consider however is whether it is as simple as ‘where you invest your money is where the results will come from’ or is the so-called ‘critical’ funding of sport not as black and white as we have been led to believe?
For example, was it the funding that enabled the athletes mentioned above to achieve what they did or was it because of their own personal commitment and dedication that delivered the outcomes they (and we) enjoyed?
If it’s the latter, then investing in ‘athletes’ rather than sports would make sense but if we think investing in the ‘sport’ is what will ultimately produce the goods, then we would retain our current strategy of focusing on particular sports (accepting HPSNZ do provide support to individual athletes with high potential).
To highlight the dilemma HPSNZ face, we only need to look at one of our most successful sports in recent years – rowing. If we thought it was the funding that has been the key to their success in the past, then it would be natural to invest more in the future. However, the fact is, Rowing New Zealand secured more funding in this Olympic cycle than the previous and yet the results they produced in Rio were down on what they achieved in London (3 medals versus 5; which was also their target for Rio).
The point is not that Rowing NZ (for example) is doing a bad job as they clearly aren’t, it’s to accept that an ever greater number of nations can see there are 14 medals up for grabs and very few countries that compete for them (hence the Chinese, amongst others, have said they will place more focus on rowing going forward because they consider it to be one of the easiest Olympic sports to win in).
The unfortunate truth is that not all sports are equal meaning winning a medal isn’t as easy in some sports as it is in others which makes the funding debate ever more contentious. It is our understandable ignorance of this fact that causes us to ask ourselves ‘why when we are so good at rowing and rugby are we so poor at swimming and football?’ (which is a problem for the likes of our swimmers as it is estimated to be around 60 times harder to win a Gold medal in swimming than it is to do the same in Rowing).
Having observed the funding issue play out over many years, I would go as far as to say that it isn’t the athletes with immediate promise who necessarily benefit from the dollars spent but future athletes who pursue a career in the sports we fund (as the infrastructure is more likely to be there to support them) and secondly, the Coaches and Administrators within those sports who can make a career out of it because we accept their roles are important.
To assess the value of our investment in HPSNZ however, we need to consider the wider social and economic benefits to New Zealand rather than just medals won. For instance, does our athletes’ success on the world stage enhance our reputation as a nation that punches above its weight and/or, does it have a positive impact on our psyche and therefore our confidence and productivity as a country?
As we know, we all love seeing the All Blacks beat the likes of our Aussie counterparts but an event like the Olympics gives us an additional boost for we are reminded that we are more than just a country of rugby enthusiasts. This not only encourages the next generation to want to get out and do the same, it prompts many more of us to get off the couch thereby improving our health and wellbeing as a whole.
If we want to retain our status as a successful sporting nation, we need to think about what sports we fund in the future for if it is as simple as a return on investment, being ever more selective about the sports we back makes sense. If, however we decide to pursue such a model, we need to accept that our next generation of Tom Walsh’s and Eliza McCartney’s are likely to have to do it on their own; or at least until we see their talent come to light and at that point, are prepared to back them on their journey to greatness.
©1995-Present day. All rights reserved – Steel Performance Solutions
