Community vs elite sport: the elusive balance

Imagine how well women would do if they were given equal access, equal facilities, and equal funding?

Too many grounds and recreational centres are not suitable for safe community use. Other reasons many young (and not-so-young) talented people do not continue with sport is lack of public transport to facilities, inadequate lighting of grounds and car parks, lack of proper change rooms and toilets, lack of privacy, and almost no access to childcare.

Reassessing Facilities for Community Benefit

There is a clear role for the federal government to get involved in how existing facilities are used and how future facilities and programs are designed and implemented. Obviously we cannot step back 20 or 30 years and re-plan and re-design existing sporting infrastructures, nor can we formulate some magical program or policy that will automatically increase the levels of community sports participation and create a healthier workforce.

What I think can be done, initially, is to maximise community use of existing facilities (eg, schools, colleges, universities) by making them more accessible to the general public. Too often there are communities or regions where sports facilities serve only a fraction of the population. Too often some sections are well catered for while others have to compete for resources.

The pressure to seek cost recovery has pushed sporting groups to the margin, leaving those who most need support at the greatest disadvantage.

There is a real difference between those small towns, suburbs or communities with good sporting facilities and those without. If you provide a community with a solid level of sport and recreational activities then there is every chance that incidence of crime, vandalism, juvenile offences, alienation and even youth suicide will fall.

A decent football field, netball or basketball court or swimming centre can make an enormous difference to the mental, physical and economic health of a community.

This social benefit of sport is most obvious in Indigenous communities, where sport is an important and positive cohesive force. Again, there is an urgent need for federal support for Aboriginal communities to bring together the necessary resources to build or coordinate the use of facilities.

The success of such ventures will always be determined by the community, so government support must be strategic and reflect the unique needs and aspirations of each community. Organised physical activity can also potentially alleviate many health and social problems that afflict rural youth. The present situation, where some people have access to many facilities, while others have access to none, is frustrating and creates sporting haves and have nots.

Sports funding after 2000

Even though the economics of sport still stack up, the Confederation of Australian Sport points out that if the government spent just $15 million each year for ten years to encourage participation in sport then the net benefits to Australia would be more than a hundred times higher than this additional expenditure!

This demonstrates that there is a role for government in sport, along with other stakeholders: the players, corporate sponsors, the media and community organisations. Furthermore, it points to the need for federal, state and local governments to establish long-term policy directions that go beyond simply having the Commonwealth transferring responsibility to the states.

Back in 1983, the newly elected Labor Government recognised this and set about determining a specific role for the federal government with respect to fostering a national sporting culture. By 1988 Labor had established the Community Recreational and Sporting Facilities Program, which helped Local Government provide basic sport and recreational facilities. By 1991-92 the Government was spending $30 million on this program. Labor also introduced the Next Step funding package aimed at continuing the momentum built up over the previous decade. This measure signified the first ever totally comprehensive sports policy.

Not only did this funding contribute to our international success (Australia gain 27 medals at the 1992 Olympics), it deliberately targeted those at the greatest disadvantage in terms of sporting opportunities. These landmark achievements were largely forgotten, however, when the notorious ‘whiteboard affair’ gave sports infrastructure funding ‘untouchable’ status in political terms.

There will always be debates about funding sport and the merits of using taxpayers’ money to achieve international sporting success. However, because Olympic and elite sport is not likely to suffer in the lead up to Sydney, community sport requires special attention if we are to create a worthwhile Olympic community sport legacy.

In the buildup to the Sydney Olympics it is important not to lose sight of the needs of non-Olympic sports. The fact is that while Australia measures its international standing partly by our sporting success, the well-being of Australians is not determined at the elite level, but at the recreational and community level.