Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Great Britain has run away from Australia since 2000

By Chris Lewis - posted Friday, 11 July 2014


Great Britain, which had a similar number of top 50 and top 100 performers as Australia in 2000 (see tables 1 and 2), has improved substantially from 31 to 49 between 2000 and 2013 with regard to the top 50, and from 61 to 84 in relation to the top 100.

Further, the number of events per year where GB has more than one individual amongst the top 50 world performers for a single event increased from 11 to 12, while the number of events where GB had three or more individuals in the top 100 rose from 13 to 16.

Is Australia's running decline the result of a lack of participants? Perhaps. Although Athletic Australia 2012-13 annual report suggests that 22,149 athletes were registered in 2012-13, numbers have hovered mostly between 14,000 and 16,000 for the period from 1999-2000 to 2010-11 after being around 25,000 during the 1970s. The ABS also indicates that there were 45,900 boys and 42,700 girls (aged 5 to 14) registered in track and field during 2012, although it is suggested that a lack of cooperation between Little Athletics and Athletics Australia results in a high proportion of youngsters leaving the sport each year.

Advertisement

Australian athletics also still receives substantial public resources, not far behind the UK when per capita spending is considered. While UK Sport indicates that athletics got £25,148,000 for the 2009-2013 period, and will receive £26,824,206 for the next period to Rio (2016) and beyond, Athletics Australia was given $6,570,000 for its high-performance program for 2013-14 alone, although just $296,400 for helping boost participation.

In terms of direct payments to top athletes, while UK Sport provides a maximum award payment of £27,737 for a global athletics championship medallist and £20,804 for a top 8 finish, Australia provides $40,000 for its small number of similar level athletes.

There are no excuses for Australia's declining running performance beyond the nation doing more to encourage track and field participation. After all, Australia is blessed with good weather and an abundance of all-weather running tracks that are easily accessible to interested individuals.

In an era where regular global IAAF competition is more frequent, with a major global championship held three of every four years along with a lucrative annual Diamond League circuit (14 meetings in 2014), Australian running has failed despite receiving substantial public resources towards its elite program.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Chris Lewis, who completed a First Class Honours degree and PhD (Commonwealth scholarship) at Monash University, has an interest in all economic, social and environmental issues, but believes that the struggle for the ‘right’ policy mix remains an elusive goal in such a complex and competitive world.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Chris Lewis

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy