Targets for Athlete Performance and the Sport System

Targets for Athlete Performance and the Sport System 

Draft of Report to be Submitted to the 

Inter Provincial Sport and Recreation Council 

in support of the Federal-Provincial/Territorial Enhanced Excellence 

Priorities for Collaborative Action 2002-2005 

Under the terms of the 

Service Contract #7701 

Prepared by: 

Therese A. Brisson 

On behalf of the Federal-Provincial/Territorial Work Group #4 on Excellence 

January 6, 2004 

Final Draft 

Athlete Performance and Sport System Targets, Evaluation, and Investment 

Page i

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i 

List of Definitions and Commonly Used Acronyms .....................................................................iii 

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... iv 

Canadian Targets for Sport ................................................................................................ iv 

Targets for Athlete Performance......................................................................................... v 

Targets for the Sport System............................................................................................... v 

F-T/P Initiatives ................................................................................................................. vi 

F-P/T Policy Recommendations ....................................................................................... vii 

Official Languages............................................................................................................. ix 

Summary............................................................................................................................ ix 

Introduction and Mandate............................................................................................................... 1 

Canadian Sport Policy and Excellence ............................................................................... 1 

Mandate of Federal-Provincial/Territorial Work Group # 4 on Excellence ....................... 1 

FPTSC Work Group #4 Members and Methods................................................................. 2 

Long term Athlete Development and Definitions............................................................... 3 

Relevant Background Information: Current Sport Climate and Agendas ...................................... 4 

Sport Funding and Canada’s Performance at Olympic and Paralympic Games ................ 4 

Measuring International Success ........................................................................................ 7 

Policy Intervention in Sport................................................................................................ 8 

National Olympic Efficiency .............................................................................................. 9 

Current Canadian Sport Funding System ......................................................................... 11 

International Trends in Sport System Development......................................................... 12 

Sydney was the Rallying Call........................................................................................... 15 

Sport Review Process ....................................................................................................... 16 

Sport Canada’s Excellence Strategy ................................................................................. 17 

Action #1: Targets for Athlete Performance................................................................................ 18 

Canadian Targets for Athlete Performance....................................................................... 19 

Recommendations for Canadian Targets for Athlete Performance .................................. 20 

Analysis of Performance Required to Reach Canadian Targets....................................... 21 

Reaching Canadian Targets .............................................................................................. 24 

Specific Athlete Performance Targets .............................................................................. 25 

Recommendations for Specific Athlete Performance Targets.......................................... 25 

Action #1: Targets for the Sport System...................................................................................... 26 

Key Performance Indicators ............................................................................................. 26 

Official Languages in the Canadian Sport System ........................................................... 28 


Page i

Action #2: Priority Areas for Action and F-P/T Initiatives ......................................................... 29 

Priority Actions and F-P/T Program Initiatives................................................................ 29 

Priority Actions and F-P/T Policy Initiatives.................................................................... 33 

Action #3: Canadian Sport Centres.............................................................................................. 44 

Sport Institutes .................................................................................................................. 44 

Role of CSCs in Supporting High Performance Sport in Canada .................................... 46 

Summary of Recommendations.................................................................................................... 48 

Canadian Targets for Sport ............................................................................................... 48 

Targets for Athlete Performance....................................................................................... 49 

Targets for the Sport System............................................................................................. 49 

F-P/T Program Initiatives ................................................................................................. 49 

F-P/T Policy Initiatives..................................................................................................... 51 

Canadian Sport Centres..................................................................................................... 53 

Official Languages............................................................................................................ 53 

References..................................................................................................................................... 55 

Appendix A: Analytical Framework for Policy Intervention in Sport ........................................ 57 

Appendix B: Detailed Description of the Sport Review Process ................................................ 58 

Appendix C: Key Performance Indicators for the Canadian Sport System................................. 60 

Appendix D: Implementation Status of Official Language Recommendations .......................... 65 

Appendix E: Investment Required to Reach Canadian Targets................................................... 68 

Appendix F: Perceptual Map of Sport Institute Networks from Selected Nations...................... 75 

Appendix G: Comparison of Canadian Sport Institutes .............................................................. 76 

Appendix H: Canadian Sport Centres Training Group Matrix.................................................... 78 


Page ii

List of Definitions and Commonly Used Acronyms 

Age Group High Performance level includes about 110,000 athletes in various age groups 

defined as athletes that have been identified as having the potential for international success and 

who are training a minimum of 15 hours per week, usually in elite provincial age group clubs 

(corresponds with the “Espoir” level athlete in Quebec) 

Calgary Olympic Development Association – CODA 

Canadian Olympic Committee – COC 

Canadian Olympic Excellence Fund – COEF 

Canadian Paralympic Committee – CPC 

Canadian Sport Center - CSC 

Coaching Implementation Group – CIG 

Development level is made up of approximately 10,000 athletes participating on provincial teams, 

national development or junior national teams (corresponds with “La Releve” level athlete in 

Quebec). 

Excellence level includes 100-200 athletes across all sports that have a high probability of winning 

an Olympic or Paralympic medal 

Federal-Provincial/Territorial Sport Committee – FPTSC 

High Performance Sport Commission – HPSC 

International Paralympic Committee – IPC 

Long Term Athlete Development – LTAD 

National Sport Organization – NSO 

Provincial Sport Organization – PSO 

Senior National Team level is made up of 1,100 senior national team athletes 

Sport Funding and Accountability Framework – SFAF 

Sport Review Committee – SRC 

Sport Review Process – SRP 


Page iii

Executive Summary 

The mandate of Federal-Provincial/Territorial Sport Committee (FPTSC) Work Group #4 

on Excellence was to carry out the following specific actions as outlined in the Federal– 

Provincial/Territorial Plan for Collaborative Action 2002-2005: 

1. Establish targets to evaluate athlete performance and the effectiveness of Canada’s sport 

system and develop a process for measuring progress towards achieving these targets 

(January 2003). These targets will provide guidance on factors including: 

• Identification and nurturing of talented athletes and teams; 

• training and competitive opportunities for the next generation of high performance 

athletes; 

• employment and working conditions of qualified coaches working full-time with 

high performance athletes; and 

• offering essential services, in English and French, to national team athletes and 

coaches, and to national/international-level officials. 

2. In conjunction with key stakeholders, develop federal-provincial/territorial initiatives to 

enhance the role of applied sport science, competitions and other key elements in athlete 

development, throughout Canada (March 2004). 

3. Evaluate and confirm, as required, the role of National Sport Centres in contributing to the 

goals of the Canadian Sport Policy on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis (March 2004). 

In fulfilling its mandate, Work Group #4 undertook research and data collection on 

domestic and international sport policy, athlete performance, sport investment, and elite sport 

system and athlete development. Influential members of the domestic and international community 

were consulted and invited to share information with Work Group #4. 

Canadian Targets for Sport 

Canada has never had a set of public Canadian Targets for athlete performance that guide 

investment decisions. Accordingly, there has been nothing to bind together the activities of the 

various funding agencies and jurisdictions, which has led to a fragmented and uncoordinated 

system. It is exceedingly important to develop a set of Canadian Targets and develop funding 

policies and programs to achieve them. It is recommended that the medal count at Olympic and 

Paralympic Games serve as the performance standard by which Canadian Sport is evaluated, as is 

the case for most sporting nations. 

Work Group #4 recommends Canadian Targets that call for Canada to double the number 

of medals won at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt 

Lake City at the 2010 Winter and 2012 Summer Olympic Games. The Work Group recommends 

that the following specific long-term targets be accepted as the Canadian Targets for athlete 

performance at future Olympic and Paralympic Games: 


Page iv

• For Winter Olympic sports, Canada consistently places in the top 3 nations in the 

medal count, with the goal being to finish 1 st in the 2010 Vancouver/Whistler 

Winter Olympic Games 

• For Summer Olympic Sports, Canada consistently places in the top 8 nations in the 

medal count by 2012 

• For Winter Paralympic sports, Canada consistently places in the top 3 nations in 

the gold medal count by 2010 

• For Summer Paralympic sports, Canada consistently places in the top 3 nations in 

the gold medal count by 2012 

The Paralympic medal count is not so easily tracked due to the ongoing evolution of the 

classification system and the number of sports and events. These targets are nevertheless 

challenging stretch targets for the Canadian Paralympic movement. 

Targets for Athlete Performance 

It is recommended that the entire sport system take a Long Term Athlete Development 

(LTAD) approach. This will require an increase of both investment and coordination by the 

various funding partners to achieve the performance targets above. It is further recommended that 

the collaborative sport review process undertaken by the national funding partners (COC, Sport 

Canada, CODA, Vancouver Legacies Now) be used as the basis for validating the performance 

targets above via a process to set specific sport by sport athlete performance targets. In addition, 

this process should be used to identify other key performance indicators which will demonstrate 

progress toward the national targets. These could include such things as the number of sports 

winning medals, the number of Top 8 performances, etc.. The Canadian Targets need to be 

supported by concomitant P/T athlete development targets established using a similar sport review 

process. These could include measures such as number of athletes placed on an 

Olympic/Paralympic team, number of medallists on an Olympic/Paralympic team, etc. 

Targets for the Sport System 

There are numerous sport system development targets that need to be established. Three 

main areas of key performance indicators or targets for the Canadian sport system were 

identified as being important including: 

1. Managing Knowledge, Learning, and Innovation 

2. Core Sport System Activities 

3. Athlete and Coach Satisfaction 

While a list of possible components of the sport system, which will need to be addressed, is 

included in this report, the actual setting of the key performance indicators is proposed to be left to 

the same collaborative sport review process noted above. Canada has most of the components of a 

successful sport system. What it lacks at present is leadership, coordination, and accountability. 


Page v

F-T/P Initiatives 

Research on international sport development systems has identified 10 common 

characteristics of successful international sport systems. The Canadian Sport System experiences 

significant gaps in 9 of these 10 characteristics when measured against international best practices. 

Priority areas for action and F-P/T initiatives have been identified to address the gaps in both the 

operational elements and policy elements of the Canadian Sport System. From a program or 

operational perspective, the following are proposals of what Canada must do to achieve success in 

the various characteristics. 

F-P/T Program Recommendations 

1. Comprehensive Planning for Each Sport’s Needs 

Canada must lead and participate in both domestic and international sport policy and 

applied sport research. Sport organizations, and the national funding partners should partner with 

universities and major Canadian research funding agencies to create a capacity for applied sport 

science research in the areas of innovation in athlete training, preparation for competition and 

equipment development. Research must be used for innovation in athlete training, preparation for 

competition and equipment development. Data regarding athlete results, performance and training 

should be collected in a systematic way and integrated telecommunications technology should be 

used to manage the knowledge and share it across the sport system so that it can be used for 

intervention in training, preparation for competition and equipment development. 

2. Talent Identification and Athlete Monitoring 

A common taxonomy for long term athlete level is required so that there is a common 

understanding of terms like Age Group High Performance, or Development level athlete and the 

associated talent milestones, training and competition needs at each level. The Sport Fit generic 

talent identification system for winter sports in B.C. should be expanded nationwide and include 

summer sports. Sport specific talent identification and monitoring systems must also be developed. 

Existing technology must be used to facilitate communication between NSOs, PSOs, clubs and 

athletes to encourage participation and monitor progress. 

3. Facilities 

Canada needs to evolve the current Canadian Sport Centre network to develop a facilitybased 

Sport Institute Network that balances the need for athlete access with economies of scale. A 

separate infrastructure envelope for facility development for high performance should be created 

to engage municipal, provincial/territorial and federal government collaboration. Finally, the 

hosting legacies of international championships, major games, the Canada Games and Provincial 

Games should be examined with a view to ensuring facility legacies are located in communities 

where they are accessible to a large number of high performance athletes. 

4. Cultures of Excellence and Sport Institutes 

Canada needs to use the new national and regional sport institutes to create a world class 

environment of excellence in which its athletes can train. Prerequisites for this will include world 

class athletes, world class coaching, world class facilities and equipment, sport science support, 

competition, residence facilities and meal options for both NSO and PSO athletes who have 


Page vi

achieved a level of excellence. Further, a system of sport schools similar to the Quebec Sport 

Etudes program should be created in every city with population greater than 50,000. Sport schools 

can also contribute to the further development of team sports by creating a higher level competitive 

network for school-based sports. 

5. Competitive Programs with International Exposure 

To afford our athletes the opportunity to compete for medals at the Olympic and Paralympic 

Games, there is a need for our age group high performance athletes to be exposed to international 

competition similar to the European nations we are seeking to pass in the nations ranking. 

Therefore, it is recommended to continue and expand the ‘La Relève’ program and link it to 

provincial high performance programs. 

The ongoing review of the Canada Games program should be completed to ensure that this 

important competitive opportunity fits with high performance athlete development and contributes 

to the national athlete performance targets. Consideration should be given to the creation of a 

Canada Paralympic Games. Biannual junior national competitions should be created to ensure that 

Development level athletes have access to ongoing high quality domestic competition. 

6. Lifestyle Support 

Programs for personal and professional development are already offered through the CSCs. 

These programs require ongoing evaluation and intervention to ensure they meet the evolving 

needs of athletes. Ongoing communication with athletes is required to both promote the program 

and determine the services needed. An athlete-centered system ensures that athletes are involved in 

the decisions that affect them. Sport Canada’s AAP tuition support program should also be 

reviewed to ensure that it is flexible enough to respond to the variety of educational opportunities 

of interest to athletes. 

F-P/T Policy Recommendations 

From a policy perspective there are some critical decisions which must be addressed by the 

Federal and Provincial / Territorial governments with respect to how Canadian sport needs to 

evolve in order adopt the characteristics of other successful sporting nations and meet the proposed 

athlete performance targets. These include the following: 

1. Developing Excellence Requires Investment in Infrastructure and People 

The Excellence objectives outlined in the Canadian Sport Policy cannot be achieved with 

the current levels of funding and the current approach to investment. In fact, even maintaining the 

current level of athlete performance will be difficult if the status quo is maintained. An additional 

federal investment of $35 million in high performance sport programming, matched by another 

investment of $35 million from other public and private sources, will be required to meet the 

Canadian Targets. Innovative measures to mobilize the matching resources such as lotteries and 

tax credits should also be implemented. The province of Quebec has set an investment and 

programming standard that should be emulated by others. 

While the size of the investment required is important, the timing of the investment is 

perhaps even more critical. Research indicates that it takes 8-10 years to develop athletes that have 

the potential to win a medal at the Olympic Games, and 4-6 years at the Paralympic Games. The 

hosting of Olympic / Paralympic Games has generally led to an increased program investment in 


Page vii

the hope of achieving results when Canada hosts the world. Traditionally, the Canadian investment 

in sport has been too late to have this desired impact. The Vancouver/Whistler Games 2010 are 

only 6 years away, so it is imperative that investments looking to have an impact in 2010 be made 

today in developing athletes, many of whom have already been identified but who have inadequate 

support to progress to the podium. 

Coaching is not adequately developed as a profession in Canada to provide the stability to 

consistently achieve performance results at major international competition. Too many coaches are 

surviving through one-year contracts under multi-partner cost-sharing models. It is recommended 

that funding for coaching support be increased and allocated on a longer term basis so that more 

professional coaching opportunities can be created for national team coaches. 

Athletes who strive to achieve excellence in the linguistic duality that is Canada should 

have the right to be coached in their language of choice and require a direct investment from their 

country or home province / territory to permit them to make the commitment necessary to 

contribute to the national targets for sport. 

2. Strategic Investment in Sport 

Sport funding in Canada has generally been egalitarian, with, to date, only last minute, 

minimal funding targeted on athletes and teams with medal potential through special programs. An 

integrated and coordinated investment by Federal-provincial /territorial governments is required to 

develop long term athlete development systems. It is recommended that the aforementioned sport 

review assessment be used to identify priority sports that have podium potential, both short and 

long term, and that Excellence resources be focused on these sports to support long term athlete 

development systems that will yield results in 2010 and 2012 and beyond. 

Base level resources should continue to be allocated to all eligible sports, to permit them to 

have the opportunity to demonstrate success potential. The number of priority sports will be 

dependant on the funding resources available. The sport review will have to be careful to not 

overlook outstanding individual athletes that appear in sports outside of the priority group and 

provide these individuals with additional support to permit them to perform. 

A national and coordinated team sport strategy to address the critical path and model of 

athlete and team development is required. Canada should identify strategic advantages, for 

example in women’s sport and emerging sports, and invest in them accordingly. 

The Athlete Assistance Program (AAP) requires a quota revision so that more cards may be 

made available to priority sports and the stipends should be increased and coordinated with other 

assistance programs to provide a minimum after tax level of support of $24,000 to athletes with 

medal potential. The Quebec practice of tax credit and direct investment in athletes living and 

training in Quebec serves as a model for all other provinces and territories. Needs based 

assessment should also be introduced and the practice of charging athletes National team fees used 

by some NSOs should be eliminated entirely. 

3. Leadership, Clearly Defined Roles, and Simplicity of Administration 

The Canadian sport system lacks coordinated technical leadership. It is a fragmented sport 

system that lacks coordination among multiple funding agencies. Jurisdictional issues between 

NSO and PSO and federal and provincial/territorial governments further complicate the complex 

system. 


Page viii

First and foremost, the system requires a commitment to a set of common Canadian Targets 

as proposed earlier. Then, to achieve these targets, it is recommended a High Performance Sport 

Commission (HPSC) be created to coordinate the planning, investment, evaluation and appropriate 

intervention in high performance sport at the national level and provide an example for Provincial / 

Territorial investors to consider. The desired result is a pooling of resources, harmonized funding 

programs and coordinated investment in athletes, coaches, programs, facilities. 

The HPSC should include 7-10 high performance sport experts appointed by the national 

funding partners and should serve as a leadership body to review a single application by NSOs. It 

should undertake a process modelled on the collaborative Sport Review Process to assess high 

performance plans, progress and potential and would have the authority to allocate the pooled 

funding, evaluate and intervene in high performance programming. The HPSC should be 

accountable to the funding partners and the sport system for the achievement of the Canadian 

Targets for Athlete Performance and the Targets for the Sport System. It is proposed that the 

governance structure for the HPSC include representation from national, Provincial/Territorial and 

other funding partners and stakeholders. Provincial/Territorial funding agencies also need to be 

accountable for their complimentary high performance targets. 

The HPSC could also act as a F-P/T coordination mechanism to facilitate bilateral or 

multilateral agreements for high performance sport initiatives. Provinces/territories and PSOs 

would be encouraged to use the Canadian Targets for sport and the Canadian list of priority sports 

as a factor to guide their investment decisions. The PSO plans should be integrated and dovetail 

with NSO plans and be based on mutually agreeable objectives and priorities. Similarly, Federal 

and Provincial/Territorial investment should be congruent. Accordingly, NSO and PSO as well as 

F-P/T scorecard tools should be developed to guide investment and ensure accountability. 

Official Languages 

The minimal expectations for Official Languages in the Canadian Sport System defined in 

Sport Canada’s previous SFAF framework have now been replaced by national standards applying 

to all NSOs. Work Group # 4 fully supports the new national standards proposed by Sport Canada. 

In the fall of 2002, the Commissioner of Official Languages conducted a follow-up to the study 

published in June 2000, titled Official Languages in the Canadian Sports System. Work Group #4 

supports the ongoing work in this area and suggests that the current approach to establishing 

standards and monitoring performance is appropriate. In particular, ensuring that national team 

coaches can meet the needs of each athlete in his or her official language is viewed as being a 

priority. 

Summary 

To summarize, the key recommendation of Workgroup #4 is: 

1. To adopt the proposed Canadian Targets for sport 

Assuming the targets are adopted, there are a number of additional initiatives, which should 

be adopted to assist in achieving them. Therefore, it is proposed that the following be approved: 

2. Develop congruent Provincial / Territorial athlete performance targets 


Page ix

3. Establish a Canadian High Performance Sport Commission independent of the 

existing funding partners to manage the comprehensive, expert driven assessment 

process and implementation of plans to achieve the Canadian Targets 

4. Establish congruent Provincial / Territorial assessment processes that share 

information 

5. Target the limited high performance financial resources to a list of priority sports 

with the highest probability of contributing to the achievement the Canadian 

Targets 

6. Provincial / Territorial governments support a similar priority list of sports 

If Canada can agree to the foregoing and secure additional financial 

resources, we can meet the proposed Canadian Targets. 


Page x

Athlete Performance and Sport System Targets, Evaluation, and Investment Page 0

Introduction and Mandate 

Canadian Sport Policy and Excellence 

The Canadian Sport Policy (CSP, 2002) identifies the future direction for sport in Canada in 

the area of excellence through its stated goal... 

“It is the goal of the Canadian Sport Policy that by 2012 ...The pool of talented 

Canadian athletes has expanded and Canadian athletes and teams are 

systematically achieving world-class results at the highest levels of international 

competition through fair and ethical means.” 

The policy outlines general goals for athlete performance and the sport system. A 

consequence of the lack of specific, clearly articulated goals has been that varying views prevail in 

the sport community and in governments with regards to investment in sport and the achievement 

of success, measured by podium performances at international competitions. One view is that 

governments should invest in sport with the specific objective of achieving podium results. A 

second view is that governments should invest in sport because it is the right thing to do, with the 

understanding that international success will be only one of the outcomes of this investment, in 

addition to the many other benefits (health, education, social, self esteem, training, volunteer 

development etc.). These views, however, do not necessarily oppose each other. 

The merit and rationale underlying the Excellence objectives of expanding the talent pool 

and achieving podium results at international competition have been studied before and are more 

fully presented elsewhere (Mills, 1998, MPWGS, 2000; 2001a, 2001b). Furthermore, there is a 

sense that action, rather than further study is required. Therefore, these arguments will not be 

examined in this report. Rather, the focus of this report will be on the actions, as mandated by 

Federal–Provincial/Territorial Plan for Collaborative Action 2002-2005. 

Mandate of Federal-Provincial/Territorial Work Group # 4 on Excellence 

The mandate of Federal-Provincial/Territorial Sport Committee (FPTSC) Work Group #4 

on Excellence was to carry out the following specific actions as outlined in the Federal– 

Provincial/Territorial Plan for Collaborative Action 2002-2005: 

1. Establish targets to evaluate athlete performance and the effectiveness of Canada’s sport system 

and develop a process for measuring progress towards achieving these targets (January 2003). 

These targets will provide guidance on factors including: 

• identification and nurturing of talented athletes and teams; 

• training and competitive opportunities for the next generation of high performance 

athletes; 

• employment and working conditions of qualified coaches working full-time with 


• offering essential services, in English and French, to national team athletes and 



2. In conjunction with key stakeholders, develop federal-provincial/territorial initiatives to 

enhance the role of applied sport science, competitions and other key elements in athlete 

development, throughout Canada (March 2004). 

3. Evaluate and confirm, as required, the role of National Sport Centres in contributing to the 

goals of the Canadian Sport Policy on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis (March 2004). 

FPTSC Work Group #4 Members and Methods 

Work Group #4 on Excellence was chaired by Phil Schlote, the Manager of High 

Performance for Sport Canada, and included the following sport community representatives: 

Robert Bettauer Canadian Sport Centre – Ontario 

Chris Farstad Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton 

Louis Jani Sport Canada 

Tom Jones Athletes CAN 

Albert Marier Province of Quebec 

Brian MacPherson Canadian Paralympic Committee 

John Mills Calgary Olympic Development Association (CODA) 

Shane Pearsall Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton 

Richard Way Province of British Columbia 

Part way through the process, it was concluded that additional human resource assistance 

was required and accordingly, Therese Brisson was contracted to provide writing, research and 

logistical support. 

One challenging issue proved to be reaching an agreement on the scope of what was 

determined to be a monumental task. In the end, there was agreement to focus on the support and 

programming for athletes beginning at the Age Group High Performance Level, defined as athletes 

that have been identified as having the potential for international success and who are training a 

minimum of 15 hours per week, usually in elite provincial age group clubs, and progress upwards 

through the high performance system to the Senior National Team Level. This was believed to 

limit the scope of the discussion to approximately 120,000 athletes from across the country and to 

have the effect of engaging the Provincial/Territorial and Federal Governments, as well as NSOs 

and P/TSOs. 

Research and data collection on domestic and international sport policy, athlete 

performance, sport investment, elite sport system and athlete development was undertaken. 

Influential members of the domestic and international community were consulted and invited to 

share information with Work Group #4. 

Work Group #4 met five times by conference call and four times in face-to-face meetings to 

address the challenges of the task. Summaries of the discussions at the meetings were prepared and 

distributed along with other relevant information provided by a variety of the Work Group’s 

members. In addition, members of the Work Group obtained feedback from relevant members of 

the sport community (NSOs, PSOs, coaches, athletes, administrators), the F-P/T funding partners as 

well as other technical experts (CODA, CSCs, sport scientists) using two methods: 


• Face to face small group and one on one consultations during sport community 

meetings in the fall of 2003 (e.g. Sport Leadership 2003 Conference in Vancouver, 

Canadian Olympic Committee Board Meeting in Toronto) 

• Limited electronic circulation of a presentation that outlined the key issues 

addressed by the Work Group and an invitation to submit comments and feedback 

Long term Athlete Development and Definitions 

Work Group # 4 was conscious of two essential priorities. First, to successfully impact on 

Canada’s sport system and achieve long term results requires ‘Long Term Athlete Development’. 

Second, there is a need to narrow the focus of the task to that portion of the sport system that could 

benefit most from the new funding initiatives and make the maximum contribution towards the 

National goals for sport. Accordingly, it was determined to focus on the following levels of 

athletes as defined below. As one progresses in age and ability, the numbers narrow. 

• The Age Group High Performance level includes about 110,000 athletes in various 

age groups defined as athletes that have been identified as having the potential for 

international success and who are training a minimum of 15 hours per week, usually in 

elite provincial age group clubs (corresponds with the “Espoir” level athlete in Quebec) 

• The Development level is made up of approximately 10,000 athletes participating on 

provincial teams, national development or junior national teams (corresponds with “La 

Releve” level athlete in Quebec). 

• The Senior National Team level is made up of 1,100 senior national team athletes 

• The Excellence level includes 100-200 athletes across all sports that have a high 

probability of winning an Olympic or Paralympic medal 

Within these various groups of athletes, it is necessary to define the elements of the sport 

system (levels of coaching, training, competition, support services, etc) that would be necessary to 

improve the probability of Canada’s athletes standing on the medal podium. There are various 

jurisdictions responsible for meeting the needs of the athletes at the various levels. One of the 

objectives of this report is to present a model that would increase the probability of success of 

Canadian athletes, to identify priority areas for action where the current system widely differs from 

the required model, and to recommend actions, including F-P/T initiatives that can address these 

priority areas. 


Relevant Background Information: Current Sport Climate and Agendas 

Sport Funding and Canada’s Performance at Olympic and Paralympic Games 

A brief history of Canada’s performance at recent Olympic Games is presented below. 

There are a number of evident trends that have been the subject of debate within the sport 

community over the last 15-20 years. 

First, research indicates that it 

takes approximately 10 years, or almost 

10,000 hours of training and practice to 

reach the levels of performance needed 

to excel on the international stage 

(Starkes & Ericsson, 2003). Therefore, 

an investment in sport and athlete 

development today would be expected to 

have an influence on international 

performance 10 years later. 

Accordingly, investment in sport can 

be viewed as an important long-term 

lead indicator of future international 

performance. However, this is not the 

only lead indicator of sport performance 

at the international level. 

Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate that 

there is approximately an 8-12 year time 

lag between initial Federal/Sport Canada 

investment and international 

performance. Similarly, there is also a 6- 

10 year time lag when funding is phased 

out before a performance decrement is 

seen. What becomes readily apparent in 

summer sports is that the performance 

increments and decrements closely 

follow the pattern of Sport Canada 

funding. 

Figure 2: Canadian Summer Olympic Medal Performance 

Medals 

Canadian Summer Olympic Medals 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Gold 

Silver 

Bronz 

1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 

Olympiad 

Figure 1: Sport Canada Funding (adjusted to 2002 $) 

Current $ (in millions) 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

1973 

1975 

Sport Canada Contributions 

1977 

1979 

1981 

1983 

1985 

Year Ending March 31 

1987 

1989 

1991 

1993 

1995 

1997 

1999 

2001 

The increased investments of the ‘Best Ever Summer Program’ in the mid-1980s led to 

improved performances in Seoul (1988), Barcelona (1992) and Atlanta (1996). The declining 

investment following the 1988 Calgary Olympic Games and the deep budget cuts to sport (and 

many other programs) as a result of the fiscal crisis of the early to mid 1990s, began to manifest 

itself with a predictable declining performance in Sydney (2000) that is expected to continue in 

Athens (2004). 

The recent, targeted short-term investments in final preparation for the 2004 Athens Games, 

which were initiated by the Canadian Olympic Committee in collaboration with Sport Canada, may 


mask this impact somewhat. However, it is clear that one consequence of the limited funding to 

sport for the next generation of athletes expected to represent Canada in 2008 in Beijing is that they 

have experienced less international training, competition, and development experiences and it is 

uncertain if even massive investments beginning today can overcome this preparation deficit by 

2008. A major shortcoming of the Canadian approach to investment in high performance sport, as 

evidenced from the data presented above, has been that it comes far too late to achieve the impact 

desired. Generally, the limited funding available has had to be invested in senior team athletes 

striving to prepare for the next World Championships or Olympic Games with only a limited 

investment in the next generation of developing athletes. 

On the Winter sport side, the matching of performance trends with federal funding 

fluctuations was less apparent. Figure 3 shows the trend for Olympic Winter Games performance 

has been slow steady improvement since 1980. This is explained by the preferred situation 

experienced by winter sports in Canada as a result of the Best Ever funding program which 

preceded the hosting the 1988 Winter 

Olympics in Calgary. For example, the 

facility legacy at Canada Olympic Park, 

the Olympic Oval at the University of 

Calgary, and facilities in Canmore have all 

provided a tremendous training advantage 

to Canadian winter sport athletes since the 

Games. This was particularly true for the 

sports of bobsleigh, freestyle skiing and 

speed skating, sports in which Canada has 

historically been strong but which now had 

state of the art facilities in which to train. 

Secondly, the facility advantage was 

coupled with the growth of the Calgary 

Olympic Development Association’s 

Figure 3: Winter Sport Olympic Medal Performance 

(CODA) endowment fund and other peripheral spin-offs of the ’88 Games such as the Olympic 

Legacy Coaching Fund (OLCF), which have permitted supplementary funding support to sustain 

and develop winter sports while Sport Canada resources were shrinking. 

Medals 

Canadian Winter Olympic Medals 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Gold 

Silver 

Bronze 

1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1994 1998 2002 

Olympiad 

This supplemental funding tended to offset or minimize the impact of funding cuts to 

federal and provincial budgets on winter sport compared to that experienced by summer sports. 

The creation of the first Canadian Sport Centre in Calgary further strengthened the winter sport 

system in those sports best situated to capitalize on the services offered. Some historically strong 

sports like Alpine Skiing and Figure Skating, however, realized lesser gains and have experienced 

performance decrements over the last few Games because they were unable to capitalize as much 

on any post-hosting legacy. 

The key point to note is that the federal funding-performance pattern found for summer 

sports is not as evident for winter sports because of support and funding from the legacy of hosting 

the 1988 Calgary Olympics that was not available to summer sports. This finding further 

substantiates the relationship between funding and performance. It also demonstrates the Canadian 

shortcoming of investing too late. Much of the impact on performance of investments in 

developing athletes, related to the hosting and the legacy from the 1988 Winter Olympic Games in 

Calgary, was not seen until 1994 and 1998. This finding highlights the importance of 


immediate action in preparation for hosting the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in 

Vancouver/Whistler, especially in sports with a demonstrated track record of performance. 

Paralympic sport has had a more 

recent evolution in international sport. Figure 5: Summer Paralympic Performance 

There have been many changes and 

Summer Paralympic Medals 

additions to number of events and 

competition categories in the Paralympic 

Gold 

240 

program over the past two decades. This 

200 

Silver 

makes a clear interpretation of the summer 

160 

Bronze 

Paralympic medal performance shown in 

120 

Figure 4 very difficult at this point in the 

80 

evolution of Canada’s participation in 

40 

Paralympic sport. There has also been an 

0 

increasing number of countries participating 

1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 

at the Paralympics. The Paralympic 

Paralympics 

program is currently being reviewed and a 

considerable consolidation of events and categories is expected to reduce the number of medal 

events and categories at the summer Paralympics. It is also anticipated that new sports will also be 

added (e.g. rowing and gymnastics). 

The Winter Paralympic medal 

Figure 4: Winter Paralympic Medal Performance 

performance is shown in Figure 5. There 

Winter Paralympic Medals 

are currently only four sports on the Winter 

Paralympic program so the results are less 

20 

prone to the interpretation problems 

described for the summer data above. 

15 

Canada has achieved its best performance in 

10 

recent years. Wheelchair curling, which will 

be added for the 2006 Paralympics is the 

5 

only addition planned at this point. 

0 

Unlike the federal funding for ablebodied 

sport, the federal funding for 

Paralympic sport, shown in Figure 6, has 

increased rapidly and steadily since 1996. 

This Paralympic Sport Funding data 

presented in Figure 6 is included in the total 

Sport Canada data presented in Figure 2 

above. Sport Canada has a policy of 

inclusion with respect to Paralympic sport. 

NSOs have been asked to assume 

responsibility for Paralympic sport 

programming and part of the funding 

envelope provided by Sport Canada to NSOs 

is targeted for Paralympic sport programs 

and athletes. 

Medals 

Medals 

1980 1984 1988 1992 1994 1998 2002 

Paralympics 

Figure 6: Federal Funding for Paralypmic Sport (CPC) 

$ - Thousands 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

Paralympic Sport Funding (CPC) 

Gold 

Silver 

Bronze 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Year 


Figure 7 shows that the federal 

funding to Paralympic athletes directly 

through the Athlete Assistance Program 

(AAP) has also increased substantially since 

1994. This is because of the objective to 

increase the Paralympic card complement to 

200. This Paralympic Athlete Funding data is 

also included in the total Sport Canada data 

presented in Figure 2 above. A key message is 

that while the overall Sport Canada 

Contributions experienced severe cuts in the 

mid 1990s and then a restoration of funding in 

the late 1990s, federal funding for Paralympic 

sport and athletes has increased consistently, 

Figure 7: Federal Funding to Paralympic Athletes 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Paralympic Athlete Funding (AAP) 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

and represents a growing percentage of Sport Canada’s contributions. The current federal funding 

for Paralympic sport represents approximately 10% of Sport Canada’s budget. 

$ - Thousands 

Year 

Measuring International Success 

Canada has managed to continue to generate approximately the same number of Top 8 

Olympic finishes since 1988, but there has been a distinct tendency to lose ground in the more 

traditional Olympic events and to perform better in new Olympic events that have been added 

(triathlon, gymnastics-trampoline, short track speed skating, freestyle skiing, curling). 

Accordingly, there are high expectations for women’s wrestling which will be included in the 

Olympic program for the first time in Athens (2004). While Canada has never had National 

performance objectives that were public and influential in terms of funding policy, sport 

bureaucrats and politicians lament the lack of medals in lean times but proudly point to the number 

of Top 8’s as an indicator of performance and the health of the sport system. The lack of common 

international performance goals may be one of the reasons varying views within the sport 

community have emerged with regards to sport investment and the achievement of international 

success. 

“If you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there”. 

Jack Donohue 

This strategy seemed to satisfy the political leadership particularly in the wake of the Ben 

Johnson (Seoul, 1988) scandal where it became somewhat ‘unfashionable’ for Canadians to strive 

to win at the world level. The relatively poor performance by Canadian athletes at the Sydney 

Olympic Games, however, led the media to begin to question the health of Canadian sport and 

resulted in the development of the Canadian Sport Policy (2002) and Bill C-54, the Physical 

Activity and Sport Act, which revised the aging Fitness and Amateur Sport Act (1961). 

While Canada has used many different measures as indicators of success, such as Top 8 

performances, most nations measure international sport success by the medal count at the Olympic 

and Paralympic Games. Therefore, it is proposed that the international competitiveness of 

Canadian athletes be evaluated using the same measure of success used by other sporting nations, 

the medal count at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. While other measures might be helpful in 


guiding and assessing sport system development and athlete progress, they would not be measures 

of international success. For example, key performance indicators of the sport system (e.g. the 

number of full time coaches, the amount invested in applied sport research) are measures of the 

outcome of a strong sport system that might be useful for predicting athlete performance. 

Similarly, possession time (instead of differential) or the audience’s applause (instead of judge’s 

scores) might be useful indicators of performance in soccer and figure skating respectively, but 

they are not the measures used to determine the result of the competition. Finally, outcome 

measures, such as Top 8 or personal bests, might be useful indicators of future performance, but the 

majority of nations measure international success by the medal count at the Olympic and 

Paralympic Games. 

For the Paralympic Games, the most common measure of success, which is also the 

International Paralympic Committee’s (IPC) nation ranking formula, is the gold medal count. 

Following the same rationale presented above, it is proposed that the international competitiveness 

of Canadian Paralympic athletes be evaluated using the gold medal count at the Paralympics. 

Policy Intervention in Sport 

In recent years, there has been a shift in government focus away from service delivery to a 

focus on policy. An empirically based model of the policy factors that determine international elite 

sport success has not yet been developed, but an initial and somewhat complicated analytical 

framework, which is adapted from the model used by Van Bottenburg (2000), is presented in 

Appendix A. The framework suggests that a nation’s elite athlete performance in sport is 

determined by a complex set of factors, of which only some can be influenced by sport policy. The 

framework distinguishes between factors on the macro and meso, or middle, level (De Bosscher & 

De Knop 2002; De Bosscher 2002). 

Macro factors cannot be influenced by sports policy, but have been identified as predictors of 

Olympic medal rankings (Johnson & Ali, 2000; 2002). For example, there is a significant and 

measurable advantage for larger nations (both in GDP per capita and in population) in terms of 

participation and success at the Games. Furthermore, there are undeniable advantages to being the 

hosting nation, and to being a neighbor to the host. 

Factors on the meso level are (more) susceptible to sport policy influence. They all act in 

some way on succeeding stages of the sport development system or long-term athlete development 

model and are defined as including the following (UK Sport 2002): 

• Foundation: the early development of physical literacy and general physical skills upon 

which all later forms of sports participation are based 

• Participation: active involvement in doing sport, either occasionally or intensive, formal or 

informal, and competitive or non-competitive 

• Performance: providing opportunities for those already participating in sport to improve 

their performance towards excellence 

• Excellence: attainment of publicly recognised excellence and, in particular, representing a 

club or country at the national or international level 


The key message here is that while macro factors do play a role in predicting international 

sport performance, they are largely uninfluenced by sport policy. However, unfavourable macro 

conditions are not an excuse for poor international performance because sport policy intervention at 

the foundation, participation, performance, and excellence stages will have an important impact on 

athlete performance. Therefore, the meso level is the ideal place for policy intervention and 

investment. Furthermore, intervention at later stages of athlete development (e.g. excellence) 

would predictably have an immediate impact on international performance, while intervention at 

earlier stages will take longer to have an impact on international performance. 

National Olympic Efficiency 

Measures have been developed to control for the effect of some of these macro effects. For 

example, National Olympic efficiency is a measure that is based on medal count, equally weighted, 

per capita. This measure has been used by some nations, especially the UK, to evaluate sport 

system effectiveness, while controlling for population size. This measure has some obvious 

limitations. First, Olympic medal production suffers from diminishing returns with respect to 

population because a nation with twice the population of a smaller country will not generate twice 

as many medals. Second, a smaller nation with a strong national tradition and performance in a 

few sports (some which may not be Olympic sports) that disproportionately attract athletes is 

limited in the number of medals it can win (i.e. hockey in Canada; cricket, field hockey, squash in 

Pakistan). Also, the impact of medals won by team sports may be undervalued with this measure 

as the team medal counts only once in the medal count, rather than the 8, 12 or 20 (depending on 

team roster size) actual medals won by athletes on the team. Nevertheless, this measure can be 

useful to compare large nations of similar political structures (i.e., Western democracies). 

Figure 8 shows a six nation 

Figure 6: Comparison of National Olympic Efficiency 

comparison (Canada, US, Australia, Spain, 

France, UK) of National Olympic efficiency, 

National Olympic Efficiency 

expressed as medals per million in 

to 3.5 

population). The data for Australia 

2.50 

demonstrates the effect of focused efforts 

leading up to the hosting of the 2000 

2.00 

Olympics, on what is generally regarded as the 

1.50 

most efficient elite sport system in the world. 

Spain demonstrates a similar, but less 

1.00 

pronounced effect leading up to the hosting of 

the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona. Canada and 0.50 

France have demonstrated remarkable 

0.00 

improvements in efficiency over the 1988, 

1992, 1996 period, but Canada experienced a 

1988 1992 1996 2000 

decline in 2000, providing further evidence of 

Summer Olympic Year 

the 6-10 year time lag for the impact of 

funding cuts on international performance discussed earlier. The UK decline in efficiency is 

notable, and the effect of a poor UK showing in 1996 focused attention on increased investment 

and strategies that contributed to a stronger performance in 2000. Finally, the USA, with medal 

counts that often lead all other nations, is shown to have modest efficiency with this measure. 

Medals / Million Population 

AUS 

USA 

SPA 

FRA 

CAN 

UK 


The Australian experience, since its poor showing in Montreal 1976 to its outstanding 

performance in Sydney 2000, is a notable model. Figure 9 highlights Australia’s Olympic 

performance over the past 4 decades, while Figure 10 shows the Australian federal government’s 

investment since 1976. 

Significant funding increases to 

sport that were initiated as a direct result 

of the poor performance at the 1976 

Games in Montreal lead to better 

performances at the 1984 and 1988 

Games. This was followed by a second 

round of funding increases in 1993 after 

Australia was awarded the hosting of the 

2002 Games in Sydney. The funding was 

targeted to a core of 8 sports (Athletics, 

Basketball, Canoeing, Cycling, 

Gymnastics, Field Hockey, Rowing, 

Swimming), which produced 102 of the 

140 (72.8%) Olympic medals won from 

1988 to 2000. Up to 50 sports may 

receive limited support from the 

Australian Sport Commission, the 

organization responsible for allocating the 

federal contribution to sport. Most of the 

funding is targeted on the core sports and 

there is very little attempt to support 

winter sports in Australia. A similar 

targeted approach is currently being 

undertaken in the U.K. (U.K. 2002). 

Figure 9: Australian Summer Olympic Performance 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Australian Summer Olympic Medals 

Gold 

Silver 

Bronze 

1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 

Olympiad 

Figure 10: Australian Funding for Olympic Sport 

Another measure of efficiency that 

might be of interest, especially for 

governments that invest in sport, is a 

measure of return on investment, 

expressed as medals won per dollar 

invested, or the investment of dollars 

required to win an Olympic medal. For example, Australia invested a total of $1,211 million AUS 

$ in high performance sport from 1976-2000. The estimated cost per medal won from 1980-1996 

being about $8 million AUS $ (Hogan & Norton, 2001). 

This type of measure is problematic for a few reasons. First, it is difficult to measure and 

compare the real investment in sport across nations because there are many different funding 

partners, levels of government, government departments, and the private sector that invest in sport, 

making it difficult to obtain a measure that reflects the true investment. The comparison of national 

accounts or budget line items is over simplistic and often results in a comparison of apples to 

oranges, which provides little insight. Furthermore, different nations might fund sport through very 

different channels. For example, facilities used by many high performance athletes in the U.S. are 

built, maintained and operated by colleges and universities, while municipalities are a more 


important provider of facilities in Canada. This means any international comparison of return on 

investment measures must be viewed with scepticism at best. 

Current Canadian Sport Funding System 

Canada’s national and provincial-territorial sport organizations are, generally, very 

dependant on government support in order to deliver programming to both develop and prepare 

their top athletes for national and international level competitions. At the federal level, Sport 

Canada has been using the Sport Funding and Accountability Framework (SFAF) as the policy tool 

to determine funding eligibility and amounts since 1996. The SFAF has provided an excellent and 

objective tool to assess sport organizations based on their achievements over the previous 

quadrennial. It has brought the much desired transparency that was being demanded by the sport 

community at the time of its implementation and it has provided a fair and equitable assessment of 

sports and subsequent allocation of resources across a broad base of organizations. 

It does, however, have some weaknesses that have manifested themselves over time. First, 

in order to be objective and comparable across sports, the SFAF only assesses performances by 

senior athletes at World Championships and Olympic Games. This has had the effect of ‘forcing’ 

those NSOs most dependent on government funding support to pursue these results at all costs in 

order to sustain their flow of funds. In addition, to further preserve the objectivity of the 

assessment, the SFAF has only considered historical results and has not attempted to assess the 

potential for future or continued performance. This has had the effect of limiting support to 

emerging Olympic sports that have no track record of results – sports in which Canada has 

traditionally done well – and, as well, has been unable to support sports that have committed to 

longer term development by investing in younger athletes who have demonstrated a greater 

potential for success than their senior counterparts. Most provincial-territorial governments have a 

similar system of assessing their clientele for funding eligibility and the allocation of resources. 

The absence of any commonly agreed to sport system goals has led to all of the various 

jurisdictions designing systems to achieve different goals. Some provinces-territories have 

focussed solely on the Canada Games as their pinnacle of success even though many of the sports 

on the program involve an age group that does not fit with the developmental needs of national 

high performance program. 

The relatively egalitarian funding at the federal level to NSOs that is approximately $28 

million per year to 57 organizations to support programming for both mainstream and athletes with 

a disability provides a good base of support but Canada’s recent results would suggest that it is not 

adequate to reverse the decline in Summer Olympic sport results or to sustain the results in Winter 

Olympic sports. Neither is it adequate to address the forecast declines in Paralympic results 

anticipated in both Athens and Turin. 

Provincial-Territorial funding of sport development probably exceeds the federal 

contribution. However, despite efforts in recent years, there is no definitive and comparable 

summary of how P-T’s invest. What is clear is that efforts to improve results at future Olympic and 

Paralympic Games, and particularly in 2010 in Vancouver, will require a new standard of both 

NSO-P/TSO and F-P/T integration and collaboration. 


International Trends in Sport System Development 

Globalization has been described as an increase in the free flow of information, goods, 

capital, and people across borders that have been precipitated by the liberalization of trade and 

advances in technology, telecommunications and finance. The result has been a more competitive 

global market place and a situation in which nations are forced to compete for foreign investment 

needed to increase capital stock, support growth, and raise living standards. To attract foreign 

investment, nations must put on what has been described as the one size fits all (or made in the 

USA) “golden straightjacket” (Friedman, 2001), which is a metaphor for behaviour that will attract 

foreign investment (i.e. establish private sector as the economic engine, tight monetary and fiscal 

policy, stabilize prices, reduce bureaucracy, liberalize trade, strengthen intellectual property rights, 

establish and enforce rule of law, deregulate markets, privatize public industries etc.). Therefore, 

globalization has been suggested as one explanation for the recent trend evidenced in many nations 

in which there has been a political shift to the right, and a convergence in policy among political 

parties. That is, there is an increasing lack of diversity, and some would suggest even choice, in the 

public policy platforms put forward by political parties. The policies put forward are consistent 

with the objective of attracting foreign investment and improving a nation’s standard of living. 

Research examining international sport systems demonstrates similar trends of convergence 

in the approach to developing elite athletes, resulting in a homogeneous elite sport development 

model. That is, there is a growing trend towards similarity in national elite development strategies 

and the use of sport institute networks in particular (Oakley & Green, 2001). A comparison of 

eight nations (USA, Russia, China, Italy, France, Australia, Germany, UK) on several factors or 

elements of the sport system is presented in Table 1 below (Digel, 2002). 

Table 1: A comparison of elite sport systems on several factors (adapted from Digel, 2002) 

Factor 

Ideological 

preconditions 

Setting of priorities 

Olympic tradition 

Organization of athletes 

Staff structure 

Facility management 

Financial structures 

Talent identification and 

sport promotion 

Competition system 

structure 

Training environment 

structure 

Organizational structure 

Reward systems 

Sport Systems Compared 

In the USA the athlete is seen to control his/her own destiny; 

in all other nations, the state is seen to control outcomes. 

All 8 nations strongly promote Olympic sports. 

All 8 nations have strong tradition of participation. 

Hierarchical structure in all 8 nations. 

Tendency toward professionalism in all nations 

High performance facilities tend to be specialized and 

centralized in all 8 nations. 

Mixed finance income structure in all 8 nations 

All 8 nations try to identify talent. 

Extensive regional and national competition programs exist in 

all 8 nations. 

All 8 nations operate using centralized control. 

Department for competitive sport in the German Sports 

confederation; CONI in Italy; NOC, which controls Olympic 

selection in USA, is not controlled by government. 

Australia has specific rewards for coaches. 


Anti-doping controls 

Planned goals 

Current trends 

Support systems 

Athlete privileges 

State laws dictate this in Australia and Great Britain, but not 

in Germany and Italy. 

China, Great Britain and USA all aim for gold medal 

performances, Germany places value on top 3 finishes. 

All systems are in a state of flux. Every system seeks greater 

efficiency and there is a close examination of existing 

resources. 

Year round (medical support) – located at the high 

performance centres. 

Privileged access to high performance training centres. 

International sport is changing in terms of commercialism and the increasing importance 

governments place on international success. Four main arguments have been used to justify 

increased government intervention and investment in sport (adapted from Coe, 1985): 

1. Sport success develops national identity and makes citizens proud of their country, 

while failure has the reverse affect. 

2. International prestige is important, and a nation’s image is influenced by sport 

success, so sport success directly or indirectly advances trade with other nations 

3. Sport achievement creates role models that inspire others 

4. Elite achievers in any field should be given the opportunity and freedom to reach their 

potential for the benefit of themselves and their communities 

With increased political interest and investment in international sport, standards have risen. 

The fragmentation of several nation states over the past 15 years, in combination with rising 

standards, has resulted in a much more competitive field in international sports. For example, the 

number of medal winning nations competing in the World Athletic Championships has increased 

from 25 to 42 over the 1983 to 1999 Championships. The number of Olympic events has increased 

from 237 in 1988 to 300 in 2000; the number of nations competing at the Olympic Games has 

increased from 159 to 199 over the same time period. 

In order to deal with this increased competitiveness, nations have shown remarkable 

similarities in their approach to manage international success. Research examining elite sport 

development strategies in six nations (France, UK, Spain, Canada, USA, Australia) has 

demonstrated common characteristics in national elite sport development strategies and the use of 

institute networks (Oakley & Green, 2001). Success at the Olympic Games seems to be related to 

effective national elite sport development, careful targeting of resources and the use of 

research and scientific means. The six nations studied were at various stages of development, but 

a number of similarities in approach to elite sport system development, or a homogeneous models 

of elite sport development, were identified as being critical for successful international performance 

(Oakley & Green, 2001). The ten items identified are listed in Table 2 below. Furthermore, a brief 

evaluation of the status of the Canadian sport system on each of the 10 common characteristics for 

international success is presented in the table. 


Table 2: Common Characteristics of Sport Development Models of Successful Sporting Nations 

Common Characteristic 

1. A clear understanding about the role of the 

different agencies involved and an 

effective communication network that 

maintains the system 

2. Simplicity of administration through 

common sporting and political boundaries 

3. A recognition that developing excellence 

has costs, with appropriate funding for 

infrastructure and people 

4. The targeting of resources on a relatively 

small number of sorts through identifying 

those that have a real chance of success at 

an international level 

5. Comprehensive planning for each sport’s 

needs 

6. An effective system for the statistical 

identification and monitoring of the 

progress of talented and elite athletes 

7. Well developed and specific facilities with 

priority access for elite athletes 

8. Provision of sports services to create a 

culture of excellence in which all members 

of the team (athletes, coaches, managers, 

scientists) can interact with one another in 

a formal an informal way 

9. Well structured competitive programmes 

with ongoing international exposure 

10. Lifestyle support and preparation for life 

after sport 

Canadian Sport System 

Lack of clear targets, fragmented sport system, 

lack of coordination and communication leads to 

gaps and overlap; multiple funding agencies and 

programs 

Sport organization does not correspond with 

political organization; multiple applications to a 

variety of agencies 

Compared to six nations examined, Canada ranks 

near the bottom in sport investment 

Some examples of targeting by specific programs 

with federal government contribution (Sport 

Reviews and COEF allocation, Podium 2002) but 

this involves only a minimal investment; most 

Canadian funding is egalitarian and allocated 

based on meeting minimum criteria 

Some NSOs undertake comprehensive high 

performance planning; planning is not centrally 

coordinated or evaluated; no systemic reaction to 

expressed needs of sports; lack of sport science 

research, knowledge management and 

information sharing 

Limited generic talent identification program in 

place in BC, no national system; proliferation of 

data bases with little information sharing 

No facility based training institutes; some 

facilities in Montreal and in Calgary for winter 

sports; select sport specific facilities available to 

specific training groups on an ad hoc basis 

Select support services delivered to training 

groups through CSCs; Only Calgary, with the 

CSC and CODA, has created a culture of 

excellence by including all elements in a 

designated facility for primarily winter sport 

athletes 

World Cup circuits not accessible for many 

athletes; junior athletes have limited international 

exposure; no professional or elite leagues in team 

sport except for hockey 

Many programs for personal and professional 

development; tuition support for carded athletes 


Based on international sport system comparisons, these common characteristics are the 

essential elements of a sport development system required to produce successful athlete 

performances at major international events. Therefore, these characteristics could serve as key 

performance indicators of sport system development. Specific sport system targets for the 

Canadian Sport System are discussed in a later section below. 

Sydney was the Rallying Call 

The Canadian Olympic Committee (COC), in their Vision for Sport (2001) agenda, 

announced some bold performance objectives in the aftermath of the decline in athlete performance 

at the 2000 Sydney Olympics with the vision of becoming one of the world’s top 10 sporting 

nations. The performance targets, measured by medal counts, were to finish 4 th in the 2008 

Summer Olympic Games and finish 1 st in the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, for which Vancouver 

was bidding at the time. The COC established these targets as achievable only if there were major 

changes in the management of the Canadian sport system and the elimination of major gaps 

in support faced by Canadian athletes 

The COC also suggested that the establishment of a Canadian High Performance Sport 

Council (CHPSC) would be pivotal in accomplishing this objective. The CHPSC would be a joint 

mechanism based on a collaborative operational structure supported by the Government of Canada 

and Canadian Sport Community. It would be tightly controlled to avoid a new bureaucratic layer 

and would eliminate duplication of programs and funding, seek to eliminate gaps in athlete 

development, combine resources and energies to maximize efficiency, and make sure that the 

available resources were strategically deployed to reach athletes and coaches. 

A concurrent process being undertaken during the lead up and response to Sydney was the 

work of Sport Canada and the office of the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, in consultation 

with the sport community, on the development of the Canadian Sport Policy (CSP) and the 

subsequent F-P/T Plan for Collaborative Action, a document formally endorsed by all 14 F/P/T 

governments. This process, combined with the provocative goals from the COC acted as a catalyst 

to produce a new direction and unprecedented level of collaboration between funding partners at 

the national level. 

The COC’s performance objectives were seen by many as being unrealistic without an 

immediate transfusion of significant amounts of funding to the sport budget at both the national and 

provincial levels. Nevertheless, it served as the rallying call for the sport community. The COC 

strategy, together with the government driven CSP, were successful in that they did stimulate the 

sport community and governments to begin to plan and consult more collaboratively. However, the 

response to financial and program needs has not yet met the identified requirements to boost 

Canada’s performances at future Olympic and Paralympic Games. The successful Vancouver 

Olympic / Paralympic hosting bid lends some optimism that more funds may become available to 

support Canadian athletes striving to prepare for the Winter Olympics and Paralympics in 2010 and 

will, hopefully, also have a beneficial effect on summer sport, but the funding infusion is needed 

immediately! 


Sport Review Process 

In parallel with the F-P/T government-led goal setting process, Sport Canada has been 

involved with other national funding partners, including the Canadian Olympic Committee (COC), 

the Canadian Paralympic Committee (CPC), and the Calgary Olympic Development Association 

(CODA) with the implementation of a Sport Review Process for National Sport Organizations 

(NSO) strategic, high performance and financial plans. 

The COC initiated the first Sport Review Process (SRP) for Summer Olympic and Pan 

American sports in the fall of 2002, followed by the Winter Olympic SRP, which took place in 

May of 2003. The reviews of the Paralympic Sports, which included the CPC, followed shortly 

thereafter. Sport Canada provided assistance in the development of the SRP and collaborated fully 

in its implementation. Sport Canada was able to contribute the following funds that were dedicated 

to supporting the final preparation of athletes competing in Athens 2004 and Turin 2006: 

• $1 million to the Summer Olympic SRP and $350K to the Winter Olympic SRP to 

supplement the $4.8 million from the COC 

• $1 million to the Summer and Winter Paralympic SRP, which operated in parallel to 

the Olympic SRP, to supplement the $100K from the Canadian Paralympic 

Committee (CPC) 

A COC strategic direction for the 2001-04 quadrennial was to focus programming and 

resources on the achievement of high performance results at international competitions. The 

Canadian Olympic Excellence Fund (COEF) was created as the funding model to support the high 

performance objective of achieving podium performances. More specifically, the objective of the 

COEF is to support: 

• Athletes/Teams/Coaches/Programs, which have the highest probability of achieving 

podium and Top 8 results in future Olympic Games and podium results at Pan American 

Games (Pan Am only sports) 

• Athletes/Teams, which have been identified as having future potential to achieve podium 

and top 8 results in future Olympic Games and podium results at Pan American Games (Pan 

Am only sports) 

The objective of the SRP for Olympic (and shared by Paralympic) sports was to conduct the 

following tasks: 

• Identify athletes, teams, coaches and programs with the greatest potential for international 

competitive success at future Olympic and Pan American Games (podium and Top 8 

finishes) 

• Determine short term and long term athlete performance targets at the national level for the 

next Olympic Games, senior world championships and junior world championships, which 

will be re-assessed every two years 

• Understand each NSO’s plan for achieving international sport excellence in the future and 

consider possible solutions to the major gaps affecting success 


• Provide recommendations for strategic and targeted investments for the support of athletes, 

teams, coaches, NSO technical programs and special projects, which can influence athlete 

success at future Olympic and Pan American Games 

The work of this SRP has assisted the F-P/T Work Group #4 in defining a specific set of 

athlete performance and sport system targets, as well as a process for monitoring and evaluating the 

targets and ensuring accountability to the funding partners. This process has also begun to clarify 

the needs of athletes, coaches and NSOs with regard to Multi-Sport Organizations and the 

Canadian Sport Centres. 

Sport Canada’s Excellence Strategy 

In parallel with the Sport Review Process, Sport Canada developed its own Excellence 

Strategy and a Gold Plan for Excellence. The basic principles of the Goal Plan were to establish 

realistic performance targets which would ‘drive’ the Sport Canada funding policies to focus the 

allocation of the limited excellence resources on a smaller number of sports which have 

demonstrated potential for future success across a broader spectrum of their development system 

and over a longer period of time. This approach was congruent with the COC’s Sport Review 

Objectives and contributed to both the development of the SRP tool and Sport Canada’s 

participation in the project. Subsequent to this, Sport Canada was successful in securing $5 million 

per year of new excellence funding and needed to plan how to best invest these funds. The main 

considerations were to find a means to minimize the impact on the existing sport funding practice 

while maximizing the impact of the new funds to contribute to future high performance excellence. 

To do this, it was determined that Sport Canada’s existing Sport Support Funding as 

determined by the Sport Funding and Accountability Framework (SFAF) would remain unchanged 

and that the new Excellence funds would be invested via a Sport Review Process or ‘look forward’ 

in both short term final preparation and longer term next generation or “La Releve” athletes that 

were hoping to compete for Canada in 2008 and 2010 and beyond. The focus for these minimal 

new funds was to be limited to Summer and Winter Olympic and Paralympic sports as it was 

anticipated that the performance goals for Canada would be oriented around Olympic and 

Paralympic Games. 

It was further determined that an egalitarian distribution of the new resources would not be 

possible given the amount of funding available. To have an impact in both the short and longer 

terms, it would be necessary to focus support on those best performing sports that could also 

demonstrate future potential. This new Excellence Strategy is completely congruent with the 

direction of the other national funding partners, particularly the COC. 

Role of the Provinces/Territories: The Canadian Strategy, however, requires that 

there be a complete engagement of the Provinces and Territories in the shaping and implementation 

of the new Excellence Strategy. With fourteen (14) signatories to the Canadian Sport Policy, the 

objective would be to secure the same level of ‘buy-in’ to the Excellence Strategy. To do so, it is 

clear that an effective approach would be for the P/T governments to develop a second level Sport 

Review Process type process that is congruent with what is occurring at the national level and 

considers similar factors. Ideally, P/T goals would be developed and a similar list of priority sports 

would be identified and supported. 


It is understood that some sports on the national list may not have a presence in all 

provinces/territories. Similarly, other sports that are not on the national priority list may have a 

culturally significant position in a particular province and are therefore worthy of support. This 

latter point is the key to a better functioning sport system. It is not being suggested that P/T’s 

simply adopt the national list of priority sports as identified by the national SRP as having a high 

probability of future success. Rather, it is hoped that P/T’s will consider the national priorities as 

they perform their own SRP and, wherever possible, dovetail with the national funding partners, 

which include Sport Canada, the COC, and CODA and Vancouver 2010 Legacies Now for winter 

sports. The best possible scenario would be for P/T’s to have new resources to invest in those 

sports that have the capacity to contribute to the national goals for sport. Where no new funding is 

available, it is suggested that steps be taken by the provinces to allocate some or all of a P/T’s 

existing resources in a fashion that would parallel the SRP. 

Finally, it is expected that alignment of goals and priorities at the national and provincial 

levels will present more opportunities for bilateral agreements between the provinces/territories and 

the national funding partners for specific projects that address common goals and priorities. 

Action #1: Targets for Athlete Performance 

The first specific action outlined in the Federal–Provincial/Territorial Plan for Collaborative 

Action 2002-2005 on Excellence was to establish targets to evaluate athlete performance and the 

effectiveness of Canada’s sport system and develop a process for measuring progress towards 

achieving these targets. The first action outlined by the F-P/T Plan for collaborative action on 

Excellence is to identify some long-term athlete performance targets for Canada that will be 

supported by the 14 government jurisdictions and the sport community. 

There is considerable evidence of support in the sport community for establishing targets 

for athlete performance. For example, at the National Sport Summit in April 2001, as reported in 

the document ‘Towards a Canadian Sport Policy: Report on The National Summit on Sport’, a 

questionnaire on target setting yielded a consensus that targets should be set for achieving 

excellence, including the following results: 

‣ 86% supported target setting for both enhanced excellence and participation; and in terms of 

targets pertaining to excellence: 

• 53% felt an international indicator should be a reference 

• 61% supported the historic Top 8, Top 16, etc. 

• 46% felt that other ways should be considered 

• 60% thought that government contributions should be linked to performance targets 

in a sport-specific plan 

This suggests that, while there is strong support for the notion of setting targets for athlete 

performance, there is no consensus among the delegates at the national sport summit as to what the 

specific targets should be. It should be noted that these findings reflect the views of the very broad 

representation the sport and recreation community in attendance at the Sport Summit, rather than 

the views of the high performance sport community specifically. 


The objective of developing ‘stretch targets’ was also discussed at the Coaching 

Association of Canada’s 2001 Sport Leadership Seminar held in Toronto. There was unequivocal 

support from the representatives of the sport community participating that these targets should be 

set by the National Sport Organizations (NSOs) in partnership with their respective 

Provincial/Territorial Sport Organizations, based on an assessment of NSO plans and capacity, and 

that the canadian targets should guide the individual sport goals. 

Canadian Targets for Athlete Performance 

The current period in Canadian Sport following the Sydney Olympic Games and the 

National Summit on Sport, has generated a lot of interest and momentum in high performance sport 

and has identified a number of unique challenges and opportunities. While there is a National 

Sport Policy and the F-P/T Plan for Collaborative Action, there has been no significant action or 

investment of new resources to support the policy objectives. The announcement of the successful 

Vancouver/Whistler bid to host the 2010 Winter Olympic Games has created a favorable context 

for government action and decision-making. Canadians in general and the sport community 

specifically, are optimistic and encouraged to think big. 

Canada has never had a set of public Canadian Targets for athlete performance that guide 

investment decisions. Discussions around what should be the focus of athlete performance targets 

concluded that current funding policies and performance measures used by the federal government 

encourage aiming for Top 8 finishes by senior athletes, and that the recent problem with reaching 

the podium is believed to be a financial function leading to a lack of preparedness, experience and 

support of our top athletes. Therefore it is exceedingly important to develop a set of performance 

targets that can guide Canadian sport. If we want Canadians to be competitive at international sport 

competitions, we need to agree on targets and develop funding policies to achieve them. This 

highlights the need for quality and clarity of objectives. 

The traditional Top 8 standard could be used. However, an objective of Top 8’s might 

continue to lead to a self fulfilling prophecy scenario because it affects evaluation, allocation of 

resources, and investment. It might also lead Canadian sport organizations and athletes to be 

satisfied with this standard and would send the wrong message to the media, the Canadian public, 

and the international competition. Therefore, the Work Group recommends that the medal 

count at Olympic and Paralympic Games serve as the performance standard by which 

Canadian Sport is evaluated, as is the case for most sporting nations. 

The following key considerations influenced the identification of overall national athlete 

performance targets at major international competitions like the Olympic Games: 

• The Canadian Sport policy objective of expanding the pool of talented athletes and 

systematically achieving world-class results at the highest levels of international 

competition through fair and ethical means 

• The long term athlete development model and subsequent delay in impact that any 

additional investment in funding, sport system improvements might have 

• The specific, and in most cases, ambitious athlete performance targets identified by 

NSOs during the SRP 


• The view that targets should be ambitious but achievable goals that stretch the system’s 

capacity 

• The view that the targets should be consistent with how the public as well as the 

domestic and international sport communities would define success 

• The view that the targets should be very clear and specific 

Recommendations for Canadian Targets for Athlete Performance 

Targets that represent ambitious, but achievable targets for Canada are required. The Work 

Group recommends targets that call for Canada to double the number of medals won at the 

Olympic Games over the next 7 (Winter from Salt Lake City 2002 to Vancouver 2010) to 9 

(Summer from Sydney 2000 to 2012) years. Because of the ongoing review of the Paralympic 

program and the anticipated changes to the number of events, ranking rather than actual medal 

count, should be used to establish goals for Paralympic sports. 

The Work Group recommends that the following specific long-term targets be accepted as 

the Canadian Targets for athlete performance at future Olympic and Paralympic Games: 

• For Winter Olympic sports, Canada should consistently place in the top 3 nations 

in the medal count, with the goal being to finish 1 st in the 2010 Vancouver/Whistler 


• For Summer Olympic Sports, Canada should place in the top 8 nations in the 

medal count by 2012 

• For Winter Paralympic sports, Canada should place in the top 3 nations in the 

gold medal count by 2010 

• For Summer Paralympic sports, Canada should place in the top 3 nations in the 

gold medal count by 2012 

Performances in culturally significant sports or marquee events are also desirable. Team 

sport accounts for most of the broad based participation by Canadians. While the Canadian public 

celebrates athlete success at the international level, regardless of the event or sport, there is merit in 

investing in sports that are of cultural significance where potential can be demonstrated. For 

example, there was the notion in Salt Lake City 2002 that the gold medal by both hockey teams 

would satisfy the success expectations of the majority of Canadians and the media. A medal in 

women’s soccer in Athens, for example, would have a huge impact on many Canadians given that 

soccer is now the most popular sport in Canada, measured by registration. The rationale for 

investment in specific culturally significant sports is that achieving them would set Canada apart as 

being internationally competitive in sports and events that are important to Canadians, and is 

consistent with how Canadians gauge success at the Olympic Games. 

An analysis of the performances required to achieve these National Goals is presented in the 

section below. 


Analysis of Performance Required to Reach Canadian Targets 

Winter Olympics: These were the results of the medal count in 2002 Salt Lake: 

Rank Medals Nation Trends and Comments 

1 st 35 GER Likely to remain among top 3 Winter nations 

2 nd 34 USA Usually “drops” in ranking when Winter games not in US 

3 rd 24 NOR Likely to remain among top 3 Winter nations 

4 th 17 CAN 

5 th 16 RUS Likely to return among top 3 Winter 

6 th 12 ITA Likely to increase in 2006 Turin and remain at high rank 

7 th 11 FRA 

Assuming the same number of events (78) in future games, there are indications of greater 

parity among top winter nations. In addition to the traditional Top 3 nations (GER, NOR, RUS), 

the 2 host nations preceding 2010 (ITA in 2006 and USA in 2002) will likely garner large numbers 

of medals. As a result, no less than 6 nations have the potential of winning 20+ medals: GER, 

NOR, RUS, USA, ITA and CAN. 

Canada had 17 medals (ranked 4 th ) at the 2002 Winter Olympics, but it is predicted that 

Canada will need to win 25 medals to place in the Top 3 in the medals count and 35 medals to 

place first at the Winter Olympic Games in 2010. In summary: 

• A 4 th place finish in 2010 will most likely require 20+ medals, assuming 78 events 

• A 3 rd place finish in 2010 will likely require 24+ medals, assuming 78 events 

• A 1 st place finish in 2010 will likely require 35+ medals, assuming 78 events 

The number of Top 8 finishes can be used as a key indicator of future performance, 

reflecting the depth of a team. For example, the USA progressed from 6th (behind Canada's 5th) in 

medal rank in 1998 in Nagano, with the second highest total of Top 8's (51 vs 56 for top ranked 

Germany) to second in medals and the highest number of Top 8's in Salt Lake City in 2002. 

Canada is well positioned to increase its future medals, having increased its Top 8's. Therefore, 

achieving the objective of becoming the number one winter sport nation in 2010 could be indicated 

by the following achievements at the 2006 Olympic Winter Games in Turin, Italy: 

Measure Salt Lake 

2002 

Turin 2006 Vancouver/Whistler 

2010 

Medals 17 20-25 36 

Top 8’s 46 50-65 75 


Summer Olympics: These were the results of the medal count in Sydney 2000: 

Rank Medals Nation Trends and Comments 

1 st 97 USA has always finished 1 st /2 nd 

2 nd 88 RUS as RUS or URS has always finished 1 st /2 nd 

3 rd 59 CHN has finished 4 th , 4 th , 3 rd in last 3 Games 

4 th 58 AUS has finished 9 th , 5 th , 4 th 

5 th 56 GER has finished 3 rd , 3 rd , 5 th 

6 th 38 FRA has finished 7 th , 6 th , 6 th 

7 th 34 ITA has finished 13 th , 7 th , 7 th 

8 th 29 CUB has finished 5 th , 9 th , 8 th 

9 th 28 GBR Projected to improve to top 8 

10 th 28 KOR 

11 th 25 NED 

12 th 25 ROM 

13 th 23 UKR 

14 th 18 JPN 

15 th 17 HUN 

16 th 17 BLR 

17 th 14 POL 

18 th 14 CAN 

19 th 13 BUL 

20th 13 GRE 

21st 12 SWE 

Assuming the same number of events (300) in future games, it can be assumed that the 

current top 3 nations (USA, RUS, CHN) will remain the Top 3 in the foreseeable future, with CHN 

likely narrowing the gap if not overtaking RUS as a result of hosting the 2008 Games. The next 2 

nations (AUS and GER) will likely remain in the 50+ medals range; given their strong position in 

several large multiple event sports, and their strong sport funding and system. 

Canada won 14 medals at the 2000 Summer Olympics (ranked 17 th ), but will need to double 

this to 28 medals to place in the Top 8 in the medals count at the 2012 Olympics. It is predicted 

that 40 medals will result in a Top 6 placing and 60 medals will be needed to place in the Top 3 at 

the 2012 Olympic Games. In summary: 

• An 8 th place finish in 2012 will likely require a target of 30 medals, assuming 300 events 

• A 6 th place finish in 2012 will likely require a target of 40 medals, assuming 300 events 

The performance objective for Canada at the 2012 Olympic Games could be indicated by 

the following achievements at the 2008 Olympic Games in China: 

Measure Sydney Athens Beijing 2012 

2000 2004 2008 

Medals 14 14 20-25 30 

Top 8’s 57 50-60 65-75 90-100 


Winter Paralympics: These were the results of the medal count at the 2002 Paralympic 

Winter Games: 

that: 

Rank Gold Nation Trends and Comments 

Medals 

1 st 17 Germany Consistently in top 3 nations 

2 nd 10 USA Consistently in top 3 nations 

3 rd 10 Norway Consistently in top 3 nations 

4 th 9 Austria Consistently in top 4 – 8 nations 

5 th 7 Russia Consistently in top 4 – 8 nations 

6 th 6 Canada Up & down between top 6-15 nations 

7 th 6 Switzerland Consistently in top 4 – 8 nations 

8 th 6 Austria Consistently in top 4 – 8 nations 

Assuming the same number of events (91) in future Paralympic Games, it can be predicted 

• Germany, USA and Norway will finish in the top 3 

• Russia, Switzerland and Austria will finish in top 4 - 8 

• A large gold medal gap (average 8 gold medals) will exist somewhere within the top 3 

nations 

Canada won 6 gold medals (ranked 6 th ) at the 2002 Winter Paralympics. It is predicted that 

Canada will need to win 12 gold medals to place in the Top 4, and 14 gold medals to place in the 

Top 3 nations at the 2010 Paralympic Winter Games. In summary: 

• A 1 st place finish in 2010 will most likely require 21+ gold medals, assuming 91 events 

• A 3 rd place finish in 2010 will likely require 14 + gold medals, assuming 91 events 

Summer Paralympics: These were the results of the medal count at the 2000 

Paralympic Summer Games: 

Rank Gold Nation Trends and Comments 

Medals 

1 st 63 Australia Likely to remain among top 3 Summer nations 

2 nd 41 Great Britain Likely to remain among top 5 Summer nations 

3 rd 38 Spain Likely to remain among top 5 Summer nations 

3 rd 38 Canada Likely to remain among top 8 Summer nations 

5 th 36 USA Likely to remain among top 5 Summer nations 

6 th 34 China Likely to remain among top 5 Summer nations 

7 th 30 France Likely to remain among top 8 Summer nations 


Assuming there will be about the same number of events, approximately 500, in future 

summer Paralympic Games, it can be predicted that: 

• The top 8 countries will be the same (Australia, Great Britain, Spain, China, United States, 

Canada, Germany, France) 

• The host country will finish first (with Greece in 2004 being an exception), reflecting that 

even a short-term funding increase in Paralympic sport can produce results in Paralympic 

sport 

• The number of gold medals separating top 2–8 nations will be relatively small, with a 

differential of approximately 10 gold medals making it difficult to predict where exactly 

each country will end up within the top 8 

• There is a large gap in the number of gold medals won by the top 8 versus the rest of the 

nations (a drop off of at least 10 gold medals), a trend that is attributed to the smaller size of 

teams 

Nations with much larger population bases and/or significantly better developed Paralympic 

sport systems (Australia, US, China, Great Britain) are currently ramping up and further developing 

their already strong programs for athletes with a disability. Even with a tremendous influx of funds 

and the development of a Paralympic talent identification/recruitment system in Canada, the goal of 

maintaining a Top 3 ranking in the Summer Games would remain quite challenging and a 

significant accomplishment. 

Canada won 38 gold and 96 medals at the 2000 Summer Paralympics (tied for 3rd), but will 

need to achieve 40 gold medals to solidly place 3 rd at the 2012 Paralympics. It is predicted that: 

• A 1 st place finish in 2012 will most likely require 55+ gold medals, assuming 500 events 

• A 3 rd place finish in 2012 will likely require 40+ gold medals, assuming 500 events 

Reaching Canadian Targets 

The process for reaching the proposed Canadian Targets described above is twofold: 

1. A process that identifies where the medals will come from must be undertaken. Medal 

potential on a sport by sport, and athlete by athlete basis using domestic talent identification 

and analysis as well as international intelligence on the competition, in addition to a 

focusing of resources on those with podium potential, will be necessary to reach the medal 

count goals. As one would expect, this process will identify athletes and sports with medal 

potential and sports in which Canada has multiple medal opportunities. 

2. Changes to the Canadian sport system must be undertaken to ensure that athletes and sports 

with medal potential are provided with world-class training and competition opportunities. 

More specifically, Canada must close the gap between itself and other top sporting nations 

in the 10 areas found to be most important for producing international success described 

above. For example, coordinated planning, investment and evaluation with a focusing of 

resources on those athletes and teams with medal potential will be required. 


The current Sport Review Process is a good model to integrate with Sport Canada’s SFAF 

III to undertake both of these processes required to reach the recommended National Goals. The 

principles of future SRPs that are fundamental to reaching the national goals are as follows: 

1. The SRP will need to identify and focus resources on NSFs/athletes/teams with podium 

potential at international events, which are identified as priority sports 

2. The SRP will need take a “look backward” and a “look forward” approach that respects 

the long term high performance athlete development model as the means for identifying 

future podium potential 

3. The SRP will need to be coordinated with a similar process at the provincial level to 

coordinate priority identification and investment management 

For Paralympic sport, the process will identify and channel enhanced support to athletes 

with medal potential, but it will take a significant increase in the number of quality, up & coming 

athletes to achieve the goals. The good news is unlike Olympic sport where it takes 8-12 years to 

identify and train an athlete to podium potential, it only takes 4-6 years in Paralympic sport. With 

the shorter timeframe required, coupled with improved athlete development programs and strategic 

and focussed enhanced support to medal potential athletes, the Paralympic Canadian Targets for the 

2010 and 2012 Games will be challenging but achievable. 

Specific Athlete Performance Targets 

A more intensive and systemic assessment of future athlete potential is required to reach the 

Canadian Targets for Sport. It is recognized that all of the necessary research to establish firm 

performance targets for specific athletes and sports for Canada has not been completed. 

Accordingly, it is proposed that the Canada adopt interim targets based on the best available 

information available to date and then embark on a further forward looking long term sport 

assessment to validate or modify the targets. 

The best data currently available for setting targets for specific athletes and teams was 

obtained during the SRP and from information provided by the Canadian Sport Centres. This data 

included the short term and long-term athlete performance targets provided by each of the NSOs 

for Summer and Winter Olympic sports. The targets provided by NSOs were consistent with the 

objective of achieving world-class results at the highest levels of international competitions as 

outlined in the Canadian Sport Policy. An assessment of short term potential by the SRP and the 

CSCs and an assessment of the long term potential by the SRP for each Summer and Winter 

Olympic sport was completed. The CSC short-term assessment provided potential medal 

projections for Athens 2004 (Summer sports) and Turin 2006 (Winter sports). The SRP 

assessments were more intensive and evaluated medal potential on a sport by sport basis. A more 

detailed description of the SRP used to collect data and to make investment decisions is presented 

in Appendix B. 

Recommendations for Specific Athlete Performance Targets 

It is recommended that data collected during future combined SFAF/SRPs be used as 

the basis for setting specific sport by sport athlete performance targets. That is, the 


combined SFAF/SRP is the most effective approach for establishing forecasts for athlete 

performance, evaluating progress and assessing future potential based on an evaluation of the 

high performance program. The specific athlete performance targets need to be supported by 

concomitant P/T athlete development targets and long term athlete development plans. To do this, 

a P/T SRP at the various levels to assess and monitor progress toward the set of athlete 

performance objectives is recommended. 

Action #1: Targets for the Sport System 

With the Canadian Targets for sport clearly defined, the objective of this section is to 

identify the critical components of the sport system that are needed at each level of the long term 

athlete development model to reach the Canadian Targets. The goal here is to put in place a 

Canadian Sport System that is capable of achieving the Excellence objectives of the Canadian 

Sport Policy and the Canadian Targets as described above. 

Key Performance Indicators 

Work Group #4 considered international sport development system trends and domestic 

research to identify the essential systemic components, or best practices that would be required in a 

Canadian Sport System to promote the maximum development of Canadian athlete potential and 

future international success. These critical sport system components can be viewed as key lead 

indicators of future athlete performance, or key performance indicators of the sport system. The 

key performance indicators can serve as targets for sport system development by guiding 

evaluation and intervention in several key areas. Future SRPs may identify additional components 

that need to be incorporated. 

Appendix C presents the detailed key performance indicators for the sport system identified 

by Work Group #4. Three main areas of the sport system that were identified as being important 

included: 

1. Managing Knowledge, Learning, and Innovation including; 

• Applied Sport Research 

• International Competitive Intelligence 

2. Core Sport System Activities including; 

• Planning, Investment, and Evaluation 

• Talent Identification and Athlete Monitoring 

• Coach Development and Support 

• Athlete Training, Competition, and Support 

• Facilities and Equipment 

• Officiating 

• Events and Hosting 



The appendix presents characteristics or components of an ideal Canadian Sport System at 

each level of the long term athlete development model that would be required for successful 

international athlete performance. These characteristics should be viewed as targets for the 

Canadian Sport System. Work Group #4 did not identify specific measures or measurable 

objectives for each of the components of the sport system. This work requires further research and 

international intelligence and is best carried out by sport experts, using an evolving process similar 

to the SRP and in a manner that is consistent with the Canadian Targets. 

Among other areas, the sport system targets presented in Appendix C address the following 

specific areas that Work Group #4 was asked to examine in Action #1, including: 

1. identification and nurturing of talented athletes and teams; 

2. training and competitive opportunities for the next generation of high performance 

athletes; 

3. employment and working conditions of qualified coaches working full-time with 


All of these factors, or key lead indicators of athlete performance, need to be considered at 

each of the levels of identified athletes and where gaps exist, strategies must be designed to meet 

the identified requirement. The specific gaps and the recommended F-P/T initiatives to address 

these gaps are outlined in the Action #2 - F-P/T Initiatives section below. 

Finally, specific secondary or supplementary athlete performance targets at Olympic and 

Paralympic Games should be considered as measures of the overall health of the sport system and 

the depth of the pool of talented athletes with medal potential. The supplemental targets can also 

provide an indication of the ability of the sport system to produce athletes with medal potential in 

the long term. For example, measures such as the following could be considered: 

• The number of Top 8 performances 

• The number of athletes that win medals, which would include all the athletes on 

medal winning teams/crews/pairs 

• Canada’s rank when each sport is awarded the same value, a concept equivalent to 

the Canada Games Flag Competition 

• Canada’s rank when the number of athletes that qualify for the Games in the 

individual sports is considered 

• The number of teams that qualify for the Games as well as achieve Top 8 and 

podium performances at the Games 

Specific sport system targets in these areas would complement the Canadian Targets 

because they can provide supplementary measures of Canada’s international competitiveness and 

well as an indicator of future medal potential, and thus might have an impact on Canada’s sport 

culture in the long term. These targets might also provide governments with specific measures that 

would allow them to evaluate its interest, ability, and priorities for increased resources as the needs 

of future medalists are perceived by almost all of the provinces as a Sport Canada-COC 

responsibility. The identification of specific supplementary athlete performance targets requires 


further research and international intelligence and is best carried out by sport experts, using an 

evolving process similar to the SRP and in a manner that is consistent with the Canadian Targets. 

Official Languages in the Canadian Sport System 

A fourth specific area that Work Group #4 was asked to address in Action #1 was to 

establish sport system targets that provide guidance on… 

4. offering essential services, in English and French, to national team athletes and 


The NSOs funded by Sport Canada should provide a minimum level of services in both 

official languages, pursuant to the Sport Funding and Accountability Framework. This includes: 

• being able to respond to requests for information in the preferred language of the requesting 

party; 

• providing bilingual services for national championships and international events; 

• posting information in both official languages on the home page of their Web site; 

• providing bilingual services at the annual general meeting. 

Sport Canada modified the Sport Funding and Accountability Framework (SFAF) after the 

first cycle (1996-2001) to harmonize it with the three primary orientations of the new Canadian 

Sport Policy published in May 2002: sporting excellence, participation in sports and capacity 

building. By modifying the SFAF, Sport Canada sought to help funded organizations to make 

sustainable change and assigned increased importance to achieving results. 

The minimal expectations defined in the previous framework have now been replaced by 

national standards applying to all NSOs. Work Group # 4 fully supports these new national 

standards. The purpose of this approach is to ensure that the NSOs, in compliance with their 

national mandate, provide programs and services to their members in both official languages. 

Under the new national standards: 

• the NSO has a policy on official languages that complies with the current Treasury Board 

and Sport Canada policy; 

• the NSO collects statistics on its members’ language preferences; 

• NSO members may obtain key services in either official language; 

• the NSO will provide the key specialized and technical documents in both official 

languages; 

• static sections of the NSO's Web site must be presented and updated in full in both official 

languages, while dynamic (and constantly changing) sites may be displayed in either of the 

two official languages; 

• the NSO will ensure that its national team coaches can meet the needs of each athlete in his 

or her official language; 

• the NSO will adhere to the Sport Canada document - Official Language Standards for the 

Operation of High Performance Training Centres. 


In the fall of 2002, the Commissioner of Official Languages conducted a follow-up to the 

study published in June 2000, titled Official Languages in the Canadian Sports System. An 

implementation status report on each of the 16 recommendations advanced in the original study is 

presented in Appendix D. Work Group #4 supports the ongoing work in this area and suggests 

that the current approach to establishing standards and monitoring performance is 

appropriate. In particular, ensuring that national team coaches can meet the needs of each 

athlete in his or her official language is viewed as being a priority. Therefore, the balance of 

this report will focus on the recommendations to address the first three specific areas in Action #1. 

Action #2: Priority Areas for Action and F-P/T Initiatives 

The second specific action outlined in the Federal–Provincial/Territorial Plan for 

Collaborative Action 2002-2005 on Excellence was to develop Federal-Provincial/Territorial 

initiatives to enhance the role of applied sport science, competitions and other key elements in 

athlete development, throughout Canada, in conjunction with key stakeholders. 

Work Group #4 identified elements of the current Canadian Sport System that represent 

significant diversions from the sport system targets presented in Appendix C. Interestingly, it was 

discovered that the significant gaps existed in 9 of the 10 areas identified as common 

characteristics of successful international sport systems reported in Table 2 above. That is, of 

the 10 common characteristics of successful international sport systems, Canada is deficient 

in all but one. 

Table 3 summarizes the international trend, current situation in Canada and international 

best practice for six specific components of the Canadian Sport system that require intervention at 

the operational level. In addition, the desired actions or outcomes and the organizations that need 

to be involved are presented. These recommended priority actions require F-P/T collaboration. 

Priority Actions and F-P/T Program Initiatives 

The following were identified as priority areas for actions and F-P/T initiatives to improve 

operational elements of the sport system in a manner that would reduce the gaps between practices 

associated with international success and the current practices in the Canadian Sport System. 


Successful international sport systems undertake comprehensive planning for each sport’s 

needs. For example, the Australian Institute for Sport (AIS) undertakes centralized and coordinated 

planning that includes specific sport science research and international intelligence. Information is 

shared with the relevant sport scientists, coaches and administrators and there is a formal 

knowledge management system, which is used to tailor athlete training and preparation for major 

competitions. In the province of BC, the BC Sport Web does provide a mechanism for sharing 

information, but is not as comprehensive as the approach used by the AIS. 

In Canada, there is a lack of applied sport science research, international intelligence, 

knowledge management and info sharing. In particular, Canada has a culture of imitation, rather 


than innovation, with respect to the cutting edge equipment research and innovation that is required 

to be internationally competitive. The result is that Canada risks losing ground in many sports that 

are equipment intensive (speed skating, bobsleigh, canoe, kayak, rowing etc). Data regarding 

athlete results, training, and competition is not collected and shared in a systematic way. 

Knowledge management, the cornerstone of the new economy, and the new area of international 

sport, is an area in which Canada is particularly weak. 

Recommendations: The desired actions and outcomes in this area require centralized 

planning and the involvement of NSOs, PSOs, and the F-P/T funding partners. Canada must lead 

and participate in domestic and international sport policy research. It also needs to identify, 

prioritize, and invest in Applied Sport Research (ASR) themes, with the research being coordinated 

through the Canadian Sport Centres. Applied Sport Research Institutes (ASRI) in each of the three 

general areas below should be created and funded: 

• ASRI for Resistance and Friction (skating, bobsleigh, luge, skeleton, skiing 

applications) 

• ASRI for Endurance (athletics, cycling, triathlon, cross country skiing applications) 

• ASRI for Speed and Power (athletics, hockey, basketball, skating, diving 

applications) 

Sport organizations, and the national funding partners should partner with universities and 

major Canadian research funding agencies to create a capacity for applied sport science research. 

The research then must be used for innovation in athlete training, preparation for competition and 

equipment development. Data regarding athlete results, performance and training should be 

collected in a systematic way and integrated telecommunications technology should be used to 

manage the knowledge and share it across the sport system so that it can be used for intervention in 

training, preparation for competition and equipment development. 


An effective system for the statistical identification and monitoring of the progress of 

talented and elite athletes exists in the successful international sport nations. Australia, for 

example, has a program in which children undergo systematic voluntary general athletic ability 

testing in the schools. The Sport Search program is used to identify children (9-12 yrs old) with 

athletic ability. A second program, Talent Search, involves more sport specific testing at the older 

age groups (12-15) and has the objective of identifying young athletes with sport specific abilities. 

The province of BC has developed a generic talent identification system for winter sport (Sport Fit) 

that has involved voluntary general athletic ability testing of approximately 2,000 children to date 

and a database of the results has been created. 

Other than the system in BC, there is a lack of a system for the identification of general 

athletic ability and sport specific talent in Canada. For many sports, there is only a small pool of 

talented athlete which rise to the top via completely random chance of a young athlete or their 

parents enrolling in the correct sport. 

Recommendations: The desired actions and outcomes in this area require coordinated 

planning and the involvement of NSOs, PSOs, and the F-P/T funding partners. First, a common 

taxonomy for athlete level is required so that there is a common understanding of terms like Age 


Group High Performance or Development level athlete, and the associated talent milestones, 

training and competition needs at each level. Second, the Sport Fit generic talent identification 

system needs to be expanded nationwide and to include summer sports. This should involve 

systematic voluntary testing in the school system and the creation of a national data base that can 

be used to identify athletic potential. The national testing program might involve other Federal 

(Health Canada) and Provincial/Territorial (Health and Education) ministries. Furthermore, sport 

specific talent identification and monitoring systems must be developed. Finally, existing 

technology must be used to facilitate communication between NSOs, PSOs, clubs and athletes to 

encourage participation and monitor progress. 

3. Facilities 

Successful sporting nations have well developed and specific facilities with priority access 

for elite athletes. For example, the Institute National de Sport et Education Physique (INSEP) in 

France, The United States Olympic Committee training centres, and the AIS in Australia provide 

priority access to a network of world class multi sport facilities for high performance athletes and 

coaches. 

In Canada, there are no facility based training centres or institutes, except Calgary for 

winter sports and to a degree Montreal, where access to facilities can be restricted depending on the 

NSOs ability to pay for athlete access. Select sport specific facilities are available to specific 

training groups, however, for example the rowing training centre in Victoria, Hockey Canada 

complex in Calgary, etc. The current practice of awarding the hosting of the Canada Games in 

smaller and sometimes remote communities further complicates this problem because the facility 

legacies are left in communities where there are low concentrations of high performance athletes 

with training needs and demands. 

Recommendations: The desired actions and outcomes in this area require coordinated 

planning and the involvement of the NSOs, CSCs, F-P/T funding partners, the Federal 

Government infrastructure program, municipalities and the Vancouver/Whistler Organizing 

Committee of the Olympic Games (VOCOC). Canada needs to develop a facility-based Sport 

Institute Network that balances the need for athlete access with economies of scale. A separate 

envelope for high performance sport infrastructure within the existing infrastructure program 

should be created. Finally, the hosting legacies of international championships, major games, the 

Canada Games and Provincial Games should be examined and revised to ensure facility legacies 

are located in communities where they are accessible to a large number of high performance 

athletes. 


Nations that experience consistent international success in sport create cultures of 

excellence by providing sport services where members of the team, which include athletes, 

coaches, sport scientists and members of the medical support service staff, interact. Essentially, 

this builds on the facilities issue discussed above. The INSEP in France, USOC training centres in 

the US and the AIS in Australia bring together athletes, coaches, sport scientists and medical 

support personnel in a multi-sport training facility, or network of sport institutes. Athletes reside at 

the centre, have access to meal services and other living and training support services. Academic 


training is incorporated into the service offering at the institutes. The Austrian Ski School and the 

Sport Etudes program in Quebec are other examples of innovative partnerships and scheduling to 

provide athletes the opportunity to train and complete their academic training. 

In Canada, select support services are delivered to training groups through the CSCs, but 

Calgary and Montreal are the only quasi facility-based CSCs that include all the elements required 

to be internationally competitive with the top sporting nations. One of the weaknesses with the 

CSC concept is that they were designed to be virtual centres that provide services to athletes, but 

not solve the more expensive problem of access to quality facilities to train in. 

Recommendations: The desired actions and outcomes in this area require involvement and 

collaboration from NSOs, PSOs, the Canada Games Association, the national funding partners, 

provincial education ministries, and the F-P/T partners. Canada needs to create an internationally 

competitive network of facility based national and regional training institutes that are fully 

subsidized for priority sports and athletes and includes the following: 

• Critical mass of world class athletes 

• World class coaching 

• World class facilities and equipment 

• Sport science, nutrition, sport psychology, medical and alternative health care 

support services 

• Opportunities for domestic and international competition 

• Residential facilities and meal options 

• PSO support of development level athlete training groups integration 

Furthermore, there is a need to create a system of sport schools similar to the Quebec Sport 

Etudes program in every city with population greater than 50,000. The sport schools will provide 

flexible schedules for athletes to complete training and academics, as well as the access to facilities 

during non peak hours during the day. They can also contribute to the further development of team 

sports by creating a higher level competitive network for school-based sports. 


Successful sporting nations have well-structured competitive programmes with ongoing 

international exposure. In Canada, athletes with medal potential and junior athletes have limited 

exposure to important international competition. This is especially the case for sports that involve 

World Cup Circuits or international events that are mostly based in Europe (fencing, volleyball, 

alpine skiing, bobsleigh) or in Asia (judo, badminton, taekwondo). Furthermore, the 4-year Canada 

Games cycle creates void in domestic competition for junior athletes. Athletes may miss the 

opportunity to compete in the Canada Games simply because they are not the right age, at the right 

time for their sport. The age limits for some sports at the Canada Games do not fit with the long 

term athlete development plan, with the result being that athletes that are not part of an NSOs high 

performance development plan participate in the Canada Games, while athletes that are part of the 

high performance plan are excluded. Finally, there is very little opportunity for elite domestic 

competition for many of the team sports in Canada especially in the post-university age group. 


Recommendations: The desired actions and outcomes in this area require involvement and 

collaboration from NSOs, PSOs, the Canada Games Association, the national funding partners, and 

provincial education ministries. The age groups for sports that are part of the Canada Games 

program should be reviewed on a sport by sport basis to ensure that this competitive opportunity 

fits with high performance athlete development. Biannual junior national competitions for priority 

sports should also be created for priority sports to ensure that Development athletes have access to 

ongoing high quality domestic competition. Sport school leagues, which would serve as elite 

leagues for domestic team sport competition, should also be created because there is a real need for 

more domestic elite level competition for team sports. 

Finally, Canada needs to create more opportunities for domestic international competition 

with a coordinated hosting strategy for priority sports. The Work Group on Hosting has already 

presented its recommendations in this area. 


International research suggests that internationally successful sporting nations provide 

lifestyle support to athletes in preparation for life after sport. Norway, the Australian Centre for 

Education (ACE) in Australia, the USOC Olympic Education Center at Northern Michigan, and the 

tuition support offered to CHL hockey players are all examples of best practices in this area. They 

all offer subsidized education opportunities to either active or retiring athletes, or both. This is one 

area where Canada has a relatively strong performance compared to other nations, and is looked to 

as a leader internationally. Programs for personal and professional development are offered 

through the CSCs. Deferred tuition support for carded athletes is provided by Sport Canada. 

However, some of these programs require ongoing evaluation and intervention to ensure they meet 

the evolving needs of athletes. 

Recommendations: Ongoing communication with athletes is required to determine the 

services needed. Programs require ongoing evaluation and intervention to ensure they meet the 

evolving needs of athletes. Sport Canada’s tuition support program should also be reviewed to 

ensure that it is flexible enough to respond to the variety of educations opportunities of interest to 

athletes, beside the traditional undergraduate university degree. This desired outcome involves the 

national funding partners, NSOs, CSCs, and the COC. 

Priority Actions and F-P/T Policy Initiatives 

Table 4 summarizes the international trend, current situation in Canada and international 

best practice for four specific components of the Canadian Sport system that require policy 

intervention. In addition, the desired actions or outcomes and the organizations that need to be 

involved are presented. These recommended priority actions also require F-P/T collaboration. 

The following were identified as priority areas for F-P/T policy initiatives to improve the 

sport system in a manner that would reduce the gaps between practices associated with 

international success and the current practices in the Canadian Sport System. Given the recent 

trend in governments today of focusing on policy, and moving away from service delivery and 

operations, these initiatives were viewed by Work Group #4 as being especially important for the 

F-P/T. 



International research indicates that successful sporting nations recognize that developing 

excellence has costs and therefore provide the appropriate funding for infrastructure and people. 

Other G7 nations mobilize funding for sport through a variety of measures whether they be from 

direct government investment (France, Australia), Sport Lotteries (Australia, UK) or from the 

private sector (U.S). Canada ranks near the bottom in sport investment compared to other G7 

nations. 

As demonstrated earlier, investment in sport is clearly a critical lead indicator of subsequent 

international performance. Therefore, one conclusion of the Work Group #4 was that the 

Excellence objectives outlined in the Canadian Sport Policy cannot be achieved with the 

current levels of funding and the current approach to investment. That is, the status quo is 

not an option. In fact, maintaining the current level of athlete performance is unlikely with the 

current levels of funding because of the very competitive international sport environment described 

earlier. Canada’s competition has become more strategic and is investing more in sport with the 

objective of achieving international success. Therefore, in order to be competitive Canada will 

need to provide conditions (training, coaching, facilities, sport science, access to international 

competitions) that are comparable or better than the global competition on a sport by sport basis. 

Investment Recommendations: Work Group #4 collected data from a sample of NSOs 

regarding the cost implications of the enhanced high performance programming requirements. 

Based on this data, the data collected during the SRP and the analysis presented in Appendix E, 

Work Group #4 estimates that an additional federal investment of $35 million in high 

performance sport programming, matched by another Provincial/Territorial investment of 

$35 million, will be required to meet the National Goals outlined above. 

In addition to the government investment, innovative measures to mobilize resources from 

the private sector such as lotteries and tax credits should be implemented. The hosting of the 

Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver/Whistler 2010 presents a unique opportunity for innovative 

fund raising opportunities which should be pursued. 

While the size of the investment required is important, the timing of the investment is 

perhaps even more important. As demonstrated in an earlier section of this report, Canada has 

traditionally invested in sport too late to have the desired impact. Early investment recognizes the 

long term athlete development model, which suggests that it takes 10 years to develop athletes that 

have the potential to win a medal at the Olympic Games, and 4-6 years at the Paralympic Games. 

The Vancouver/Whistler Games 2010 are only 7 years away, so it is imperative that targeted 

investments looking to have an impact in 2010 be made today. A start has already been made 

via the Sport Canada ‘la Releve’ investment, the Vacouver 2010 Legacies Now Program and the 

ongoing work by the Province of Quebec, but it is not enough to achieve the targets that have been 

proposed. 

Athlete Support Recommendations: Some specific areas that require investment 

(facilities, Sport Institute Network, living and training support, research and sport science etc) have 

already been discussed. The Athlete Assistance Program (AAP) requires a quota revision so that 

more cards are made available in priority sports and the stipends be increased and coordinated with 

other assistance programs to provide a minimum after tax level of support of $24,000 to athletes 


with medal potential, an amount that has been identified by athletes (Athlete Roundtable on 

National Sport Policy, October, 2000, Calgary) and others. 

Quebec serves as a model or best practice for direct provincial/territorial investment in high 

performance athletes. Quebec provides an additional $10,000 to athletes that meet Sport Canada’s 

carding criteria and are living and training in Quebec. Therefore, Quebec based athletes, would 

have access to $10,000 from the province of Quebec, $13,200 from Sport Canada, and $5,000 from 

the COC, if the athlete or team has a Top 5 ranking at World Championships or the Olympic 

Games, for a total of $28,000. This puts athletes living in Quebec just above the threshold 

identified by athletes as being the minimum living and training resources required. The Quebec 

practice of direct investment in athletes living and training in Quebec serves as a model for all other 

provinces and territories. It is recommended that all provinces and territories undertake direct 

investment in high performance athletes, similar to the approach used in Quebec. 

Needs based assessment should also be introduced because some athletes have the 

opportunity to earn an income on professional circuits and world cup tours, so they may not require 

the same level of assistance from the national funding partners. Others are full time studentathletes 

that have different needs than older athletes with families. The practice of charging 

athletes National team fees used by some NSOs should be eliminated entirely. 

Coaching: Another area that requires specific attention, and was highlighted as a specific 

area to address in Action #1, was the employment and working conditions of coaches. This 

investment in people is essential to creating the culture of excellence required for international 

success, but it is an area in which Canada lags behind the competition. 

In its assessment of Canadian high performance sport programs, the SRP found that “one of 

the significant differences between sports that had a history of success, recent podium performance 

and likely future success at major international events (rowing, diving, canoe, cycling, wrestling, 

swimming) was the long-term commitment to full time coaches”. Many NSFs support coach 

salaries through multiple sources, leaving coaches vulnerable to funding support fluctuations from 

funding agencies or political shifts within the sport. However, this situation is certainly preferable 

to not being able to employ professional coaches at all, and many sports have approached this 

situation very creatively. 

Rowing, for example, has partnerships with the Canadian Sport Centres and local rowing 

clubs to fund national team and development coaches. Wrestling has been successful with 

establishing support for national team coaches by partnering with Canadian Interuniversity Sport 

(CIS) institutions, CSCs and local wrestling clubs. Diving has partnered with the City of Montreal, 

the CSC-Montreal and the CAMO Diving club to mobilize resources for full time National Team 

coaches. Canoe/kayak has set up centres in Halifax and Montreal, and is directing resources to full 

time coaching at each centre with its partnership with CSCs and other local partners. 

Longer term and adequate coaching support is one of the greatest challenges in the 

Canadian sport system, as evidenced by sports that experienced less success at recent Olympic 

Games than in the past or than what was projected. In many of these cases, there were challenges 

with retaining high performance coaches, developing enough new coaches, or hiring coaches not 

sufficiently experienced to achieve high performance results. A commitment to investing in 

coaching has been associated with the recent progress in women’s soccer. This investment is 

projected to have an impact for the 2008 Games. 


Finally, some sports recognize that specialized technical instruction is required, in addition 

to full time coaching. Synchronized swimming, for example, made requests for specialized 

instruction in acrobatics, ballet, as well as choreography. Men’s field hockey has plans to bring in 

specialists (recent and former international players) to instruct on critical tactics (ie. penalty 

corners) that could prove invaluable for success at international competition. This direction was 

viewed by the SRC as an example of enhanced programming that would give Canadian athletes the 

edge needed to produce podium performances in the future. 

Coaching is not adequately developed as a profession in Canada to provide the stability to 

consistently achieve performance results at major international competition. Too many coaches are 

surviving through one-year contracts under multi-partner cost-sharing models. This is a priority for 

the Canadian Sport system to resolve before performance excellence can be consistently 

maintained. 

Work Group #4 is aware of the work of the Coaching Implementation Group (CIG) that is 

currently under consideration and is supportive of most of the recommendations as they relate to an 

increased investment in coaching. 

Coaching Recommendations: Work Group #4 recommends that funding for coaching 

support should be allocated on a more long term basis so that more professional coaching 

opportunities, defined as full time, multi-year contracts that include professional 

development opportunities and benefits, can be created for national team coaches. A national 

funding partner coordinating body, similar to the SRP, should have the responsibility of assessing 

the coaching needs of sports and ensuring that adequate funding is allocated to meet the high 

performance coaching needs of priority sports. Further, the CIG recommendations related to the 

increased investment in coaching salaries are referred to by Work Group #4 for implementation. 


International research on sport development systems indicates that successful sporting 

nations target resources on a relatively small number of priority sports with potential for 

international success. International best practices of this would include Australia, the U.K., and 

Norway, which target resources on 8-30 sports. France uses a similar approach, but unlike the 

others, which focus primarily on either summer or winter sports, invests in both summer and winter 

sports. 

In Canada, Sport Canada funding is primarily egalitarian, with only minimal funding 

targeted on athletes and teams with medal potential through special programs (i.e. SRP, Podium 

2002). There is an understanding and acceptance in the Canadian sport community that grass roots 

sport and mass participation can drive high performance success. That is, the larger the base of the 

pyramid, the larger the number of world-class athletes produced. 

Less commonly accepted, and exploited, is that high performance success can drive grass 

roots growth. The growth in girls and women’s soccer and hockey has been driven in part by the 

success of the national team. More interest in Triathlon, Beach Volleyball, Wrestling and Judo can 

also be associated with recent success at the international level. 

Recommendations: It is unrealistic to expect that a country with such a small population 

(33M) can support mass participation in all the Olympic and Paralympic Sports. Not all sports can 

achieve the mass participation levels of the most popular sports in Canada (soccer, hockey etc). 


Realistic targets for participation levels, based on interest and cultural significance of the sport in 

Canada, should be determined, with appropriate Base Level Funding or resources directed to this 

grass roots growth and support, providing the NSOs meet the minimum government requirements 

and standards. 

The direction of a second level of Excellence Level Funding to athletes, crews and teams 

that have the potential to produce podium performances represents a change in funding and 

investment strategy. The reality is even with a substantial increase in funding, resources are 

limited, and therefore the traditional philosophy and practice of allocating few resources to all 

sports is untenable because it ensures that none of the sports will receive the resources required to 

achieve high performance excellence. This was one factor in the COC’s decision to identify 

podium performance as a priority in the SRP. During the SRP, there was a preponderance of new 

terminology used such as conditionality, prescription, targeted resources, excellence, investment, 

harmonize, streamline, accountability, and evidence of impact that were frequently used through 

the review process and should become commonplace within the Canadian sport system (and have 

been for some time in the private sector). 

Work Group #4 recommends that priority sports be identified based on podium 

potential, both short and long term, and that Excellence Level resources (funding, facilities, 

high performance support service infrastructure) be focused on these priorities. Base level 

resources should continue to be allocated to all sports, based on participation levels, cultural 

significance and interest in the sport in Canada. The number of priority sports will be determined 

by the funding resources available. This approach suggests that Canada will need to identify where 

the medals will come from. That is, sports with medal potential in both the short and long term. 

The SRP found considerable consistency in the issues and challenges facing team sports in 

Canada. There is a need for national and coordinated team sport strategy to address the critical 

path and model of athlete and team development, including: 

• the role of clubs, universities, professional sport, and CSCs in the model; 

• communication and monitoring the development of athletes training and competing abroad 

(NCAA, professional leagues); 

• sport by sport performance objectives; 

• domestic competition opportunities; 

• the higher costs of talent identification, monitoring, evaluation, preparation and training, 

international competition and insurance costs associated with teams; 

• and the recognition of the unique skills and achievement required to excel in various roles 

within teams. 

The implementation strategy must address the long term resources required for systematic 

development and repeatability of results while coordinating the commitment for action. 

Investment in team sports may appear to be at odds with the recommendation of focusing 

resources on athletes with medal potential, because a team medal counts only once in the medals 

count at the Olympic Games. However, as indicated earlier, the impact of an Olympic medal in 

team sports like hockey, basketball and soccer on the Canadian public and the sport would be 

enormous. Therefore, the return on investment in team sport should be evaluated in terms of the 


number of athletes that are developed to win the medal (i.e. 23 athletes for hockey), rather than 

based solely on the single medal counted in the medal count. 

Finally, Canada should identify strategic advantages and invest in them accordingly. For 

example, the SRP found that there is a short-term opportunity to take advantage in the women’s 

sport program. As a world leader in providing opportunities for women, Canada has held a slight, 

but temporary advantage, as many other nations are starting to invest more significantly in 

women’s sport programs which have been recently been added to the program of the Olympic 

Games. Women’s team sports represent a strategic opportunity (synchronized swimming, water 

polo, soccer, hockey, softball), which might be part of a larger national team strategy. Canadian 

athletes have also performed well in emerging or new sports (curling, triathlon, trampoline, 

snowboard, freestyle skiing). Emerging and new sports represent another strategic area where 

significant investment could assist Canadian athletes to maintain podium performances and stay 

ahead of the nations chasing them. Canada has always performed well in ice sports (speed skating, 

hockey, figure skating, curling) and is developing expertise in sliding sports (bobsleigh, skeleton) 

that might represent another strategic area for investment in winter sport. 


Successful international sport systems are characterized by a clear understanding about the 

role of different agencies involved and an effective communication network maintains system. 

There is also simplicity of administration through common sporting and political boundaries. This 

is facilitated by a central or coordinating body that provides leadership to the system. Some 

examples of international best practices in this area include the Australian Sport Commission, 

which is a committee of sport experts that is appointed by government to oversee the allocation of 

the government’s investment in sport. The Commission Nationale de Haute Niveau (France), the 

Olympiatoppen (Norway) and the Deutchersportbund (Germany) are other examples of centralized, 

coordinating bodies. The result is a strong leadership for the sport system, as well as a centralized 

and coordinated approach to planning, evaluation, and investment in high performance sport that 

ensures investment in line with national goals and priorities, and a reduction in gaps in overlap, and 

efficient use of the government’s investment in sport. 

The Canadian sport system lacks leadership. It is a fragmented sport system that lacks 

coordination and communication in planning, evaluation and investment among multiple funding 

agencies. The complex system is complicated by jurisdictional conflicts. The historic 

fragmentation of high performance sport development partners at both the national and provincial 

levels has resulted in an overly bureaucratized, dysfunctional system. For example, sport 

organizations at the national level are required to make multiple applications to various funding 

organizations, which are making funding decisions without any coordinated, centralized leadership 

and without any common performance targets to direct their efforts. Not surprisingly, the result has 

been a series of funding agencies that act independently and in some cases compete to provide 

leadership according to their individual visions for sport. Of all the other elements of the sport 

system examined by Work Group #4, this situation is by far the most problematic, and the most at 

odds with international best practices. That is, leadership is the key area that needs to be 

addressed. 


Recommendations: The desired actions and outcomes require the involvement and 

collaboration of NSOs, PSOs, the national funding partners (Sport Canada, COC, CODA, 

VOCOG) and the F-P/T government funding partners. In order to achieve the Canadian Targets for 

athlete performance, it is recommended a High Performance Sport Commission (HPSC) be created 

to coordinate the planning, investment, evaluation and appropriate intervention in high performance 

sport at the national level and provide an example for Provincial / Territorial investors to consider. 

The HPSC would include 7-10 high performance sport experts appointed by the national 

funding partners. The HPSC would undertake a process modelled on the Sport Review Process to 

assess high performance plans, progress and potential. The vision is for the HPSC to serve as a 

leadership body where National funding partners collaborate to review a single application by 

NSOs. The result would be a pooling of resources, harmonized funding programs and coordinated 

investment in athletes, coaches, programs, facilities. The HPSC would have the authority to 

allocate funding, evaluate and intervene in high performance programming and would be 

accountable to the federal government and other national funding partners. Provincial/territorial 

funding agencies also need to be accountable to their governments and any other funding partners. 

The HPSC could also act as a F-P/T coordination mechanism to facilitate bilateral or 

multilateral agreements for high performance sport initiatives. Furthermore, provinces/territories 

and PSOs would be encouraged to use National Goals for sport and the National list of priority 

sports as a factor to guide their investment decisions. This would involve a coordination 

mechanism at the provincial level. The PSO plans should be integrated and dovetail with NSO 

plans and based on mutually agreeable objectives and priorities. 

The national athlete performance and sport development system targets need to be 

supported by concomitant P/T athlete development and system targets that will enhance the 

probability of success. To do this, scorecards should be developed for all levels (F-P/T, NSOs, 

PSOs) to monitor progress toward both athlete performance and sport system development targets. 

The SRP at the national level was an initial attempt to coordinate data collection, evaluation and 

investment among the national funding partners. It is an evolving process that is expected to 

improve in terms of the quality, coordination and efficiency. It needs to be integrated with the 

Sport Canada SFAF but able to stand alone and be reviewed by the HPSC. 

At the provincial level, there are some good practices at the P/T level with regards to 

evaluation and funding allocation for high performance sport. For example, Quebec uses a point 

system, and three main criteria: 

1. Scope of the development of excellence in the sport/discipline in Quebec which considers 

the pool of athletes and coaches (40 points) 

2. Importance of the opportunities for the sport/discipline, which considers 

Olympic/Paralympic program status, existence of professional circuits, level of 

international development, and the depth of the field at world championships (20 points) 

3. Performance record of the sport and Quebec representation on national teams, which 

considers Quebec rankings at Canada Games and National Championships, and the 

percentage of Quebec athletes that are carded by Sport Canada and that are on national 

teams (40 points). 


However, some provinces do not have specific goals for high performance sport or a 

practice in place to identify priorities and make investment decisions (e.g. Quebec’s goal of 

percentage of carded athletes and athletes on National teams equal to demographic weight). More 

importantly, there is no coordination between the national SRP and the current practices at the P/T 

levels. Therefore, the next steps should include: 

1. Research to support provincial/territorial level target setting 

2. Implementation of a complimentary SRP at the P/T level, if one does not currently 

exist 

3. Coordination of the federal and provincial/territorial level sport reviews 

Each province will need to determine its own provincial system targets. However some 

examples of targets that might be considered by the provinces could include some of the following 

being considered by Quebec: 

• Increase the number of athletes in the province involved in high performance training 

activities by 10% between 2003-2008 

• The percentage of provincial athletes residing in the provinces that are … 

• carded by Sport Canada, 

• participate on national teams in junior and senior international competitions, 

• participate in Olympic and Paralympic Games; 

… is equal to the demographic weight of the province 

• Raise the percentage of provincial athletes carded by Sport Canada to at least equal the 

province’s demographic weight in at least three sports from 2003-2008 

• To rank first, compared to other provinces/territories, as measured by the number of 

medals won in national junior and senior championships, Canada Games, junior and 

senior world championships and major multi sport international competitions 

• Increase the number of provincial sport federations involved in developing excellence 

using sport study programs by 5 sports between 2003-2008 

• Increase the number of full time coaches by ’x or x%’ between 2003-2008 

• More than half of high performance training groups benefit from an appropriate level of 

support 

• The majority of provincial sport federations have a multi-year long term high 

performance plan for developing sport excellence for the 2005-2009 period that is 

integrated with the NSO plan 

• Reach a bilateral agreement with Sport Canada concerning support for the development 

of high performance athletes (financial support, training centers etc.) 


Table 3: Priority Actions and F-P/T Program Initiatives 

International Trend Current Situation Best Practice Desired Actions and Outcomes Organizations 

1. Comprehensive 

planning for each 

sport’s needs 

• AIS 

• BC Sport web 

2. An effective system 

for the statistical 

identification and 

monitoring of the 

progress of talented 

and elite athletes 

3. Well developed and 

specific facilities 

with priority access 

for elite athletes 

4. Provide sports 

services to create a 

culture of excellence 

where members of 

the team interact 

(athletes, coaches, 

scientists) 

Lack of sport science 

research, international 

intelligence, knowledge 

management and info 

sharing; planning is not 

centrally coordinated 

Lack of system for 

identification of general 

athletic ability (except 

in BC) and sport 

specific talent; small 

pools of talented 

athletes; proliferation of 

data bases 

No facility based 

training centres (except 

Montreal, Calgary for 

winter sports); select 

sport specific facilities 

available to specific 

training groups 

Select support services 

delivered to training 

groups through CSCs; 

Calgary and Montreal 

are only facility based 

CSCs that include all 

elements 

• AUS – Sport 

Search and 

Talent Search 

• BC Sport Fit 

• USOC centres 

• AIS 

• INSEP 

• Barcelona 

• Finland- 

Vierimaki 

• AIS 

• INSEP 

• Austria ski 

school 

• Sports Etudes - 

Quebec 

• Lead / participate in domestic and international sport policy 

research 

• Identify, prioritize, and invest in ASR themes (sport and 

equipment) 

• ASR coordinated through CSCs 

• Create research institutes for resistance/friction; endurance; 

speed/ power 

• Partner with universities and major Canadian research 

funding agencies to create capacity for sport research 

• Innovation based on research 

• LTAD integrated with HP planning for NSOs and PSOs 

• Use technology to create single data base to share research 

and info across system 

• Common taxonomy for athlete level 

• Expand BC’s generic talent ID system (Sport Fit) 

nationwide; conduct voluntary testing in school system and 

create national data base to ID potential 

• Develop sport specific talent ID and monitoring systems; 

communication between NSO, PSO, clubs to monitor 

athletes, facilitated by technology 

• Single database for talent identification 

• Develop facility-based Sport Institute Network balancing the 

need for access with economies of scale 

• Create separate envelope for HP sport infrastructure within 

federal program 

• Games/CG/Provincial Games facility legacies in areas where 

accessible to large number of athletes 

• Create internationally competitive network of facility based 

national and regional training institutes fully subsidized for 

priority sports and athletes including; 



• World class facility access and equipment 

• Sport science, nutrition, sport psychology, medical 

and alternative health care support services 

• Domestic / international competition 

• Residential facilities/ meal option 

Athlete Performance and Sport System Targets, Evaluation, and Investment Page 41 

• NSOs 

• PSOs 

• HP Sport 

Commission 

• F-P/T funding 

partners 

• NSOs, PSOs 

• F-Health Canada 

• P- Health and 

Education 

ministries 

• F-P/T funding 

partners 

• Federal 

infrastructure 

program 

• OCOG 

• Municipalities 

• CSCs 


• CSCs 

• CODA 

• P- Education 

Ministries 

• Universities

5. Well structured 

competitive 

programmes with 

ongoing international 

exposure 

6. Lifestyle support, 

preparation for life 

after sport 

Athletes with medal 

potential and junior 

athletes have limited 

exposure to key 

international 

competition; 4- year 

CG cycle creates void 

in domestic for juniors 

Programs for personal 

and professional 

development; tuition 

support for carded 

athletes 

• CHL hockey 

• Norway 

• ACE in 

Australia 

• Northern 

Michigan – 

USOC -OEC 

• PSOs support development level athlete training groups 

integrated with NSO programming 

• Create systemized sport schools for both individual and team 

sports (sports etudes) in every city with population > 50K 

• Create domestic international competition with coordinated 

hosting strategy for priority sports 

• Target resources for international competition for potential 

podium performers and junior athletes (La Releve) 

• Review age groups for sports in CG to ensure fit with HP 

athlete development 

• Create biannual junior national competitions for priority 

sports 

• Sport school leagues; elite leagues for team sport 

development 

• Ongoing communication with athletes to determine services 

required 

• Education support – review Sport Canada tuition support – 

more flexible 


• CGA 

• National funding 

partners 

• P- Education 

ministries 

• F-P/T partners 

• Funding partners 

• NSOs 

• CSCs 

• COC 


Table 4: Priority Actions and F-P/T Policy Initiatives 

1. Recognition that 

developing 

excellence has costs, 

fund appropriately 

2. Target resources on 

small number of 

priority sports with 

potential for 

international success 

3. Role of agencies 

clearly defined and 

effective 

communication 

network maintains 

system 

4. Simplicity of 

administration 

Canada ranks near the 

bottom in sport 

investment compared to 

G7 

Sport Canada funding 

primarily egalitarian; 

minimal funding is 

targeted (SRP, Podium 

2002) 

Fragmented sport system; 

lack of coordination and 

communication in 

planning and investment 

among multiple funding 

agencies 

Jurisdictional conflicts 

• AUS – government 

• US - USOC 

• France - 

government 

• UK sport – 

lotteries 

• Norway – winter 

• AUS 

• UK Sport 

• Germany 

• AUS Sport 

Commission 

• Commission 

Nationale de Haute 

Niveau 

• Olympiatoppen 

• Deutchersportbund 

• F- $35M matched by P/T- $35M for HP programming 

• Early investment recognizing LTADM 

• Innovation to mobilize new private sector investment 

(lotteries, tax credits) 

• Facility based Sport Institute Network 

• AAP quotas revised, more cards in priority sports, stipends 

increased, needs based assessment, eliminate national team 

fees 

• Create more full time professional coaching positions 

• Identify priorities based on podium potential and focus 

resources (funding, facilities, HP support service 

infrastructure) on these priorities – 

coordinated/collaboration 

• Identify strategic advantages, ice sports; women’s sport, 

emerging sports 

• Increased resources will allow targeting of more priority 

sports 

• Expert HP Sport Commission (legislated) to coordinate 

National funding partner planning, investment, and 

evaluation 

• F-P/T coordination mechanism –bilateral or multilateral 

agreements 

• Coordination mechanism at P/T level so PSO plans 

coordinated and integrated with NSOs based on priorities 

• Develop NSO and PSO scorecard tools guide investment 

and ensure accountability 

• 

• 

• NSO-PSO 

• F-P/T 

• National funding 

partners 

• P/T coordination 

within 


Action #3: Canadian Sport Centres 

The third specific action outlined in the Federal–Provincial/Territorial Plan for 

Collaborative Action 2002-2005 on Excellence was to evaluate and confirm, as required, the role of 

National Sport Centres in contributing to the goals of the Canadian Sport Policy on a jurisdictionby-jurisdiction 

basis. 

In addition to the key performance indicators described above, there are some institutions 

that require consideration as to their future orientation in order to best serve the needs of the sport 

system. These include the Canadian Sport Centre network and multi-sport organizations such as 

the Coaching Association of Canada. 

For example, we know that there was a significant contribution to the recent Australian 

success at the 2000 Summer Olympic Games made by the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) and 

its related State level sport institutes. These entities provide a proper facility, training, science and 

medicine and living environment for young developing athletes. There is no current existing 

equivalent in Canada. The closest is the Calgary situation where CODA manages the facility 

legacy of the 1988 Winter Olympic Games and provides some modest programming support to 

winter sports while the CSC-Calgary provides some level of scientific and medical services to the 

athletes. There is a sport school but it is not widely accessed and there are no residence facilities 

for athletes and teams. 

Sport Institutes 

Sport Institutes are different from existing Canadian Sport Centres, which are primarily 

virtual programming Centres. A Sport Institute uses a facility-based model to deliver key services. 

Sport Institutes, therefore, create a culture of excellence in which the key players (athletes, coaches, 

sport science professional, para-medical service providers) can interact. Critical elements and core 

competencies of Sport Institutes include: 

• World-class multi sport and sport specific training facilities 

• Venue for hosting of provincial/national/international events 

• Support of full time world-class calibre coaches 

• Coach education and professional development 

• Direct support from Performance Enhancement Teams (PET’s), which include full time 

experts in sport medicine and sport science providing specific support to athlete training 

groups, including applied sport science research 

• Synergy created through interaction of athletes and coaches from different sports 

learning best practices from each other and being motivated by the proximity to other 

world class athletes, coaches and support service providers 

• Economies of scale by having large numbers of athletes, coaches and support staff 

working out of the same facility 

• Links to high schools, colleges and/or universities for athlete education support 

• Focal point for high performance sport development and activities including media and 

community awareness 


• Ability to provide direct or enhanced access to athlete accommodation and nutritional 

requirements 

• Provision of holistic support to athletes and coaches beyond just their training needs 

A facility based Sport Institute creates a dynamic multi-sport environment, which together 

with sport specific experts, provides the best opportunity for athletes and coaches to train at world 

class standards comparable to their competition. An examination of international best practices 

indicates that successful sporting nations such as Australia, Norway, the U.S, the U.K., France, 

Germany, Russia and China all use variations of facility based Sport Institutes to train and prepare 

their top and developing athletes. Sport Institutes are allocated the resources, authority and 

leadership to deliver improved high performance programming and results. 

An examination of international best practices indicates that an important gap in Canada’s 

sport system is the lack of facility based Sport Institutes. The existing Canadian sport system and 

developmental infrastructure is insufficient to maintain existing performance standards, let alone 

achieve the National Goals for Sport presented above. Canadian Sport Centres must be 

enhanced and moved toward a facility based model in order to significantly contribute to the 

Canadian Targets for Sport. 

Sport Institute Networks are increasingly part of an international trend in many nations that 

achieve international success (Oakley & Green, 2001). Five aspects common to all nations sport 

institute network are the following: 

1. An administrative headquarters 

2. Close links with secondary and higher education 

3. Sport specific training centres 

4. An altitude training facility frequently linked to alpine sports (except UK) 

5. Close links with sports medicine/science facilities 

A perceptual map presented in Appendix F best describes variations from this common 

approach. The figure shows the USA’s approach to elite sport. The horizontal axis represents the 

continuum of a private (largely commercial) funded institute network (E.g. USA) with those funded 

primarily by public funds (e.g. France). The United States Olympic Committee’s (USOC) ability 

to exploit the strength of the Olympic brand through corporate and consumer channels is immense, 

generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, combined with a 12.5% share in television 

rights goes a long way to meet the budget requirements of its sport institutes. In contrast, the 

French National Sport Institute, consisting of a central multi sport site in Paris (INSEP) and several 

regional sport specific facilities is almost exclusively publicly funded. 

The vertical axis represents the continuum of lead organizations in the institute networks as 

being institution led networks at one end and national governing body/partnership approach at the 

other end of the continuum. Institution led networks predominate in the USA where the college 

system competes for athletic talent, and requires athlete relocation from home, representing an 

institution led system. In the UK and Canada, the partnership approach is used to employ coaches, 

provide sport science and medical services, and to control and coordinate programs. 


In recent years, there has been a move to a more decentralized approach in France, where 

there has been a shift from a central INSEP dominated system to more decentralized sport specific 

functions, and in Australia, where they have begun to partner more with NSOs. The primary 

rationale for decentralization of institute networks has been to allow athletes, especially younger 

athletes, to remain in their home region and not have to relocate to excel in sport. 

A more detailed international comparison of Sport Institute Networks that includes funding 

and services is presented in Appendix G. 

Role of CSCs in Supporting High Performance Sport in Canada 

There is a need to ensure any investment in CSCs or NSOs is directly tied to a commitment 

to excellence and the ability to provide evidence of the impact of any such investment. Appendix 

H presents a summary of the Tier 1 (International top 8), Tier 2 (National Development and 

National Senior team ranked 9-16+) and Tier 3 (Provincial Elite) training groups currently 

supported by each of the CSCs. A summary of the potential medallists for Athens, as predicted by 

the CSCs, which are currently supported by each of the centres is also presented in Appendix H. 

This data supports the findings by the SRP that only four of the CSCs currently support a critical 

mass of training groups or athletes that produce or have the potential for podium performance 

(Pacific –Vancouver/Victoria, Ontario, Calgary, and Montreal). The CSC - Atlantic is playing a 

significant role in supporting select members of the national Canoe/Kayak national team. 

One of the key roles of CSCs is to institutionalize a philosophy and culture of excellence. 

CSCs coordinate and provide sport science, sport medical, and other athlete services, access to 

expert resource personnel, and they can play a significant leadership role (in their respective 

regions and nationally) in the high performance sport and the broader sport community. Examples 

of the leadership provided, and the measures upon which CSCs should be evaluated, include the 

following: 

• Facilitation of partnerships (within and between sports, and between sports and 

universities, the public and private sector, media and the general community) 

• Coach education, development and support 

• Creation of economic efficiencies within the sport community 

• Long-term stability and continuity to sport expertise and professionals (physiologists, 

sport psychologists, nutritionists, strength and conditioning coaches) 

• Facilitation of the development of a regional/provincial high performance system 

• Daily contact and support to athletes and coaches. 

• Central resource or contact for sport information, or knowledge broker. 

While the CSCs were established to provide services to athletes, the SRP found that the 

CSCs that had the most impact are those located in outstanding multi-sport and sport specific 

facilities where the athletes train. Ideally, CSCs should be located in multi-sport training 

centres, designated as Canadian Sport Institutes. 


Several sports indicate that they use the services provided by the CSCs, but that they require 

additional support for sports science and massage therapy in particular (rowing, canoe/kayak, 

cycling, athletics, diving, swimming, triathlon). In some cases, different sports expressed 

additional needs from the same CSC, so further coordination of resources might address this need. 

The CSC network might require additional support, or need to redirect resources, to enhance the 

quality and quantity of services required by the targeted athletes, teams and training groups. In any 

event, the SRP is the best positioned to identify training groups for CSC partnerships. 

Recommendations: During the SRP, it became evident that a strategic plan, developed 

by the major funding partners, with the involvement of the NSOs, which commits to a 

selected number of CSCs as the anchors to the high performance sport system is needed. Any 

future growth should be considered based on resources and impact on high performance, according 

to this strategic plan. 

Canada needs to create a culture of excellence by developing an internationally 

competitive network of facility based national and regional Sport Institutes that are fully 

subsidized for priority sports and athletes including; 






• Domestic and international competition 


The question that needs to be addressed is how many Canadian Sport Institutes are required 

in Canada The data currently available suggests that only four facility-based Canadian 

Sport Institutes are necessary in Canada but that smaller sport specific Regional Training 

Institutes to support training groups in priority sports might be appropriate. PSOs and 

communities can be more directly involved in partnerships with NSOs, and National Funding 

partners to establish development level training groups at the site of Canadian Sport Institutes, 

creating economies of scale for program delivery, as well as with establishing sport specific 

training groups in Regional Institutes. 

A similar menu of services for Development and Age Group High Performance level 

athletes might be provided at the Canadian Sport Institutes, depending on the level of 

provincial investment. One role of the HPSC might be to coordinate investment in Sport 

Institutes to support priority sports at the national level. That is the excellence mandate of centers 

should be determined by the HPSC. But the specific developmental activities undertaken by the 

CSCs might be different in each provincial jurisdiction, depending on the other resources and 

services available in each center. That is, there should not be a top down process to determine what 

each CSC will do, in the true sense of partnership. 

A feasibility study regarding the creation of Canadian Sport Institutes is currently being 

undertaken by the COC. While a full financial analysis has yet to be completed, some of the 

preliminary recommendations for moving forward include the following: 


• The investment in Canadian Sport Institutes must be considered a priority for the Canadian 

sport system given the enhanced scope of support that will be provided to athletes, coaches 

and sports 

• That Sport Institutes be developed with a partnership approach to maximize and leverage 

resource opportunities, and be cost effective 

• Sport Institutes must be properly resourced with sustainable and consistent financial support 

to manage the on-going operational costs 

• Federal, combined with provincial/territorial and municipal Governments are key partners 

in the funding and support of Sport Institutes for there to be a success in creating and 

evolving this initiative 

Summary of Recommendations 

The Canadian Sport Policy and the F-P/T Plan for Collaborative Action have identified the 

need for specific targets for athlete performance and the sport system. The following list of 

recommendations outlines Work Group #4’s recommendations for setting these targets and the 

program and policy interventions required to reach them. 

Canadian Targets for Sport 

• Canada has never had a set of public Canadian Targets for athlete performance that guide 

investment decisions so it is important to develop a set of performance targets that can 

guide Canadian sport. If we want Canadians to be competitive at international sport 

competitions, we need to agree on targets and develop funding policies to achieve them. 

• It is recommended that the medal count at Olympic and Paralympic Games serve as the 

performance standard by which Canadian Sport is evaluated, as is the case for most sporting 

nations 

• It is recommended that ambitious, but achievable targets that call for Canada to double the 

number of medals won at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney and the 2002 Winter 

Olympic Games in Salt Lake City at the 2010 Winter and 2012 Summer Olympic Games 

• The Work Group recommends that the following specific long-term targets be accepted as 

the Canadian Targets for athlete performance at future Olympic and Paralympic Games: 

o For Winter Olympic sports, Canada should consistently place in the top 3 nations in 

the medals count, with the goal being to finish 1 st in the 2010 Vancouver/Whistler 


o For Summer Olympic Sports, Canada should place in the top 8 nations in the medals 

count by 2012 

o For Winter Paralympic sports, Canada should place in the top 3 nations in the gold 

medals count by 2010 

o For Summer Paralympic sports, Canada should place in the top 3 nations in the gold 

medals count by 2012 


Targets for Athlete Performance 

• It is recommended that the entire sport system take a Long Term Athlete Development 

(LTAD) approach, which will require an increase in both investment and coordination by 

the various funding partners to achieve the performance targets above 

• It is recommended that data collected during future combined SFAF/SRPs, modeled on the 

collaborative process undertaken by the national funding partners (COC, Sport Canada, 

CODA, Vancouver Legacies Now), be used as the basis for setting specific sport by sport 

athlete performance targets that will contribute towards reaching the Canadian Targets. 

• Specific athlete performance targets need to be supported by concomitant P/T athlete 

development targets and long term athlete development plans by creating a similar P/T SRP 

at the various levels to monitor progress toward the set of athlete performance objectives 

Targets for the Sport System 

• Numerous and specific sport system development targets need to be established in three 

main areas including: 

1. Managing Knowledge, Learning, and Innovation 

2. Core Sport System Activities 


• The Work Group recommends that the actual setting of the specific sport system targets be 

carried out by the collaborative sport review process noted above 

F-P/T Program Initiatives 


• Canada must lead and participate in domestic and international sport policy research 

• Identify, prioritize, and invest in Applied Sport Research (ASR) themes, with the 

research being coordinated through the Canadian Sport Centres 

• Applied Sport Research Institutes (ASRI) in each of the three general areas below 

should be created and funded and linked to Canadian Sport Centres: 

• ASRI for Resistance and Friction 

• ASRI for Endurance 

• ASRI for Speed and Power 

• Sport organizations, and the national funding partners should partner with universities 

and major Canadian research funding agencies to create a capacity for applied sport 

science research 

• Research must be used for innovation in athlete training, preparation for competition 

and equipment development. Data regarding athlete results, performance and training 

should be collected in a systematic way and integrated telecommunications technology 

should be used to manage the knowledge and share it across the sport system so that it 


can be used for intervention in training, preparation for competition, equipment 

development and supporting long term athlete development. 


• A common taxonomy for athlete level is required so that there is a common 

understanding of terms like Age Group High Performance, or Development level athlete 

and the associated talent milestones, training and competition needs at each level 

• The Sport Fit generic talent identification system for winter sports in B.C. should be 

expanded nationwide and include summer sports 

• Sport specific talent identification and monitoring systems must also be developed 

• Existing technology must be used to facilitate communication between NSOs, PSOs, 

clubs and athletes to encourage participation and monitor progress 

3. Facilities 

• A facility-based Sport Institute Network that balances the need for athlete access with 

economies of scale should be developed 

• A separate infrastructure envelope for facility development for high performance should 

be created to engage municipal, provincial/territorial and federal government 

collaboration 

• The hosting legacies of international championships, major games, the Canada Games 

and Provincial Games should be examined and revised to ensure facility legacies are 

located in communities where they are accessible to a large number of high performance 

athletes 


• Canada should create an internationally competitive network of facility based national 

and regional training institutes that are fully subsidized for priority sports and athletes 

and includes the following: 




• Applied sport research, sport science, nutrition, sport psychology, medical and 

alternative health care support services 

• Opportunities for domestic and international competition 


• PSO support of development level athlete training groups integration 

• A system of sport schools modeled on the Quebec Sport Etudes program should be 

created in every city with population greater than 50,000. Sport schools can also 

contribute to the further development of team sports by creating a higher level 

competitive network for school-based sports. 



• Age groups for sports that are part of the Canada Games program should be reviewed on 

a sport by sport basis to ensure that this competitive opportunity fits with high 

performance athlete development 

• A Canadian Paralympic Games should be created 

• Biannual junior national competitions for priority sports should be created for priority 

sports to ensure that Development level athletes have access to ongoing high quality 

domestic competition 

• Sport school leagues, which would serve as elite leagues for domestic team sport 

competition, should also be created because there is a real need for more domestic elite 

level competition for team sports 

• More opportunities for domestic international competition must be created with a 

coordinated hosting strategy for priority sports. The Work Group on Hosting has 

already presented its recommendations in this area 

• Full access to international competitions for priority sports and athletes with medal 

potential, comparable to leading sport nations, is required 

• There is also a need for our age group high performance athletes to be exposed to 

international competition similar to the nations we are seeking to pass in the Olympic 

and Paralympic rankings. Therefore, it is recommended to continue and expand the ‘La 

Relève’ program and link it to provincial high performance programs. 


• Personal and professional development programs offered by CSCs require ongoing 

evaluation and intervention to ensure they meet the evolving needs of athletes 

• Sport Canada’s tuition support program should also be reviewed to ensure that it is 

flexible enough to respond to the variety of educations opportunities of interest to 

athletes 

F-P/T Policy Initiatives 


• An additional federal investment of $35 million in high performance sport 

programming, matched by another Provincial/Territorial investment of $35 million, will 

be required to meet the Canadian Targets 

• Innovative measures to mobilize resources from the private sector such as lotteries and 

tax credits should be implemented 

• Targeted investments looking to have an impact in 2010 must be made immediately 


• All provinces and territories should undertake direct investment in high performance 

athletes, similar to the approach used in Quebec, which has set an investment and 

programming standard that should be emulated by others 

• Funding for coaching support should be allocated on a more long term basis so that 

more professional coaching opportunities, defined as full time, multi-year contracts that 

include professional development opportunities and benefits, can be created for national 

team coaches 

• Athletes should be able to receive coaching and other services in their official language 

of choice. An additional investment is required to ensure that national team coaching 

staff can meet the needs of each athlete. 


• An integrated and coordinated investment by Federal-provincial /territorial governments 

is required to develop long term athlete development systems 

• Priority sports should be identified based on an ongoing evaluation of podium potential, 

both short and long term, and Excellence Level resources (funding, facilities, high 

performance support service infrastructure) be focused on these priorities to support 

LTAD systems that will yield results in 2010 and 2012 and beyond 

• The list of priority sports and athletes with medal potential should be evaluated and 

reviewed on a regular basis by a collaborative sport review process 

• Base level resources should continue to be allocated to all sports, based on participation 

levels, cultural significance and interest in the sport in Canada 

• A national and coordinated team sport strategy to address the critical path and model of 

athlete and team development is required 

• Identify strategic advantages, for example in women’s sport and emerging sports, and 

invest in them accordingly 

• The Athlete Assistance Program (AAP) requires a quota revision so that more cards are 

made available in priority sports and the stipends be increased and coordinated with 

other assistance programs to provide a minimum after tax level of support of $24,000 to 

athletes with medal potential. Needs based assessment should also be introduced. 

• The practice of charging athletes National team fees used by some NSOs should be 

eliminated for priority sports 


• In order to reach the Canadian Targets, it is recommended that a High Performance 

Sport Commission (HPSC) be created to coordinate the planning, investment, 

evaluation and appropriate intervention in high performance sport at the national level 

and provide an example for Provincial / Territorial investors to consider, with the result 

being a pooling of resources, harmonized funding programs and coordinated investment 

in athletes, coaches, programs, facilities across the Canadian Sport System 


• The HPSC should include 7-10 high performance sport experts appointed by the 

national funding partners and would serve as a leadership body where National funding 

partners collaborate to review a single application by NSOs. It would undertake a 

process modelled on the Sport Review Process to assess high performance plans, 

progress and potential and would have the authority to allocate funding, evaluate and 

intervene in high performance programming. 

• The HPSC should be accountable to the funding partners and the sport system for the 

achievement of the Canadian Targets for Athlete Performance and the Targets for the 

Sport System. It is proposed that the governance structure for the HPSC include 

representation from national, Provincial/Territorial and other funding partners and 

stakeholders. 

• Provincial/Territorial funding agencies also need to be accountable for their 

complimentary high performance targets 

• The PSO plans should be integrated and dovetail with NSO plans and based on mutually 

agreeable objectives and priorities. Accordingly, NSO and PSO scorecard tools should 

be developed to guide investment and ensure accountability. 

• The HPSC could also act as a F-P/T coordination mechanism to facilitate bilateral or 

multilateral agreements for high performance sport initiatives 

Canadian Sport Centres 

• Canada needs to create a culture of excellence by developing an internationally competitive 

network of facility based national and regional Sport Institutes that are fully subsidized for 

priority sports and athletes including; 






• Domestic and international competition 


• A similar menu of services for Development and Age Group High Performance level 

athletes might be provided at the Canadian Sport Institutes, depending on the level of 

provincial investment 

• The specific provincial/territorial development activities undertaken by the CSCs might be 

different in each jurisdiction, depending on the other resources and services available in 

each centre 

Official Languages 

• Work Group # 4 fully supports the new national standards proposed by Sport Canada in the 

new SFAF 


• In the fall of 2002, the Commissioner of Official Languages conducted a follow-up to the 

study published in June 2000, titled Official Languages in the Canadian Sports System. 

Work Group #4 supports the ongoing work in this area and suggests that the current 

approach to establishing standards and monitoring performance is appropriate. 

• In particular, ensuring that national team coaches can meet the needs of each athlete in his 

or her official language is viewed as being a priority 


References 

Chalip, L. Johnson, A., & Stachura, L. (1996). National sports policies: An international 

handbook. Greenwood: Westport, CN 

De Bosscher, V. & De Knop, P. (2002). Factors determining success in tennis: an 

international comparative study of top-level sports and tennis policies. Research proposal for 

doctoral study. Free University Brussels. 

De Boscher, V. (2002). Policy factors determining international success in tennis. Working 

paper. Free University Brussels. 

Digel, H. (2002a). A comparison of competitive sport systems. New Studies in Athletics, 

IAAF Quarterly, 17 (1), 37-50. 

Digel, H. (2002b). The context of talent identification and promotion: A comparison of 

nations. New Studies in Athletics, IAAF Quarterly, 17 (3), 13-26. 

Green, M., & Oakley, B. (2001). Elite sport development systems and playing to win: 

Uniformity and diversity in international approaches. Leisure Studies, 20(4), 247-267. 

Hogan, K., & Norton, K. (2000). The price of Olympic gold. Journal of Science and 

Medicine in Sport, 3(2), 203-218. 

Johnson, D.K.N., & Ali, A. (2000). Coming to play or coming to win: Participation and 

success at the Olympic Games. Wellesley College Working Paper 2000-10, September, 2000. 

Johnson, D.K.N., & Ali, A. (2002). A Tale of Two Seasons: Participation and medal 

counts at the Summer and Winter Olympic Games. Wellesley College Working Paper 2002-02 

January, 2002 

Mills, D. (1998). Sport in Canada: Everybody's business: Leadership, partnership and 

accountability. Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Sub-Committee on the 

Study of Sport in Canada. 

Minister of Public Works and Government Services (2000). Regional conferences on sport: 

A discussion paper for the development of a Canadian policy on sport. 

Minister of Public Works and Government Services (2001a). Towards a Canadian sport 

Policy: Building Canada through sport. 

Minister of Public Works and Government Services (2001b). Towards a Canadian sport 

Policy. A report on the National Summit on Sport. 


National Coaching and Training Centre (2002). Building pathways in Irish sport. 

Consultation Paper. 

Oakley, B., & Green, M. (2001). Still playing the game at arm's length The selective reinvestment 

in British sport, 1995-2000. Managing Leisure, 6(2), 74-94. 

Oakley, B., & Green, M. (2001). The production of Olympic champions: International 

perspectives on elite sport development system. European Journal for Sport Management, 8, 83- 

105. 

Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (June, 2003). Follow up: Official 

languages in the Canadian sport system. Available at http://www.ocolclo.gc.ca/archives/sst_es/2003/sport/sport_2003_e.htm#Anchor_IV 

on December 1, 2003. 

Pyke, F., & Norris, K. (2001). Australia from Montreal to Sydney: A history of change in 

model. National Elite Sports Council of Australia. Presentation at II Forum Internacional de 

l’Esport d’Elit, September, 2001. 

Starkes, J. L., & Ericsson, A. (2003). Expert performance in sports. Human Kinetics: 

Champaign, IL. 

The Canadian Sport Policy, May 24, 2002. 

The Canadian Sport Policy: Federal-Provincial/Territorial Priorities for Collaborative 

Action 2002-2005. 

UK Sport (2002). Road to Athens: Annual Review 2001/2002. Available at www. 

uksport.gov.uk 

United States Olympic Committee (2002). The path to excellence: A comprehensive view 

of development of U. S. Olympians who competed from 1984 - 1998. 

Van Bottenburg, M. (2000). Het topsportklimaat in Nederland [The Elite Sports Climate in 

the Netherlands] Research commissioned by NOC*NSF and the Department of Welfare, Health 

and Sport. ‘s Hertogenbosch, Diopter - Janssens & Van Bottenburg bv. 

Ziemainz, H., & Gulbin, J. (2002). Talent selection, identification and development 

exemplified in the Australian Talent Search Programme. New Studies in Athletics, IAAF 

Quarterly, 17 (3), 27-42. 


Appendix A: Analytical Framework for Policy Intervention in Sport 

Legend 

foundation 

participation 

Elite performance 

country X in sport Y 

in event Z 

More 

susceptible to 

change by 

sports policy 

performance 

excellence 

Participation in international 

competition 

Organisation of international 

events 

Lifestyle support of elite athletes 

in general and of sport y in 

particular 

Accessibility, availability and 

quality of training and 

competition facilities for elite 

athletes in sport Y 

Quantity and quality of 

training/coaching and 

(para)medical support for elite 

athletes in sport Y 

(elite) sports culture: 

• public interest in 

(elite) sport Y 

• social recognition 

of elite athletes in 

sport Y 

• tradition of sport 

Y in country X 

• tradition of 

success in sport 

Y 

• favourable 

attitude towards 

elite sport Y () 

• popularity of 

sport y in country 

x 

Government support 

of elite sport Y 

Government support 

of sport in general and 

for sport Y in 

particular 

School sports and 

physical education in 

general and position 

of sport Y in 

particular 

Involvement of 

sponsors and 

media in sport Y 

Informal sports 

participation in 

general and in sport Y 

in particular 

Simplicity of administration 

and effectiveness of 

communication and 

management of elite sports 

organisations in sport Y 

Sports structure (number of 

clubs and facilities) for all 

participation levels in sport Y 

Club or school based competitive 

sports participation in general and 

in sport y in particular 

Talent development 

in sport Y 

Talent 

identification and 

monitoring system 

in sport Y 

Scientific 

support 

in sport 

y 

Preconditions for elite sport 

success in country X and 

sport Y 

Cultural aspects and 

religion 

Political system 

Degree of urbanization 

Wealth (GDP & 

GDP/CAP) 

Geographic and 

climatic variation 

Physiological 

Population size 

Surface area 

Less or not 

Country X 

susceptible to 

change by sports 

Athlete Performance and Sport System Targets, Evaluation, and Investment policy Page 57

Appendix B: Detailed Description of the Sport Review Process 

The role of the Sport Review Committee (SRC), a panel of sport experts (coach, athlete) 

and representatives of the national funding partners (COC, Sport Canada, CODA), was to ensure 

that funding and services were allocated strategically where they will have the greatest impact; to 

share information and knowledge amongst the partners; and to streamline the various application 

processes for funding in the future. The SRC conducted comprehensive reviews with each of the 

NSFs responsible for Olympic/ Paralympic / Pan Am Games only sports. The information 

collected below was used to evaluate the NSO’s ability to plan for repeated or new international 

competitive success by its athletes/teams: 

• Current status and short-term projections for the 2004/ 2006 Olympic Games (2003 

Pan American Games for Pan Am only Sports) 

• Planning and performance projections for 2005-2008 (Summer sports) and 2007- 

2010 (Winter sports) 

• The overall sport plan, including strengths and weaknesses in programming 

The SRC discovered considerable optimism within the leadership structure of the various 

NSOs regarding the future growth and strengthening of their particular sport and the future 

performance potential. This was evident from the ambitious targets identified by the NSOs, which 

were identified as being achievable with increased levels of funding. This was a very positive 

indication of the effort directed toward future high performance programming. However, this had 

to be tempered with the reality behind this optimism, and the limited resources available. 

The SRC used an analytical approach to make recommendations for strategic and targeted 

investments in support of athletes, coaches, NSF technical programs and special projects. The 

objective was to invest resources where they would have the highest probability of producing 

medal performances at Olympic and Pan American Games. To this end, the SRC assessed the 

short term potential of the athletes and teams, critically appraised the proposed program, and was 

responsive to the individual athlete’s/team’s needs. Based on this assessment, individual athletes, 

crews and teams were assessed and categorized using the criteria below: 

Level 1 

Level 2 

Level 3 

Level 4 

Level 5 

Level 6 

Medal probability at 2004 (06) Olympic Games or previous Top 3 result or ranking 

Medal possibility at 2004 (06) Olympic Games or previous Top 6 result or ranking 

Medal long shot 2004 (06) Olympic Games or previous Top 8 result or ranking 

Possible Top 8 result at 2004 (06) Olympic Games 

Low probability of Top 8 performance for 2004 Olympic Games 

Medal probability at 2003 Pan American Games only sports 

Each sport was reviewed on an individual basis in terms of the priorities of the COC and the 

criteria presented above. The uniqueness of each sport was examined, rather than using a “cookie 

cutter” approach and providing equitable support to many sports. For individual sports and events, 

athletes were categorized separately. Pairs, crews and teams were also categorized separately. 

Therefore, a given NSF could have athletes, crews or teams categorized at different levels. 

Consideration was given to historical track record, proposed plans, progress, and potential in the 

categorization process. In other words both a ‘look back’ and a ‘look forward’ was considered. 


The SRC proceeded through the list of applicants following the assessment with a view of 

trying to meet the needs of the athletes/teams in Level 1 as fully as possible before proceeding to 

Level 2, and so on. In the end, the funds were exhausted before support could be provided to Level 

5 and 6, consistent with the priorities outlined by the COC and the objective of strategic and 

targeted investing. The key principle followed was to focus on the athletes/teams who had the 

greatest potential for podium results in 2004/2006 and support them according to the sport’s 

prioritization of needs and programs. As such, sports with multiple medal opportunities and 

performance potential were provided greater assistance than those with less medal opportunities 

and performance potential. 

The objective of the long-term SRP assessment was to identify whether the sport had a 

high, medium, low or no possibility of producing podium results at future Olympic Games. This 

assessment was based an analysis of the information collected in the sport reviews on previous 

planning and performance, coach and athlete development, the pool of athletes identified with 

potential, talent identification system, as well as the quality of the proposed high performance plan. 


Appendix C: Key Performance Indicators for the Canadian Sport System 

AGE GROUP HIGH PERFORMANCE 

110,000 athletes 

Club teams 

APPLIED SPORT RESEARCH (ASR) 

• Collect and coordinate data collection for ASR 

• Contribute to data base for athlete performance 

forecasts, actual performance and evaluation 

INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVE INTELLIGENCE 

• International best practices are monitored and 

modeled where appropriate 

DEVELOPMENT 

11,000 athletes 

Provincial Teams 

Junior/Development National Teams 

1. MANAGING KNOWLEDGE, LEARNING, AND INNOVATION 

• Research professionals work directly with athletes 

to plan training, conduct research, as well as carry 

out evaluations and interventions 

• Collect and coordinate data collection for sport 

policy and ASR initiatives 

• Contribute to data base for athlete performance 

forecasts, actual performance and evaluation 

• International best practices are monitored and 

modeled where appropriate 

Athlete Performance and Sport System Targets, Evaluation, and Investment Page 60 

SENIOR NATINOAL TEAM / EXCELLENCE 

1,100 athletes 110 athletes 

National Teams Olympic/Paralympic 

potential medallists 

• Lead and participate in domestic and international 

initiatives in sport policy research 

• Identify, prioritize and invest in ASR themes including 

sport specific research projects and equipment research 

for sports with technology component 

• Partner with universities and major Canadian research 

funding agencies to create capacity for sport research 

• Establish links to pure research groups 

• Create multi-disciplinary / multi-sport research 

committee on equipment 

• ASR coordinated through CSCs 

• Create research institutes for resistance/friction 

(blades/runners); endurance; speed/ power 

• Innovation (eg, training methods, recovery, equipment 

technology etc) based on research 

• Share research and information across Canadian Sport 

System using accessible, searchable data base for 

athlete performance forecasts, actual performance and 

evaluation 

• Leadership in anti doping initiatives (WADA) 

• Conduct competitive intelligence (policy, 

administration, athlete and coach training and 

performance, sport science) and share information 

through accessible, searchable data base for priority 

areas and sports 

• International best practices are monitored and modelled 

where appropriate

AGE GROUP HIGH PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT SENIOR NATINOAL TEAM / EXCELLENCE 

PLANNING, INVESTMENT, AND EVALUATION 

2. CORE SPORT SYSTEM ACTIVITIES 

• Formal and coordinated planning, investment, and 

evaluation mechanism with appropriate 

interventions 

• Quality of training and competition plans are 

comparable to international best practices 

• PSO plans to be integrated with NSO plans and 

based on objectives and priorities – NSO priorities 

are a factor to guide PSO investment decisions 

• P/T performance and system targets to be 

developed to clarify the P/T role in HP 

Development 

• P/T assessment tool (scorecard) to be 

developed and used as accountability tool 


evaluation mechanism with appropriate interventions 

• NSO Plans include 

• Short and long term HP objectives 

• Identify athletes or pools of athletes 

• HP system model including an outline of required 

contributions from PSOs 

• Clearly articulate sport needs from various 

component areas - coaching, centres, research, etc. 

• Include cost forecast 

• Quality of training and competitions plans 

comparable to international best practices 

• National funding partners collaborate on review of a 

single application by NSOs; negotiate to harmonize 

funding programs and coordinate investment in 

athletes, coaches, programs, facilities 

• F-P/T agree to system integration / harmonization 

wherever possible 

• Coordination of all athletes granting agencies - 

governments, COC, Foundations, other… 

• AAP harmonized F/P/T Carding for ‘la Relève’ 

athletes 

• HP funds targeted on sports with highest probability 

of podium success 

• Leadership for system development centralized 

nationally 

• Federal assessment to (scorecard) to be developed 

and used as accountability tool 


evaluation mechanism with appropriate 

interventions 

• Athlete Performance and Sport System targets 

established for entire system, endorsed by sport 

community and F/P/T and validated by review of 

individual sport plans 

• Priority sports and programs are identified based on 

probability of podium success and cultural 

significance 

• Governance model for multi-level partnership is 

developed (High Performance Sport Council / Sport 

Commission or other) 

• F/P/T and other funding partners pursue program 

harmonization, particularly in AAP 

• AAP 

• Quotas revised 

• Invest more cards in priority sports 

• Link to Sport Review Process 

• Coordination of all athlete granting agencies - 

governments, COC, Foundations and other 

• F-P/T bilateral agreements are established for 

special projects 



TALENT IDENTIFICATION AND MONITORING 

• Talent ID - inter sports collaboration to create 

nationwide generic talent identification system (e.g. 

Sport Fit) that includes voluntary general athletic 

ability testing conducted in school system – partner 

with other agencies and departments (e/g. Health 

Canada) 

• National data base of general athletic ability testing 

data is developed and used to identify athletes with 

potential 

• Athlete Monitoring – Identified athletes monitored 

by coach for training and development - facilitated 

by PSO/ coordination with NSO 

• Redirection of athletes to other sports based on skill 

sets identified 

• PSOs coordinate sport specific testing and talent 

identification 

• Cross sport talent identification 

• PSOs and NSOs for facility based sports conduct 

(bobsleigh, luge, etc) “intro to” programs, or 

modified sport programs to identify potential athletes 

• Canada Games programming and competition is used 

as the key initiative for identifying sport specific 

athlete and coach potential 

• Coordination with NSO/PSO/CIS and NCAA to 

track and monitor athlete progress 

• Athlete monitoring and intervention – Identified 

athletes monitored by national coaches / NSO for 

training and development 

• Sport specific talent identification plans, processes and 

evaluation mechanisms are developed and 

implemented 

• Athlete monitoring and intervention – Identified 

athletes monitored by national coaches / NSO for 

training and development 

COACH DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT 

• Targeted coaches in priority sports receive 

professional development, exchanges, mentoring 

• CBET implementation focused on priority 

sports 

• Targeted coaches in priority sports provided with 

services, competitive remuneration, and world class 

work environment in CSCs – remove caps on funding 

coaching salaries 

• Coach expenses covered by PSO / NSO in priority 

sports 

• Targeted coaches in priority sports receive 

professional development, exchanges, mentoring 

• Recruitment and integration of foreign trained coaches 

in priority sports 

• Certification equivalency for foreign trained coaches 

• Talent ID -recruitment of coaches from retiring 

athletes - succession planning 

• Coaching education is integrated with relevant 

programs of university study 

• Targeted coaches in priority sports provided with 

services, competitive remuneration, and world class 

work environment in CSCs – remove caps on 

funding coaching salaries 

• Multi year coaching contracts, with benefits 

• Optimal coach-athlete ratio - Canadian system 

meets or exceeds best practice of top nations 



ATHLETE TRAINING, COMPETITION, AND SUPPORT (CSCs) 

• Ensure seamless competitive progression in priority 

sports 

• Sport Map / Canada Games Pathways are developed 

• Systematized sport schools in every city over 50,000 

- leagues for team sports 

• Simplified Sport Science Field program delivered 

under direction of PSO / local club 

• Outcomes of Applied Sport Research (ASR) address 

youth and gender specific programs 

• Development groups training along side senior 

groups 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

• Programming and facility access for priority sports 

is fully subsidized and coordinated by PSO / 

Community Sport Councils 

• Quality equipment provided to priority sports by 

PSOs / Community Sport Councils 

• New facilities constructed in locations that serve 

large population base 

Note: Refer to F-P/T WG on “Improved Sport and 

Recreation facilities” (WG # 7) 

• Centralized CSC Training Groups for priority sports 

–training and competition opportunities are 

increased- competitive with that of top nations – 

fully subsidized 

• Satellite / Regional Centres filling P/T mandate 

• Complete spectrum of needs based programming 

from CSCs / RSCs available to priority training 

groups and training camps 

• Sport specific sport science delivery suitable to level 

of athlete in priority sports 

• Athlete access to fully subsidized national training or 

development camps for priority sports -funding for 

National Junior team programs 

• Systematized sport schools in every city over 50,000 

– HP leagues for team sports at developmental level 

• Ensure seamless competitive progression in priority 

sports - Integrate role of CIS/NCAA 

• More frequent National championships for Canada 

Games age group (junior) focused on competition 

and integrated with HP system 

• Fully equipped multi-sport training facilities (CSCs) 

and sport specific facilities for priority sports 

• World class equipment provided to priority sports 

and available in training facilities by PSO, NSO, 

CSC, RSC 

• Centralized world class CSC Training Groups for 

priority sports– OG / PG medal prospects - cultures 

of excellence for training groups – competitive with 

that of top nations – fully subsidized including 


• Subsidized living expenses 



• Opportunity for quality domestic and 

international competition 

• Sport science, nutrition, sport psychology and 

para-medical (sport medicine, physio, 

massage, chiro), alternative health care 

(osteopath, acupuncture) support services as 

required 

• Complete spectrum of needs based 

programming from CSCs / RSCs available to 

priority training groups and training camps 

• CSCs capable to offer level of services required by 

training groups in priority sports 

• Capacity for priority sports to participate in World 

Leagues/Circuits 

• Games final preparation (sparring partners, living 

arrangements, special needs) 

• Fully equipped world class multi-sport training 

facilities (CSCs) and sport specific facilities for 

priority sports 

• Additional national or international training bases - 

e.g. Altitude, Warm Weather, Europe/Asia based 

• World class equipment available in training facilities 

provided by NSO, CSC, RSC 

• Adequate funding for priority sports to purchase 

innovative and world class equipment 



OFFICIATING 

• Developmental opportunities in high quality 

competitions for officials in priority sports 

• Talent ID -recruitment of officials from retiring 

athletes 

• Opportunities to develop Canadian officials 

internationally offered to priority sports 

• Invest in priority sports most influenced by officiating 

HOSTING EVENTS AND COMPETITIONS 

• Priority Sports are included in Provincial Games 

• Barriers to coaching (gender, cost for training, 

development, lost work time) are reduced and/or 

eliminated 

• Reduced turnover of coaches at introductory levels 

• World class coaches serve as master coaches and 

mentor less experienced coaches 

• Canada Games - Regional Games for most sports 

• Priority sports in National Games 

• Canada Paralympic Games (open age group) 

• Hosting Facility Legacies 

• Especially for Canada Games 

• Ensure optimal facility access by HP athletes 

Note: Refer to F-P/T WG on “Event Hosting 

Strategy” (WG # 6) 

3. ATHLETE AND COACH SATISFACTION 

• Athletes continue to contribute to sport after 

retirement 

• Holistic athlete development (academic, career, 

social and family etc.) 

• Reduce coach turnover at development level 

• Hosting Facility Legacies 

• For major events / major games 

• Ensure optimal facility access by HP athlete 

• Athletes remain in sport long enough to reach 

international competitive potential 

• Reduce coach turnover at National team level 

• Athlete and coach involvement in decision-making in 

the sport system 

• Athlete and coach support of sport system initiatives 

• Reduce time required to settle team selection disputes 

through ADR Sport RED 


Appendix D: Implementation Status of Official Language Recommendations 

In the fall of 2002, the Commissioner of Official Languages conducted a follow-up on to a 

study published in June 2000, titled Official Languages in the Canadian Sports System, in which it 

examined allegations that French-speaking athletes could not develop to their full potential within 

existing sports programs. The purpose of the follow-up was to determine the extent to which Sport 

Canada had implemented the recommendations advanced in the first study. The follow-up showed 

that Sport Canada has implemented three out of the fifteen recommendations and has partially 

implemented nine others. Three recommendations were not acted on. Furthermore, one 

recommendation directed to Treasury Board Secretariat was partially implemented. 

Recommendation 1: Status - Partially implemented 

By April 1, 2001, Sport Canada review the official languages goals and minimum expectations of 

the Sport Funding and Accountability Framework, to require sport organizations to identify and 

correct barriers to Francophone participation. 

Recommendation 2: Status - Implemented 

By April 1, 2001, Sport Canada systematically monitor implementation of the official languages 

goals and minimum expectations in the Sport Funding and Accountability Framework. 

Recommendation 3 (TREASURY BOARD SECRETARIAT) – Status: Partially implemented 

By April 1, 2001, the Treasury Board review its official languages audit methodology in order to 

ensure that the programs audited not only comply with established administrative controls, but also 

are effective in achieving program objectives. 

Recommendation 4: Status - Partially implemented 

By April 1, 2001, Sport Canada review the language requirements of positions in the Athlete 

Assistance Program, with a view to improving the program’s French-language capability, and take 

the necessary measures to ensure that incumbents meet the revised requirements.à 


By April 1, 2001, Sport Canada ensures that its financial contribution to major games includes 

adequate funds to ensure that the official languages requirements can be met. 

Recommendation 6: Status – Not implemented 

By April 1, 2001, Sport Canada review the language requirements of management positions, with a 

view to improving the French-language capability among managers, and take the necessary 

measures to ensure that incumbents meet the requirements of their positions. 


By April 1, 2001, Sport Canada review the assignment of responsibilities among program officers, 

to ensure that client organizations can communicate with the branch in their preferred official 

language. 


Recommendation 8: Status – Partially implemented 

Sport Canada work with the national sport organizations to ensure that they adopt appropriate 

policy statements on official languages by December 31, 2001. 


Sport Canada require national sport organizations to review the linguistic capability of their staff, 

with a view to ensuring that athletes and coaches can receive appropriate services in their preferred 

official language at all times by April 1, 2002. 

Recommendation 10: Status – not implemented 

By April 1, 2002, Sport Canada and national sport organizations jointly review organizations’ 

expenditures related to official languages and establish realistic budgets for this activity. 


By April 1, 2002, Sport Canada study the feasibility of providing centralized linguistic services 

such as translation to sport organizations, either through government programs or through a 

nongovernmental organization which could assume this mandate. 


Sport Canada work with national sport organizations to identify the first official language of 

national team coaches by April 1, 2001, and if necessary, take steps to ensure that coaches from 

both official language groups have access to positions at this level. 


Sport Canada work with the Coaching Association of Canada and national sport organizations to 

ensure that technical manuals for coach education are made available in both official languages 

within the year following publication of this report. 


Beginning immediately, Sport Canada work with national sport organizations to ensure that some 

members of the coaching group responsible for any national team have a knowledge of both 

official languages. 

Recommendation 15: Status – Not implemented 

Beginning immediately, Sport Canada work with national sport organizations and the Coaching 

Association of Canada to develop pedagogical material and coaching aids to assist coaches 

working with linguistically mixed teams. 


Sport Canada ensure that all national sport centres provide essential medical services in both 

official languages, by April 1, 2001 and organize appropriate orientation services for Frenchspeaking 

athletes who are moving to a predominately English-speaking environment for the first 

time. 


New recommendation for Sport Canada: 

a) by October 31, 2003, in co-operation with the Office of the Commissioner of Official 

Languages, undertake an independent study on Francophone participation in sports 

overall and determine what conditions are conducive for ensuring equal access by both 

official languages groups to high performance sports. 

b) conduct the study and produce a report by June 30, 2004. 


Appendix E: Investment Required to Reach Canadian Targets 

OBJECTIVE: 

To identify the costs associated with reaching the proposed Canadian Targets 

METHODS: 

The technical leadership of a sample of NSOs was surveyed. Each NSO was asked to 

identify the additional costs associated with developing a sport specific long term athlete 

development system that would not only maintain the current levels of international performance, 

but would have the capacity to improve and future performance at the 2010 and 2012 Olympic and 

Paralympic Games. Data was received from 10 organizations and from 4 Paralympic Sport 

Disciplines. The raw data provided by the NSOs is presented at the end of the appendix. 

OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS: 

Able Bodied National Level 

• Most NSOs do not seem to have an understanding of the needs of their P/T counterparts and 

some continue to think of the development of the HP system as solely a national 

responsibility 

• There are some sports which are very club based (Canoeing) and in which there is a very 

minimal role for P / T organizations other than participation in the Canada Games 

• Requests for additional funding from the 10 respondents totalled $15.8 million (not 

including AAP) which would translate into approximately $75 million across the board for 

all sports 

• Generally, the split among the various categories requested was as follows: 

• Coaching 15-20% 

• Senior Team 20-25% 

• Development Team 20-25% 

• Sport Centres 10% 

• Other 15% 

• AAP needs were multiple – virtually all NSOs requested additional cards and commented 

on the need for increased stipends – discussions with some led to the conclusion that 

additional support was not needed across the board but could be targeted or needs based 

• AAP needs calculated on an across the board basis totalled … 

• Additional Cards $6.5 million (Sr. & D – Cards – 50 sports) 

• Increased Stipends $7.0 million (1000 Sr. cards to $20K annually) 

• Total needs to support our entire cadre of sport organizations would be approximately $90 

million per year of additional support or a 150% increase 


Able Bodied Provincial Level 

• Much of the support sought here appeared to be the national contribution to support 

provincial activities 

• Knowledge of provincial needs was not common 

• Additional requests for the 10 sports only totalled $5.6 million (not including AAP), 

however, Work Group #4 was not convinced that this accurately reflects the actual need 

• Costs were split evenly between coaching salaries and competition opportunities for teams 

with some modest support (10%) for Sport Centres and Other categories 

• AAP needs from those sports which requested it was expressed as about 15-20 cards per 

larger province per sport 

• Assuming 50 sports, 5 larger provinces and $4,000 (the Quebec Tax Credit amount), the 

need would total $20 million across the country 

Athletes with a Disability National Level 

• The Paralympic Sport Review revealed that ‘la relève’ for athletes with a disability is 

almost non-existent – further in most sports, the numbers of athletes at this or lower levels 

does not necessarily warrant a huge provincial level investment as the inclusion is taking 

place at the club level 

• NSO based Paralympic sports have not made any consistent attempts to expand their 

programming beyond the Sr. national team – essentially, they spend the funds they receive 

on elite senior programming 

• Not surprisingly, the focus of the funding needs input was on National level activity – the 

proposed activity at the provincial level was more oriented to ‘la relève’ and part of the 

NSO plan to try to expand programming 

• The total expressed needs were $1.8 million for 4 sports which, given the level of 

development and numbers of athletes in Paralympic sport, could probably translate into 

approximately $5-6 million for then entire system 

• Based on the received requests, the distribution would be as follows: 

• Coaching 15-20% 

• Sr. Team 25-30% 

• Development Team 15-20% 

• Sport Centres 15-20% 

• AAP 15% 

• Other 5% 

• Total needs for Athletes with a Disability are approximately $6 million 

• There is virtually no role foreseen for Provincial / Territorial governments at the present 

time other than via the participation of disability groups in the Canada Games 

• The larger Team sports may have some call at this level but it was not clear from the initial 

data collected 


CONCLUSIONS: 

National Able Bodied 

• It is extremely unlikely that the Federal government will agree to support the costs to 

upgrade the entire system – approximately $90 million per year plus any additional support 

of hosting, etc. 

• However, it is assumed that the Federal government will increase its contribution to support 

a Best Ever finish at the 2010 Winter Olympic Games 

• It is also assumed that the funding partners will continue to collaborate to pool or at least 

consult on investments 

• Therefore, an infusion of an additional $35 million coupled with the increased COC 

allocation of $3 million on top of their $4 million allocation for the SRP would provide 

a total of $38 million 

• This suggests that somewhat more than 1/3 of the needs of all sports could be met and 

that the priority sports would number approximately 15-25 (winter and summer 

combined) 

Provincial Able Bodied 

• Data collected from NSOs revealed a need for a much closer relationship and the need for a 

better understanding of provincial / territorial needs 

• The Coaching Implementation Group has recommended an increased investment of $6 

million the national level– these are recommendations for an across the board investment in 

coaching for all 50 sports 

National and Provincial Athletes with a Disability 

• Although total estimated costs to advance the Paralympic sports is approximately $6 

million, it is recommended that Sport Canada and other funding partners stay the course in 

terms of targeting resources in the same fashion as will be done for Able Bodied sport 

• Based on this philosophy, it is estimated that an additional $3-4 million would be 

required to upgrade Paralympic sport – essentially a doubling of current investment 

SUMMARY: 

• A new investment by the Federal government of approximately $35 million coupled 

with a similar matching investment by Provinces / Territories and ongoing 

investments by other funding partners would be required to achieve the Performance 

Goals and necessary system development targets outlined in this report 

• The creation of an independent High Performance Sport Council would be a central 

requirement to being able to manage the new investment and conduct the necessary 

assessments and monitoring of priority sports 


• The proposed $35 million from federal, plus $35 million from provincial sources, for 

programming and policy initiatives do not include the costs of facility development or 

ongoing facility operation costs associated with developing a network of Canadian 

Sport Institutes 


Raw Data for Able Bodied Sport 

Sport National Level Provincial/Territorial Level 

Basketball 

Coach 

Salary 

Sr. Nat'l 

Team 

Develop 

Nat'l Team 

Sport 

Centre 

Services 

AAP Other Coach 

Salary 

Sr. 

Nat'l 

Team 

Develop 

Nat'l 

Team 


Centre 

Servic 

es 

AAP 

Other 

Sub-Total 

Fed 

Sub- 

Total P/T 

Olympic - Nat'l 105,000 792,000 932,000 92,000 

27 D 

cards 310,000 570,000 

Olympic - Prov 0 

Athletics 

30 

athletes 

per 

region 

150 

Prov 

Cards 2,801,000 

Olympic - Nat'l 105,000 125,000 50,000 60,000 

10 Sr ; 

20 D 35,000 90,000 60,000 525,000 

160 

Prov 

Olympic - Prov 720,000 360,000 120,000 Cards 120,000 1,320,000 

Soccer 

Olympic - Nat'l 170,000 600,000 400,000 40 D 590,000 1,760,000 

Olympic - Prov 170,000 170,000 340,000 

Cross 

Country 

Olympic - Nat'l 240,000 125,000 860,000 275,000 

10 Sr ; 

20 D 350,000 1,850,000 

Olympic - Prov 200,000 920,000 1,120,000 

Alpine 

Skiing 

Olympic - Nat'l 400,000 100,000 250,000 500,000 17 - D 500,000 1,750,000 

Olympic - Prov 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000 

Speed 

skating 

Olympic - Nat'l 360,000 135,000 240,000 350,000 

2 - Sr ; 

2 - D 600,000 355,000 40,000 30,000 2,110,000 

Olympic - Prov 

Canoe 

Sprint - Og - 

Nat'l 475,000 640,000 230,000 100,000 45,000 1,490,000 

Sprint - Og - 

Prov 

Slalom - Og - 225,000 300,000 100,000 50,000 25,000 700,000 


Nat'l 

Slalom - Og - 

Prov 

Softball 

Olympic - Nat'l 155,000 250,000 200,000 50,000 180,000 835,000 


Freestyle 

Ski 

Olympic - Nat'l 50,000 425,000 175,000 55,000 50,000 45,000 80,000 30,000 40,000 950,000 

Olympic - Prov 200,000 160,000 360,000 

Swimming 

Olympic - Nat'l 200,000 250,000 100,000 80,000 15 - D 370,000 1,000,000 


Total 2,485,000 3,742,000 3,537,000 1,612,000 230,000 2,560,000 2,425,000 500,000 2,440,000 700,000 200,000 980,000 15,771,000 5,640,000 

LEGEND: 

1. Coaching Salaries - should include any incremental salary assistance at either of National or Provincial/Territorial 

levels - could include assistance for HP Club coaches if appropriate 

2. Sr. National team should include and supplementary training and competition opportunities required 

3. Development national team should include same as above plus the costs for any Talent Identification 

4. Sport Centre services should include sport science, sport medicine, research or other services which could be provided by CSCs 

Note: please indicate the number and level of training groups being proposed at both National and P/T levels - Senior athletes, 

National Development athletes, Provincial Development Athletes, etc. 

5. For AAP, simply indicate the number of additional cards required beyond the existing quota. 

6. Other can inlcude other necessary expenses not included in the foregoing - please specify. This could include additional staff 

such as HP Directors, Coordinators, Admin costs, etc. 


Raw Data for Athletes with a Disability 

SPORT National Level Provincial/Territorial Level 

Coach 

Salary 

Sr. Nat'l 

Team 

Develop 

Nat'l 

Team 


Centre 

Services 

AAP Other Coach 

Salary 

Sr. 

Nat'l 

Team 

Develop 

Nat'l 

Team 


Centre 

Services 

AAP 

Other 

Sub- 

Total - 

Fed 

Sub- 

Total - 

P/T 

BASKETBALL 

Paralympic - Nat'l 160,000 315,000 150,000 50,000 

Paralympic - Prov 

12 D 

cards 35,000 60,000 770,000 

ATHLETICS 

Paralympic - Nat'l 15,000 125,000 45,000 25,000 20 D 20,000 45,000 40,000 315,000 

Paralympic - Prov 90,000 60,000 30 30,000 180,030 

ALPINE SKI 

Paralympic - Nat'l 45,000 75,000 70,000 25,000 26,000 90,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 411,000 

WHEELCHAIR 

RUGBY 

Paralympic - Nat'l 45,000 140,000 80,000 10,000 8 D 20,000 20,000 315,000 

SWIMMING 

75,000 50,000 45,000 5 - D 60,000 

Total 340,000 655,000 395,000 155,000 26,000 205,000 245,000 20,000 120,000 30,000 30 30,000 1,811,000 180,030 


Appendix F: Perceptual Map of Sport Institute Networks from Selected Nations 

Institution 

Focused 

USA 

Private 

commercial 

funding 

Central 

government 

funding 

AUS 

FRA 

CAN 

SPA 

Partnership 

Focused 

UK 

Source: Adapted from Oakley & Green (2001) 


Appendix G: Comparison of Canadian Sport Institutes 

Summary of Sport Performance Services Questionnaire 

Centralized Training Environments 

USA 

(USOC) Australia Canada Finland 

New 

Zealand France Ireland Spain 

Questions UK 

How many training centers in 

#1 your country 

a) National 3 4 1 8 4 - 2 1 3 

b) Regional 4 - 7 - 21 3 11 0 32 

Gov/ 

Universities USOC Gov 

Gov/NOC/ 

Self Fund 

NOC/ 

Self Fund 

Gov/ 

Self Fund Gov Gov Gov 

#2 Who is responsible for funding 

#3 Who can use the centers 

a) Elite/Olympic caliber Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

b) National Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

c) Top Junior athletes Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

d) Development athletes Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

e) International Y Y Y Y Y Y Y/N Y Y 

f) Masters (older athletes) Y N Y N Y Y N N N 

g) General Public Y N N N Y Y N N N 

Is there a charge Amount (INSEP) 

#4 

a) Elite/Olympic caliber NC NC $64 Varies 40 - 60€ - 

469€ 

month NC 27,91 - 38,17€ 

b) National NC NC $64 Varies 41 - 60€ - 

515€ 

month NC 27,91 - 38,17€ 

c) Top Junior athletes NC NC $64 Varies 35 - 50€ - 

469€ 

month NC 27,91 - 38,17€ 

d) Development athletes NC $40 $64 Varies 35 - 50€ - NA NC 27,91 - 38,17€ 

e) International NC $60 $70 Varies 40 - 90€ - 

32,19€ 

daily NC 46,53€ 

f) Masters (older athletes) 

£20 - £50 

mo NA $64 NA 40 - 60€ - NA NA NA 

g) General public 

£20 - £50 

mo NA NA NA 60 - 120€ - NA NA NA 

Has the number of centers 

increased in the past 3 

quadrennials Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

#1990 6 3 6 0 0 - - 0 

#2003 30 4 8 8 - - - 1 

2 

3 


USA 

(USOC) Australia Canada Finland 

New 

Zealand France Ireland Spain 

UK 

#5 Do you offer 

Science/ Staff # Y/40 Y/25 Y/52 Y/11 Y/3-4 Y/contract Y/33 Y/6 

Medical/ Staff # Y/20 Y/21 Y/20 Y/1MD Y/2-3 Y/contract Y/60 Y/1 

#6 

Y/19 

Y/16 

Y/grad 

students Y/2-3 N Y/S&M Y/2 Y/S&M 

Sports resarch / Staff # N N Y/S&M 

Do you receive support from any 

Sport Science/Sports Medicine 

entity N VIK N N Y N Y N Y 

#7 

#8 

#9 

Do you offer full time staff to 

travel Selectively Selectively Selectively Selectively Selectively N Selectively Selectively N 

Approximately what percentage 

of ovrall funding goes to fund 

training centers - 17% - - 30% 20% 80% 3% - 

Approximately what percentage 

of overall funding goes to fund 

science, medicine and sport 

research 10-15% 4% 17% 65% 0 0 20% 3% - 

Questionnaire distributed in Spring 2003 by USOC staff. Summary compiled 8/03 by John 

Smyth 


Appendix H: Canadian Sport Centres Training Group Matrix

Targets for Athlete Performance and the Sport System

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?