Targets for Athlete Performance and the Sport System

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 Athlete Performance and Sport System Targets, Evaluation, and Investment Page 10
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. Athlete Performance and Sport System Targets, Evaluation, and Investment Page 11
Page 1 and 2: Targets for Athlete Performance and
Page 3 and 4: Action #2: Priority Areas for Actio
Page 5 and 6: Executive Summary The mandate of Fe
Page 7 and 8: F-T/P Initiatives Research on inter
Page 9 and 10: the hope of achieving results when
Page 11 and 12: 3. Establish a Canadian High Perfor
Page 13 and 14: Introduction and Mandate Canadian S
Page 15 and 16: • Face to face small group and on
Page 17 and 18: mask this impact somewhat. However,
Page 19 and 20: Figure 7 shows that the federal fun
Page 21: The key message here is that while
Page 25 and 26: Anti-doping controls Planned goals
Page 27 and 28: Based on international sport system
Page 29 and 30: • Provide recommendations for str
Page 31 and 32: The objective of developing ‘stre
Page 33 and 34: Analysis of Performance Required to
Page 35 and 36: Winter Paralympics: These were the
Page 37 and 38: The current Sport Review Process is
Page 39 and 40: The appendix presents characteristi
Page 41 and 42: In the fall of 2002, the Commission
Page 43 and 44: Group High Performance or Developme
Page 45 and 46: Recommendations: The desired action
Page 47 and 48: with medal potential, an amount tha
Page 49 and 50: Realistic targets for participation
Page 51 and 52: Recommendations: The desired action
Page 53 and 54: Table 3: Priority Actions and F-P/T
Page 55 and 56: Table 4: Priority Actions and F-P/T
Page 57 and 58: • Ability to provide direct or en
Page 59 and 60: Several sports indicate that they u
Page 61 and 62: Targets for Athlete Performance •
Page 63 and 64: 5. Competitive Programs with Intern
Page 65 and 66: • The HPSC should include 7-10 hi
Page 67 and 68: References Chalip, L. Johnson, A.,
Page 69 and 70: Appendix A: Analytical Framework fo
Page 71 and 72: The SRC proceeded through the list
Page 73 and 74:
AGE GROUP HIGH PERFORMANCE DEVELOPM
Page 75 and 76:
AGE GROUP HIGH PERFORMANCE DEVELOPM
Page 77 and 78:
Appendix D: Implementation Status o
Page 79 and 80:
New recommendation for Sport Canada
Page 81 and 82:
Able Bodied Provincial Level • Mu
Page 83 and 84:
• The proposed $35 million from f
Page 85 and 86:
Nat'l Slalom - Og - Prov Softball O
Page 87 and 88:
Appendix F: Perceptual Map of Sport
Page 89 and 90:
USA (USOC) Australia Canada Finland
show all

Targets for Athlete Performance and the Sport System

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?