Whether it be subsidising the Olympic team or grants to the NRL to refurbish a stadium, is it legitimate for taxpayer dollars to be spent on elite sport?
Australia spends $170 million a year on elite sport. The Government's Crawford Report recommends much of this be diverted to local community and youth sport programs. Is this a better focus for sports funding? Does government even have a role in funding sport?
With Australia's dismal return on investment at the olympics, the blame game has started with calls for increased funding.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...ief-kevan-gosper/story-e6frgdg6-1226443802086
"...subsidy is for art, for culture. It is not to be given to what the people want. It is for what the people don't want but ought to have..." (Humphrey Appleby)
A valid statement? Given elite sport is generally commercially viable shouldn't it make its own way?
Australia spends $170 million a year on elite sport. The Government's Crawford Report recommends much of this be diverted to local community and youth sport programs. Is this a better focus for sports funding? Does government even have a role in funding sport?
With Australia's dismal return on investment at the olympics, the blame game has started with calls for increased funding.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...ief-kevan-gosper/story-e6frgdg6-1226443802086
"...subsidy is for art, for culture. It is not to be given to what the people want. It is for what the people don't want but ought to have..." (Humphrey Appleby)
A valid statement? Given elite sport is generally commercially viable shouldn't it make its own way?