Davidson 1 Andrew Davidson Anthony Church Kinesiology 460F 24 July 2006 Canada vs.

Australia: The Different Paths of Amateur Sport In many respects, Canada and Australia share a long list of similarities between the two nations. Included on the list of similarities are that both nations follows a federal government system, relatively the same population size and sparsity of its respective population, and the relative youth as an independent nation, along with endless more. Regardless of the parallels between Australia and Canada, there is however a stark difference in the approaches taken towards amateur sport which has, on one hand, led Australia to excel in the realm of amateur sport while on the other, left Canada a nation wondering where it went wrong. At one point in time the two nations both displayed dismal athletic performances, as was evident in the 1976 Summer Olympics where neither nation won a gold medal and combined for a total of only 16 medals between the two. Since this rather depressing performance at the Olympics, Australia has implemented many programs and initiatives that have brought Australian athletics to the forefront and although Canada has implemented some policy changes, Canadian athletics still lag behind in comparison to Australian athletics. Through examination the past 30 some years it will apparent that Australia has taken an approach to amateur sport that has allowed it to excel while Canada has followed a path that has resulted little in the area of improvement.

Davidson 2 As one would expect, Australias sporting success was not an overnight phenomena but one that came about through a series of changes that overtime revolutionized their sporting system. Although funding is a key component of the changes brought about, it is not the only issue to be investigated when comparing Australia and Canada. Further investigation into the nations division and utilization of the funds will ultimately tell the full story as to where the differences lay between the two nations. Examining athlete assistance programs, elite sport development and talent identification, along with others will demonstrate just how different the sport policy of the two nations are. It is also crucial to examine the structure of the sporting systems and the way they came about as to get the whole appreciation for the approaches taken by the two nations. The Canadian sport system has undergone some major changes over the past thirty years. Prior to 1969 the government played a relatively passive role with regards to involvement in sport, but this soon changed. On January 18th, 1969, John Munro, then minister of Health and Welfare, delivered the future vision of the governments role in amateur sport; this speech is considered to be the beginning of the end of the autonomy of amateur sport in Canada (Crossman 181). Following the disclosure of the governments new policy towards sport, the government established the National Sports and Recreation Centre in Ottawa along with Sport Canada developed within the Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate to take responsibility of elite sport. Following these initiatives government spending on amateur sport increased dramatically throughout the 1970s and 1980s from only 8.2 million in 1971 to 86.0 million in 1987, which was the year prior to the 1988 Calgary Olympics (Houlihan 82). The dramatic increase in government funding

Davidson 3 had ultimately removed most of the autonomy that National Sport Organizations (NSO) had previous to becoming reliant on government funds. At the beginning of the early 1990s, some the NSOs were receiving as much as 90 percent of their funding from the government (Chalip 55). This high reliance on government funding in the end meant that most of the decisions for NSOs were to be made by Sport Canada. This method of funding was to undergo a dramatic change in 1994 under the newly elected liberal government of Jean Chrtien to bring about the system in place today. The present amateur sporting system is, for the most part, the result of the major changes that occurred in 1994. First of all, Sport Canada was downgraded into a branch of the new department of Canadian Heritage. Secondly, the government implemented a new funding scheme for NSOs through the development of the Sports Funding and Accountability Framework (SFAF). The SFAF resulted in funds being more concentrated and less responsibility given to the NSOs as to how the funds would be spent, which was heavily weighted toward elite sporting success (Houlihan 83). This new funding scheme for the NSOs, which had previously relied on as much as 90 percent of government funding, were now forced to raise funds through other means to fill the gap from the decreased government funding. This effect on NSOs was no more evident then in the two years following the funding changes when over twenty NSOs moved their operations out of the National Sport and Recreation Centre to help in reducing operation costs (Houlihan 85). The new funding scheme had left many NSOs forced to find ways to reduce the costs of operation which ultimately had come down to reduced funding for the athletes. Furthermore, other then the NSOs that had been

Davidson 4 decided by Sport Canada worthy enough for funding, the rest had been left to fend for themselves which in turn hurt the athletes in their respective sports. No different from Canada, Australia has also undergone many changes in the past thirty years concerning the development of the amateur sport system to become what it is today. Like Canada, Australias Commonwealth Government did not get involved in sport policy until the early 1970s with the election of the new Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. The Whitlam government developed the department of Tourism and Recreation that supported sport through two means. The first one involved an assistance program providing grants to local governments for the construction of sporting facilities and secondly, an assistance program for NSOs that provided grants to assist in operation costs. This apparent bright future for amateur sport in Australia was quickly reversed in 1975 when Whitlam lost the federal election to Malcolm Fraser. Upon becoming Prime Minister, Fraser disbanded the department of Tourism and Recreation and also downsized the two assistance program for handing out grants. Frasers early view of the governments role in sport is apparent is the funding in the late 1970s, as in 1976 it reached 12.1 million under the Whitlam funding scheme but drastically dropped to 3.3 million just two years later in 1978 due cuts by Fraser (Semotiuk 154). Understandably, the cuts in funding were met with much criticism from NSOs which resulted in 42 of them forming and becoming members of the Confederation of Sport (CSA). The CSA subsequently lobbied for a change in the new funding scheme and eventually won a change of opinion of the Frasers government approach to funding of sport. The governments eventual reversal of its sporting policy would bring about some of the biggest and most important changes to the amateur sporting scene in Australia.

Davidson 5 Following the dismal performance of the Australian athletes at the 1976 summer Olympics and continued pressure from NSOs along with lobbying groups such as the CSA, the Fraser government was forced to reconsider its stance on sport policy (Stewart 53). The new sporting policy of the Fraser government was realized through multiple initiatives. One of the greatest changes to the sporting policy was the development of the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS). The AIS would provide world-class coaching, sporting facilities, and sport science for the countries top athletes (Why Aussies are 14; Houlihan 70). Furthermore, the Fraser government also expanded the Australian scholarship program in 1982 which allowed promising athletes to live and study at the AIS. The Fraser government had subsequently resolved to re-establish Australias international sporting credentials (Stewart 53). Governments following after Fraser showed the same commitment to sport, as in 1985, the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) was developed to take some of the responsibility from the department of Tourism and Recreation with regards to elite sport. Following in 1989, after gaining some independence from the government, the ASC was merged with the AIS to become the coordinator of AIS operations as to involve a more systematic and strategic approach to sport development (Stewart 63). From the early 1980s to the present day, amateur sport has received continued funding and support regardless of the government in power. This is apparent in the funding devoted to sport with just 8.2 million in 1980 to a record high in 2003 with funding levels reaching 150.0 million (Semotiuk 154; Stewart 84). This high level of funding allows for amateur sport to flourish through the support of many programs and initiatives to assist the athletes.

Davidson 6 Just through a mere review of the structure and funding scheme differences between Australia and Canada reveal some strong contrasts. Examination of funding levels reveals the biggest difference between the two nations. Of the most recent figures, Australias sport budget for the 2004-05 year was 132 million while Canada paled in comparison with an operation budget for Sport Canada of only 70 million, a difference between the nations of 62 million dollars (Stewart 84; Indepth: Budget 2005). Furthermore, the Australians have integrated their sporting system to maximize efficiency through such moves as incorporating the operations of the AIS into the ASC. On the other hand, Canada has downgraded Sport Canada into a branch of Heritage Canada which meant that it lost much of its pervious autonomy and now has to conform to board departmental goals and also compete for the attention of the minister (Houlihan 83). It is no question that the structure of the sporting system and funding in place play a crucial role in the success of a countrys sporting system but no less important are the programs in place that allow for athletes to excel in their respective sport. For any country to be successful on the international stage, it is important of the government to provide some sort of financial support to the athletes. In Canada, partly because of the lack of funds and partly because of the structure of the athlete assistance program (AAP), many athletes have financially burdened with an alarming seventy percent living below the poverty line (Flavelle 6). The AAP program works on the system of carding where only the top athletes receive a card which in turn makes them eligible for funding. To be eligible for a card the athlete needs to be in the top sixteen in the world and even then the amount of funding available is only eighteen thousand dollars a year, which is less then one would make on minimum wage (Flavelle 6).

Davidson 7 Furthermore, while working a job and training may seem like an option, Jane Crossman describes this option in here article about Olympic athletes financial trouble, as almost impossible for any Canadian athlete to work outside the framework of the AAP, even if it was considered a feasible option (185). With the AAP set up the way it is, it would be hard for the most talented athlete to excel at their sport under the best of circumstances. While funding for the AAP has increased over the years from just 1.8 million in 1981 to 15.8 million in 2002 (Crossman 185) it is hardly adequate to provide sufficient funds for the athletes. While Australia also has an AAP, it is structurally different from that of its Canadian counterpart. Whereas Canada relies on a system of carding to determine which athletes are eligible for funding, Australia has a relatively simple system for its AAP. In Australia, NSOs are given money through ASC grants each year which then allows each NSO to decide what to do with the money and which athletes to support. This scheme allows each NSO to have their own distinctive approach to highperformance development (Stewart 102). Funding is also dramatically higher relative to Canada, as in 2002, 65 million dollars in grants were awarded to NSOs (Stewart 104). While not all of the 65 million is distributed to the athletes directly, most of the funds ultimately end up supporting them through different means such as improved coaching, advanced sport science and exposure to international competition (Chalip 10). Along with providing assistance to current athletes, Australia has also implemented a system of supporting prospective athletes through a scholarship program. Specifically, the scholarships allow for prospective athletes to study and use the facilities at the many campuses of the AIS. Moreover, funds from the scholarship program are also devoted to

Davidson 8 help athletes participating in international competition along with accommodation being taken care of if need be. The program has been highly successful in turning out high calibre athletes as in the 2000 summer Olympics, 31 of the 58 medals won by the Australians were won by previous AIS scholarship holders (Stewart 99). This highly successful program has grabbed the attention of ASC and as a result, received a record amount of funding. In 2003, the ASC devoted a grant of 15.8 million for AIS scholarships divided among 627 students (Stewart 100). In comparison, Canadas entire AAP had a budget of 15.8 million in 2002, which included no such scholarship program. While it appears that the only difference between Australia and Canada is the level of funding, Australia has also implemented many unique programs that are absent from Canadian sport policy. One of the most influential programs the Australians have had great success with is that of an early talent search program. The talent search program is a collaboration of the AIS, NSOs and Australian state academic institutions to establish the National Talent Search Program (NTSP) which was first started in 1988 (Stewart 100). The NTSP is divided into three stages with the first stage working within the secondary schools through a series of tests to identify students who fit the athletic profile. In stage two, the athletic students are profiled as to be trained for the sport that best fits their ability. In the final stage, the athletes invited to try out for their respective NSO to see if they have the talent to excel in their sport compared to other athletes in the sport. The NTSP was originally only used to identify students who would excel in rowing but since then has been expanded to include eight sports. The NTSPs philosophy is based on the belief that high achievement is based on superior genetic foundation, in other words, coaching can only take an athlete so far (Stewart 101). The NTSP has been

Davidson 9 tremendously successful with some athletes identified in the program going on to win medals at the Olympics. Regardless of the funds and initiatives taken to improve sport in a country, one big determining factor is that of the attitude of the nation towards sport. First of all, Australia is generally a more active nation then Canada. In a survey conducted in 2004, it was estimated only 49% of Canadian partake in some form of physical activity (Canadian Fitness), while it was estimated in a 2002 survey that 78% of Australians are involved in some sort of physical activity or sport exercise (Stewart 11). A mere review of these figures brings up many shocking questions, not including the many regarding the health of the nation. For most, one must wonder how Canadian sport hopes to thrive when at least half of the nation does not even partake in any sort of physical activity let alone an organized sport. Secondly, Canadians may not just view sport worthy enough for funds that could be diverted to other public programs such as health care. This appears to be the view of some Canadians as Andrew Chung in his article reminds his readers that when more money is pumped into sport, it comes at a cost to other public programs, such as health care (A3). While all is not bleak for the future of Canadian sport, as evident in the most recent federal budget. Funding for Sport Canada dramatically increased to 140.0 million from a previous budget of 70 million (Indepth: Budget 2005). How this will affect sport in Canada will be an interesting development to follow along with future Canadian athletic performances. While Canada and Australia are similar nations in many respects, it is clear that the individual approaches to sport are anything but similar. Australian athletes have received nothing but a helping hand from the government which has resulted in Australia

Davidson 10 becoming a world leader in athletics. Canadian athletes, on the other hand, have struggled with funding and assistance from the government leaving most to find other means to fund their sporting expenses. Although at one point in time, Canada and Australia could have been considered to have comparable sporting systems, over a time frame of just thirty years, Australia has implemented many programs such as the talent identification, AIS, and countless more, to bring their athletes up to world-class calibre whereas, Canada has relatively remained stagnant with regards to sport policy. The recent doubling of the Sport Canada budget is a rare bright spot in athletic funding which can only hope to bring the Canadian athletes to level comparable of that of the Australians.

Davidson 11 Work Cited Australian Sport Commission Home Page. 28 Jun. 2006. 15 Jul. 2006. <http://www.ausport.gov.au/index.asp>. Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute. 27 Jun. 2006. 17 Jul. 2006. <http://www.cflri.ca/eng/statistics/index.php>. Chalip, Laurence, Arthur Johnson, and Lisa Stachura. National Sport Policies: An International Handbook. London: Greenwood Press, 1996. Chung, Andrew. Investing in Gold. The Toronto Star 19 Feb. 2006: A3. Crossman, Jane. Canadian Sport Sociology. Toronto: Nelson, 2003. Flavelle, Dana. Debt woes swamp Olympians. The Toronto Star 3 Jul 2006: A1, A6. Houlihan, Barrie. Sport, Policy and Politics: A Comparative Analysis. London: Routledge, 1997. Hogan, K. and Norton, K. The price of Olympic Gold. Journal of Sport Science and Medicine 3.2 (2000): 203-18. Indepth: Budget 2005. 27 Apr. 2005. 16 Jul. 2006. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/budget2005/issue_sports.html>. Semotiuk, D. A Debate in Sports History: Commonwealth, Government Initiatives in Amateur Sport in Australia 1972-1985. Sporting Traditions. 3.2 (1987): 152162. Stewart, Bob, et al. Australian Sport: Better by Design?. London: Routledge, 2004. Why Aussies are so good at sport. Cape Argus 4 May. 2006: 14.