Thorpe receives $150k in funding. Is that ok?

[I like to watch]

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/olympics-2012/thorpe-hits-back-at-funding-criticism-20120314-1uzfa.html
I am not sure on where I stand on this topic.
On the one hand he is the Thorpedo! he gave us all a lot of pleasure in his prime, so in the scheme of things what is $150k.
However, it has been light years since he has been competitive, Steph Rice apparently was offered $15k in total for her preparation. How is this possibly equitable or even remotely justified given that there are 6 swimmers ranked above him for selection in his chosen event.
Would love to read some informed views on this situation.

cheers

 

[matty_k]

In one interview I saw the AIS said that because of Thorpey there has been an extra $10 million in private sponsorship so i'm ok with it.
I also like to think that the sports people that make something of themselves give back to the AIS in some way.
Although I can't see why a HECS style scheme can't be introduced. If it is good enough for the rest of us.

 

[matty_k]

I do dislike the high and mighty status that swimmers seem to have. After the 2004 Olympics one swimmer who managed a bronze was complaining in an interview about the lack of endorsements that were coming his way.
Meanwhile the members of the gold medal winning men's hockey team all went back to their day jobs without much fanfare.

 

[Bowside]

These blokes train just as hard as any footy player and a lot of the time they never make as much money. Swimmers are lucky they get the endorsements. It's the rowers and other endurance athletes who really get screwed.

 

[Torn Hammy]

I remember that not long ago NSW Athletics/NSWIS had 6 athletes on scholarships of about $30,000. These athletes were world standard eg Dani Samuels. The joke was that Athletics NSW had 7 employees at the time and that the office girl/tea lady was on $35,000. I'm not sure if she was a world class tea lady.

Also diverting money away from these athletes are: Aus & State Sports Commissions, Aus and State Institutes of Sport, Athletics Australia and other State Athletic bodies, Aus and State Sport and Rec Depts., Aus and State Little Athletics Assocs., Olympic Games Committees, Commonwealth Games Committees, Indigenous Sporting bodies and the list goes on.

Of the above list of about 50 sporting associations, there are thousands of employees. If you asked them to work for $30K they would laugh at you and walk out, yet this is what we offer our champion athletes.

England pays their top athletes more than $100K and so should we.

 

[mark_s]

Thorpe is a huge global brand. In his hay day, he had giant posters in Ginza, times square etc. The $150k will have already been repaid in media interest from overseas and wil be repaid many times over if he qualifies for an individual event at London (which I think he will). He leaves Brand Bieber for dead.

 

[I like to watch]

THE FITZ FILES​

Illustration: John Shakespeare​

​

THE issue de jour has been the disparity between the money paid out by Swimming Australia to aid the likes of Ian Thorpe to make his comeback (about 150 grand) and the money paid to lesser lights (about 10 grand). Kieren Perkins, for one, was robust in his defence of the money paid to Thorpe: "You couldn't buy the publicity, the television coverage, the front- and back-page articles that Ian's return has generated. All these guys whingeing about the money … I think as long as Swimming Australia was using the money appropriately and transparently, there simply isn't a problem." Yes there is, Kieren. Try this for starters. Benefiting substantially from the taxpayer-funded elite coaching system in this country, Thorpe's career generated millions upon millions of dollars for him. Like all the other sportspeople who have so benefited, the government never asked him to pay any of the money back - as happens with tertiary education with the HECS system. Why is sport different? Probably because while it is good politics to give the people bread and circuses, it is bad politics to be seen to make heroes of that circus pay their way. But in the case of Thorpe, the game has changed. Already a millionaire many times over, his was the most commercially driven comeback we've ever seen. The whole thing looked like an ad for an airline and, in part, was - and despite the lacklustre results so far, it is safe to assume he's already made another fortune out of it. And yet he and the other famous comebackers get to take more out of the public-funding pot than the young up-and-comers who actually need that funding? It ain't right, Kieren.​

​

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-fitz-files/thorpe-has-already-drunk-his-fill-20120316-1vahg.html#ixzz1pJbBVW8M​

 

[wamberal]

Second guessing other people's decisions is a pretty lame thing to do, particularly when the people making the decision in Thorpe's case are accountable for their achievements, and we are not.

 

[Badger]

As has been raised by others, is the money allocated to sport being used effectively? There seems to be a lot of institutes, associations, committees in existence and all the staff that come along with these organisations etc.