What price Olympic Games glory?

In the second part of his series on sports funding, GEOFF CUMMING looks beyond the Games to an uncertain future for our athletes.

If the key to sporting glory is keeping athletes lean and mean, New Zealand should be in for a bumper Sydney Olympics.

While the Sports Foundation has put its money behind our best medal prospects, the rump of our team is battling the odds.

Most athletes got just $3000 from the Government this year to peak for the Games, in stark contrast to the investment in Olympic medals by many rival countries.

Individual sports are pointing out pitfalls in the way the foundation allocates its $15 million budget, particularly the "picking winners" approach for these Games.

But the foundation says the real problem is not how it divides its funds, but a fundamental lack of money in the pot.

Chief executive Chris Ineson puts the shortfall for top-level sport at $8 million to $10 million a year.

But it is not only pre-Games nerves which are bringing the issue to a head. A Government taskforce undertaking a fundamental review of sport in New Zealand is examining our sporting structures and funding issues. Instigated by Sports Minister Trevor Mallard, it aims to set the framework for sport and leisure for the next 25 years.

Signs that many sports are limping towards Sydney include:

Track and field prospects had to pay their own way to Australia's selection trials, deemed compulsory for their buildup.

Athletics New Zealand, $35,000 in debt, cut the position of high-performance director Steve Hollings.

Swimmers Jonathan Duncan and Liz van Welie had to find thousands of dollars for high-altitude training after New Zealand Swimming could not get Sports Foundation backing.

Swimming coach Brett Naylor's contract will not be renewed after the Games.

Rowing New Zealand will not replace chief executive Mike Stanley after the Games in a bid to trim administrative costs.

The Mark Todd affair, which has raised questions over sports administrators' handling of drugs in sport.

Flak from women's basketball and other codes about the Sports Foundation's funding approach for Sydney.

Basketball's Tall Ferns are each paying nearly $5000 to go to the Games. A number of other sports felt let down when the foundation, in its July funding round, gave no extra money to help athletes in the vital leadup to the Olympics.

New Zealand Swimming's Catriona McBean says the foundation's grant for the new financial year included nothing for the Olympic squad.

"They are looking at Manchester in 2002 and Athens in 2004, and a little bit of money for this year's Games was deemed not in the long-term interests of the sport."

Also disappointed is shooting, sending a record team of seven to Sydney. Chief executive Graeme Hudson says the foundation's policy of picking winners needs fine tuning.

"It's unfortunate there wasn't an allowance of some sort to finish our Olympic team off. We reorganised and found finances, but we've had to sacrifice other things which will probably catch up on us down the track."

Against this backdrop - and while the Games unfold before an expectant public - sports administrators are queuing to have their say to the Government taskforce.

Mr Hudson accepts that shooting gets more money in the runup to Commonwealth Games, where it is highly competitive, than before Olympics. But he says the sport would benefit from long-term funding certainty.

"There need to be some adjustments and some allowances, and we will be making these points quite strongly to the review."

However, the Sports Foundation's Mr Ineson says the issue is more basic than how the cash is carved up. If the public wants to see New Zealanders win medals at world championships, the country as a whole must make a financial commitment.

He says Australia did just that after failing to win any gold medals at the 1976 and 1980 Olympics. With strategies such as its famed Institute of Sport programme, it has become an international sporting giant.

The foundation is at last adopting the Australian approach by investing in high-performance facilities in Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin, with a satellite centre in Hamilton.

But Mr Ineson says more money is needed across the board.

"We've identified a shortfall of $8 million to $10 million a year between what we have available and what sports demand for high performance.

"As a nation, we must decide which is more important - winning medals or participating. When the public decides, the politicians will follow."

One of the funding issues is the dual role of the Hillary Commission, the main source of funds for sport with its access to lottery proceeds.

The commission finances the foundation for top-level sport but is also charged with increasing New Zealanders' participation in sport and leisure for health reasons. Its programmes, delivered through regional trusts, include Push Play (encouraging active leisure), Young People First and Coaches Count.

Mr Ineson says sport in general is better funded than five years ago but admits that it is getting harder for top athletes.

Events like the America's Cup and World Cup Rugby, and an exodus of companies overseas, have made it difficult for others to attract sponsorship.

"The bulk of sports we fund are not high profile and cannot guarantee TV exposure for sponsors. It's a very competitive market - it's not just sport looking for funds, there's charities, museums and so on.

"The net result is that sports without an ongoing media profile are struggling to raise funds."

Shooting's Mr Hudson, whose involvement with Games teams goes back to 1982, agrees.

"In the past, an employer would probably support you if you made an Olympic team. Now, you may need to go away three or four times a year to be able to compete at the top level. Most employers aren't able to build that into their cost structure"

Another small sport, weightlifting, also wants fine tuning at the top.

Rob Kennedy, of Olympic Weightlifting New Zealand, says elite competitors are well looked after. But Hillary Commission cash for grassroots development is hard to come by.

"I'm not saying they should just dole it out, but they put us through the hoops, for a relatively small amount of money."

Like many codes, weightlifting struggles to pay top coaches and administrators.

"What would benefit us most is funding for a fulltime coach, with decent salary and expenses to travel the country promoting weightlifting as an alternative to some of the body-contact sports."

Rowing New Zealand, one of our better-funded sports bodies, has decided not to replace its chief executive, Mr Stanley, after the Games.

While he will continue to do some rowing work in his new job with Mighty River Power, a major sponsor, the Rowing board is keen to trim costs.

Mr Stanley says a Hillary Commission grant, membership fees and sponsorship help with running the sport, "but it's difficult to fundraise for administration."

He looks forward to the taskforce review as a chance to examine the roles of our major sporting agencies.

While the independent Olympic Committee is off limits, he feels there may be some economies in merging the foundation and the commission.

"I hope the taskforce can sort out the various roles so it's quite clear how all of us working in sport can increase participation and get higher-quality performance."

Mr Stanley says lack of money is an overriding issue.

"Some very good people have come to work in sport and found it incredibly frustrating when the resources are not available. If sports have to manage themselves, there should be some level of funding to allow them to do that."

* The taskforce is now consulting sport and leisure associations before reporting to Mr Mallard by December 15. Correspondence can be sent to the Sport, Fitness and Leisure Review, PO Box 99-516, Newmarket, Auckland.

Herald Online Olympic News