Editorial: Sporting priorities on the ball

Some gnashing of teeth has followed the release of Sport and Recreation New Zealand's high-performance strategy through to the 2012 London Olympic Games. But not nearly as much as accompanied the national team's disappointing performance at this year's Commonwealth Games. That suggests people are coming to accept that sports benefiting from taxpayer funding must deliver performance. And that because the number of dollars is limited, tough choices must be made.

Sparc's new mantra is "New Zealand athletes winning in events that matter to New Zealand". On that basis, up to 70 per cent of the funding agency's $33 million pot will go to those sports whose national appeal it rates highest. So rugby, cricket and netball have been targeted to win world championships by 2012; and athletics, cycling, rowing, sailing, triathlon and swimming are also eligible for high-performance investment.

The rest of the funding will go on a contestable basis to sports outside those nine, which previously would have enjoyed a larger, and guaranteed, slice of the cake, or to individual world-class performers in the non-elite sports. The obvious losers are hockey, equestrian, basketball, football, bowls, golf, squash and softball.

Some of these have expressed annoyance; others have accepted Sparc's decision in relative good grace and vowed to get back into its good books by regaining international competitiveness. None has a genuine grievance. Sparc's mantra is an appropriate one if we are to avoid the national self-flagellation that has become a byproduct of almost every Olympic and Commonwealth Games, not to speak of the outbreaks of nationwide depression that accompany World Cup defeats in rugby, especially, and cricket and netball.

There are two aspects to Sparc's credo: the capacity to win, and whether a particular event matters. Both are reasonable. Under the first guideline, a sport such as football must be excluded. Whatever the playing numbers and however many New Zealand teams contest Fifa competitions, the reality is that the All Whites are not about to line up in a World Cup final. Much the same applies to basketball, notwithstanding the Tall Blacks' performance at the last world championships.

Softball is an example of a sport that suffers under Sparc's "what matters" credo. The Black Sox may have won three world championships since 1996 but they are competing in a game that creates few waves internationally. A particular disadvantage is Australia's far greater involvement in baseball.

Other sports, such as equestrian and squash, have simply paid the price for poor performance. Both enjoyed golden eras through the exploits of the likes of Mark Todd and Susan Devoy, but success has been a rare commodity in the past decade. The task for them, and others, is to re-establish themselves on the world stage. Clearly, a cut in funding will not help, but most will surely start to emphasise junior development.

That process should be left to them. One disturbing aspect of Sparc's strategy is the suggestion it will protect its investment by taking a role in the management of underperforming sports' programmes. That is a recipe for friction and failure. Sparc should remain solely a funder. If a sport does not perform well, it can reduce, or withdraw, monetary support. That, in itself, will galvanise a rethink within the sport. Indeed, that will be happening now in those downgraded by the agency.

The Melbourne Commonwealth Games delivered a new, sterner level of competition, the product of other nations pouring money into high-performance programmes. New Zealand must respond to that. But lack of resources meant tough decisions had to be made. Sparc has achieved that cogently.