Big three still command funds

Jim O'Grady. Photo / Supplied

Rugby is awash with cash. Cricket, especially since the IPL revolution, is hardly short of a dollar. Netball is edging closer to a fully commercial model.

But these three sports still receive large amounts of Sparc funding while dozens of others scramble to compete for dough from a much smaller pool.

Is this the best use of the money earmarked for high performance sport?

Sparc high performance manager Martin Toomey is unequivocal: "They are sports that matter to New Zealanders and ones where we have a genuine chance of winning world championships.

"It is a financial element of a strategic partnership and whatever we invest in we make sure there is going to be an impact".

Around 75 per cent of Sparc's high performance budget is allocated to just nine sports - swimming, sailing, athletics, hockey, cycling and triathlon as well as the 'big three'.

The NZRU enjoys a lucrative broadcasting deal and rich sponsorships with adidas, Rebel Sport and ITM among others. Cricket also benefits from major television money and has several large commercial partners. Netball has financial partnerships with the likes of New World and Fisher and Paykel that most other sports can only dream of.

Rugby is guaranteed annual funding of $750,000 until the end of 2011. Sparc CEO Peter Miskimmin points out this money doesn't necessarily go into the All Blacks.

"The Black Ferns are a target, as are the sevens team now it is on the Olympic agenda."

Cricket received $690,000 this year and will bank $940,000 in the next season. Netball was allocated $1 million for each of the next two years.

To gain some perspective, in 2010, shooting received $45,000, tennis $50,000 and boxing $12,500. Badminton, diving, table tennis, gymnastics and weightlifting were among a bundle of sports that did not receive a single dollar in high performance funding.

Most of these sports involve athletes who are self-funded; they count on the generosity of parents and volunteers giving their time and run on the smell of an oily rag as they not usually attractive to the corporate dollar. Toomey admits the majority of sporting bodies in New Zealand are "over 90 per cent" reliant on Sparc for their funding. Surely there is a case that a little spread around would go a long way?

"It [investment] is a money game and we have deliberately taken a breadth-over-depth strategy," says Miskimmin. "That's tough but that is the way we deemed we could maintain competitiveness around the world for our sport. Obviously some fall outside that."

The Australians have taken a noticeably different tack when it comes to the funding of their marquee sports.

Cricket, which is the national game and comparable to rugby here, received just A$61,000 ($79,020) this year and all of that was earmarked for indoor cricket. Rugby received A$350,000 ($453,394), while league and AFL got nothing.

An Australian Sports Commission spokesman said both were deemed to be "self sufficient sports" and no high performance funding allocations are made to those in that category. This is from a pot four times larger than the Sparc pool.

New Zealand Squash CEO Jim O'Grady wonders if it is time for means-testing of sports.

"If they can survive on sponsor, television and commercial contracts, do they need additional support? It is all about self-sufficiency and the ability to survive if you can't generate your own income."

O'Grady confirmed that an additional $50,000-$100,000 a year would make a "massive difference" to his sport, enabling them to employ a second full-time high performance coach.

Basketball New Zealand CEO Tim Hamilton echoed that, saying an extra $100,000 pushed towards the men's programme or $25,000 to the women's would have a "huge impact".

Basketball received $350,000 (men's) and $25,000 (women's) over 2010 and despite their 12th place finish at the recent world championships have no guaranteed funding for 2011; instead they will enter the contestable round at the end of the year.