ABF funding cut

[fuzzy]

This mornings paper reports a 37.3% funding cut to the ABF by the Australian Sports Commission. Does this amount reflect the cost of funding an Olympic campaign (now not required) or will other programs be affected ? Either way not good news for our sport.

[bobby]

I would think it would be more than just Olympic funding, baseball wasnt in London so it would have to more than just that.

[aueagle30]

The Australian Winning Edge Investment Allocation program was first announced in November 2012... this is the first allocation of funds since the program was announced... Baseball copped the biggest whack followed by softball (-33%)

The investment allocation is heavily weighted to sports that compete at both the Olympic and Commonwealth Games, so this decrease is representative of baseball no longer being included in either of these events. Below is the statement from the funding allocation document:

"The ABF has been assessed as not having a strong case to contribute to Australia's Winning Edge targets. Funding in 2013-2014 is a whole of sport grant to enable the sport to allocate its resources to support its priorities. Opportunity to reassess in 12 months subject to IOC decision on sport's inclusion on Olympic program in 2020."

The ABF has responded on its website... I'm expecting this will hurt... $500,000 from the revenue side of the ABF... likely to see an increase in costs passed on to players in elite programs.

Ouch.

[Deleted]

Ouch indeed - perhaps they should review their own role, function, structure and performance which from where I see it has been ordinary at best.

[bobby]

just thought I would throw it out there, but how many Aussies have been signed out of the ABL? Not sure if Andrew Russell counts but he is about the only one I can think of? Maybe the MLB funding so go to more grass roots or junior development than as the academy has had a number of signings in recent years?

[pirates]

Apr 23, 2013 13:01:14 GMT 10 authentic said:

Ouch indeed - perhaps they should review their own role, function, structure and performance which from where I see it has been ordinary at best.

yep I was going to say the same thing....this is partly a reflection of the work put in by the people that supposedly administrate our sport.

The increase costs to our sport will be coming as mentioned no worries about that. No accountability.

[Deleted]

The good news pirates is now maybe we wont get that outdated ABL rubbish in the mail that talks about an upcoming ABL season after it had ended, or a Rego Card that has nearly expired by the time you get it

The bad news is now even small cameras and iPhones may not be allowed to be used to take photos of your loved one at tourneys so they can raise money from some bloke with a real big camera to help pay their own wages !

[headinsand]

With MLB giving the ABL a loose 5 year plan to stand on it's own this must have a major effect for the ABF to support it's own league!
The history of this forum has said time and time again that the ABF and state bodies are incompetant, well now the government is telling this sport loud and clear YOU ARE NOT DOING A GOOD ENOUGH JOB.
To any person who has been employed in this sport over the past 5-10 years, YOU ARE NOT DOING A GOOD ENOUGH JOB.
The government does not care that "little Johnny" signed a pro contract with an MLB team and to the emplyees who do not read this forum, YOU ARE NOT DOING A GOOD ENOUGH JOB!!

[aueagle30]

Despite my objections to several policies and adminstrative processes adopted by the ABF, I don't think the funding allocation is a reflection of the governments opinion of the ABF.

headinsand, I'm sure you can provide a number of reasons to justify the opinion that baseball employees haven't done a good job over the past decade, but I don't think this has anything to do with the ABF.

Unfortunately, the IOC has determined baseball is not a suitable sport for the Olympic games.

Despite the many reasons you may have to be disappointed in the ABF, what the IOC does is well out of their control.

What is in their control is how they respond to this and what they do to reduce the impact this has on those that play the sport in Australia.

[headinsand]

aueagle30, I wondered how long it would take for someone to defend them, 14 mins and it has absolutley everything to do with the ABF!
Job description's that have ever been put up for positions in baseball for years have always had referance to "must have corporate and government relationships" and yes I have a number of reasons why I have this opinion and you defending them is perpetuating the same problems we have in this sport. Lets have more "Come and Try Days" that will fix everything!
You spent the whole summer posting long explanations defending BV and the SLC regarding decisions in this state that have not helped the sport and have not improved our dismal display over the past couple of years.
Now you've decided to defend the ABF as well who by the way, ARE NOT DOING A GOOD ENOUGH JOB!!
Spare me your long winded defending guff!!

[Deleted]

Yeah I know (I think) that you have an axe to grind headinsand, and no doubt you (like I) have a number of good reasons to be dissillusuioned with the admin of our sport at the highest/broadest level at the moment BUT when you personalise as you do and target Aueagle30 who is always pretty forthcoming and up front with reasoning/rationale and explanation (if not always right perhaps :-)) then you lose me mate.

[Deleted]

What has always bothered me about government sports funding is the contradiction between policy and reality.

Between platitudes and dollars.

Between what governments claim to be their priorities in the area and what, in the end, is almost a venal preoccupation with winning medals at the Olympic Games and a tinpot alternating event in the form of what – in competition terms – is a hopelessly lopsided Empire Games that somehow continues to exist under a more acceptable title.

State and Commonwealth governments - and the Australian Sports Commission - have for decades touted the benefits of the “Sport for All, Sport for Life” ethos by which all members of the community should be urged to adopt healthy sporting lifestyles that are in themselves of intrinsic benefit while easing the pressure on health budgets.

Baseball, as we all know, is indeed a "Sport for Life". It is one of not many that has demonstrated that over the past twenty years.

While funding of course continues to be directed to grassroots sport and community health and fitness programmes, it is a miniscule amount when compared with what is allocated to certain mainstream and elite sporting interests.

In the end, this is all about winning medals at international level. Nothing more, nothing less.

While baseball governing bodies may have have plenty to answer for in their administration of the sport (and it certainly does not help when the ABF drops 1.4 million into a dodgy investment and continues to regard its staff gravy train as a greater priority than servicing the sport), I do not believe that had anything to do with it in this round of funding. Let’s remember that softball was whacked almost as badly.

Baseball and softball are not Olympic sports. They may well never be Olympic sports again, despite the submissions for 2020. A funding belting of this magnitude almost certainly ensures that both sports will have to be far more frugal in their programmes, so that it becomes almost a self-fulfilling prophecy that medals at world level are not likely to be forthcoming.

Yes, the situation may be reviewed if or when baseball regains Olympic status. And if it doesn’t regain Olympic status? Can we expect further cuts? Probably.

Among the beneficiaries of massively increased funding are sailing and rowing. Elite sports that are about as interesting and engaging – for most of us – as watching paint dry. These are sports that are accessible only to kids from well-to-do families at private schools in larger cities. By no conceivable yardstick do these sports reflect and reinforce the “Sport for All, Sport for Life” principle that governments have publicly espoused since the seventies.

Sports such as those should bloody well pay for themselves.

Make no mistake, this is all about elitism. It is about prestige for a small group of community members. It is about winning medals at the expense of deserving, worthy and historically-based second, third and fourth tier sports. And of course, when sailing and rowing and other advantaged sports succeed, then they will be handed an even greater slice of the sporting pie so that they can build on their successes. Again, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is all very disappointing under a Labor government – even if it may be on its last legs.

But it is what it is, and no-one in baseball should be surprised after the sport was dropped from the Olympics and after our modest performances in the World Baseball Classic.

What people should be asking is this.

If our high performance baseball programmes are to continue at their current level, then how will the shortfall in funding be met? Will it be through shedding of staff and other efficiencies? Will it be through an increase in charges required of persons playing at elite events, such as national championships? Will there be a significant charge applied to MLBAAP attendees?

Or will it, as I expect, create a further imposition on grassroots baseball clubs and associations?

My money is on it being the last of these, although we should surely expect the ABF to be exploring all sorts of possible revenue streams (with the most obvious likely to be the first option).

Under the new funding regime, it becomes even more imperative that the Australian Baseball League gathers momentum over the next two years of the initial MLB involvement.

If that does not happen, then the sport is going to paddle bigtime into the foreseeable future.

[regg44]

Perfectly said KC.

The sport that has always baffled me in terms of the level of funding it has received is Track and Field. It has been, with a couple of very notable exceptions, a basket case for decades and yet the funding levels remain high in comparison with other "minor" sports who have continued to produce quality performances at international levels, hockey being the one that comes to mind most readily.

Would be very interested to know, using the Olympic / "Mickey Mouse", sorry, Commonwealth Games, model how much Synchronised Swimmings funding was increased or decreased?

[theolderiget]

I agree completely KC. The focus on elite athletes at the expense of grass roots participation is a policy failing.
An investment in the lower levels of sport may just get kids away from the video games and back into the park kicking or hitting a ball. For many single parent/one income families the costs of joining a Club (whether it be Baseball, Cricket or any other sport) are prohibitive.
Get enough kids participating and the elite performers will come through.

[mc15]

As I understand it right now, the base funding and the participation funding remains the same. So, the clubs in all formats (Mens, Womans, Jnrs, Masters) will not be affected by this funding cut.

Junior state team programs/regional programs remain self funded, thus will not be affected by this funding cut.

Coach development and umpiring comes out of the base funding, thus will not be affected by this funding cut.

MLB camp on the Gold Coast is majority funded by MLB International with a top up from the ABF. This may be affected.

The ABL is underwritten by MLBI and sponsors. This should not be affected.

The senior national team/s will take a hit, possibly along side the related HP programs. In reality, this affects the absolute minority of our sport. KC is right in that the ABF should be looking at all options to try and back-fill this loss. My hope is that they were actually looking into this months ago as blind Freddie could see it coming.

The rationale for the approach taken by the ASC is very clear. You can find it at the link below. You will be able to clearly understand why baseball took the hit that it did, and receive clarity to how the money (and more) can be reinstated.

www.ausport.gov.au/ais/australias_winning_edge/our_game_plan

headinsand, it only took you 6min to provide the kind of ill-informed comeback that we have come to expect from you. aueagle30 is pretty close to the mark with his observations of what has happened.

I suggest you take about 30min and read through the fact sheets I have provided a link to. Perhaps you may then gain a little more perspective on what has happened in Australian sport in the last 24 hours.

Attached below is the ASC budget for last year. They are very transparent in their spending. You will see their entire budget is $256mil of which $120 is put directly back into sport. About $100mil of that is for HP. What this does not take into account is the revenue streams and matched funding from the sports.

Here is where the 'business of sport' comes into the equation. The sports ability to match government contributions is a huge incentive for government investment as it somewhat doubles the resources. Rich get richer and the poor get poorer? At the elite level. yes this is the case. $$$ buy medals. If the sport invests, so will the government.

www.dpmc.gov.au/accountability/budget/2011-12/docs/PBS_2011-12_asc.pdf

www.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/526154/Investment_Allocation_fact_sheet.pdf

www.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/526128/Investment_Allocation_Model_fact_sheet.pdf

www.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/526124/Investment_Approach_Process_fact_sheet.pdf

[oldmanriver]

I do think a few people need to take a bex and sit down for a bit. The reality is that Baseball in this fine country is what most people would call a third or fourth tier sport that has no IOC position. The comparison in numbers when compared to Athletics, Soccer, Cricket, and even Tennis, Baseball is a fair way down the pecking order. Now don't think I am trying to defend our illustrious leaders in the ABF glasshouse, but someone has dropped the ball. Our results internationally alone will discourage huge amounts of funding. Even the major IOC sports took a hit and a couple of the lesser sports, ie: Sailing got an increase because they did well at the last Olympics. Until Baseball in Australia gets a better and larger profile in the international scene, funding will continue to disappear. Maybe and just maybe, with Baseball and Softball putting their collective heads together, they may come up with a major plan to recoup some funding to allow this sport to keep its head above water. With this news, maybe the grand BV plan will have to be revised. Let's not all panic, nothing much has really changed in our own backyards, except the ABF may take the path of slugging the people who already play a sport that is getting out of cost range for the normal hardworking family. The next twelve months will dictate which way this sport will go.

[mc15]

Spot on OMR!

[regg44]

mc15 you make some interesting points. My concern is that this will impact financially at grass roots level as the simple way for the ABF to make up the shortfall is to just slug the players across the country.

Their recent history of financial management is not great and I have little faith that they have the desire or indeed the capacity to think outside the square as to how the National and HP can be funded.

[mc15]

Apr 24, 2013 9:23:31 GMT 10 regg44 said:

mc15 you make some interesting points. My concern is that this will impact financially at grass roots level as the simple way for the ABF to make up the shortfall is to just slug the players across the country.

Their recent history of financial management is not great and I have little faith that they have the desire or indeed the capacity to think outside the square as to how the National and HP can be funded.

A great question and a legitimate concern as the ABF has a 'history' in recent times.

Funding allocations from the ASC normally come with clear stipulations on where moneys can be spent.

If you look at the "Australia's Winning Edge Investment Allocation" link, you'll see the funding is categorised. There is a category there titled "Participation 2013-14" My understanding is that this would be the primary running costs contribution for club land. This isn't a lot of money, however most of the resources for running clubs has always come from the state associations with the natinoal body overseeing governance and high performance.

The $800k within the "whole sport funding" would cover off employees, legailities, and other misc administration (someone whith a better understanding of this could expand).

If costs are attempted to be handed down to club players, you would be well within your rights to ask questions. I would fully expect the state associations and boards to be watching this with caution already.

I think the reality is that elements of the HP will become user pay without subsity while the snr teams will need to find additional funding elsewhere.

Swimming's 5.8% hit is consistant with the dollar amount of a questionable bottom line item which clearly was not acceptable to the ASC. So in a nutshell, you are held to account on revenue and expenditure. Considering how hard it is to get funding across the board these days, it's not a time to start peeing off the ASC with questionable accounting!

Deep breaths for all though. It'll be a while before this is sorted out

[snoopy]

Apr 23, 2013 16:06:18 GMT 10 authentic said:

The good news pirates is now maybe we wont get that outdated ABL rubbish in the mail that talks about an upcoming ABL season after it had ended, or a Rego Card that has nearly expired by the time you get it

The bad news is now even small cameras and iPhones may not be allowed to be used to take photos of your loved one at tourneys so they can raise money from some bloke with a real big camera to help pay their own wages !

I didn't know about a prohibition on small cameras iPhones etc.

I've been able to take a large DSLR and big zoom lens to ABL games without problems. I must correct you when you say "..some bloke with a real big camera to help pay their own wage!" Nothing can be further from the truth. I personally know the official ABL photographer in NSW (who subcontracts through SMP). He gets paid very, very little, and in fact barely covers his expenses. He drives 110km to the games, gets a free sandwich if he's lucky, and spends many hours downloading and sorting his images post-game.

Why does he do it you may ask? For the love of it. And he tells me the photographers in other States who cover ABL games for SMP are in the same boat. SMP make a few bucks but the photographers most definitely don't.

[player]

snoopy, I'm pretty sure the comment about large camera bans applies to the Australian Baseball Federation and its events, not to ABL competition. I think authentic made a typo.

It is hard to imagine anyone making much from baseball photography in this country.

[Deleted]

Yes and thanks player - my reference snoopy was regarding the recent pathetic situation at the Womens Champs in Ballarat (see other thread) where parents were told very aggressively by ABF officials not to take pictures of their children.

The wages reference is in regard to ABF staff wages presumably being funded by arrangements of this type and a not a reference to the Photographer who is (as you say) just doing their job.

Also, in the 90s when the ABL was in place didnt clubs/players gets slugged extra $s to help fund broader baseball structures like the ABF and programs ?

[aueagle30]

Apr 23, 2013 18:20:55 GMT 10 headinsand said:

aueagle30, I wondered how long it would take for someone to defend them, 14 mins and it has absolutley everything to do with the ABF!

To be clear, I wasn't defending the ABF... Simply pointing out the link between the baseball's non-Olympic status and the decrease in funding.

As much as the ABF are pilloried (often justly, as I've already pointed out), this is the first time I've heard the ABF blamed for baseball being left out of the Olympics.

Apr 23, 2013 18:20:55 GMT 10 headinsand said:

You spent the whole summer posting long explanations defending BV and the SLC regarding decisions in this state that have not helped the sport and have not improved our dismal display over the past couple of years.

My so-called 'defence' was 134 words (although I understand my moderate attempts at proper punctuation and grammar make it seem much longer).

Your response was 152 words.

Let's mutually agree to brief responses and sparing each other the 'long-winded guff.' From now on, I'll keep it short.

Apr 23, 2013 18:20:55 GMT 10 headinsand said:

Spare me your long winded defending guff!!

Fool.

(Edited to remove an accidental typo that resulted in the use of a word I had not intended to use. Apologies to headinsand and anyone else I may have offended)

[aueagle30]

Apr 23, 2013 19:56:42 GMT 10 kc said:

In the end, this is all about winning medals at international level. Nothing more, nothing less.

KC, correct, to a point... the government explicitly states that winning medals are a priority, but not simply to have lots of medals... it's argued that winning medals not only instills a sense of national pride into the community, but also encourages more people to become more active and increases participation.

Apr 23, 2013 19:56:42 GMT 10 kc said:

Baseball and softball are not Olympic sports... Yes, the situation may be reviewed if or when baseball regains Olympic status. And if it doesn’t regain Olympic status? Can we expect further cuts? Probably.

Agreed

Apr 23, 2013 19:56:42 GMT 10 kc said:

Among the beneficiaries of massively increased funding are sailing and rowing. Elite sports that are about as interesting and engaging – for most of us – as watching paint dry. These are sports that are accessible only to kids from well-to-do families at private schools in larger cities. By no conceivable yardstick do these sports reflect and reinforce the “Sport for All, Sport for Life” principle that governments have publicly espoused since the seventies.

Sports such as those should bloody well pay for themselves.

Unfortunately, this is where you lose me... According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, more than 68,000 Australian participated in sailing in 2011-2012. Granted, this number is declining, with an estimated 94,000 participants in 2005-2006.

Rowing had an estimated 36,000 participants in 2011-2012, an increase of 34% from 2009-2010.

Softball-Teeball was estimated to have 38,000 participants in 2011-2012.

Baseball didn't even make the list of top 55 sports. According to the ABF, baseball had approximately 40,000 particpants in 2010.

These numbers don't show sailing or rowing to be the domain of the elite or out-of-reach of 'normal Aussies' any more than baseball or softball are.

The difference is sailing and rowing combine for almost 60 medal opportunities at the Olympics... baseball and softball combine for none.

This approach by government to sport has been commonplace since the early 1980's. This new funding model has been developed due to reductions in government funding of all sport and a need for more efficient funding.

MC15 is correct, the funding cut is to elite programming... As I've said, I expect the biggest impact to be on elite programming... elite programs that have been subsidised in the past will likely now rely on a user-pay system.

As an Australian junior representative, I remember paying $4,500 to represent my country... that was in 1994-1995... My understanding is this cost has been much lower over the past decade... I imagine that will change.

The fear is, does this push our elite athletes toward other sports that don't expect them to pay for their elite opportunities?

And, not knowing what spending restrictions the govenment places on the ABF, how do they offset some of these cuts without sacrificing other important programming objectives?

[Deleted]

aueagle, I admit that I had not checked the relative numbers of people engaged in sailing and rowing compared with baseball. And I concede that a serious degree of disinterest in those sports might affect one’s objectivity.

However, I would seriously challenge your inference that sailing and rowing are sports that are readily accessible (and affordable) to the broader community. How many state schools, for example, have sailing and rowing programmes? Which regional centres in Victoria, say (other than Ballarat and Geelong), have regular or even occasional - sailing and rowing competitions?

Sailing and rowing are sports requiring significant capital outlay and maintenance costs to individuals, clubs and organisations. The fact that participation numbers are higher than baseball and softball says to me that there is serious money aside from government funding being tipped into those sports.

Good on ‘em for supporting their own areas of interest, though I would suggest that patrons and backers of those sports include some pretty heavy hitters who just may have considerably more clout than officials in our humble baseball community when it comes to drumming up money – either from the corporate or government sector.

Yes, sailing and rowing have potential to collect a whole swag of medals. Winning a few medals at Olympic Games and beating the crap out of island nations at the Empire Games might inspire some to become more active in sport, though that should not – to my mind -
automatically mean that funding be increased to already strong and well-resourced sports.

Get more kids playing a whole range of far more accessible sports, provide sports in greater need with greater levels of targeted funding and I reckon we are delivering a far more valuable service to the community. And with more participants across the sporting spectrum, we will inevitably produce our elite performers – and ultimately win medals, if that is our obsession.

[mc15]

I never thought I would be talking about rowing on a baseball forum, but whatever floats your boat (o.k I appologise for the crap pun)

I can't talk about sailing as I've never been involved.

I had the pleasure of working within rowing's HP system for seven years and I can assure you that there are some pretty large myths around the exclusivity of rowing. Traditionally, yes the initial exposure to rowing has been through the APS system, but the clubs are very much participation based at a very reasonable price. Full memberships for twelve months top out at about $700 at the most expensive clubs, with all the equipment and coaching provided. Totalling up what the average baseballer would spend on summer and winter fees, a pair of spikes and a few wood bats, I would at a guess say that there is a fair bit of pardy between the two sports.

The clubs have two clear focuses within rowing. The first being the development of their elite stream for National Championship representation, and the other being healthy lifestyle with the opportunity for masters rowing (which is massive) is you wish for competition. About half of the membership of rowing clubs never came through the APS system. They were walkups, that very much fit the ASC model (along with cycling and golf) of activity for life.

There are five major centres in Victoria (Geelong, Marabynong, Yarra, Carrum, Ballarat) with the major regattas being based in Nagambie.

The key thing though which rowing do an unbelievable job of is to attract a crowd. It is not uncommon to get anywhere between 5-10,000 across the day up at Nagambie for a regatta. The question I have is how can a sport which is such a rubbish spectator sport live consistantly draw crowds such as this while baseball here only draws the high hundreds based in town?

[aueagle30]

KC, I didn't intend to infer that rowing or sailing were accessible or affordable to the broader community, simply that based on the number of participants, they seemed no less accessible or affordable than baseball or softball, particularly to those making funding decisions when considering participation levels.

The strategic model contends that when Australians win medals, it has a positive impact in the overal rate of participation in sport and phyical activity.

Governments don't pump money into elite programming for rowing and sailing in the hope that more people will take up rowing and sailing. They pump it into these sports because they believe these sports have a better chance of winning medals, which results in more people going to a gym, taking up walking, throwing a frisbee at the local park, or perhaps even playing baseball.

Great Britain followed a similar strategy... the article below notes some outcomes...

www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/dec/06/olympic-record-boost-sport-participation

[Deleted]

Certainly some interesting outcomes after the London Olympics, although it is significant that there has been a decline in the numbers of 16-25 year-olds actively playing sport.

It would be no surprise if that trend was the same here, given the multitude of leisure-time activities available (although the ABF claims an increase in overall baseball numbers).

No surprise either that cycling, like here, is enjoying a massive surge in popularity.

Like you, mc15, I don't quite get how rowing attracts such large numbers of spectators. There are a couple of possible reasons, but who cares.

In cutting back their own funding (even after the Olympics), the Poms are clearly looking for greater efficiences in how high performance sport is delivered. Let's hope that the ABF, in anticipating the cuts, has the plan to move forward without jeopardising existing programmes or leaning too heavily on grassroots baseball.

[mc15]

Apr 24, 2013 15:34:07 GMT 10 kc said:

Like you, mc15, I don't quite get how rowing attracts such large numbers of spectators. There are a couple of possible reasons, but who cares.

Love it KC!!!

[oldracer]

KC and MC, 1000's come north of the divide to Nagambie because the weather is sensational, family caravan parks are friendly and the wine is wonderful and plentiful, nuff said? oh and it's not a bad rowing course either.....